Washington Nationals Insider: Non-Tendering Closer Biggest Offseason Question
One of the most curious transactions any team made this offseason was the Washington Nationals non-tendering their top closer, Kyle Finnegan, at the deadline.
It was seen by some as a cost-saving move for a team that had a lot of money coming off the books this offseason and was ready to spend. Others saw it as the Nationals potentially getting away from a player who was 33 years old and hoping to avoid a potential downturn in performance.
Either way, the Nationals have made no move to either re-sign Finnegan or replace him in free agency.
It doesn't mean Washington won't do either, but to Nationals insider Mark Zuckerman, who covers the team for MASN Sports, the Finnegan transaction may actually be the most important transaction of the offseason, though he's not sure exactly what the transaction tells everyone just yet.
“Their (the Nationals’) response to this tells us what’s really going on, whether they are in a position to spend money on players this winter, whether payroll is going to go up or even hold steady, or whether God forbid they’re slashing it even more,” he said on a recent Nats Talk podcast.
Finnegan was a workhorse for the Nationals the past four seasons, making at least 65 appearances in each year. His save total went up each of the last three seasons, to a career-high 38 saves in 2024, along with a 3-8 record and a 3.68 ERA.
He made his first All-Star Game appearance this year and strikes out more than eight hitters every nine innings. Given his recent move into free agency, he’s more likely to find a one-year deal for his services.
Yes, his win-loss record flipped from 7-5 in 2023 to 3-8 in 2024, but that’s not a concerning statistic for a closer. His ERA has remained steady the past four seasons. His strikeout rate has remained steady and he’s actually reduced his walk rate.
The move remains curious. And, stood against the Nationals’ relative inactivity in free agency to this point, it leaves insiders like Zuckerman wondering how Washington will proceed.
He can only think of two reasons why Washington did it. The first is if the Nats feel they can spend on a better reliever, the second is that the Nats don’t intend to spend money on any reliever.
It’s a question that will only be answered as the offseason progresses.
