Nationals, Jacob Young Agree To Extension

9:26am: It’s a four-year deal that guarantees Young $23MM, Murray now adds. There’s a fifth-year option valued at $8MM. Any buyout on that option would be folded into the $23MM guarantee, but regardless of the specific breakdown, he can max out around $30-31MM over a five-year term. 9:18am: The Nationals and center fielder Jacob Young are in agreement on a contract extension, reports Robert Murray of Fansided. The 27-year-old defensive standout had been under club control through the 2029 season and was arbitration-eligible for the first time this winter. MLBTR contributor Matt Swartz had projected a $2.3MM salary for his first trip through arbitration. Young is represented by Excel Sports Management. Young, 27, has been the Nationals’ primary center fielder since 2024. He posted poor offensive numbers in 2024 and particularly in 2025, but was close to league-average at the plate in 2026 (.252/.318/.390). Since establishing himself as a big league regular in ’24, Young carries a .248/.311/.340 batting line (82 wRC+). While Young doesn’t provide much in the batter’s box, he’s a high-end defender with good speed. He’s swiped 66 bags over the past three seasons but hasn’t been overly efficient, as those steals have come in 91 attempts (72.5% success rate). However, Young went 18-for-22 in steals this past season, and the real selling point on his skill set lies in his glove anyhow. Statcast credits Young as the second-best defensive outfielder in baseball across the past three seasons. His 46 Outs Above Average in that time trail only likely NL MVP Pete Crow-Armstrong. More broadly, Young ranks fourth among all major leaguers in OAA since 2024; Bobby Witt Jr., Crow-Armstrong and Andres Gimenez are the only players who’s posted larger OAA totals in that span. Defensive Runs Saved did ding Young for a slightly negative mark this year, due in part to some poor throws, but both metrics agree that he’s one of the rangiest defenders in the game dating back to ’24. More to come. View Comments (2)