Define Natitude

[PowerBoater69]

The Royals also have a caravan. http://kansascity.royals.mlb.com/kc/fan_forum/caravan.jsp

I attended the one in Springdale. Was totally worth it. Good food, pretty funny stories from the player and broadcaster, the owner gave a speech, and then lots of autographs. Plus our favorite All-Star ripped on Bowden and said Rizzo was a good GM.

Royals quickly becoming my second favorite team.

The Nats haven't even had the decency to confirm that there was no winter NatsFest this year.  They obviously assume that none of their fans care enough to plan their schedules around team events.

[mimontero88]

No, of course not, good players cost too much, we should never outbid the league.

Major logical difference assuming you really are being sarcastic

Detroit - Has DH
Washington - Does Not

See the problem with going 9 years for a 5'11", 275 lb first baseman?

[PowerBoater69]

Major logical difference assuming you really are being sarcastic

Detroit - Has DH
Washington - Does Not

See the problem with going 9 years for a 5'11", 275 lb first baseman?

Makes logical sense to me, same as every year, the market is out of control, it never makes sense to spend Lerner cash.

Seriously though, risk aversion makes for a terrible guiding principal for management, at work we have massive failed projects where they follow all the rules for risk mitigation and can't understand where they went wrong.  Whether or not the Fielder signing was a good move or not they've got to do something and this ownership group appears to be paralyzed by the fear of "what if it goes badly?"

[mimontero88]

Makes logical sense to me, same as every year, the market is out of control, it never makes sense to spend Lerner cash.

Seriously though, risk aversion makes for a terrible guiding principal for management, at work we have massive failed projects where they follow all the rules for risk mitigation and can't understand where they went wrong.  Whether or not the Fielder signing was a good move or not they've got to do something and this ownership group appears to be paralyzed by the fear of "what if it goes badly?"

So you would be totally comfortable with committing 22.8 mil per year to a 33-36 year old Prince Fielder?  Go back and look at what happened to his dad in his early thirties.  Same body type and his dad actually was a BETTER power hitter in his prime.

[PC]

So you would be totally comfortable with committing 22.8 mil per year to a 33-36 year old Prince Fielder?  Go back and look at what happened to his dad in his early thirties.  Same body type and his dad actually was a BETTER power hitter in his prime.

Yet last year they were comfortable paying $126 million to Jayson Werth.  After the Werth contract, you can't go back.

[PowerBoater69]

So you would be totally comfortable with committing 22.8 mil per year to a 33-36 year old Prince Fielder?  Go back and look at what happened to his dad in his early thirties.  Same body type and his dad actually was a BETTER power hitter in his prime.

Absolutely have no problem with it.  But I don't see how the salary for his final year matters.  The commitment is for a certain guaranteed dollar amount which we hope opens up a window of opportunity for winning a championship.  The length of the contract plays into the teams favor, we could sign him for the same total dollar amount and make the term 20 years and we'd have him for as long as we desire his services. 

[wpa2629]

There's risk aversion and then there's legit retarded.

The Gio trade was worth the risk, 9 years on a sub par defensive, big body first basemen with no possibility to DH is not. In a few years the Nats would basically be paying $22 million a year for a pinch hitter.  That's insanity.

As bad as the Werth contract is on its surface, at least the chances of him being able to continue to play in the field for the length of his contract are pretty high, certainly much higher than Prince being able to play in the field for the length of his.

That's not to say the Nats shouldn't be taking risks and spending money, but not signing Prince at this price is not one of them.

[spidernat]

Natitude:  Boy am I glad the team didn't improve this year because we now have money available to spend next year.

  Plenty of suckers buying into that crap.

[Nathan]

  Plenty of suckers buying into that crap.

You want Prince Fielder at that contract?  Just because I don't think it would have been worth it for a NL team doesn't mean I absolve the FO for anything.

[MarquisDeSade]

I suggest you build a lemming walk out towards the Anacostia from the 1st base ramp so that the LOD can go on a hiking expedition every time the Nats don't acquire someone they are infatuated with for more than they are worth in terms of money or prospects.

Are you for real?  This team is going to be, at best, middling and, if the injury bug hits, which it will, will again be sucking anii again.  But let's all enjoy third place.

[PowerBoater69]

I suggest you build a lemming walk out towards the Anacostia from the 1st base ramp so that the LOD can go on a hiking expedition every time the Nats don't acquire someone they are infatuated with for more than they are worth in terms of money or prospects.

How about a lube dispenser in the bathrooms for the apologists?

[spidernat]

I don't believe they were ever really interested in Fielder. I saw it as more posturing to lend the appearance of willing to spend while continuing the sordid pattern of cheapness. It works for both sides. Boras gets to "use" the Nationals in negotiations with other teams. The Lerners get to perpetuate the farce and benefit from the supposed "willing to spend". The Nats are not being used by Boras. They are scratching each other's backs.

[Nathan]

I don't believe they were ever really interested in Fielder. I saw it as more posturing to lend the appearance of willing to spend while continuing the sordid pattern of cheapness. It works for both sides. Boras gets to "use" the Nationals in negotiations with other teams. The Lerners get to perpetuate the farce and benefit from the supposed "willing to spend". The Nats are not being used by Boras. They are scratching each other's backs.

I'd be more pissed that they were never in on Fielder when they may have been able to get him long ago for something like 7 years than the fact that they didn't go 9 years.

[wpa2629]

I'd be more pissed that they were never in on Fielder when they may have been able to get him long ago for something like 7 years than the fact that they didn't go 9 years.

I don't believe a 7 year deal was ever a possibility - for anyone

[DPMOmaha]

Anyone know what the Nats offer was in terms of $$$?

[Lintyfresh85]

Anyone know what the Nats offer was in terms of $$$?

According to Davey Johnson, he thinks the Nats didn't offer Fielder a contract.

[PowerBoater69]

I don't believe a 7 year deal was ever a possibility - for anyone

Of course seven years was possible, if we had offered the same total contract with two fewer years then Fielder would be a Nat right now.  It was the money, not the years, that made the deal.

[spidernat]

Had they signed Fielder the apologists would've been clamoring for the death of LAC as they would've cited this as clear evidence to support their opinion yet their failing to raise payroll significantly for years is not enough evidence to sanction the opposing faction.

[DPMOmaha]

According to Davey Johnson, he thinks the Nats didn't offer Fielder a contract.

Which would be consistent with what Rizzo's been saying the whole time.

[Lintyfresh85]

Had they signed Fielder the apologists would've been clamoring for the death of LAC as they would've cited this as clear evidence to support their opinion yet their failing to raise payroll significantly for years is not enough evidence to sanction the opposing faction.

As I said earlier... six years into the reign of the Lerners, and we're still debating LAC? To me, that ends the debate right there.

[wpa2629]

At the end of this, the way I see it, if 6 or 7 year's could have gotten it done, PF would have signed with the Nats long ago. I don't believe that was ever a possibility. I think that Boras' minimum number was 8+ years/$200+ million and he was simply going to wait until a team met his price. If it wasn't Detroit, I'm quite certain Boras was willing to wait until the Dodger sale was final and sell Prince to them.

I firmly believe that if Boras was willing to do 7 years, the Nats would have pulled the trigger.

In hindsight, I don't think a 7 year deal was ever a possibility. So in that regard, the Nats were never in it.

[PC]

I posted before but if we did indeed have an offer to Fielder that he was ready to sign and the Tigers jumped in, Rizzo needs to say that.  It's important for the fans to know (as if they care what the fans think) and for the standing and future of the franchise.

[Lintyfresh85]

Which would be consistent with what Rizzo's been saying the whole time.

So, if there truly was no interest in Fielder, what has Rizzo been doing all this time? Sitting on his ass?

[PowerBoater69]

Had they signed Fielder the apologists would've been clamoring for the death of LAC as they would've cited this as clear evidence to support their opinion yet their failing to raise payroll significantly for years is not enough evidence to sanction the opposing faction.

Win-win for them, spending money is proof that Lerner is willing to commit to building a winner, not spending money somehow translates to smart.

[JMW IV]

As I said earlier... six years into the reign of the Lerners, and we're still debating LAC? To me, that ends the debate right there.

yup.