Author Topic: 2011 Post Draft Discussion / Signing Watch  (Read 28516 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Lintyfresh85

  • Posts: 34314
  • Next year, maybe?
Throw money at the problem!

Would be the first time the Nats ever did that.

Offline PANatsFan

  • Posts: 37221
  • dogs in uncensored, nudes in gameday
Would be the first time the Nats ever did that.

Not in the draft :crazy:

Offline wpa2629

  • Posts: 16827
  • No Trade Clause
If the article is correct and he and his family think this year is a fluke and he has a good shot at being the number 1 overall with that bonus, then I don't see why he would settle for less than his demands. Not pitching this summer makes it seem like that's the plan

Seems like an awful big risk to me. There's no guarantee that he'll do that. What if he gets injured and loses his window for good? Besides, if he's really all that he's much better served signing now and getting his clock started so he can really cash in on his next contract.

Offline Lintyfresh85

  • Posts: 34314
  • Next year, maybe?
Not in the draft :crazy:

They don't spend money on the team, period.


Offline PANatsFan

  • Posts: 37221
  • dogs in uncensored, nudes in gameday
They don't spend money on the team, period.



Ok last year's draft just didn't happen? Taking 3 first rounders this year didn't happen?

Offline Lintyfresh85

  • Posts: 34314
  • Next year, maybe?
Ok last year's draft just didn't happen? Taking 3 first rounders this year didn't happen?

How much did the team's payroll increase this year?

Because I certainly don't feel like lauding the Lerners for paying for the guys the team selected... you know... like they're supposed to do!

Offline PANatsFan

  • Posts: 37221
  • dogs in uncensored, nudes in gameday
How much did the team's payroll increase this year?

Because I certainly don't feel like lauding the Lerners for paying for the guys the team selected... you know... like they're supposed to do!

A) I didn't ask for praise, b) name another team that drafted 3 top 5 talents, c) name another pick besides Crowe that they let walk.

Offline Lintyfresh85

  • Posts: 34314
  • Next year, maybe?
A) I didn't ask for praise, b) name another team that drafted 3 top 5 talents, c) name another pick besides Crowe that they let walk.

A. How much did the payroll increase from 2010 to 2011?

B. Drafting of talent has nothing to do with the owners... in fact, they don't have a clue who will be drafted.

C. Once again.. signing the guys you draft is what you're supposed to do.

Offline wpa2629

  • Posts: 16827
  • No Trade Clause
A. How much did the payroll increase from 2010 to 2011?

B. Drafting of talent has nothing to do with the owners... in fact, they don't have a clue who will be drafted.

C. Once again.. signing the guys you draft is what you're supposed to do.

Signing the guys you draft is what you're suppose to do. But teams are under no obligation whatsoever to draft players who will command large singing bonuses. The Lerners certainly have their issues and major league payroll is one of them, but to not give them credit for drafting and signing and spending more in the draft than any other team has ever done in the history of MLB is ridiculous.

Nothing is ever just black and white. The Lerners like everyone else in the organization has done some good things and some not so good things.


Offline Evolution33

  • Posts: 5093
    • Blown Save, Win
You have to commend a team for being willing to spend in the draft. It is part of the reason a lot of teams are able to turn it around. The Rays spend in the draft and got better talent, the Royals have one of the best farm systems in baseball because of spending in the draft, the Pirates might be able to put together a winning season because of spending in the draft. Then there is the other side of it. The Astros refuse to spend money in the draft and instead spend it all to raise the major league payroll, and look how far that got them. The Cubs don't outright refuse to spend on the draft, but they haven't exactly done a great job with it either. I would say spending on the draft and building a top farm system is much more important than raising the major league payroll.

I am fine with the payroll were it is this year because the Nationals have a total of 3 regulars under contract if you count Nix as the leftfielder and exclude LaRoche due to him not being a regular as he is on the DL.

Offline RD

  • Posts: 1331
Seems like an awful big risk to me. There's no guarantee that he'll do that. What if he gets injured and loses his window for good? Besides, if he's really all that he's much better served signing now and getting his clock started so he can really cash in on his next contract.

Whether it's just wishful thinking or not, the risk on Purke's part is what gives me hope we sign him.

As a pitcher, an injury is always one pitch away. With the scare of this year, it would be smart to sign, if he gets a big offer. Im not saying he should sign if we offer $1mill, but if we approach even $3mill, it should be a signable offer. Injury and performance are a risk, and if he does return and doesn't go in the top 5, it'll be hard for him to top that $3mill anyway.

Nobody wants to be the next Matt Harrington.

Online HalfSmokes

  • Posts: 16204
Signing the guys you draft is what you're suppose to do. But teams are under no obligation whatsoever to draft players who will command large singing bonuses. The Lerners certainly have their issues and major league payroll is one of them, but to not give them credit for drafting and signing and spending more in the draft than any other team has ever done in the history of MLB is ridiculous.

Nothing is ever just black and white. The Lerners like everyone else in the organization has done some good things and some not so good things.



add all of the signing bonuses from last year to payroll, and it's still low

Offline Lintyfresh85

  • Posts: 34314
  • Next year, maybe?
The more excuses made now for a non-competitive MLB payroll... the easier it will be for them to not have one in the coming years.

Offline RD

  • Posts: 1331


C. Once again.. signing the guys you draft is what you're supposed to do.

Drafting overslot guys, and guys you know are going to command massive deals is not a requirement of the draft.

No matter how negative you want to be, there simply is no questioning the fact that ownership has spent very well on the draft. Even before Harper and Strasburg, we went overslot for guys like McGeary and Smoker, among others.

The team is aggressive and is willing to spend on the draft. There is no debating that.

Offline Evolution33

  • Posts: 5093
    • Blown Save, Win
The coming years are different than this year. If Ramos, Espinosa, and Morse continue to play as they have they might become contracted players or will at least make more in arbitration.

Offline wpa2629

  • Posts: 16827
  • No Trade Clause
Whether it's just wishful thinking or not, the risk on Purke's part is what gives me hope we sign him.

As a pitcher, an injury is always one pitch away. With the scare of this year, it would be smart to sign, if he gets a big offer. Im not saying he should sign if we offer $1mill, but if we approach even $3mill, it should be a signable offer. Injury and performance are a risk, and if he does return and doesn't go in the top 5, it'll be hard for him to top that $3mill anyway.

Nobody wants to be the next Matt Harrington.

I agree. I hope ultimately he sees it that way too. And, fortunately, the Nats have a track record with this. They've shown they're willing to spend first round money on later round signings.

So ... I'm hopeful

Offline wpa2629

  • Posts: 16827
  • No Trade Clause
add all of the signing bonuses from last year to payroll, and it's still low


And your point? Pretty sure I said in my post that Major League payroll is an issue. But it's also completely ridiculous to waive off the money spent on the draft as inconsequential. One doesn't necessarily have anything to do with the other. Give credit where credit is due. Major league payroll is an issue, the amount of money spent on the draft is not.

There are far worse owners and situations in baseball. It's tiresome listening to people dwell on only one side or the other. The Lerners have done some good things and some not so good things. Giving credit to what they do well doesn't mean you absolve them from things the need to do better.

Online HalfSmokes

  • Posts: 16204

And your point? Pretty sure I said in my post that Major League payroll is an issue. But it's also completely ridiculous to waive off the money spent on the draft as inconsequential. One doesn't necessarily have anything to do with the other. Give credit where credit is due. Major league payroll is an issue, the amount of money spent on the draft is not.

There are far worse owners and situations in baseball. It's tiresome listening to people dwell on only one side or the other. The Lerners have done some good things and some not so good things. Giving credit to what they do well doesn't mean you absolve them from things the need to do better.

my point is that is that the money spent even on harper is a relative drop in the bucket in terms of major league payroll. I'm not crediting them with going over slot anymore than I'd credit them with signing a free agent middle reliever

Offline hammondsnats

  • Posts: 37363
  • LAC 8)
we've had so many top picks over the recent years because our major league club finished at the bottom or near it.  signing picks is part of the job, but i'll give credit for them giving out bonuses to some of the sleeper picks.

but in no way, shape or form, should spending on the farm system give the lerners a pass from spending on the major league roster.

it's just a damn shame they haven't woke up and smelled the coffee.  maybe they have they just like keeping their money.

Offline wpa2629

  • Posts: 16827
  • No Trade Clause
The more excuses made now for a non-competitive MLB payroll... the easier it will be for them to not have one in the coming years.

Who's making excuses? Pretty sure people are saying that the money spent on the draft has been good, but the money spent on payroll has not. How is that making excuses?

For as intelligent as the posters are on this forum it's very frustrating reading some of these posts. It's not an either or situation. It never has been. It doesn't make you less of a SS or LOD denizen to acknowledge there is good AND bad in each situation.

Offline wpa2629

  • Posts: 16827
  • No Trade Clause
my point is that is that the money spent even on harper is a relative drop in the bucket in terms of major league payroll. I'm not crediting them with going over slot anymore than I'd credit them with signing a free agent middle reliever

The two situations couldn't be more different if one was on the moon.

Offline Tyler Durden

  • Posts: 7971
  • Leprechaun
Punch Lerner in the nads and fire Rizzo.  Problem solved.

Online HalfSmokes

  • Posts: 16204
The two situations couldn't be more different if one was on the moon.

really? Last offseason Joaquin Benoit got a bigger contract than all of our signing bonuses combined. To me money is fungible, so if I wouldn't credit them for signing Benoit, why should I give them credit for the bonuses

Offline wpa2629

  • Posts: 16827
  • No Trade Clause
we've had so many top picks over the recent years because our major league club finished at the bottom or near it.  signing picks is part of the job, but i'll give credit for them giving out bonuses to some of the sleeper picks.

but in no way, shape or form, should spending on the farm system give the lerners a pass from spending on the major league roster.

it's just a damn shame they haven't woke up and smelled the coffee.  maybe they have they just like keeping their money.

I'm on the less cynical side of this. I think the Lerners believed Bowden when he said he could field a competitive team on the cheap. Between Bowden and the snake oil salesman Kasten, I feel they got an assload of bad advice. Of course, they chose to follow that bad advice so they're culpable and ultimately responsible for this team losing more games in three years than any other team in the history of the world. That situation was inexcusable and they're responsible for that.

But I'm hopeful they've learned and will spend on payroll when the time comes. I'm not so concerned with payroll now, but when it comes time to extend Zim, Zim2, Strasburg, Harper, etc., that's when they'll really have to pony up.  Can only wait and see at this point.

When push comes to shove, I hope they prove people wrong.

Offline wpa2629

  • Posts: 16827
  • No Trade Clause
really? Last offseason Joaquin Benoit got a bigger contract than all of our signing bonuses combined. To me money is fungible, so if I wouldn't credit them for signing Benoit, why should I give them credit for the bonuses

The point is they are not obligated to draft anyone over slot and they did anyway and paid more than any other team ever has.  They could have gone totally bottom of the barrel, but they didn't. That's got nothing to do with free agent signings and the major league payroll. It's two entirely different things.

I get people are angry and disappointed about the product on the field, but personally I choose to be excited about Strasburg and Harper and Rendon, they could have VERY easily been playing for other teams.

I choose to give credit where credit is due. The money they've spent on drafting is good. They money spent on the major league payroll is not. One has nothing to do with the other.