Author Topic: WP: Nats MASN deal renegotations will have a huge impact  (Read 100844 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline HalfSmokes

  • Posts: 19297
If one side is pissed enough to sue, that filing will be public, otherwise, I think the looser uses it as an excuse for not spending

Offline comish4lif

  • Posts: 2854
  • Too Stressed to care.
If one side is pissed enough to sue, that filing will be public, otherwise, I think the looser uses it as an excuse for not spending
And that's why Bud will do something to make sure that this settled and will NOT get into the courts.

Online PowerBoater69

  • Posts: 12103
    • Twitter
Now that we're the clear favorite in the NL we need this money more than ever.  This team as it stands can't beat the Yanks or Rangers, but we're not that far off, we need to find a good player and replace them with a great player or at least make a couple marginal improvements if we really want to contend.  Don't get fooled by the mystical "window of opportunity", the future is now.

Offline MarquisDeSade

  • Posts: 14930
  • I am Djour Djilios.

Offline OldChelsea

  • Posts: 7492
  • From the best seat in the house at Nationals Park
Now that we're the clear favorite in the NL we need this money more than ever.  This team as it stands can't beat the Yanks or Rangers, but we're not that far off, we need to find a good player and replace them with a great player or at least make a couple marginal improvements if we really want to contend.  Don't get fooled by the mystical "window of opportunity", the future is now.

I've been of the opinion for some time that 2012 is indeed our window of opporunity - before the deep-pocketed Braves, Mets and Phillies drop their wallets on us and restore the status quo ante. I'd really like to see the Nats make the most of it...right here, right now.

Offline HalfSmokes

  • Posts: 19297
I think the phillies are in a bad place- aging stars and depleted farm, to stay good, they'll have to be the Yankees and plug in with free agents. The mets are a potential jeggernaught of they ever get their stuff together

Offline NJ Ave

  • Posts: 3169
As far as deep pockets go, you might want to check out Cot's Contracts at Baseball Prospectus, since it dispels a couple of misconceptions.

Braves - meh. Their payroll peaked at $106 million in 2003 and is likely to stay $90-100 million for the foreseeable future.

Phillies - well yeah, but they're not exactly spending SMART money, are they? I mean, they're going to spend $170 million a year, but next year for example they'll be spending $104 million on Halladay, Lee, Howard, Utley, Rollins, and Papelbon ALONE. Now those guys might be worth 20-25 WAR if things pan out right, but that still means they have to find another 20-25 WAR from the rest of their team with only $65 million or so to do it with. That's easy if you have a lot of young talent, but the Phillies don't have a lot of young talent.

Mets - I'd say the Mets payroll is likely to stay lower unless the team is sold or the Wilpons find a way to sell investors on giving them lots of cash without giving up equity in the team (fat chance). Until one of those two things happens, they seem like they're going to keep an artificially low payroll to help pay off their massive debt payments on Citi Field. Of course, the Mets SHOULD be a huge spender, but the Wilpons are messing them up pretty badly right now.

There's no reason the Nats can't stay competitive in this division forever with a payroll in the $100 million range (which it will be soon enough just by resigning our current talent). This isn't the AL East where you have two of the highest spending teams that also happen to be extremely well-run franchises. Ruben Amaro is not Brian Cashman.

Offline Lintyfresh85

  • Posts: 35050
  • Champs!

There's no reason the Nats can't stay competitive in this division forever with a payroll in the $100 million range (which it will be soon enough just by resigning our current talent). This isn't the AL East where you have two of the highest spending teams that also happen to be extremely well-run franchises. Ruben Amaro is not Brian Cashman.

Judging by the history of the Lerners... isn't that a bit of a large assumption to make?


Offline DPMOmaha

  • Posts: 21815
  • Take two of these 30 minutes before first pitch.
I've been of the opinion for some time that 2012 is indeed our window of opporunity - before the deep-pocketed Braves, Mets and Phillies drop their wallets on us and restore the status quo ante. I'd really like to see the Nats make the most of it...right here, right now.

There's no amount of wallet opening that will give those teams pitchers like Stras, Gio or Zimnn for the next 4-5 years. 

Judging by the history of the Lerners... isn't that a bit of a large assumption to make?

I say no, but I don't know that I want to open that can of worms right now.

Offline PebbleBall

  • Posts: 3443
  • Now that right there is baseball.
Judging by the history of the Lerners... isn't that a bit of a large assumption to make?

Knowing the history of the Lerners it's actually a very safe assumption, but the question is how much a $100 million payroll will mean in the coming years.  About half the Majors is in range of that number right now.  The MLB median is sitting at just about $90 million.

Offline hammondsnats

  • Posts: 37377
  • LAC 8)
SPEND SPEND SPEND ... LAC IS NOT DEAD

Offline NJ Ave

  • Posts: 3169
I don't think it's a large assumption at all. The Lerners have given no indication that they (a) won't sign a few free agents, or (b) won't resign their own young talent as they approach free agency.

The payroll this season according to Cot's is $92.5 million, while the Mets are at $94.5 and the Braves are at $93.5. That includes Major League contracts and prorated bonuses. There's no reason to think this balance is going to change in the near term. If anything, I think most people expect the Nats to add a little payroll as they resign guys like Zimmermann and other guys like Desmond, Clippard, etc. move through the arbitration process.

But I think it's time for the LAC crowd to chill a little bit. We didn't sign Prince Fielder to a $200 million contract - we get it. Neither did 29 other clubs.

Offline HalfSmokes

  • Posts: 19297
http://content.usatoday.com/sportsdata/baseball/mlb/salaries/team

:lmao: yep we're really up there with the big spenders, just shy of fourth in our division

Offline MarquisDeSade

  • Posts: 14930
  • I am Djour Djilios.
The payroll this season according to Cot's is $92.5 million, while the Mets are at $94.5 and the Braves are at $93.5. That includes Major League contracts and prorated bonuses. There's no reason to think this balance is going to change in the near term. If anything, I think most people expect the Nats to add a little payroll as they resign guys like Zimmermann and other guys like Desmond, Clippard, etc. move through the arbitration process.

The Mets are still under the crapstorm of Madoff, just wait until they get the ok to spend. 

Online Slateman

  • Posts: 43225
Wow ... everyone is under 200 million ...

Online welch

  • Posts: 12218
I think 2012 is the beginning, not the single-season window. The pitching will improve as Strassburg gets stronger, and as Zimmermann learns more. Harper is just getting started. Same with Tyler Moore.

Vital:

- Keep drafting well, which depends on scouting...something Rizzo loves, and less expensive than buying Prince Fielder
- Keep improving the kids in the farm system with good coaching. Also less expensive than buying two Mark Buerhles a season
- Sign the keepers. Fans will pay more to see a player that grew up with the team, that the fans have al;so grown up with. (Why Jeter was always worth more to the Yankees, and why Yankee fans never got attached to Giambi and ARod.)
- Unless somebody shuts the Federal government (plus the Dulles / I270 technology corridors), Washington is a big and stable market.


Offline NJ Ave

  • Posts: 3169
LAC boys are so funny. So now, because the Nats are no longer one of the lowest spending teams in the majors (somewhere in the middle), you're upset because we don't misspend as badly as the Phillies, Marlins, or Mets, all of whom are trailing us in the standings, and don't look as good as us in the next 5-year window?

Jesus.

Until the Nats stop resigning their own in-their-prime talent, there's simply no evidence that the Lerners are cheap, beyond the fact that they run a successful business the way most successful businessmen would and don't make as many dumb decisions as some other owners do.

Offline MarquisDeSade

  • Posts: 14930
  • I am Djour Djilios.
Unless somebody shuts the Federal government (plus the Dulles / I270 technology corridors), Washington is a big and stable market.

It's entirely possible the beltway bandits are about to feel some pain if this "significant cuts across the board" shiznit happens.  I'm doubtful of that, but it's entirely possible the military-industrial/gov't support service spigot might get cut off soon.

Offline MarquisDeSade

  • Posts: 14930
  • I am Djour Djilios.
Until the Nats stop resigning their own in-their-prime talent, there's simply no evidence that the Lerners are cheap.

If you're willing to ignore the past, sure.  But these are the same miser bozos that fielded the 2008 and 2009 teams.

Offline HalfSmokes

  • Posts: 19297
LAC boys are so funny. So now, because the Nats are no longer one of the lowest spending teams in the majors (somewhere in the middle), you're upset because we don't misspend as badly as the Phillies, Marlins, or Mets, all of whom are trailing us in the standings, and don't look as good as us in the next 5-year window?

Jesus.


20th in the mlb, last in the division- that's you're definition of somewhere in the middle?

http://content.usatoday.com/sportsdata/baseball/mlb/salaries/team/

Online PowerBoater69

  • Posts: 12103
    • Twitter
As far as deep pockets go, you might want to check out Cot's Contracts at Baseball Prospectus, since it dispels a couple of misconceptions.

Braves - meh. Their payroll peaked at $106 million in 2003 and is likely to stay $90-100 million for the foreseeable future.

Phillies - well yeah, but they're not exactly spending SMART money, are they? I mean, they're going to spend $170 million a year, but next year for example they'll be spending $104 million on Halladay, Lee, Howard, Utley, Rollins, and Papelbon ALONE. Now those guys might be worth 20-25 WAR if things pan out right, but that still means they have to find another 20-25 WAR from the rest of their team with only $65 million or so to do it with. That's easy if you have a lot of young talent, but the Phillies don't have a lot of young talent.

Mets - I'd say the Mets payroll is likely to stay lower unless the team is sold or the Wilpons find a way to sell investors on giving them lots of cash without giving up equity in the team (fat chance). Until one of those two things happens, they seem like they're going to keep an artificially low payroll to help pay off their massive debt payments on Citi Field. Of course, the Mets SHOULD be a huge spender, but the Wilpons are messing them up pretty badly right now.

There's no reason the Nats can't stay competitive in this division forever with a payroll in the $100 million range (which it will be soon enough just by resigning our current talent). This isn't the AL East where you have two of the highest spending teams that also happen to be extremely well-run franchises. Ruben Amaro is not Brian Cashman.

So is the goal to win the NL East or the WS?  Because those big spenders in the AL will be waiting for us if we plan on winning it all.

Offline hammondsnats

  • Posts: 37377
  • LAC 8)
lol at saying "there's simply no evidence that the Lerners are cheap" ...

sorry NJ, but that ranks up there with one of the more dumb comments in WNFF history.  at least PA just ignores LAC most of the time. 

p.s. you're an excellent poster though

Online PowerBoater69

  • Posts: 12103
    • Twitter
lol at saying "there's simply no evidence that the Lerners are cheap" ...

sorry NJ, but that ranks up there with one of the more dumb comments in WNFF history.  at least PA just ignores LAC most of the time. 

The Lerners are not cheap is an entire category for dumb message board statements.  The single dumbest instance of this is the claim that Jimbo was given a higher budget but chose not to spend it.  The next dumbest was that the budget was low because they didn't trust Bowden.

Offline NJ Ave

  • Posts: 3169
We're 17th out of 30 teams according to Cot's contracts, which include major league salaries AND prorated bonuses. If the Nats want to give out higher than normal signing bonuses and/or have given out more major league contracts to prospects than most teams in order to sign premium talent (they have) then I'm not going to hold it against them by using the USA Today crap numbers than include only major league salaries and ignore other compensation.

So yes, that's what I consider to be solidly in the middle of the road, especially since people with access to the front office seem to understand (like I do) that the payroll is going to substantially increase over the next few years as our young talent becomes arbitration eligible.

As to the other question of the NL East or the WS, the goal should be to make the playoffs every year, at which point it becomes a crapshoot.

It might be nice to spend $175 million to win 97 games every year rather than $100 million to win 92 games every year, but it doesn't matter in the playoffs. 4 out of the last 6 WS champs have finished the regular season with 92 victories or fewer. It's not a requisite.

Offline NJ Ave

  • Posts: 3169
Where's the evidence that they're too cheap too successfully run a franchise??

We've had stupid stories about how they made scouts - gasp! - turn in receipts. It's going to RUIN THE FRANCHISE! NO ONE WILL WANT TO WORK FOR THEM!

Instead, we have an ideally-run scouting department that has dramatically improved the franchise.

They can never get a deal done because they're always lowballing - except for Jayson Werth, Edwin Jackson, Adam Laroche, the Ryan Zimmerman/Gio Gonzalez/Michael Morse extensions, and the two best prospects of the past 20 years and highest paid prospects in the history of the game.

They refuse to spend on the major league payroll - The Nats payroll has risen from $63 million in 2006 when the Lerners took over to $92.5 million this year, or a 6.5% per year increase, with no intentions stated or imputed by anyone that is will do anything but rise incrementally over the next few seasons.

People throughout baseball are marveling at the Nats - how they did it the right way, how they're set up to win for the next 5-7 years, how well run the organization is, etc. I'd rather be the 17th highest payroll and be in first place than spend $110 million but be the friggin' Cubs.