Author Topic: Future of Big Name Nats (2013)  (Read 4291 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline nats4ever

  • Posts: 129
Re: Future of Big Name Nats (2013)
« Reply #75: January 25, 2013, 10:08:50 AM »
I can say the franchise has far less revenue- whether or not they want to raise additional capital (other than old man Lerner buying more shares and diluting minority owners- how exactly is he supposed to use his personal wealth to underwrite the team?) is another issue

You sound bitter because virginia didn't get a team. Are you mad that northern virginia couldnt get the expos? Rizzo won executive of the year and said the winning is due to the nats drafting well, not forking over a bunch of money. Zimmerman is locked up longterm. Do you see any longterm deals like werth on the payroll. Keep hating from the sideline and riding the wagon as they win.

Offline HalfSmokes

  • Posts: 15632
Re: Future of Big Name Nats (2013)
« Reply #76: January 25, 2013, 10:09:55 AM »
You sound bitter because virginia didn't get a team. Are you mad that northern virginia couldnt get the expos? Rizzo won executive of the year and said the winning is due to the nats drafting well, not forking over a bunch of money. Zimmerman is locked up longterm. Do you see any longterm deals like werth on the payroll. Keep hating from the sideline and riding the wagon as they win.

and you sound like a delusional bandwagon fan who think we're the yankees and can sign everyone

Offline nats4ever

  • Posts: 129
Re: Future of Big Name Nats (2013)
« Reply #77: January 25, 2013, 10:19:41 AM »
and you sound like a delusional bandwagon fan who think we're the yankees and can sign everyone


Hey buddy check this http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/nationals-journal/wp/2013/01/24/mike-rizzo-honored-in-boston-as-executive-of-the-year/

I think that rizzo and the lerners will make the right descions with straus/bryce. Either or I hope the nats are an NL rays with a little money. Sorry the kings didn't move to virginia beach, so you could have a team to root for in your state!

Offline HalfSmokes

  • Posts: 15632
Re: Future of Big Name Nats (2013)
« Reply #78: January 25, 2013, 10:23:33 AM »
Hey buddy check this http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/nationals-journal/wp/2013/01/24/mike-rizzo-honored-in-boston-as-executive-of-the-year/

I think that rizzo and the lerners will make the right descions with straus/bryce. Either or I hope the nats are an NL rays with a little money. Sorry the kings didn't move to virginia beach, so you could have a team to root for in your state!


and that has what to do with having the money to sign both? Rizzo is a great executive, makes savvy trades and signings- what does that have to do with having the revenue to sign to generational talents? And why the hell would you hope we're the Rays? There are many great franchises in between the huge (yankees, red sox, now dodgers) and the Rays- one just won the world series, another won it the year before. Finally you do realize if not for us suburbanites, DC would be big enough to have zero pro teams?

Offline NationalHeat

  • Posts: 473
Re: Future of Big Name Nats (2013)
« Reply #79: January 25, 2013, 10:32:07 AM »
Why is this guy getting so antagonistic?

Honestly, I've never liked the idea of giving SP 100m plus deals. Much rather, and much more likely, give Harper a franchise esque contract and draft/develop/keep guys like Gio locked in with those team friendly deals. Just imagine what Strasburg at age 28-29 will bring in a return in trade.

Also, we will have Strasburg locked in through roughly his age 28-29 or so season. I'm not sure if I'm willing to sign a power pitcher way into his 30s anyway. Emjoy him now, seriously, no need to discuss this now. Were gonna have him for 6+ seasons total, plus whatever we win in that time, PLUS whatever he brings back in trade. He is an amazing asset until the day he wears someone elses uniform.

Offline JCA-CrystalCity

  • Global Moderator
  • ****
  • Posts: 18764
  • Platoon - not just a movie, a baseball obsession
Re: Future of Big Name Nats (2013)
« Reply #80: January 25, 2013, 10:32:11 AM »
By the way, nats4ever, thanks for teeing up the topic. As you see, there are a lot of comments. 

Let's keep the focus on the topic.

Offline nats4ever

  • Posts: 129
Re: Future of Big Name Nats (2013)
« Reply #81: January 25, 2013, 10:39:38 AM »
By the way, nats4ever, thanks for teeing up the topic. As you see, there are a lot of comments. 

Let's keep the focus on the topic.

My fault I get fired up as a fan sometimes. I won't bicker anymore.

Offline comish4lif

  • Posts: 2647
  • Too Stressed to care.
Re: Future of Big Name Nats (2013)
« Reply #82: January 25, 2013, 11:02:19 AM »
You sound bitter because virginia didn't get a team. Are you mad that northern virginia couldnt get the expos? Rizzo won executive of the year and said the winning is due to the nats drafting well, not forking over a bunch of money. Zimmerman is locked up longterm. Do you see any longterm deals like werth on the payroll. Keep hating from the sideline and riding the wagon as they win.
I like how the guy with 15 posts is calling the guy with more than 10,000 posts the bandwagon fan.

:smh:

Offline JCA-CrystalCity

  • Global Moderator
  • ****
  • Posts: 18764
  • Platoon - not just a movie, a baseball obsession
Re: Future of Big Name Nats (2013)
« Reply #83: January 25, 2013, 11:12:11 AM »
Focus on the topic, not the people. 

Offline comish4lif

  • Posts: 2647
  • Too Stressed to care.
Re: Future of Big Name Nats (2013)
« Reply #84: January 25, 2013, 11:14:26 AM »
Focus on the topic, not the people. 
Where's the fun in that? Besides, I responded to the topic.

Offline JCA-CrystalCity

  • Global Moderator
  • ****
  • Posts: 18764
  • Platoon - not just a movie, a baseball obsession
Re: Future of Big Name Nats (2013)
« Reply #85: January 25, 2013, 11:27:29 AM »
Oh, so now this is about fun?  Not life and death?

[jca]Stay on topic.  Oh and
<======= [/jca]

Offline houston-nat

  • Posts: 16666
Re: Future of Big Name Nats (2013)
« Reply #86: January 25, 2013, 12:05:43 PM »
Oh, so now this is about fun?  Not life and death?

[jca]Stay on topic.  Oh and
<======= [/jca]


This. We should platoon Strasburg and Harper.

Offline PebbleBall

  • Posts: 2968
  • Now that right there is baseball.
Re: Future of Big Name Nats (2013)
« Reply #87: January 25, 2013, 01:29:54 PM »
I can say the franchise has far less revenue- whether or not they want to raise additional capital (other than old man Lerner buying more shares and diluting minority owners- how exactly is he supposed to use his personal wealth to underwrite the team?) is another issue

This is totally irrelevant from the discussion over whether they can sign Strasburg and/or Harper.  The point is they have the resources, they have the flexibility, and that's without factoring in a new tv deal, which I believe will be lucrative enough to make a difference.  There's no reason to even be talking about the Dodgers.

Offline HalfSmokes

  • Posts: 15632
Re: Future of Big Name Nats (2013)
« Reply #88: January 25, 2013, 01:34:52 PM »
This is totally irrelevant from the discussion over whether they can sign Strasburg and/or Harper.  The point is they have the resources, they have the flexibility, and that's without factoring in a new tv deal, which I believe will be lucrative enough to make a difference.  There's no reason to even be talking about the Dodgers.

do they have the resources? Unless it's those two plus a bunch of pre-free agency players, I fail to see how that's a given

Offline nats4ever

  • Posts: 129
Re: Future of Big Name Nats (2013)
« Reply #89: January 25, 2013, 01:50:10 PM »
This is totally irrelevant from the discussion over whether they can sign Strasburg and/or Harper.  The point is they have the resources, they have the flexibility, and that's without factoring in a new tv deal, which I believe will be lucrative enough to make a difference.  There's no reason to even be talking about the Dodgers.

 I'm going to enjoy steve and bryce while they are here. When the free agent road crosses, we will deal with it then.

JCA Edit - deleted fan police comment :nono:

Online Ray D

  • Posts: 5221
Re: Future of Big Name Nats (2013)
« Reply #90: January 25, 2013, 05:09:09 PM »
This is totally irrelevant from the discussion over whether they can sign Strasburg and/or Harper.  The point is they have the resources,

And their resources are somewhat irrelevant too.  As far as the Lerners are concerned the Nationals are strictly a business enterprise.  Decisions are based on what maximizes their wealth.  If they have a pot of a quarter billion dollars, and the analysis tells them that spending it on a new real estate development will increase their wealth more than spending it on the Nationals, that pot of money is going into the real estate.

Offline Kevrock

  • Posts: 11680
  • Troll So Hard University
Re: Future of Big Name Nats (2013)
« Reply #91: January 25, 2013, 06:06:14 PM »
So this poster is that BH34 guy, right?

Offline spidernat

  • Posts: 54704
  • The Lerners are Cheap AND Crooked
Re: Future of Big Name Nats (2013)
« Reply #92: January 25, 2013, 06:25:17 PM »
So this poster is that BH34 guy, right?

:lmao:  Just think how insufferable BH34 is going to be this season tossing Harper's salad when Harper is in the NL MVP race.  :stir:

Offline PebbleBall

  • Posts: 2968
  • Now that right there is baseball.
Re: Future of Big Name Nats (2013)
« Reply #93: January 25, 2013, 09:34:34 PM »
And their resources are somewhat irrelevant too.  As far as the Lerners are concerned the Nationals are strictly a business enterprise.  Decisions are based on what maximizes their wealth.  If they have a pot of a quarter billion dollars, and the analysis tells them that spending it on a new real estate development will increase their wealth more than spending it on the Nationals, that pot of money is going into the real estate.

Not to rehash the whole thing, but I was just arguing that they can, not that they will (in which case their resources are just about all that's relevent).  It's too far away to even have a decent argument about the latter.  There's just all kinds of wild angst in this thread though, it's pretty great. 

Offline Mr Clean

  • Posts: 2306
Re: Future of Big Name Nats (2013)
« Reply #94: January 26, 2013, 11:23:56 AM »
On MLB radio this morning Tommy John said that  Strasburg's delivery was a disaster waiting to happen. Said he couldn't believe that a competent instructor would let him pitch that way.

Offline Terpfan76

  • Posts: 3874
  • ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ
Re: Future of Big Name Nats (2013)
« Reply #95: January 26, 2013, 12:39:36 PM »
If this team becomes the winner we all think/hope it will be, Strasburg and Harper will easily be worth the money invested, so long as their production has merited it, due to their age. To me, it just makes to much business sense to keep your most valuable commodities until the very last moment. I could be wrong though, wouldn't be the first time.

Offline BH34Natural

  • Posts: 2777
Re: Future of Big Name Nats (2013)
« Reply #96: March 02, 2013, 01:39:23 PM »
I didn't want to put this in the potpourri/Bryce Harper compendium thread because I felt like it deserved its own discussion topic. This topic came up during my fantasy draft last night which was comprised of fans from all around baseball not just the Nationals. I said it would really kill me if Harper left DC for New York when the time came when a guy brought it up. Another guy asked "well could you blame him?" I said I actually could, bc Bryce said he wanted to play his whole career in Washington.

Another few owners remarked "he will I think".

What do you guys think? When should we start talking next contract with Harper? I would think the sooner the better at this point. And the golden question: will he sign a long-term extension here?

Offline HalfSmokes

  • Posts: 15632
Re: Future of Big Name Nats (2013)
« Reply #97: March 02, 2013, 01:41:15 PM »
Are we restarting this thread every year?

Offline zimm_da_kid

  • Posts: 6296
  • Sign all the Cubans
Re: Future of Big Name Nats (2013)
« Reply #98: March 02, 2013, 01:41:17 PM »
Wait a year and offer him 15 years/$300 million

Offline natspride

  • Posts: 102
Re: Future of Big Name Nats (2013)
« Reply #99: March 02, 2013, 01:50:51 PM »
I didn't want to put this in the potpourri/Bryce Harper compendium thread because I felt like it deserved its own discussion topic. This topic came up during my fantasy draft last night which was comprised of fans from all around baseball not just the Nationals. I said it would really kill me if Harper left DC for New York when the time came when a guy brought it up. Another guy asked "well could you blame him?" I said I actually could, bc Bryce said he wanted to play his whole career in Washington.

Another few owners remarked "he will I think".

What do you guys think? When should we start talking next contract with Harper? I would think the sooner the better at this point. And the golden question: will he sign a long-term extension here?


I have no clue but this is a good sign.

http://articles.washingtonpost.com/2012-06-29/sports/35461657_1_bryce-harper-ron-harper-washington-nationals