Poll

Who do you think you should sign with Harper or Rendon?

Harper
3 (5.9%)
Rendon
28 (54.9%)
Washington can ignore the luxury tax and sign both.
20 (39.2%)

Total Members Voted: 51

Author Topic: Who do you think you should sign with Harper or Rendon?  (Read 1234 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Optics

  • Posts: 9223
Both.

Spend money. We're Washington D.C., not Tampa Bay.

Online Greg_SRT

  • Posts: 2228
  • Why Not This Year?
Both.

Spend money. We're Washington D.C., not Tampa Bay.


Offline Air Desmond

  • Posts: 703
It’s a crime that Rendon’s never been an all star. The funny part? Rendon could careless. He enjoys flying under the radar. He just quietly hits .300 and plays gold glove defense. I really hope the Nats reward his consistency with a long term deal. He’s earned it.

Harper is a polarizing figure. Watching him everyday just isn’t as exciting as you would think. The tape measure homers are great for sports center. We see the other side of him. The strikeouts, the borderline terrible defense, the lack of effort. In his 7 years with the Nats, I’ve never seen the guy hit a cutoff man.

Consistency > Hype. Pay Rendon.

Offline captkirk42

  • Posts: 1253
    • Curly W Cards
It’s a crime that Rendon’s never been an all star. The funny part? Rendon could careless. He enjoys flying under the radar. He just quietly hits .300 and plays gold glove defense. I really hope the Nats reward his consistency with a long term deal. He’s earned it.

Harper is a polarizing figure. Watching him everyday just isn’t as exciting as you would think. The tape measure homers are great for sports center. We see the other side of him. The strikeouts, the borderline terrible defense, the lack of effort. In his 7 years with the Nats, I’ve never seen the guy hit a cutoff man.

Consistency > Hype. Pay Rendon.
:thumbs:

Offline phil219

  • Posts: 75
Nats should call up Boras and extend Rendon now.

Offline Kenz aFan

  • Posts: 5443
  • Just a fan
From the results so far, I can see that Nats fans are not shy about spending the Lerner's money. Almost 40% are willing to sign both. That would mean a huge hit on payroll. Extending Rendon wouldn't leave the Nats tied as much as signing both would. I'M all for signing Rendon, but you get a big no from me on signing both.
I voted for Rendon, he will have value for a while and infield defense is hard to come by at the best of times, we'll be blessed with a pretty good infield defense this season. So when do the equipment trucks leave for West Palm Beach?

Online bluestreak

  • Posts: 6453
From the results so far, I can see that Nats fans are not shy about spending the Lerner's money. Almost 40% are willing to sign both. That would mean a huge hit on payroll. Extending Rendon wouldn't leave the Nats tied as much as signing both would. I'M all for signing Rendon, but you get a big no from me on signing both.
I voted for Rendon, he will have value for a while and infield defense is hard to come by at the best of times, we'll be blessed with a pretty good infield defense this season. So when do the equipment trucks leave for West Palm Beach?

Why not spend the Lerner’s money? They spent ours. They are multi billionaires. They can afford both.

Online Natsinpwc

  • Posts: 13274
Why not spend the Lerner’s money? They spent ours. They are multi billionaires. They can afford both.
This^

Offline DCFan

  • Posts: 9100
  • What are you dense?

Offline DCsOwn

  • Posts: 34
  • A New Hope
Both.

Spend money. We're Washington D.C., not Tampa Bay.

Truth

Offline Kenz aFan

  • Posts: 5443
  • Just a fan
Why not spend the Lerner’s money? They spent ours. They are multi billionaires. They can afford both.

I'm pretty sure that every single team in the majors could afford to sign at least one or both Harper and/or Machado. Most owners are all about profits first, with none worse than Jeffrey Loria, who somehow always ended up in the black. While we know the Lerners want to win, the question is, just how much they receive from MLB for the share of TV revenues and from sponsors are they willing to pony up to win. MLB made over $10 Billion Dollars last year. While I very much doubt that every team is getting $333MM (1/30th of 10 billion) last year, what they do get must pretty good sum and ends up leaving every team in the black.

Someone here might have better and more accurate numbers, and if they do, maybe they can share that info. One thing I'm positive of, when a team says they can't afford to pay a player, they are very likely lying through their teeth. So does anyone in here have the actual numbers?

Offline Ali the Baseball Cat

  • Posts: 14868
  • babble on
Girardi should have just killed Loria in the empty stands with his bare hands when he had the chance, everyone would have looked the other way.  But he didn't, and instead baseball economics have gotten even more crazy. 

Offline hotshot

  • Posts: 727
Truth

Tell me again when we're getting our MASN windfall?

Offline Kenz aFan

  • Posts: 5443
  • Just a fan
This times a bazillion.

Seeing as bazillion isn't a real number, maybe using gazillion, which, even though not a real number either, is at least in the dictionary and is often used to add emphasis to amounts.

Oh God, I think I just turned into a grammar word gramma. :roll: Feel free to ignore my drivel.

Offline nfotiu

  • Posts: 2389
I'm pretty sure that every single team in the majors could afford to sign at least one or both Harper and/or Machado. Most owners are all about profits first, with none worse than Jeffrey Loria, who somehow always ended up in the black. While we know the Lerners want to win, the question is, just how much they receive from MLB for the share of TV revenues and from sponsors are they willing to pony up to win. MLB made over $10 Billion Dollars last year. While I very much doubt that every team is getting $333MM (1/30th of 10 billion) last year, what they do get must pretty good sum and ends up leaving every team in the black.

Someone here might have better and more accurate numbers, and if they do, maybe they can share that info. One thing I'm positive of, when a team says they can't afford to pay a player, they are very likely lying through their teeth. So does anyone in here have the actual numbers?

I don't know how much of the Forbes numbers are made up or guessed, but they are the only ones who really attempt these things.

So yeah, there are probably a half dozen teams who could add Harper's contract and luxury taxes and still make a tidy profit.

https://www.forbes.com/mlb-valuations/list/#header:operatingIncome_sortreverse:true

The Nats aren't one of them though.  And for most other teams, adding Harper severely limits what they are able to do down the road and maintain a profit.  It's a little ironic that MLB has some of the more profitable franchises, and very few teams in the red (and all went really stupid to get there), when they are the only league without a salary cap.

Online Natsinpwc

  • Posts: 13274
I don't know how much of the Forbes numbers are made up or guessed, but they are the only ones who really attempt these things.

So yeah, there are probably a half dozen teams who could add Harper's contract and luxury taxes and still make a tidy profit.

https://www.forbes.com/mlb-valuations/list/#header:operatingIncome_sortreverse:true

The Nats aren't one of them though.  And for most other teams, adding Harper severely limits what they are able to do down the road and maintain a profit.  It's a little ironic that MLB has some of the more profitable franchises, and very few teams in the red (and all went really stupid to get there), when they are the only league without a salary cap.
Owners almost all have profits from other businesses. They can write off any Nats losses against their other profits. They don’t buy teams to make annual profits. Meanwhile the team value grows by leaps and bounds.

Offline nfotiu

  • Posts: 2389
Owners almost all have profits from other businesses. They can write off any Nats losses against their other profits. They don’t buy teams to make annual profits. Meanwhile the team value grows by leaps and bounds.
That might be more true for the mid-market teams.  The large market teams like the Cubs, Dodgers, Giants, Red Sox and Astros are all making significant profits, and the owners seem intent on keeping it that way. 

Online Natsinpwc

  • Posts: 13274
That might be more true for the mid-market teams.  The large market teams like the Cubs, Dodgers, Giants, Red Sox and Astros are all making significant profits, and the owners seem intent on keeping it that way.
Don’t forget the Lerners major business is real estate development which is just about the best business for NOT paying taxes. 

I’m not saying they don’t want to make profits. Just that some paper losses are not a show stopper. Cash flow is also a key. There are lots of businesses that make profits but go out of business because they have negative cash flow. Also what salaries they draw and stock options they hold. Profits are just a piece of the puzzle.

Online bluestreak

  • Posts: 6453
I’d like some municipality to make opening their books as a condition of public funding. I’m actually surprised it hasn’t happened.

Online Natsinpwc

  • Posts: 13274
I’d like some municipality to make opening their books as a condition of public funding. I’m actually surprised it hasn’t happened.
That would help but won’t telk you the value of the franchise. Look at the Redskins. Attendance down and yet the value of the franchise has skyrocketed since little Danny took over.

Offline nfotiu

  • Posts: 2389
I’d like some municipality to make opening their books as a condition of public funding. I’m actually surprised it hasn’t happened.
Public funding of sports stadiums for pro franchises should be banned across the country.   It's a ridiculous concept that teams can pay their player 200 million per year, but can't build a 500 million dollar stadium.  Pay the players 100 million per and I'm sure the other 100 million/year can easily pay a mortgage on the best stadium in the world.   It's pretty gross how tax payers subsidize 30 million dollar baseball salaries.

Offline aBaltoNat

  • Posts: 1581
Rendon said today that he is actively involved in his extension talks and he and the Nats have spoken several times over the winter.

Offline Senatorswin

  • Posts: 196
Rendon said today that he is actively involved in his extension talks and he and the Nats have spoken several times over the winter.

Fingers crossed.

Offline Duke of Earl

  • Posts: 27
Rendon said today that he is actively involved in his extension talks and he and the Nats have spoken several times over the winter.
Rendon is also represented by Boras, right?  Wouldn't it be great if there were to be an announcement tomorrow that Rendon and the Nats have agreed to 10 years, $301M!

Online HalfSmokes

  • Posts: 19824
Hopefully it’s done and being kept quiet to pretend the nats are still in the hunt for harper