Nationals new 1B discussion

[houston-nat]

Frankly, I'm a little confused they backloaded the Werth deal so much. They should have frontloaded it. If we could pay Jayson Werth $26 mil per year the first two years, then $14 mil the last five years, that's a really silly-sounding contract right now, but on the other hand when the team is actually contending from 2013-2017, Rizzo/the Lerners would have another $10-12 million spend on, say, free agents or extending Harper/Strasburg. Since the Werth deal is so backloaded, we might find that when we actually ARE contending, we're sinking millions into Werth we could spend on a guy who wouldn't want to be a Nat in 2011 but would love to be a Nat in 2014. Like say... future free agent Zack Greinke.

[HalfSmokes]

I think they might be thinking, revenue won't justify the expense now, but it should down the road

[PANatsFan]

It's actually possibly that they backloaded it so they could frontload for another big fish, i.e. Lee. Lee and Werth had some words, didn't they?

[blue911]

Frankly, I'm a little confused they backloaded the Werth deal so much. They should have frontloaded it. If we could pay Jayson Werth $26 mil per year the first two years, then $14 mil the last five years, that's a really silly-sounding contract right now, but on the other hand when the team is actually contending from 2013-2017, Rizzo/the Lerners would have another $10-12 million spend on, say, free agents or extending Harper/Strasburg. Since the Werth deal is so backloaded, we might find that when we actually ARE contending, we're sinking millions into Werth we could spend on a guy who wouldn't want to be a Nat in 2011 but would love to be a Nat in 2014. Like say... future free agent Zack Greinke.

Players want backloaded deals because it gives them a larger base if the team offers arbitration after the contract expires.

[PatsNats28]

It's smart negotiating.  There's no reason to rush.

It carries the risk that they could sign somewhere else and we'd be stuck with no one.

  And don't forget the old reliable "no one wants to come here" excuse that can be warmed up every off season like leftover meatloaf. If never loosen up the purse strings that excuse will always be available. That meatloaf has bacteria growing all over it and needs to be thrashed.

Nice. If they had done this consistently the Nats wouldn't be such an unsavory destination and this issue would eventually die on its own. In this market, especially after nearly 5 years of the current ownership, payroll should definitely approach 90 and eventually exceed it.

I would be happy with a 75 mil payroll this year (provided it's spent wisely)

Frankly, I'm a little confused they backloaded the Werth deal so much. They should have frontloaded it. If we could pay Jayson Werth $26 mil per year the first two years, then $14 mil the last five years, that's a really silly-sounding contract right now, but on the other hand when the team is actually contending from 2013-2017, Rizzo/the Lerners would have another $10-12 million spend on, say, free agents or extending Harper/Strasburg. Since the Werth deal is so backloaded, we might find that when we actually ARE contending, we're sinking millions into Werth we could spend on a guy who wouldn't want to be a Nat in 2011 but would love to be a Nat in 2014. Like say... future free agent Zack Greinke.

That was what I was thinking at the time as well. Hopefully we use this space and then don't complain in the future that Werth is taking up too much space so we can't get other guys.

[Ray D]

I would be happy with a 75 mil payroll this year

I will be happy with 82 wins.  Whether they do that with a 45 or 100 million payroll I'll be equally happy.

[PatsNats28]

Non sequitur, but okay. I would be happy with 82 wins as well, that wasn't the point - if we spent 75 mil, but lost 100 games, clearly I wouldn't be happy.

[hammondsnats]

Non sequitur, but okay. I would be happy with 82 wins as well, that wasn't the point - if we spent 75 mil, but lost 100 games, clearly I wouldn't be happy.

Nobody would be.  Hey if we could spend $20 million a year and make the playoffs or a field a competitive team, okay awesome.  But if history is any indication, the higher your payroll, the better chance of finishing with a better record you have. 

Anyway, hope the Nats get Lee/LaRoche.  Would love for them to get it over with already, so we can stop talking about it and move on to the next biggest need: starting pitcher. 

[PatsNats28]

Nobody would be.  Hey if we could spend $20 million a year and make the playoffs or a field a competitive team, okay awesome.  But if history is any indication, the higher your payroll, the better chance of finishing with a better record you have. 

Anyway, hope the Nats get Lee/LaRoche.  Would love for them to get it over with already, so we can stop talking about it and move on to the next biggest need: starting pitcher. 

It's a general correlation, but it doesn't necessarily guarantee it. My point is that I think that 75 million is an acceptable amount for a payroll this season heading into the year.

You do realize that I've agreed with you that we need to sign Lee/LaRoche soon, right? I'm just not calling the Lerners cheap for not doing it.

[Ray D]

Non sequitur, but okay. I would be happy with 82 wins as well, that wasn't the point - if we spent 75 mil, but lost 100 games, clearly I wouldn't be happy.

You would be happy with 82 wins, I presume even if the payroll were 45 million. I don't think it is necessarily a non requitur, the point being that the discussion ties happiness too much to payroll and not enough to wins.

[hammondsnats]

It's a general correlation, but it doesn't necessarily guarantee it. My point is that I think that 75 million is an acceptable amount for a payroll this season heading into the year.

You do realize that I've agreed with you that we need to sign Lee/LaRoche soon, right? I'm just not calling the Lerners cheap for not doing it.

I never said it guarantees it, but again, the chances are better. 

And yeah I see that. 

When I say those three initials it's a general statement of things they have done in the past.  Obviously they weren't when it came to Werth, which I gave them credit for.

Oh well.  Sign Dunn

[Ray D]

You do realize that I've agreed with you that we need to sign Lee/LaRoche soon, right? I'm just not calling the Lerners cheap for not doing it.

After the past several seasons the Lerners should be outraged, embarassed, and humiliated with anything less that a winning season - 82 wins. The key to that is signing Lee or Laroche AND another starting pitcher.   I think it will happen. But if if doesn't,  I'LL call them cheap.

[PatsNats28]

You would be happy with 82 wins, I presume even if the payroll were 45 million. I don't think it is necessarily a non requitur, the point being that the discussion ties happiness too much to payroll and not enough to wins.

Yeah I would be happy with that. But like hammonds and I said, there is a correlation between good spending and winning. The conversation was involving where you would be happy regarding payroll, so that was what I was saying.

After the past several seasons the Lerners should be outraged, embarassed, and humiliated with anything less that a winning season - 82 wins. The key to that is signing Lee or Laroche AND another starting pitcher.   I think it will happen. But if if doesn't,  I'LL call them cheap.

Also, when I said not signing them, I meant not signing them this instant to try and bring down the price. Quite frankly, I don't care if they spend 8 mil or 10 mil on Lee as long as they sign him.

[Minty Fresh]

I will be happy with 82 wins.  Whether they do that with a 45 or 100 million payroll I'll be equally happy.

The voice of reason.

The only number that matters is in the win column.  The Marlins have proven multiple times you can win without a big payroll and the Yankees and and Red Sox have proven you can spend all you want and it doesn't guarantee you the post-season.

All this nagging about other people's money - doesn't mean crap.

[hammondsnats]

The voice of reason.

The only number that matters is in the win column.  The Marlins have proven multiple times you can win without a big payroll and the Yankees and and Red Sox have proven you can spend all you want and it doesn't guarantee you the post-season.

All this nagging about other people's money - doesn't mean crap.

i just said the same thing.  all i was saying the more you spend, the more likely you are to succeed.  but if they could find a way to win with $20 million payroll, so be it.  but that ain't happening.

[heeman82]

Just give Morse the 1B spot already.  Save the money that would've been spent on Lee for a year and slash the price of stadium beer.

[JMW IV]

hammonds -The Mariners' payroll was close to 100m.

But yes I see the correlation.

The difference is that I am not so obsessed with it  that it is all that i can think or talk about.

I care more about the win total than the payroll total.

I care more about whether the moves made are the right ones to help the team win, rather than whether they prove whether the lerners are cheap or not.

[hammondsnats]

hammonds -The Mariners' payroll was close to 100m.

But yes I see the correlation.

The difference is that I am not so obsessed with it  that it is all that i can think or talk about.

I care more about the win total than the payroll total.

I care more about whether the moves made are the right ones to help the team win, rather than whether they prove whether the lerners are cheap or not.

haha its the offseason dude.  i have talked about adding a 1B and SP time after time.  and ya know what sometimes they are connected with lack of spending.  but back to the point let's add a 1B and SP.   

of course i care about winning the most, how many times do i need to say it? 

[Lintyfresh85]

Anyone have Insider?

This tweet scares me.

MLBRumorCentral   

The Nationals could skip out on Lee, LaRoche #mlb #nationals http://es.pn/hpwoCM

[hammondsnats]

Anyone have Insider?

This tweet scares me.

lol wow if true, but i'll believe it when i see it - either way. 

[Minty Fresh]

Anyone have Insider?

This tweet scares me.

lol wow if true, but i'll believe it when i see it - either way. 

Whassamadda hammonds?  Too cheap to get ESPN Insider? 

[hammondsnats]

Whassamadda hammonds?  Too cheap to get ESPN Insider? 

no i used to have ESPN Insider w/ subscription to ESPN the Mag and it blows.  So I switched to SI which is much better.

[Minty Fresh]

no i used to have ESPN Insider w/ subscription to ESPN the Mag and it blows.  So I switched to SI which is much better.

While I was just busting your chops, I totally agree with you there.  ESPN Insider is just another excuse for the ESPN Machine to stick it in the ass of its audience.


Oh.  And, sign Dunn.

[hammondsnats]

While I was just busting your chops, I totally agree with you there.  ESPN Insider is just another excuse for the ESPN Machine to stick it in the ass of its audience.


Oh.  And, sign Dunn.

haha I know you are.  and if you were to come back with another zing, i would've said well i don't like to spend on crappy products (ESPN Insider, 2011 nats season tickets, etc).

[houston-nat]

Anyone have Insider?

This tweet scares me.

That's either a negotiating bluff (like how Rizzo said we didn't need an outfielder this offseason) or a trade hint. I hope.