Nationals new 1B discussion

[PC]

Of course, the Werth signing is offset by not resigning Dunn and trading Willingham and trading away (last year) Capps and Guzman.  That's a lot of salary commitments they don't have anymore.

The mere signing of Werth doesn't prove non-cheapness and we're still waiting for the follow-up.

[PatsNats28]

They spent 127 million dollars on Jayson Werth. If they were truly ridiculously cheap, they wouldn't have done that. You can say that our payroll is reduced from last year, which is true, but it's not the point. The point is that if they were extremely cheap, they could spend even less. Now you may say that just because they're not spending 20 million, they aren't necessarily good owners, and this would be true. But the point here is that you have this opinion, that the Lerners are cheap, which may or may not be true - but you keep pushing this LAC idea whenever we don't spend a ton of money on a player. We can't always spend tons of money on every decent player who passes by. I don't necessarily agree with the Lee/LaRoche strategy of forcing their hand, but regardless, assuming that they sign one, it's not "LAC" if they spend 3 mil less to get LaRoche versus Lee when they are actually very similar players.

I addressed that point. Keeping the payroll roughly where it was last year (it will probably exceed it with a first baseman) doesn't mean we're cheap.

[hammondsnats]

They spent 127 million dollars on Jayson Werth. If they were truly ridiculously cheap, they wouldn't have done that. You can say that our payroll is reduced from last year, which is true, but it's not the point. The point is that if they were extremely cheap, they could spend even less. Now you may say that just because they're not spending 20 million, they aren't necessarily good owners, and this would be true. But the point here is that you have this opinion, that the Lerners are cheap, which may or may not be true - but you keep pushing this LAC idea whenever we don't spend a ton of money on a player. We can't always spend tons of money on every decent player who passes by. I don't necessarily agree with the Lee/LaRoche strategy of forcing their hand, but regardless, assuming that they sign one, it's not "LAC" if they spend 3 mil less to get LaRoche versus Lee when they are actually very similar players.

all i see is a lotta words and still a low payroll ... ya know what, it's great ted lerner opened his wallet and paid money for jayson werth ... why not more of that?  instead of parading JW around town left and right, why not get more free agent studs and showcase them AS A TEAM instead of just one flippin guy.  we get it ... you spent on DRAFT PICKS ... but how about proven major league talent?!?!

jmad, good for you.  you still don't see the correlation between crappy teams and low payrolls do you?  guess not.

spider, don't even try with you know who...

and by the way ... knorr is right, he's held his own all along ... the nats have only made a handful of solid moves.  

[PANatsFan]

I would like to know of a sports team, any team, that has ever doubled its payroll in one year. The idea is ludicrous. There's no way that would work. They need to pay the arbitration eligibles when they come due. They need to not have Blantons weighing them down. 75-80 is as much as they could reasonably do now that Cliff Lee is off the market. Who else would they sign? People are nutcases and obsessed with a number.

[PANatsFan]

I'm done. Your post was just plain gibberish.

[Vega]

Where are all of these stud players to sign to increase the payroll, hammonds? After Pavano and Lee, there isn't anybody who would notably increase the payroll to sign.

[hammondsnats]

Where are all of these stud players to sign to increase the payroll, hammonds? After Pavano and Lee, there isn't anybody who would notably increase the payroll to sign.

this is getting old ... we have missed opportunity after opportunity after opportunity of signing studs. 

but sign pavano and lee ...

oh and we should've resigned dunn. 

[KnorrForYourMoney]

The same freaking excuse is used each offseason.  "Where are these great free agents the Nats were supposed to sign?"

Always uttered after the big-time/good free agents have already signed with other teams who were willing to go after them.

[hammondsnats]

The same freaking excuse is used each offseason.  "Where are these great free agents the Nats were supposed to sign?"

Always uttered after the big-time/good free agents have already signed with other teams who were willing to go after them.

there's knorr pwning souls again. 

[NatsDad14]

We arent expecting 120 million. At least 80-90 million is respectable for our market

[PatsNats28]

there's knorr pwning souls again. 

Pwning souls = agreeing with hammonds -- noted for future reference. I think what you're failing to realize is that I'm not saying that the Lerners shouldn't spend more; I believe that they should. However, I don't think the fact that they have yet to sign LaRoche or Lee because they want the best value is cheap. You've taken this conversation far off topic. My point is that while I believe that this strategy, if true, is unnecessarily risky, but it doesn't make them "cheap". Every owner wants to pay less for the same quantity.

[RyanTheRiot]

Pwning souls = agreeing with hammonds -- noted for future reference. I think what you're failing to realize is that I'm not saying that the Lerners shouldn't spend more; I believe that they should. However, I don't think the fact that they have yet to sign LaRoche or Lee because they want the best value is cheap. You've taken this conversation far off topic. My point is that while I believe that this strategy, if true, is unnecessarily risky, but it doesn't make them "cheap". Every owner wants to pay less for the same quantity.

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

[PANatsFan]

We arent expecting 120 million. At least 80-90 million is respectable for our market

80 is a reasonable expectation that I think they will meet this season.

[PC]

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

It could also create ill will between the player and the team.

[RyanTheRiot]

It could also create ill will between the player and the team.

I doubt it.  The players know its a business.

[NatsDad14]

80 is a reasonable expectation that I think they will meet this season.

Where are they going to spend those 25 million?

[Lintyfresh85]

I would like to know of a sports team, any team, that has ever doubled its payroll in one year. The idea is ludicrous. There's no way that would work. They need to pay the arbitration eligibles when they come due. They need to not have Blantons weighing them down. 75-80 is as much as they could reasonably do now that Cliff Lee is off the market. Who else would they sign? People are nutcases and obsessed with a number.

Twins upped their payroll 41% last year.

Just saying.

[houston-nat]

The same freaking excuse is used each offseason.  "Where are these great free agents the Nats were supposed to sign?"

Always uttered after the big-time/good free agents have already signed with other teams who were willing to go after them.

You must have missed all the Cliff Lee and Zack Greinke news stories.
Cliff Lee was the only good free agent starting pitcher and everybody knew it from the start. Remember the bickering about whether we should sign Jorge de la Rosa or Javier Vazquez?

[blue911]

We have the richest owners in baseball, I believe.  We should have the resources.  Really, I don't think we should have a $200MM+ payroll, but we should at least be up to $100MM by now.  I actually haven't looked at the current payroll projection, but my guess is that it's still under $75MM.

I think that the Mariners have the richest owners. They are owned by Nintendo that has total assets of $1.8 trillion dollars (Wiki source so it may be off by a decimal place). Liberty Media  (Braves) also has a crap load of cash. Lerner may be the richest individual owner but he isn't in that league.

[PANatsFan]

Where are they going to spend those 25 million?

1B+Pavano+bench+bullpen, or 1 trade for an expensive player.

[PANatsFan]

I doubt it.  The players know its a business.

Exactly, people have no idea what goes on. Most of these guys let their agents handle all of it. Sheesh.

[spidernat]

The same freaking excuse is used each offseason.  "Where are these great free agents the Nats were supposed to sign?"

Always uttered after the big-time/good free agents have already signed with other teams who were willing to go after them.

 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 they never loosen up the purse strings that excuse will always be available. That meatloaf has bacteria growing all over it and needs to be trashed.

We arent expecting 120 million. At least 80-90 million is respectable for our market

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.

Pavano + a 1B would put them at around $75, which people CLAIM would satisfy them, but I think nothing ever will.

Who has claimed that?

[JCA-CrystalCity]

The same freaking excuse is used each offseason.  "Where are these great free agents the Nats were supposed to sign?"

Always uttered after the big-time/good free agents have already signed with other teams who were willing to go after them.

Knorr, where I part company with you is that I don't think it is reasonable to go too long in years and money for players who aren't really worth the years and money. 

Yes, there is a premium you have to pay to get high end players to come here, and even if you do, they may not go here anyway. I have no reason to doubt the Teixeira negotiations ended up with him walking away from either more total dollars committed or higher AAV when he turned down the Nats, and at least Nolan Ryan suggests that there was a non-contender who was offering more money and years for Cliff Lee than the Rangers (I assume that was the Nats).   

When it comes to the Pavanos and the LaRoche's, I don't want to see us making over commitments.  They just aren't that good.  What I do want to see, and what gets me on the LAC side, is deals where we eat costs or take on bad contracts to get better talent in trade.  More of the Willingham / Olsen deals, including cash with Willingham in order to get a starting pitcher from the Rays, or taking on maybe a good but overpaid player for less talent and partial salary relief. Preferably for only a year or two.

BTW - it is interesting to note, over on the MLB payroll thread, that half the teams in baseball were over $100MM in year end payroll at least once in 2009 and 2010.

[Evolution33]

I am a little confused here. While the Nationals are trying to avoid raising payroll this year, because they are probably expecting even less people to show up to Nationals Park this season they still signed Jayson Werth to a $126 million contract. They backloaded it and are basically doubling down on Harper and expecting to win in the middle years of the contract, have higher attendence, and higher payroll. Not sure how not having a higher payroll this coming season but planning to raise it in the coming years is continuing the evil cheap ways.

[HalfSmokes]

I think they are signaling that they expect to compete in two years which seems logical since Phillies big four will be breaking up and Stras will be back