ESPN: The confusing plan of the Nationals

[PatsNats28]

Since the Nats have come:
Playoff Appearances:
Skins: 2
Nats: 0

.500+ seasons:
Skins: 3
Nats: 1

Winning seasons:
Skins: 2
Nats: 0

Seasons with the worst record:
Skins: 0
Nats: 2

I hate to be that guy, but all that really matters is championships. The only difference between 9-7 and 5-11 is a higher draft pick (and a better reputation, for all that that's worth).

[NatsDad14]

I hate to be that guy, but all that really matters is championships. The only difference between 9-7 and 5-11 is a higher draft pick (and a better reputation, for all that that's worth).

But you can win a championship when you make the playoffs. You can't win a championship when you are losing 300 games in 3 years.

[hammondsnats]

I would rather be a Nationals fan than a Redskins fan... we're going up and they're going down.

well i'm a fan of both.

and right now neither team is going anywhere.  at least the skins have tasted success and have an overwhelming, passionate fan base.  nats have neither.

again i'm a fan of both so i'm not trolling.

[PatsNats28]

But you can win a championship when you make the playoffs. You can't win a championship when you are losing 300 games in 3 years.

Yes, but they didn't win, so I don't see your point.

[The Chief]

can we quit going in circles?

[EdStroud]

can we quit going in circles?

The thread or the organization?

[hammondsnats]

The thread or the organization?

both

[EdStroud]

both

Softball toss

[hammondsnats]

The Nats have been around since 2005 (anything that happened in Montreal has nothing to do with the present ownership).  We now have the two most heralded baseball prospects in years, a steady veteran force in Werth, and a young star in Zimmerman to go along with a host of young players playing in a nice new ballpark.  We have drafted an enormous amount of talent in a short time.  

The Redskins have spent the last decade giving away draft picks in disastrous deals and losing football games.  Despite spending an extraordinary amount of money, we have won 5 more games than the Buffalo Bills, the poorest team in the league, over the last decade.  It took a hall of fame coach to get the 'Skins back to the playoffs twice, and to say we've fallen off a cliff since he left would be an understatement.  The 'Skins also play in a terrible stadium and the debacle of getting there and back takes most of the fun out of a game.  

There is simply no comparison between these two franchises -- one is a national joke and the other is an up-and-coming team with a bright future.  I'm a fan of both teams, but only proud to be a fan of the Nats.

but aren't the nats a NATINAL joke 

i hope the nats get better in the future, but i'm worried about the present.  we don't have those two heralded prospects contributing this year do we?  we are coming off some losing seasons.

i dunno not seeing it.  i hope something changes.

[RyanTheRiot]

The Redskins have spent the last decade giving away draft picks in disastrous deals and losing football games.  Despite spending an extraordinary amount of money, we have won 5 more games than the Buffalo Bills, the poorest team in the league, over the last decade.

No one. Circles the wagons.  Like the BUFFALO BILLS


(go Bills)

[tomterp]

.500+ seasons:
Skins: 3
Nats: 1

Winning seasons:
Skins: 2
Nats: 0

These two are hardly mutually exclusive.  Talk about cherry picking stats to make your point.  Why not say, most seasons with a .510 winning percentage or some other such nonesense to bolster your argument?   

[NeedaNewNick]

a host of young players playing in a nice new ballpark.

like who?  Matt Stairs?  Rick Ankiel?  

the under 26 talent in this org is modest at best, especially the hitters, and Harper won't save this franchise anymore than Wall's saving the Wiz

[NatsDad14]

These two are hardly mutually exclusive.  Talk about cherry picking stats to make your point.  Why not say, most seasons with a .510 winning percentage or some other such nonesense to bolster your argument?   

If you want a non-arbitrary stat, how about playoff seasons (Skins 2 Nats 0)

[blue911]

If you want a non-arbitrary stat, how about playoff seasons (Skins 2 Nats 0)

Snyder took over the team in May of 1999. It was too late for the Redskins to make any meaningful free agent signings. So the team went into the season (1999) pretty much intact. The 1999 team went 10-6 a mark that they have equaled once and never bettered. The argument that Snyder/Lerner is better or would be better than Lerner/Snyder is retarded. Neither owner has shown any ability to successfully (fan success not wall street success) run a professional sports franchise. Owners should be judged by wins and loses.Good owners have two jobs 1) Stay out of the player related decisions 2) sign the checks. One isn't better or worse until they show they can do both those simple things. 

[PatsNats28]

A compliment for the Nats (from JCA's favorite source):

7. Jayson Werth, RF, Nationals — Even though our people were shocked at the seven-year, $126 million commitment Washington made, it’s an important signing for the organization because it signifies a willingness to spend money on major free agents. It may not have a major impact in 2011, but Werth will be a big piece once the Nationals get their top players (Stephen Strasburg, Bryce Harper) together in the next couple of years.

http://www.boston.com/sports/baseball/articles/2010/12/26/big_10_conference_yields_some_early_winners_and_losers/?page=2

[Mathguy]

Sorry, but that is not representative of anything.  For starters, what are the probabilities of being in the playoffs for any football team vs any baseball team ?  Then add the fact the Redskins have been in playoffs far more than the Nationals/Expos.

If you want a non-arbitrary stat, how about playoff seasons (Skins 2 Nats 0)

[NatsDad14]

Sorry, but that is not representative of anything.  For starters, what are the probabilities of being in the playoffs for any football team vs any baseball team ?  Then add the fact the Redskins have been in playoffs far more than the Nationals/Expos.

Ok, use the other stats like .500+ and winning seasons. There is no added probability of being .500 or winning seasons in the NFL compared to MLB.

[welch]

1. The Nats have not been in the "post-season" since 1933. That was, of course, the old days, when each league had eight teams and the best of each met in the World Series.

2. The Skins did not make the post-season between the mid-40s and 1971, which means not within memory of half the fan-base.

3. In 1971, Bob [expletive deleted] Short announced he was moving the Nats to Texas, right about the same time George Allen became head coach of the Redskins. Allen announced that "the future is now", and promised to lead the team to the playoffs, and he did.

4. For 35 years, the Redskins had DC to themselves. Long enough to capture all the sports attention available. The New New Nats will pull fans as soon as they can compete. Given that Shanahan is rebuilding, 2011 and 2012 are wide open.

5. I think Rizzo and the Lerners have enough sense to know that the team has to go 50/50 in 2011, and be good in 2012. I hope they buy a 1B and a better than average starter by March.

6. No trades. No team wants Nyjer Morgan, and the Nats cannot afford to trade any player who is half-way valuable.

[Vega]

Why the hell are we comparing the Nats to the Redskins?

[hammondsnats]

Why the hell are we comparing the Nats to the Redskins?

No idea...they are on different levels.

[NeedaNewNick]

Why the hell are we comparing the Nats to the Redskins?

because they're both dysfunctional organizations with terrible owners

[PatsNats28]

Why the hell are we comparing the Nats to the Redskins?

There are lots of pointless things that people do on message boards...

[imref]

because

Why the hell are we comparing the Nats to the Redskins?

because it makes no sense to compare them to the New Jersey Generals.

[PC]

because it makes no sense to compare them to the New Jersey Generals.

Can we compare them to the Washington Generals?

[welch]

Why the hell are we comparing the Nats to the Redskins?

To make it simple: the Nats compete with the Redskins for mind-share, for attention. The Nats are in a 35-year hole. Before that, both teams -- surprise! -- were bad for a long time. The Nats were kidnapped, while the Redskins flourished. The Redskins are down, so this is the best chance the Lerners have to re-gain equal attention.

The future is now for the Nats.

(Assuming everyone recognizes "The future is now", Crazy George Allen's motto.)