Fielder

[Evolution33]

Rosenthal tweeted that the Cubs and Mariners have indicated they would rather wait for Votto and have pulled out of Prince Fielder running. That is two of three interested teams pulling out. That leaves the mystery team to enter the fray and either the Nats or mystery team get Fielder. My vote is for mystery.

[houston-nat]

Rosenthal tweeted that the Cubs and Mariners have indicated they would rather wait for Votto and have pulled out of Prince Fielder running. That is two of three interested teams pulling out. That leaves the mystery team to enter the fray and either the Nats or mystery team get Fielder. My vote is for mystery.

If the Cubs and Mariners would rather wait for Votto, it stands to reason that we're bidding against ourselves. Offer 4/112 and hope the Blue Jays don't hear about it.

[PatsNats28]

How meaningful is a mutual opt-out?  Let's say there is a three year deal with a mutual opt-out for the fourth year.  How does that differ functionally from a straight three year deal?    Now, a mutual buyout might make sense.

Yeah that was implied, that if the Nats were the ones opting out, they'd have to pay him a buyout.

[Evolution33]

If the Cubs and Mariners would rather wait for Votto, it stands to reason that we're bidding against ourselves.

I wouldn't count out the Rangers.

[PatsNats28]

I'm still doubtful on Fielder, I say 33% chance we get him.

[JMW IV]

If that were true, then this deal would be a no brainer.   I suspect the owners are not convinced it's true.

did they not see June and July of 2005?

[Lintyfresh85]

I wouldn't count out the Rangers.

Depends on how they feel about Yu.

[MarquisDeSade]

did they not see June and July of 2005?

Wasn't their dime then though.

[Ray D]

did they not see June and July of 2005?

June and July 2005 merely created the illusion that you could draw an average 38,000 with a 40M payroll.  But that illusion was shattered in August and September when the attendance dropped dramatically.

[tomterp]

How meaningful is a mutual opt-out?  Let's say there is a three year deal with a mutual opt-out for the fourth year.  How does that differ functionally from a straight three year deal?    Now, a mutual buyout might make sense.

It would serve to give the Nats a way to pay less than the full remaining contract if Fielder totally collapsed in performance, and allow Fielder to opt out if he performs well and the market improves.  There's going to be a fairly wide middle in which both parties agree that it's best to continue along. 

This is much better than a prolonged contract with no outs.

[HalfSmokes]

How often are mutual options actually excercised?

[Lintyfresh85]

How often are mutual options actually excercised?

Was C.C.'s mutual?

[JMW IV]

June and July 2005 merely created the illusion that you could draw an average 38,000 with a 40M payroll.  But that illusion was shattered in August and September when the attendance dropped dramatically.

no, what June and July of 2005 showed was that if the Nats won and were competitive, then they would sell out even a crappy stadium.

the attendance dropped as the Nats fell further and further out of the playoff hunt.

at the all-star break, if I recall, we were in first place by like 10 games and had just finished a double-digit homestand where we had almost 40k every single game.

the team fell like a rock after the all-star break, and the attendance did as well.

it isn't like the team was still a legitimate playoff contender and the fans just stopped caring.  the team was an illusion that was not sustainable. but for that 2 month period of time in june/july, what we saw is a preview of exactly what will happen if the Nationals are ever within 2 or 3 games of a playoff spot in late august/early september.

[hammondsnats]

Hammonds - i get pretty annoyed at the LBO / pay down the principal aspect of the ownership.  I have said the team should be operating at a higher payroll.  I'm very much with SSB on this one.  Where I differ from you is that I can see baseball reasons for not going after every high cost FA and don't see it as a sign of LAC if I see a player sign elsewhere for what I think is an overpay.  I'm also on their case when they miss on what I think are cheap options, like Aoki or signing JZ long term.  That is more LAI.

contrary to belief, i don't think they should be going after every single high priced FA either.  but i see your stance now.

[HalfSmokes]

Was C.C.'s mutual?

He opted out and signed an extension- I don't think the opt out was mutual

[InsaneBoost]

I thought Votto signed a 3-year deal on Jan 16th?

[KnorrForYourMoney]

Depends on how they feel about Yu.

That's why it amazes me that people are so on edge about this.

I don't think anything will happen with Fielder until the deadline passes for the Rangers and Darvish.

[Lintyfresh85]

I thought Votto signed a 3-year deal on Jan 16th?

He did.

According to Cot's...

2011 - 7.5
2012 - 11.5
2013 - 19
2014 - FA

[Ray D]

no, what June and July of 2005 showed was that if the Nats won and were competitive, then they would sell out even a crappy stadium.

the attendance dropped as the Nats fell further and further out of the playoff hunt.

at the all-star break, if I recall, we were in first place by like 10 games and had just finished a double-digit homestand where we had almost 40k every single game.

the team fell like a rock after the all-star break, and the attendance did as well.

it isn't like the team was still a legitimate playoff contender and the fans just stopped caring.  the team was an illusion that was not sustainable. but for that 2 month period of time in june/july, what we saw is a preview of exactly what will happen if the Nationals are ever within 2 or 3 games of a playoff spot in late august/early september.

2005 was an anomaly in more ways than one.  A large factor in the attendance was that it was the first year and there were many baseball-starved fans.  I know that, myself, I went to probably two or three times as many games as I have gone to in subsequent seasons.   But that factor wore off some in August and September.   

It is also true that the team was wildly successful first half and very bad second half, and these both were large influences on attendance.   

It's just not possible to say with much certainty how much influence  winning/losing had on attendance versus the first season effect.     Most of the games I went to in 2005 were first half. The reason in my case for the dropoff' in the second half was a combination losing and the dropoff of first-season-back effect. It was a combination, I can't say which had more influence.


So I suspect that the Lerners are not putting complete faith in 2005 to develop their economic model.

[Minty Fresh]

Said source was Potomac Cannons and Nuts023

[cmdterps44]

So people are speculating that dedicating 20m to three different players is to much? Put that on top of what we currently have and wouldn't our payroll be bumped to around 90m?

[KnorrForYourMoney]

2005 was an anomaly in more ways than one.  A large factor in the attendance was that it was the first year and there were many baseball-starved fans.  I know that, myself, I went to probably two or three times as many games as I have gone to in subsequent seasons.   But that factor wore off some in August and September.   

It is also true that the team was wildly successful first half and very bad second half, and these both were large influences on attendance.   

It's just not possible to say with much certainty how much influence  winning/losing had on attendance versus the first season effect.     Most of the games I went to in 2005 were first half. The reason in my case for the dropoff' in the second half was a combination losing and the dropoff of first-season-back effect. It was a combination, I can't say which had more influence.


So I suspect that the Lerners are not putting complete faith in 2005 to develop their economic model.

You're forgetting that the team is playing at a better stadium now.

[tomterp]

June and July 2005 merely created the illusion that you could draw an average 38,000 with a 40M payroll.  But that illusion was shattered in August and September when the attendance dropped dramatically.

Ray, I'm afraid I've got to challenge your mindfacts.

Average Nats attendance 2005 = 33,728.
August attendance                    = 37,471
September attendance              = 31,274
combined Aug Sept average      = 33,839 

[tomterp]

2005 was an anomaly in more ways than one.  A large factor in the attendance was that it was the first year and there were many baseball-starved fans.  I know that, myself, I went to probably two or three times as many games as I have gone to in subsequent seasons.   But that factor wore off some in August and September.   

It is also true that the team was wildly successful first half and very bad second half, and these both were large influences on attendance.   

It's just not possible to say with much certainty how much influence  winning/losing had on attendance versus the first season effect.     Most of the games I went to in 2005 were first half. The reason in my case for the dropoff' in the second half was a combination losing and the dropoff of first-season-back effect. It was a combination, I can't say which had more influence.


So I suspect that the Lerners are not putting complete faith in 2005 to develop their economic model.

September attendance dropped off like it always does, as kids return to school.  August attendance in 2005 was great.

[Tokeydog]

Timmy talking about it:

http://espn.go.com/video/clip?id=7420065&categoryid=2378529