The Nats are...For Sale?!?

[UMDNats]

Well that settles it, all these owners are off the hook. How nice and cut and dried and believable.

How convenient! What a great, helpful, selfless decision by Mark Lerner.

[UMDNats]

Janes makes the argument that the trade of Soto makes it easier for the Lerners to sell the team because they don't have a $500 million or so contract obligation on the books,

no one is seriously worried about buying a team and having a bunch of money tied up in players already. you're looking at buying a team with a 20+ year outlook, not, "man you know i'd be down but you owe corbs some money"

[Natsinpwc]

Janes makes the argument that the trade of Soto makes it easier for the Lerners to sell the team because they don't have a $500 million or so contract obligation on the books, so that makes sense. She also pretty much says what Rizzo and others have been saying - the team wasn't going to be competitive with Soto given the farm system, that trading Soto potentially speeds up the rebuild, and that Rizzo wasn't forced to trade him but would if he got what Rizzo considered to be a fair offer.

You are going to have some payroll no matter who is on the team.  The question is are you going to be a bottom feeder with a payroll $100 million or below or near the luxury tax at $230 million or somewhere in between.  Up to the new owners.  I guess this clears the decks.  Attendance will undoubtedly drop again next year and probably beyond without a competitive team and any stars.  That lowers income.  Team is in deep doo doo if these prospects don't pan out. 

[Slateman]

Well that settles it, all these owners are off the hook. How nice and cut and dried and believable.

Yep.

I know that Janes is a respected reporter, but there is no freaking way that the Lerners didn't, at the very least, run the Soto trade by prospective new owners before hand.

They're at the precipice of quadrupling (maybe more) their investment. Juan Soto was the most valuable piece in the deal. Theres simply no way the Lerners would risk not maximizing their profit with a unilateral decision like that.

[UMDNats]

You are going to have some payroll no matter who is on the team.  The question is are you going to be a bottom feeder with a payroll $100 million or below or near the luxury tax at $230 million or somewhere in between.  Up to the new owners.  I guess this clears the decks.  Attendance will undoubtedly drop again next year and probably beyond without a competitive team and any stars.  That lowers income.  Team is in deep doo doo if these prospects don't pan out. 

team on the field may be in deep doo doo but owners will be just fine. can spend $100 million for an endless rebuild and make unlimited money like the pirates do.

[HalfSmokes]

Janes makes the argument that the trade of Soto makes it easier for the Lerners to sell the team because they don't have a $500 million or so contract obligation on the books, so that makes sense. She also pretty much says what Rizzo and others have been saying - the team wasn't going to be competitive with Soto given the farm system, that trading Soto potentially speeds up the rebuild, and that Rizzo wasn't forced to trade him but would if he got what Rizzo considered to be a fair offer.

I thought Slate assured us that a $500 million future liability had no bearing on the price of an asset expected to sell for around $2 billion

[HalfSmokes]

Yep.

I know that Janes is a respected reporter, but there is no freaking way that the Lerners didn't, at the very least, run the Soto trade by prospective new owners before hand.

They're at the precipice of quadrupling (maybe more) their investment. Juan Soto was the most valuable piece in the deal. Theres simply no way the Lerners would risk not maximizing their profit with a unilateral decision like that.

The most valuable asset in the deal is the mlb franchise rights, number 2 is the stadium lease, number 3 is the tv deal.

[Smithian]

I thought Slate assured us that a $500 million future liability had no bearing on the price of an asset expected to sell for around $2 billion

I really don't think Juan Soto contract would have prevented the sell. Let's say AAV even got to $35 million. If the new owners are going to compete, they will have to sign some free agents. An elite FA would be in that range or slightly lower.

A $500 million contract wasn't scary for the ownership. It was having to be the one to make the decision either way. The Lerners took off the table the new ownership have to make a franchise altering decision on day one. I'm not crying trying to celebrate them, but I think the Lerners made the new ownership's job easier doing this for them.

[Slateman]

I really don't think Juan Soto contract would have prevented the sell. Let's say AAV even got to $35 million. If the new owners are going to compete, they will have to sign some free agents. An elite FA would be in that range or slightly lower.

A $500 million contract wasn't scary for the ownership. It was having to be the one to make the decision either way. The Lerners took off the table the new ownership have to make a franchise altering decision on day one. I'm not crying trying to celebrate them, but I think the Lerners made the new ownership's job easier doing this for them.

Also, signing Soto that deal would have put new ownership in the position that they would have to compete immediately. Doing that would have required them to quickly and decisively  revamp management and pump a ton of money into the team.

Now they get to take their time, blame everything on the Lerners for the next couple years, and then spend if the prospects develop.

[HalfSmokes]

Not really. Soto-less franchise facing multiple 100 loss seasons in the near future. Soto was the only reason folks would watch games. Only reason the Nats get national level games. Only jersey sale of sunstantial worth.

Nats TV deal is a joke.

A Soto less team still makes a ton of money. A team with Soto makes roughly the same, minus $45 million a year

[Slateman]

A Soto less team still makes a ton of money. A team with Soto makes roughly the same, minus $45 million a year

Except for increase in ticket sales, jersey sales, and extra ad revenue from the national level games you will get because Juan Soto is in the lineup.

[HalfSmokes]

Except for increase in ticket sales, jersey sales, and extra ad revenue from the national level games you will get because Juan Soto is in the lineup.

Yep, look at all the national TV games this year and all of the Soto jerseys around town. Getting a ticket is so much easier now than last month

[Natsinpwc]

The teams with the big long term contracts are the most valuable franchises. The ones without are worth less.  I think it was more knowing it would hard to compete and needing to restock the system. Rizzo trying to save his job.

[nfotiu]

An un-signed Soto is probably more liability than asset in a potential sale.   If you look at the situation purely from a baseball standpoint without emotion, then the Soto trade was probably the best chance to build a competitive team in the next few years.   Signing Soto and taking on 200 million in payroll to try for a win now team sounds like a strategy that usually falls flat and leaves a long term mess to clean up.  I'm still pretty shocked they haven't figured out a settlement to the MASN deal, because that mess is going to be a major liability in a sale.

[Natsinpwc]

An un-signed Soto is probably more liability than asset in a potential sale.   If you look at the situation purely from a baseball standpoint without emotion, then the Soto trade was probably the best chance to build a competitive team in the next few years.   Signing Soto and taking on 200 million in payroll to try for a win now team sounds like a strategy that usually falls flat and leaves a long term mess to clean up.  I'm still pretty shocked they haven't figured out a settlement to the MASN deal, because that mess is going to be a major liability in a sale.

Don't understand that on Soto.  He could still have been traded in the offseason or next trade deadline.  Of course we have been debating this for a while.  Agree totally on MASN--that to me is the big liability. 

[Five Banners]

Janes makes the argument that the trade of Soto makes it easier for the Lerners to sell the team because they don't have a $500 million or so contract obligation on the books, so that makes sense. She also pretty much says what Rizzo and others have been saying - the team wasn't going to be competitive with Soto given the farm system, that trading Soto potentially speeds up the rebuild, and that Rizzo wasn't forced to trade him but would if he got what Rizzo considered to be a fair offer.

For ownership that is looking to be in place beyond the length of Soto‘s contract, his contract should’ve been nowhere near a “move him now” impetus for ownership not looking to flip but looking to compete. Let’s say Ted Leonsis decided he wanted to sell the Caps right after he signed Ovechkin to the big long term deal. Would that have scared away legitimate ownership looking to build the product, or just those who might be looking to flip or bathe in revenue sharing money?

Also, do you think the legit ownership concerns might’ve had a thing or two to say if word leaked out the Leonsis was considering trading Ovechkin at the deadline for Erat and / or a bunch of toolsy farm hands, say when Alex had over two years on his deal? That of course also goes for the potential flippers / bottom feeders, who might be willing to prioritize a downsizing of assets especially as they absorb the MASN mess for the moment.

It seems completely logical for those with a perspective similar to the Lerners that they may want to set up a situation where they come in like the Lerners did after MLB was caretaking the franchise, bring everything down to the bare-bones, and go from there. Remember how we kept hearing the time to spend was just around the corner, yet it went years beyond what was initially speculated they spend to be competitive? First it was thought to coincide with the ballpark opening, and then it kept going while we had Kasten doing his thing and working with those organizing trips from Philly.

If I were someone out there working in hedge funds or some thing and saw the opportunity for a quick deal with somebody looking to get out of the team and the TV deal, why wouldn’t I be willing to take on the asset and just watch the clock while I get some nice revenue sharing coming my way? That’s especially given the amount of power the revenue hammock-dwelling owners showed they could wield at the last CBA, which of course is now settled and illuminates a level of certainty for multiple years for such potential owners.

The notion that you’ve got a guy that’s only 23 putting up these numbers means that you don’t have to worry about being competitive immediately in the rebuild etc. if you’ve got ownership coming in that has a long-term plan. If you’re not bothered too much about getting media heat or any other pressure to do anything but recoup money for the foreseeable future, why wouldn’t you be totally on board with moving such an asset the way they did?

[Five Banners]

For ownership that is looking to be in place beyond the length of Soto‘s contract, his contract should’ve been nowhere near a “move him now” impetus for ownership not looking to flip but looking to compete. Let’s say Ted Leonsis decided he wanted to sell the Caps right after he signed Ovechkin to the big long term deal. Would that have scared away legitimate ownership looking to build the product, or just those who might be looking to flip or bathe in revenue sharing money?

Also, do you think the legit ownership concerns might’ve had a thing or two to say if word leaked out the Leonsis was considering trading Ovechkin at the deadline for Erat and / or a bunch of toolsy farm hands, say when Alex had over two years on his deal? That of course also goes for the potential flippers / bottom feeders, who might be willing to prioritize a downsizing of assets especially as they absorb the MASN mess for the moment.

It seems completely logical for those with a perspective similar to the Lerners that they may want to set up a situation where they come in like the Lerners did after MLB was caretaking the franchise, bring everything down to the bare-bones, and go from there. Remember how we kept hearing the time to spend was just around the corner, yet it went years beyond what was initially speculated they spend to be competitive? First it was thought to coincide with the ballpark opening, and then it kept going while we had Kasten doing his thing and working with those organizing trips from Philly.

If I were someone out there working in hedge funds or some thing and saw the opportunity for a quick deal with somebody looking to get out of the team and the TV deal, why wouldn’t I be willing to take on the asset and just watch the clock while I get some nice revenue sharing coming my way? That’s especially given the amount of power the revenue hammock-dwelling owners showed they could wield at the last CBA, which of course is now settled and illuminates a level of certainty for multiple years for such potential owners.

The notion that you’ve got a guy that’s only 23 putting up these numbers means that you don’t have to worry about being competitive immediately in the rebuild etc. if you’ve got ownership coming in that has a long-term plan. If you’re not bothered too much about getting media heat or any other pressure to do anything but recoup money for the foreseeable future, why wouldn’t you be totally on board with moving such an asset the way they did?

Basically, do you think the Wilpons would not have heard from the future owner of the Mets been in a similar situation on their roster, whether it was Soto, Pete Alonso, or whoever? Washington is a big enough market that the spending power is largely tied to the will of the owner that would come on board. Hastening to move someone on a Hall of Fame trajectory who is only at age 23 should not be looked at as a deal facilitator for an owner who plans to win in the next decade. It also figures to be something that they would weigh in on quite clearly.

[Natsinpwc]

Basically, do you think the Wilpons would not have heard from the future owner of the Mets been in a similar situation on their roster, whether it was Soto, Pete Alonso, or whoever? Washington is a big enough market that the spending power is largely tied to the will of the owner that would come on board. Hastening to move someone on a Hall of Fame trajectory who is only at age 23 should not be looked at as a deal facilitator for an owner who plans to win in the next decade. It also figures to be something that they would weigh in on quite clearly.

There are apparently five bidders. They were not going to run this by five groups when four of them will never have anything to do with the team.  Probably some discussions about where the club stood and future chances.

[Five Banners]

There are apparently five bidders. They were not going to run this by five groups when four of them will never have anything to do with the team.  Probably some discussions about where the club stood and future chances.

I think it’s quite likely one of the new owners who in exchange for some sop volunteered that it would be good (and maybe even close to imperative) if Soto was moved before they owned the team.

[hotshot]

Also, signing Soto that deal would have put new ownership in the position that they would have to compete immediately. Doing that would have required them to quickly and decisively  revamp management and pump a ton of money into the team.

Now they get to take their time, blame everything on the Lerners for the next couple years, and then spend if the prospects develop.

That's a 180 degree different approach than Steve Cohen took/is taking.

[hotshot]

There are apparently five bidders. They were not going to run this by five groups when four of them will never have anything to do with the team.  Probably some discussions about where the club stood and future chances.

Hopefully, the winning bid will have some real money available with the willingness to spend a lot of it!

[Slateman]

That's a 180 degree different approach than Steve Cohen took/is taking.

Cohen is a billionare fan. He views the Mets as a toy/passion. There are maybe five owners in all of sports like him. Most treat it as a business.

[HalfSmokes]

The teams with the big long term contracts are the most valuable franchises. The ones without are worth less.  I think it was more knowing it would hard to compete and needing to restock the system. Rizzo trying to save his job.

The teams with lots of big contracts are the teams in markets which will support lots of big contracts which are more valuable than markets that won’t

[Natsinpwc]

The teams with lots of big contracts are the teams in markets which will support lots of big contracts which are more valuable than markets that won’t

The Nats had one of the highest payrolls for several years. Are you saying they lost money? I don’t believe that even with the MASN fiasco. 

[CowherPower]

Attendance will undoubtedly drop again next year and probably beyond without a competitive team and any stars.

Yup, attendance will drop like a rock from the already low attendance this year.  What are the odds the Nats lower my ticket price next year by the 20% that they jacked it up going into this year?  Actually, they should lower it by 30% or more considering they won't be competitive for at least the next two years.