I forgot about the bombshell news! This is what happens when you don't actually live in the area of the team you are writing about. The Nats are for sale!
The post is going to cover this WAY better than I can. Barry's just completed Q&A is great. So don't come here for news or anything. If you want a short paragraph summary here goes :
The Lerners, that group is Ted & Wife, and Kids and Spouses (Mark you know, plus two sisters you may not), said they weren't planning to sell the Nats. A few years passed. They are selling the Nats.
The phrasing they've given us is all legal speak and hedging but if you want to parse out some feelings from it this is what I gleam (and Barry and others agree on some points) :
- The ownership makes decisions as a group but it was explicitly said the "next generation" is ready to step in. So it's likely not everyone agrees with the sale, only enough to outvote the others.
- If you were going to guess which person is against the sale Mark makes the most sense, given his role and constant presence. However it could be that the grandchildren want to keep it and the children don't. We don't really know.
- I do think it's really likely Ted is at least at peace with it because man it seems cruel if he wasn't and the children would sell anyway.
- Is this why the Nats sold off in 2021? Probably unlikely. Trading Max / Trea, guys with expiring contracts heading into lean years, to rebuild a sparse farm system made sense unless the Nats were willing to go Dodgers, and there is no indication they were
- Is this why the Nats didn't buy in 2022? You can certainly read it that way. There's a decent argument for getting a SS now with the glut of available guys, setting up the next window. A Werth like deal. Didn't happen.
- It seems likely someone wants money for something but to keep the real estate stuff going... I don't see it. I'm sure the Lerners took a hit real estate wise because of the pandemic. I'm also sure the Lerners are still quite wealthy. Is it possible they need cash now to do something? I guess so, but I don't see where. But I'll admit I'm not a real estate guy.
- Don't buy any "team value" talk. The value never goes down. Well not never but people have been speculating on value crashes for decades. It's not going down anytime soon enough to force this.
- The Nats probably won't be sold locally, unless that local buyer is the highest bidder. They want as much as they can get.
- The Nats won't be moved. Not unless the buyer makes a real compelling argument (re: $$$$$). MLB likes baseball in DC. There are other teams to move. The park is fine. The area is fine.
Is this bad for the Nats? My gut thinking is yes. I think it'll be hard for the Nats to make any big commitments while setting up for sale. It's too appealing to a number of buyers to have the team as cheap as possible going in and let them do what they want. If this drags it could very well run into the "gotta sign Soto" time frame and that means you trade Soto.
Also it's bad because the Lerners were ok. Do I think their complete belief in Rizzo has exacerbated Rizzo's own issues (can't build pitching, too short a manager leash on some too long on others)? Yes. Do I think they are overly cheap when they are not good? Yes. Do I think they are pound wise and penny foolish when they are good? Yes. But a lot of owners are just foolish and a lot more don't even have a pound descriptor because they don't spend money. The Lerners spent money. The Lerners committed to being good when it made sense and stuck with it through peaks and valleys. They committed to the city to some degree. You believed they did want to win. Maybe not as often and as much as you did but they weren't out to bilk a fanbase out of cash for decades. They might not have been great owners but they were good ones. The next ones will just be the richest ones available. Great, good, or bad ownership type does not come into play.
This drama will play out for a while so there isn't reason to focus on it until there is actual news. Right now there isn't anything but speculation. I'd say don't get caught up in it but it's not like the season will be compelling.
11 comments:
What do you think about the timing re: the likelihood that Snyder may be forced to sell the Commandos and the Lerners got out-bid in 1999?
As quirky as some Lerner decisions have been, I'll take the under on the next owner being better/spendier.
Thanks for pointing to Barry's Q&A.
Of all the questions fielded, the one about Rizzo worried me the most. Rizzo has to be wondering what's next. He's got his WS trophy, he's accomplished what he wanted in DC. The Lerners were good to him and let him do his job.
Now the tide is out -- and his luck is not so hot any more on trade and FA signings. Lots of work to do. He's got a new wife. The whole Soto thing must be an endless headache.
Unless he was in on the deal (i.e. with Zimmerman and some other moguls), negotiating a new owner's idiosyncrasies might not appeal. He might just decide to cut bait. Then we really do have a reborn organization --- and likely one that isn't as exciting as what we've had for a decade. The personality that Rizzo brought to the team was crucial --- always underdogs punching above their weight.
This system of billionaire sports franchise ownership is a crappy feature of global capitalism. Is it the only way to manage sports? Hate ALL of the potential buyers mentioned in the Q&A. Maybe we can find a pleasant Russian oligarch who wants to move to DC?
Yeah the Lerners weren't great owners, but even being a "good" owner is a pretty high bar to clear apparently when you look at what other teams' owners are like. I don't expect the next owner to be nearly as good. But whoever it is, I hope they come in quickly and spend to win. I don't want this to drag out and then end up with an ownership group like the Marlins
I think the Lerners were above average owners and in expectation the new owner(s) will be worse (though the new group could be better). I think the decision-making-by-committee approach the Lerners took was their worst quality, and the new leadership is likely to be better on that score. But it's all very unknown. Barry seems to think this has been in the works for a while and that the sale may go quickly. If that's the case, then this could be good news for re-signing Soto. But the number of people/families that can afford an MLB team is small, and there is significant variation in terms of whether they'd make for good owners. As for Rizzo, if I pony up $2 billion for something, I want my hand-picked guy to run it. I think Rizzo is further above average as a GM than the Lerners are as owners, so all in all, the sale is probably a bad thing.
The thing that confuses me is that sports franchises have a very high rate of return relative to other assets. Which is partly why it seems they only get sold when someone dies or goes broke -- they're a good enough investment that you only sell if you have to. And unless I missed a memo somewhere, the Lerners are plenty rich and don't need to sell. So, why?
Agree with Harper and everyone else that new ownership is likely to be worse. The other X factor is that it seems like it takes ownership groups a few years to figure things out (cough the Lerners cough) and that could be a great time for us to stupidly let Soto walk over pocket change or sign him to the full Boras $1 billion negotiate against yourself and end up with an anchor contract for years extension.
Congrats to DSG on his first pitching line. It could have gone better, but he got some outs.
kubla - it's never too late in life for a career change
He hit 80 mph!
I think Brady House might be ready for a promotion to high-A. In 5 games for Fredericksburg, he's hitting .500/.560/.682. (11 for 22 with a double and a homer, 2 walks and 7 Ks.)
@NattyDread, well we also have the college sports model, which makes a huge fortune without, you know, paying the actual players, and results in the same small handful of teams winning championships year after year.
Gonna have to workshop some new models, I guess.
Post a Comment