I replied to someone earlier that was 2024 is really about is "clarity"
At the time I meant it to be about how the management felt about the team. They are evaluating the young players that were in hand. If they deem them to be a competitive core they will supplement in the off-season. If they don't, they will either cheap out and plod along or do a minor sell-off of some young talent OR they will commit some resources to buy the Nats into competitiveness, if only the fringes.
But now I'm thinking it's more than that. It's clarity for this organization as a whole. From 2005-2018 Ted Lerner ran the team, and although he had his penny-pinching ways, he was committed to making this team a winner. We saw when the core emerged, the Nats put money forth to maintain a level of realistic contention. The Nats were never all-in but they were willing to put forth reasonable deals in places that they needed and had the fortune of that judicious spending being complemented by a couple of generational draft picks and a lottery ticket of an international signing coming through.
It's likely that in this juncture Ted would have run the team similar to what we've seen. That's how it was run 2005-2010. Nothing extraneous, just put a team on the field and wait. But the assumption that they'll put in money in a Werth like move - a pre-contention move to signify seriousness - we can't count on that and it didn't in fact happen.
It could be it not working out with who's available or the money currently on the books or these kids not meriting that type of FA move. Or it could be that this management doesn't think that way anymore.
It could be that if the players do seem to form a competitive core the Nats won't get those extra players in the off-season.
We don't know anymore.
We have a ownership group where at least the bulk of them seem like they want to sell. It could be the goal is keeping this team cheap for that purpose, only waiting until the MASN rights are re-aligned from the Orioles sale.
Add to this we have a GM who's telling a beloved player who is broken to get down to Florida most likely because that's what the owners want. It was rumored it was about settling that contract. Trying not to pay him all and get it off the books. We've heard words suggesting different, but all the actions seem to say that is what it is. What does that say about the GM? That he knows this is the last stop so don't anger the bosses? That he simply wants the money free as well? What FA is going to look at this and not at least think about it (even if $$$ win out 9 out of 10 times)
What we are getting now is clarity. We will continue to get this clarity in all aspects of this team. Is this team a mess? Is it simply spinning wheels until a sale? Or is it all just a matter of a single bad PR move and some bad timing making things internally look worse than they really are?
21 comments:
So I'm supposed to feel sorry for a "beloved player" who gave us 30 IP for $265 million? I don't think so. If Strass doesn't want to rehab and doesn't want to fulfill even a tiny part of his massive contract, then all he has to do is say here's $50 million back leave me alone.
And if that's too much, he's earned that money and by god he's going to take it, then I say get your ass to Florida and stop whining. It was bad enough when you could throw, now that you won't it's beyond annoying.
I didn’t realize Jonathan Papelbon even read this blog….
Looking for clarity on the dust-up last August/September between Nats and Strass. One version is that there was an agreement between Stass and the Nats and it was vetoed by the league, perhaps with MLBPA input. Another version is that the agreement was only with Mark and that the other Lerner family members wouldn't sign off on it. Yet a third version is that the Nats were ham-handed and disrespectful and shouldn't be surprised to be seen as the villains.
Also, the "it" has never been clear to me. The contract is fully guaranteed. The $245 million might show up over a lot of years (per the deferrals in the contract), but no one can deprive Strasburg of the money. Was there an attempt to get a settlement, whereby Stras got money sooner but not quite all of it? Both parties could agree to that--hardly an unusual trade-off in business negotiations and not inherently unfair to Strassburg.
How, exactly, are the Nats mistreating or inappropriately leveraging Strassburg. If they are--the team is the villain, but it seems like it should be clearer where the unfairness lies.
I don't really know what Anon's beef is with Strasburg, but I feel better about him getting that money than I would with the Lerners keeping it. Tysons Corner is a nice enough mall. A WS championship is much nicer.
It's inconceivable that the team thinks they can manipulate Strasburg into giving up money. His money is guaranteed. If the Nats want a roster spot, they are free to waive or cut him. If he doesn't want that, then there's conceivably a deal to be made (though the players union may prove to be a barrier if the amount of money is more than very small).
If there's no deal/waiver/retirement, then Strasburg is under contract and he ought to do what the people paying him say he ought to do. Strasburg is well within his rights to say "I'm collecting every last of those $245 million dollars" (which is almost certainly what I would do and what I would tell him to do if I was his agent). But if he takes that position, then there's no complaint if his bosses tell him to go to Spring Training.
Anon @ 11:27 - Feel sorry? No. Not even if his arm is really basically dead. You're supposed to feel however you want to feel. I don't feel sorry for him. He got glory and more money than anyone could need at the cost of his arm. It was a trade-off he understood might be possible. Also, I don't feel sorry for the Lerners. Strasburg can't rehab - that's pretty well agreed upon by all parties - and the contract all parties agreed to was he'd be paid X dollars for Y years to try to pitch. Bad luck but they owe him. It's simple.
Anon @ 11:55 - even more surprising given I always sided with Bryce. But I can see him as a self-hater
Steven - The "IT" is unclear you are right. Let's assume it ISN'T version three "Bad Guy Nats". That's an easy one to take sides. Let's assume Stras agreed to sign off on getting less money with some member of the Nats for whatever concessions. Someone said "no, we can't let that happen" ok so we're stuck. Why then still make him come down for Spring Training? You know he doesn't want to and you didn't care if he did (see last year). Even if it is necessary and you want to stick it to say... the MLBPA or someone that nixed the deal why make that a pointed remark? You can say "The MLBPA expects Strasburg to be here, so we do as well" letting the blame fall where it should. Instead the onus is put on Strasburg with the way they are talking about it. At least to me.
"We hope Strasburg would be here to help the team" is pointed. He wasn't hired to be a motivator or a coach. He was paid to pitch. He can't pitch. That should be the end of it, even if the team wished he'd do more bc that'd make them feel better.
It may be ungracious for the team to expect anything from Stras at this stage. I can't even imagine why, given Strasburg's self-absorbed introversion, anyone thought he was emotionally capable of helping the young staff, let alone graciously embracing the community of fans, players and management that supported him through good times and bad (see: Zim).
On the business side, some teams insure player contracts, according ESPN. I'm hoping the Nats did in this case.
Go become a Yankees or Phillies fan if your going act like, no one wants people like you around nats park thinking like that.
He signed a contract to pitch; he can't pitch. I am not a contract lawyer, but I don't believe they could ask him to do the team's laundry instead of pitching. Can they ask him to coach? I don't think so. So why on earth would they possibly force him to go to spring training? Can only be out of spite, which is very sad given his illustrious career with the Nats. Management seems to be doing everything possible to alienate its fan base; unless better owners show up on the horizon, hard to see anyone buying tickets.
The Nats being petty and doing a poor job of PR shouldn’t really surprise anyone. That’s pretty much the organization’s MO. Beat us in arbitration? You are out the door. Refuse to take less money? See you in Florida. I say that last bit tongue in cheek as we truly don’t know all of the details. But the Nats reputation and their PR pretty much make this a lose-lose situation for them. When it was clear Stras was done, the organization’s first impulse should have been what can we do to put this situation in the best possible light for all involved? Instead, they have allowed themselves to look like a petulant teenager (regardless of the facts).
And now they’re no longer for sale…
The combo of Orioles being sold and Lerners taking a sale off the table for now is a prelude to GOOD NEWS over the next 6 to 10 months. There are fighters (Angelos) and there are dealmakers (Rubenstein and Lerners). Fixing the contract/unwinding the relationship was always possible (really!), just not with Angelos.
MASN will go away as issue when the dealmakers are in change. Then the Lerner's can make a clean decison to sell or recommit. As noted here and in the WP, today was a temporizing move by the Lerners, but is still real progress.
Given Leonsis owns Monumental, and he was the only real suitor (as far as we know), of course MASN was a sticking point in that negotiation. With the O's sale, the Lerners should get clarity over the next few months and Leonsis may come back to the table, or more likely, a number of other suitors come running that aren't media moguls and don't have to deal with the MASN headache
Yeah, that’s the legitimate optimistic take. Rubenstein definitely has a reputation as more of an adult than the Angeloses, but I worry the Lerners could be looking for too much. Seems like they may have operated around break-even/in the red for a couple years and want to really inflate their profit, first on the sale that didn’t happen and maybe now by not signing *anyone*.
*But maybe if MASN money’s split evenly that changes…
Very rich people (especially dealmakers) want to be lauded (and make money), not buy headaches and uncertainty, especially not to squeeze out a few extra dollars. The MASN deal was bad, but fixable. But who would want to buy into a fight with Angelos, who seems to have been content to litigate for a decade for marginal benefit. He created a lot of misery and disfunction for his own stubborn pleasure.
In place of Peter Angelos and Dan Snyder, the sports scene in the mid-Atlantic now has two dealmakers (David Rubenstein and Josh Harris). The Lerners are right to reevaluate and see if they want to be in business with the 28 other MLB owners minus Angelos and share a town/region's sports scene with more amicable people minus Snyder.
Many of the comments (here and elsewhere) imply that the Orioles sale sets the market for the sale of the Nats. Not so. DC is a bigger media market and owning a team here brings far more prestige than owning one in Baltimore. The Commanders were sold for $ 6 billions; the last prior sale--the Denver Broncos--was $4.5 billion. Baltimore's 101 win season and stocked farm system are far from the biggest factor in how teams are valued.
The Orioles currently own a large portion of the Nats’ TV rights, which is the most valuable part of a sports franchise. Nats might be worth less than the $1.75B Rubenstein just paid.
@Anon, it's been reported all over that MASN is essentially worthless and didn't factor into the price paid for the O's. https://www.forbes.com/sites/mikeozanian/2024/02/16/why-masn-was-given-no-value-in-17--billion-sale-of-baltimore-orioles/?sh=4d84be755e5f
Regardless, the dispute definitely factored in to the pricing for the Nats because a) legal fees/headaches and b) not actually being paid their fair share. Now the Lerners can take a step back and try to settle things with more sane owners across the negotiating table. Once MASN is mostly "solved", I fully expect the team to be up for sale again, and they can likely expect a number around the Cohen number
Rights = / = MASN
Anon 2:29 you are correct that broadcast rights are very valuable, CP, you are right that MASN is now worth nothing.
By picking a fight rather than negotiating something reasonable...and by litigating for more than a decade, Angelos took a sweet asset and destroyed it. This point is not lost on Rubenstein,, who would have never made the mistake to begin with. The great MASN war is effectively over, even though it may take time to unwind.
Post a Comment