Jump to content
Washington Football Team Logo
Extremeskins

The Washington Nationals Thread: The Future is Near!


Riggo#44

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, Riggo#44 said:

Ok so...

 

Win World Series.

Rizzo wins 2nd Exec of the Year

One of the consistently winningest franchises in baseball over the last 7 years.

Signed Strasburg to a huge contract

Outbid everyone for Corbin last year

Consistently one of the highest payrolls

While Red Sox, Astros, Cubs are all crying poor and looking to shed salary. Cole is the Yankees 1st big contract they've signed in how long?

 

What part isn't working for you?

 

You did see the subsequent correction where I said not optimal right?  They should have paid two years of cbt penalty to keep Rendon (or make a bigger push for it than 7/215).  Rizzo doing a great job with the budget he's given doesn't mean that the Nats coming off the WS shouldn't increase the budget.

 

You really think this team can legitimately contend the last two years of Scherzer's deal without a huge additional outlay?  They are going to have to spend to replace Rendon and fix the pen.  The only thing standing between making a full push for Rendon vs trying to outbid the remaining musical chair participants for 34 year old Donaldson was money (and let's not get started with talks of trading the farm for Bryant or Arenado).  When the Nats have plenty of extra revenue coming in from WS, they should spend it.

 

I'll also add that big spending teams reset the penalty precisely so that they can spend when needed.  Rizzo did his job and constructed a WS roster while reseting the tax heading into the free agency of your best hitter.  It's a mistake for ownership to not greenlight 5-10 million in additional spending to allow Rizzo to offer a market value contract to Rendon.

Edited by bearrock
Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, bearrock said:

You did see the subsequent correction where I said not optimal right?  They should have paid two years of cbt penalty to keep Rendon (or make a bigger push for it than 7/215).  Rizzo doing a great job with the budget he's given doesn't mean that the Nats coming off the WS shouldn't increase the budget.

 

You really think this team can legitimately contend the last two years of Scherzer's deal without a huge additional outlay?  They are going to have to spend to replace Rendon and fix the pen.  The only thing standing between making a full push for Rendon vs trying to outbid the remaining musical chair participants for 34 year old Donaldson was money (and let's not get started with talks of trading the farm for Bryant or Arenado).  When the Nats have plenty of extra revenue coming in from WS, they should spend it.

 

Fair enough. However, they aren't done either.

 

How many teams have handed out 2 7 yr ~250m contracts to 30-ish aged players? How did that work out for said team?

 

You keep saying "spend this" "spend that" but you never acknowledge the risk of giving two massive contracts like that to two aging players with injury histories. What happens if both Stras and Rendon start to get injured more and decline in 3 years? They're stuck with ~$70m, for 4 more years.  Giving Rendon $35m next year puts them over the tax--without addressing anything else.

 

You know who did that? The 2009-2011 Phillies. They saddled themselves with terrible contracts, extending everyone, and still haven't had a winning season.

 

I really don't want Donaldson either. I would prefer to find a trade somewhere--let Rizzo work his trade magic.

 

As for contending after Scherzer? Absolutely we can. Will we? Depends. Depends on a very wide number of factors. The reality is we have a great GM, with an ownership that is willing to spend--but are going to spend smartly.

 

I'm going to go back to the record--what the Nats do works.

 

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

27 minutes ago, Riggo#44 said:

 

Fair enough. However, they aren't done either.

 

How many teams have handed out 2 7 yr ~250m contracts to 30-ish aged players? How did that work out for said team?

 

You keep saying "spend this" "spend that" but you never acknowledge the risk of giving two massive contracts like that to two aging players with injury histories. What happens if both Stras and Rendon start to get injured more and decline in 3 years? They're stuck with ~$70m, for 4 more years.  Giving Rendon $35m next year puts them over the tax--without addressing anything else.

 

You know who did that? The 2009-2011 Phillies. They saddled themselves with terrible contracts, extending everyone, and still haven't had a winning season.

 

I really don't want Donaldson either. I would prefer to find a trade somewhere--let Rizzo work his trade magic.

 

As for contending after Scherzer? Absolutely we can. Will we? Depends. Depends on a very wide number of factors. The reality is we have a great GM, with an ownership that is willing to spend--but are going to spend smartly.

 

I'm going to go back to the record--what the Nats do works.

 

 

 

You can't keep Rendon if the budget is at or around the cbt.  Phillies gave contracts to Howard, Utley, and Rollins and decided to stay under the cbt.  That would be exactly the wrong approach.  If you're going to leverage championship revenue to future competition, they would have to spend above and beyond cbt.  If ownership doesn't allow that then yeah, you hold firm on a line with Rendon.  Which is why I blame ownership, not Rizzo.

 

And obviously we can contend after Scherzer.  I'm talking about not wasting Scherzer's remaining years.  That's going to take significant investment at this point.  And I'd much rather the Lerners spend money than dip into the farm for trades.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm against trades right now. Our farm is one of the thinnest out there. Clearly it was at one time quite fruitful, but those days are over because our best prospects either developed into stars or were traded away for relief pitching. We need to restock, which our new crop of top flight talent will allow us to do.

 

It would be fun to have Bryant on the team, but it ain't happening for a price I would be OK with. I would rather us find a decent stopgap to let Kieboom ease into his role than trade him and someone else for Bryant or blow a bunch of money on Donaldson. After all, that money could be used to extend one of our young stars or in solidifying a shaky bullpen. There are many interesting avenues available to us.

 

And you know what's great? No matter what happens, no one can take our championship away from us. It'll always be ours.

Edited by Bacon
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 hours ago, Spaceman Spiff said:

 

They are kinda, yeah.  Except they have the best player in the sport, one who'll probably be in the top 10 in history at this rate.  When the NFL top 100 list came out earlier this year I don't think there was a Redskin on it.

 

I was thinking about it last night, just straight up as a baseball fan I hate that they haven't been able to build around Trout.  It'll be a real shame if that guy goes his entire career playing for an organization no one really cares about...and they never figure out how to build around him, he makes a couple more playoff appearances and never wins a ring.  He would be the Ted Williams of this generation.

 

Maybe, but people still know who Ted Williams was and respect his accomplishments.   Too bad he went 0-4 in Game 7 in his only World Series appearance.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Riggo#44 said:

 

 

I really don't want Donaldson either. I would prefer to find a trade somewhere--let Rizzo work his trade magic.

 

 

 

 

I agree 100% We are very much on the same page here.  All of the reports of Donaldson/Bryant and I can see Rizzo making some back door move to bring in somebody completely unexpected with tremendous value.  He has such an excellent track record.  I’ll trust in him.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, bearrock said:

 

You can't keep Rendon if the budget is at or around the cbt.  Phillies gave contracts to Howard, Utley, and Rollins and decided to stay under the cbt.  That would be exactly the wrong approach.  If you're going to leverage championship revenue to future competition, they would have to spend above and beyond cbt.  If ownership doesn't allow that then yeah, you hold firm on a line with Rendon.  Which is why I blame ownership, not Rizzo.

 

And obviously we can contend after Scherzer.  I'm talking about not wasting Scherzer's remaining years.  That's going to take significant investment at this point.  And I'd much rather the Lerners spend money than dip into the farm for trades.  

 

Yeah. We are probably going to be awful. If we aren't going to have a 230m payroll why bother?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, -JB- said:

I agree 100% We are very much on the same page here.  All of the reports of Donaldson/Bryant and I can see Rizzo making some back door move to bring in somebody completely unexpected with tremendous value.  He has such an excellent track record.  I’ll trust in him.

 

I'm wondering how in on Donaldson we are. A 4 year deal for him would be insane. I could see him having 1 good year, and then breaking down 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, Riggo#44 said:

 

Yeah. We are probably going to be awful. If we aren't going to have a 230m payroll why bother?

 

Yeah, why bother debating what the other person actually wrote instead of putting words in their mouth.  Yup.  So many times where I said Rizzo is terrible and Nats will suck. 🙄

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So while I played baseball for 20 years and know the game, I'm not as up on the financial aide of things.  Is all this deferred money going to kill us down the line?  I know Scherzer and Stras are have deferrals, and they tried the same with Rendon.  At some point, does that start counting as dead money on the "cap" the Lerners have.  Because it seems like enough deferrals would force the team to be gutted down the line when all the bills come due.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, -JB- said:

I agree 100% We are very much on the same page here.  All of the reports of Donaldson/Bryant and I can see Rizzo making some back door move to bring in somebody completely unexpected with tremendous value.  He has such an excellent track record.  I’ll trust in him.

 

Jose Ramirez of the indians could fit that bill. His numbers were down last year, but he's a recent 2x all-star on a very friendly contract

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, bearrock said:

 

Yeah, why bother debating what the other person actually wrote instead of putting words in their mouth.  Yup.  So many times where I said Rizzo is terrible and Nats will suck. 🙄

Because you literally said you didn't want to waste Scherzer's remaining years, and that's going to take a significant investment. So, a bit of a hyperbole, but that's exactly your approach.

 

Plus, you keep saying spend, spend, spend, and talking about exceeding the CBT like it's nothing--without acknowledging any of the ramifications or risks. So if you want to address those points, instead of parroting the same thing over and over, I'll happily continue. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Riggo#44 said:

Because you literally said you didn't want to waste Scherzer's remaining years, and that's going to take a significant investment. So, a bit of a hyperbole, but that's exactly your approach.

 

Plus, you keep saying spend, spend, spend, and talking about exceeding the CBT like it's nothing--without acknowledging any of the ramifications or risks. So if you want to address those points, instead of parroting the same thing over and over, I'll happily continue. 

 

 You do agree that they will need to replace Rendon's bat to contend right?  Barring Kieboom being another Soto, we can't just plug him in, sign a good but not premier infielder and say we're a contender.  I'm sure Rizzo will do the best he can with what he's allowed to do.  That doesn't mean he wouldn't have had a much easier job with higher potential with additional head room.  We're down to sign Donaldson, mega trade for a star, or pull a rabbit out of a hat with a trade steal.  Going above cbt for two years is much easier than any of the above.

 

Long term contracts always have risks.  And if you have a career ending injury and two players who never live up to their big contracts, you'll have to scrap and rebuild like the Phillies. 

 

Zimmerman's contract aged horribly due to injury.  But teams can survive a bad contract.  You look at the production, age, and style (power vs contact) and take a calculated risk.  If Rizzo was willing to offer 7/215, even with deferment, it means Rendon is risk worthy.  I certainly hope you don't share the seeming opinions of some that there's some arbitrary line where no position player is worth the money. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, Forehead said:

So while I played baseball for 20 years and know the game, I'm not as up on the financial aide of things.  Is all this deferred money going to kill us down the line?  I know Scherzer and Stras are have deferrals, and they tried the same with Rendon.  At some point, does that start counting as dead money on the "cap" the Lerners have.  Because it seems like enough deferrals would force the team to be gutted down the line when all the bills come due.

 

No, because I don't think those deferrals count against the CBT--which is one of the reasons the Nats do it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

29 minutes ago, Forehead said:

So while I played baseball for 20 years and know the game, I'm not as up on the financial aide of things.  Is all this deferred money going to kill us down the line?  I know Scherzer and Stras are have deferrals, and they tried the same with Rendon.  At some point, does that start counting as dead money on the "cap" the Lerners have.  Because it seems like enough deferrals would force the team to be gutted down the line when all the bills come due.

 

Cap hit is calculated within the years of the contract, so it wouldn't have league rule consequences.  But Lerners may or may not factor that in to make internal budgetary decisions.

Edited by bearrock
Link to comment
Share on other sites

33 minutes ago, Forehead said:

So while I played baseball for 20 years and know the game, I'm not as up on the financial aide of things.  Is all this deferred money going to kill us down the line?  I know Scherzer and Stras are have deferrals, and they tried the same with Rendon.  At some point, does that start counting as dead money on the "cap" the Lerners have.  Because it seems like enough deferrals would force the team to be gutted down the line when all the bills come due.


Scherzer will make $30m this year for CBT purposes. But $15m of that won’t be paid out until 6 years after his contract ends. 
 

Deferrals don’t make a difference one way or the other for CBT. But, and this is a big but... if the Lerners are used to maintaining a $150m player payroll (what they are actually paying out), what happens when all the sudden they have $40m in deferrals being paid out every year? Still going to be a top 5 payroll team? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, bearrock said:

Going above cbt for two years is much easier than any of the above.

 

But, again, Rendon's salary this year puts us at the CBT (if not over, I am not sure the exact amount) without any one else: not Zimmerman, not any bullpen help, not any more bench help, no trades at the deadline, none of the arbitration increases for players like Turner, and 10 empty spaces on the 40 man roster. You're not looking at "just going over the CBT for two years." You're approaching the 2nd tier of the CBT--where our picks are dropped 10 spots, we lose significant International signing bonus money, and are taxed something like 30%.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, skinsfan_1215 said:

Deferrals don’t make a difference one way or the other for CBT. But, and this is a big but... if the Lerners are used to maintaining a $150m player payroll (what they are actually paying out), what happens when all the sudden they have $40m in deferrals being paid out every year? Still going to be a top 5 payroll team? 

 

The only thing they've ever really commented on is staying under, or just around the CBT.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, StillUnknown said:

 

It solves one problem while creating another. I love Michael A. Taylor, but bench player for a reason. His bat simply isnt good enough to play everyday 

 

Agreed, and while I think Taylor's defense is decent, Robles is already elite and should get better with the bat which was already pretty good to begin with.  

 

Donaldson at third for a couple years makes some sense even though he's getting older and the defense isn't what it was, it's still solid.  He had a great year last year at the plate.  Robles + Donaldson is better for a couple of years than Taylor + Bryant.  

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, Riggo#44 said:

 

The only thing they've ever really commented on is staying under, or just around the CBT.


I guess they can just keep using deferrals indefinitely. Maybe eventually the value of the team rises to the point that they sell off part of their stake and pay out all the deferrals... 

 

Just don’t love the idea of using the credit card approach to running the team. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, skinsfan_1215 said:


I guess they can just keep using deferrals indefinitely. Maybe eventually the value of the team rises to the point that they sell off part of their stake and pay out all the deferrals... 

 

Just don’t love the idea of using the credit card approach to running the team. 

 

For me, the proof is in the pudding. We are continually successful and competitive. At this point, I fully trust how the Lerners and Rizzo handle this financial aspects of contracts.

 

It's easy to overlook the Nationals are doing this without one of the major sources of revenue: TV revenue.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Spaceman Spiff said:

 

Agreed, and while I think Taylor's defense is decent, Robles is already elite and should get better with the bat which was already pretty good to begin with.  

 

Donaldson at third for a couple years makes some sense even though he's getting older and the defense isn't what it was, it's still solid.  He had a great year last year at the plate.  Robles + Donaldson is better for a couple of years than Taylor + Bryant.  


If the market pushes Donaldson beyond the Nats comfort zone, I’d strongly consider having Kieboom at 3B as plan A. It’s risky given the uncertainty about his defense and how he will do at the plate over a full season, but there are about a half dozen FA 2B that will be far cheaper than Donaldson and don’t involve trading prospects. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...