Disagree. Club control is about actually having players and keeping them. Cap space is about not having players but having the ability to acquire some in the future. I would suggest they run directly counter to each other.
Nats fans and DC sports "fans" in general
- Thread starter adp98
- Start date
NickleDimer
Post 'Til Your Fingers Bleed
Disagree. Club control is about actually having young talented players and not using them until they fit into your X year plan. And then sometimes you screw them up in doing so or you call them up and they don't pan out. And you just set yourself back another couple years at that position.
My understanding is that most of the Nats' bullpen is under club control for the foreseeable future, which sounds like it is very comforting to the teams' fans and all fits within Rizzo's Gold Standard. Clippard was coming to the end of his club control window, so he had to go.
Lost in all this as well is that, despite adp's insistence that the Lerners are the richest owners in baseball, from what I've read recently they will not spend, particularly for in season acquisitions, and force Rizzo to operate within a fairly tight budget, even with much higher payroll now than in past years. The Scherzer signing probably handcuffed them a bit as well. They are lucky to even have Papelbon given those constraints.
Lost in all this as well is that, despite adp's insistence that the Lerners are the richest owners in baseball, from what I've read recently they will not spend, particularly for in season acquisitions, and force Rizzo to operate within a fairly tight budget, even with much higher payroll now than in past years. The Scherzer signing probably handcuffed them a bit as well. They are lucky to even have Papelbon given those constraints.
I always thought the most important part of club control is having guys under control as a reasonable price while they are still productive.
Lowry, Ted Lerner walks around with a piece of paper in his wallet that has every dollar allocated to Nats players for the next three years. They will spend as they have in the past. However, they will operate on a budget and stick to it. However, the Scherzer deal is a perfect example. Lerner negotiated this deal by himself with Boras. The only people who knew about the signing until they called the press conference was Boras, Ted and Mark Lerner. He told Boras if he leaked the signing to the media the deal was off. Lerner created the contract himself and was able to get Boras/Scherzer to agree to all the deferred money. He's a very interesting owner and the richest on in MLB. However, I doubt there is another owner in sports who walks around with a piece of paper in his wallet with all his salary obligations over the next three years.
NickleDimer
Post 'Til Your Fingers Bleed
Adp, your Lerner description is definitely consistent with operating within a budget and sticking to it. It's a far cry though from an owner with deep pockets and a willingness to spend, since he got a sweetheart deal from DC on the stadium and was granted much of the surrounding land to build condos and such (gentrifying very well), as I remember you had implied in the past. That said, I'm guessing that with the TV deal being substandard and Nats attendance being what it is (ok and better but never great), he doesn't make as much on an operating basis as he'd like.
Sounds like Nats will have more or less a small market mentality as long as he owns the team. I.e., will be hard to work around mistakes like the R. Zimmerman deal, and rocks like the Werth contract and probably the Scherzer deal, even with deferred money. Will need to jettison a Clippard here and there even if not best for the team.
and I'm guessing they trade Harper 18 months or so before he goes FA at the latest, to try to maximize the haul of club controlled assets in return.
Sounds like Nats will have more or less a small market mentality as long as he owns the team. I.e., will be hard to work around mistakes like the R. Zimmerman deal, and rocks like the Werth contract and probably the Scherzer deal, even with deferred money. Will need to jettison a Clippard here and there even if not best for the team.
and I'm guessing they trade Harper 18 months or so before he goes FA at the latest, to try to maximize the haul of club controlled assets in return.
If you look at their payroll they operate about where they should. And yes, he got a sweetheart deal and will continue to make money hand over fist in his development business. He simply will not lose money on the Nats as that's not in his DNA. I don't know how you can call a team with a payroll of $163 mllion, 6th in the league small market. However, don't let the facts get in the way of making your argument. That sound you just heard was me dropping the mic.
So your definition of a small market mentality is defined by an organization's ability to "work around mistakes"? At this point, only the dodgers are loony enough to throw that much money around. Those days are over for the red sox and the yanks.