Like us on Facebook


Follow us on Twitter





Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 19
  1. #1
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Philadelphia
    Posts
    109,686

    Nationals can only afford to re-sign 1 of Strasburg, Rendon, says owner


  2. #2
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Philadelphia
    Posts
    109,686
    Welp.... what is their payroll? is it really hard to fit both under the luxury tax?

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    9,078
    Quote Originally Posted by More-Than-Most View Post
    Welp.... what is their payroll? is it really hard to fit both under the luxury tax?
    They're close to 80 million under the tax right now. So even if they want to use the tax number as an excuse, they easily could sign both. Personally, I don't think the tax threshold has anything to do with most teams payrolls. I think it's an artificial number that they use to justify not spending more money. If a team can pay let's say 220 million, they can certainly pay 240 million.

    Washington has never gone over the threshold, so their penalty would be minimal. If they get to let's say, 220 million, their penalty would be 2.4 million. That's hardly a deterrent.

    To me it's clear that they can pay both, but are choosing not to.
    Last edited by thawv; 12-06-2019 at 10:44 AM.

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    Annapolis MD
    Posts
    16,702
    Quote Originally Posted by More-Than-Most View Post
    Welp.... what is their payroll? is it really hard to fit both under the luxury tax?
    So they've got to pay Scherzer and Corbin right now, plus deferred money down the road. They have deferred money this year to pay Strasburg. Trea Turner is due a hefty raise in arbitration this year. Juan Soto will eventually reach arbitration. There's some decent money tied up next year in veterans like Eaton, Sanchez, Gomes, Suzuki, Kendrick, Doolittle, and they still have some additional moves to make besides Rendon or Strasburg. For example, who plays first base? The bullpen needs work. If they let Strasburg walk for Rendon, how do they fill the spot in the rotation. If they bring back Strasburg instead of Rendon, does Kieboom play 2B or 3B? Who do they sign to go there instead.

    Ultimately, I think it boils down to not wanting to spend a whole lot of money on two guys who are 30 or older on their downsides, especially when they have to pay Turner and Soto coming up here very soon.

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Phanland
    Posts
    7,176
    Quote Originally Posted by thawv View Post
    They're close to 80 million under the tax right now. So even if they want to use the tax number as an excuse, they easily could sign both. Personally, I don't think the tax threshold has anything to do with most teams payrolls. I think it's an artificial number that they use to justify not spending more money. If a team can pay let's say 220 million, they can certainly pay 240 million.

    Washington has never gone over the threshold, so their penalty would be minimal. If they get to let's say, 220 million, their penalty would be 2.4 million. That's hardly a deterrent.

    To me it's clear that they can pay both, but are choosing not to.
    $20 million sounds like a hell of a profit to have or add on to me. To assume they have the money purely because they pay $220 million is unfair.

    I know because though I pay my employees more than anywhere doing the same job, I know there is still a ceiling.

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    9,078
    Quote Originally Posted by thefeckcampaign View Post
    $20 million sounds like a hell of a profit to have or add on to me. To assume they have the money purely because they pay $220 million is unfair.

    I know because though I pay my employees more than anywhere doing the same job, I know there is still a ceiling.
    My point is that the money is there regardless. It's just not what they're willing to spend. And I don't blame them for having a budget, like every other team has.

    The 2019 number have not been made public yet, but in 2018 they spend 59% of their revenue on payroll. That's very high. Most teams spend in the mid 40's percent wise. They only netted a 7% profit that year.

    I can now see why they would like to cut back.

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Phanland
    Posts
    7,176
    Quote Originally Posted by thawv View Post
    My point is that the money is there regardless. It's just not what they're willing to spend. And I don't blame them for having a budget, like every other team has.

    The 2019 number have not been made public yet, but in 2018 they spend 59% of their revenue on payroll. That's very high. Most teams spend in the mid 40's percent wise. They only netted a 7% profit that year.

    I can now see why they would like to cut back.
    Again, you are assuming that they have the money.

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    9,078
    Quote Originally Posted by thefeckcampaign View Post
    Again, you are assuming that they have the money.
    I am

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    Annapolis MD
    Posts
    16,702
    Quote Originally Posted by thefeckcampaign View Post
    Again, you are assuming that they have the money.
    The amount of deferrals would indicate that there might be a cash flow issue.

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    9,078
    Quote Originally Posted by ThomasTomasz View Post
    The amount of deferrals would indicate that there might be a cash flow issue.
    Excellent point.

  11. #11
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    Brooklyn
    Posts
    35,608
    Quote Originally Posted by ThomasTomasz View Post
    The amount of deferrals would indicate that there might be a cash flow issue.
    Hard to believe when Lerner is the richest owner in professional baseball. I get payroll is based on revenue but cash flow shouldn't be an issue. If the Nationals wanted to keep both, they could. They don't need to though coming off a WS win.

  12. #12
    Join Date
    Dec 2018
    Posts
    2,111
    Strausberg would be significantly harder to replace than Rendon.

    They have Keiboom to replace Rendon.

  13. #13
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Corona, Ca
    Posts
    16,460
    Looks like they chose Strasburg over Rendon.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

  14. #14
    Join Date
    Dec 2018
    Posts
    2,111
    We'll see if Rendon is also willing to take a deferral to stay, but the dodgers want to pay a lot on a short term contract, so we'll see.

  15. #15
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Philadelphia
    Posts
    109,686
    Quote Originally Posted by ciaban2.0 View Post
    We'll see if Rendon is also willing to take a deferral to stay, but the dodgers want to pay a lot on a short term contract, so we'll see.
    the nats wouldnt be able to improve anywhere else without going over the cap i think if they go sign rendon... deferring does nothing against the actual luxury tax and aav.

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •