I wasn't in anyway defending the O's numbers, though it's true that foreign invasions play a large part in their revenue numbers and their ticket sales.
However, the Orioles at one point in time, had a loyal base. It's just getting beaten down by the fact that ownership is awful. If they ever were to win again, they could get fans back there. They're one of two big tickets, and that's pretty much it.
There's no track record to say the Nats will get there. They have a ton to compete for revenue, though the Redskins mismanagement will certainly help them out.
The attitude of the average baseball fan, not lucky enough to be in one the have markets, is that of the average European football fan who does not happen to live in Madrid or London or Barcelona, Manchester or Munich or Milan. The MLB system is predisposed to reward a small collection of teams whose power dwarfs that of teams organized ostensibly to compete with those same behemoths. Do you give it up altogether or adjust expectations?
Most fans in Europe root for their local favorite team to achieve small victories, and adopt one of the Titans for the big dance. In baseball, I'm a Yankee fan (some residual impact of my time in NJ) late in the year, but I cheer for the Nationals, however improbable that they can win it all without the checkbook and the cachet.
Drake, plenty of teams outside of Boston, New York and LA win championships. In fact, the team with the second most championships in the history of the MLB is the Cardinals (as you know I'm sure). The Diamondbacks, the Marlins, the White Sox have all won in recent memory, Detroit has threatened multiple times, the Rays are positioned to be a perennial contender, the Blue Jays and Royals are on the come, the Nats are on the come in a big way, the Braves have had fantastic success stretched over a long period of time, the Rangers were a garbage franchise, went bankrupt and are now positioned to be perennial contenders etc. The NBA is far more of a blue blooded league than the MLB. There is literally no reason why the Nats can't annually contend for the pennant. None. We'll see how it unfolds soon enough I suppose.
To be fair, since you made the Oriole comparison, the Orioles' figure is doubly inflated by the fact that the Sox and Yanks pack their stadium twice as often as the Philly fans pack the Nats stadium, so even if you removed those three teams from both club's schedule, the Nats would still have sold appreciably more tickets to games than the O's did. In fact, the margin would probably be wider. And the Nats have literally done nothing to galvanize the locals here in any appreciable manner. IN THEIR HISTORY. 0 winning seasons, 0 buzz prior to any season about them actually winning anything of note etc. This is without a doubt the nadir of their existence from a fan support perspective, and I don't think it's unreasonable at all to expect a sizable leap in fan support from where they are now in the future considering the pieces that will be assembled here in the next few years and the general thirst this region has for a winner of any type. Win and I have no doubt that there will be an avalanche of support for this team, especially if the O's continue to flounder and they are able to more thoroughly consolidate the fandom in the metro area.
When I first moved here the O's were still in Memorial Stadium and they were very popular. Drew very well. When Camden was built they sold out most of their season regularly for a few years I believe. Then Angelos came in and drowned the franchise so even the hard core fans stayed away. The O's have a history and a fan base, even if its deep-buried. From what I've seen here, the Nats are more like a hobby to people. There's no history except maybe with the few die hards who are still here that supported the Senator teams.
Nats Park is nothing special. The team is nothing special. The team has had some downright awful seasons and that turned a lot of people here off to baseball, even if the market is great for it. They draw big if the opposition fans come in, Strasburg pitches (and even that novelty was wearing off down the stretch), or if its July 4 and even that's not a guarantee. The team is a consistent loser and is boring. I went to six games last year and saw a grand total of five runs scored by the Nats. Even if the pitching is solid they have gaping holes on offense that still haven't been addressed. I agree with you, the Lerners have cash. But they don't spend it. Assuming they will is what it is, a complete guess. Harper might be an answer, hopefully he'll come up and be a solid .300 hitter and jack 30-40 HRs a season. But baseball history is full of super-prospects that came up to the major level and fizzled. Personally I don't think he'll fizzle, I think he's the real deal, but you never know.
Bottom line is this city is fair-weather. The Nats need to put a winner out there and the fans will come. The Lerners need to spend money. Assuming all that is going to happen is just hopeful thinking.
Side baseball note: Wife and I were going through some old photo albums last weekend and I found some pictures I took at Old Comiskey Park in Chicago in the 80s. Saw a beer vendor sign...Miller Lite...$2.50 for a 16 oz beer. Nowadays that's what, $10-$11 at most stadiums? Sigh.
I wasn't in anyway defending the O's numbers, though it's true that foreign invasions play a large part in their revenue numbers and their ticket sales.
However, the Orioles at one point in time, had a loyal base. It's just getting beaten down by the fact that ownership is awful. If they ever were to win again, they could get fans back there. They're one of two big tickets, and that's pretty much it.
There's no track record to say the Nats will get there. They have a ton to compete for revenue, though the Redskins mismanagement will certainly help them out.
I have to run to a meeting, but I'll respond to your post as soon as I'm able to. I don't want you to think that I'm ignoring you or anything.
When I first moved here the O's were still in Memorial Stadium and they were very popular. Drew very well. When Camden was built they sold out most of their season regularly for a few years I believe. Then Angelos came in and drowned the franchise so even the hard core fans stayed away. The O's have a history and a fan base, even if its deep-buried. From what I've seen here, the Nats are more like a hobby to people. There's no history except maybe with the few die hards who are still here that supported the Senator teams.
Nats Park is nothing special. The team is nothing special. The team has had some downright awful seasons and that turned a lot of people here off to baseball, even if the market is great for it. They draw big if the opposition fans come in, Strasburg pitches (and even that novelty was wearing off down the stretch), or if its July 4 and even that's not a guarantee. The team is a consistent loser and is boring. I went to six games last year and saw a grand total of five runs scored by the Nats. Even if the pitching is solid they have gaping holes on offense that still haven't been addressed. I agree with you, the Lerners have cash. But they don't spend it. Assuming they will is what it is, a complete guess. Harper might be an answer, hopefully he'll come up and be a solid .300 hitter and jack 30-40 HRs a season. But baseball history is full of super-prospects that came up to the major level and fizzled. Personally I don't think he'll fizzle, I think he's the real deal, but you never know.
Bottom line is this city is fair-weather. The Nats need to put a winner out there and the fans will come. The Lerners need to spend money. Assuming all that is going to happen is just hopeful thinking.
Side baseball note: Wife and I were going through some old photo albums last weekend and I found some pictures I took at Old Comiskey Park in Chicago in the 80s. Saw a beer vendor sign...Miller Lite...$2.50 for a 16 oz beer. Nowadays that's what, $10-$11 at most stadiums? Sigh.
After some years in which the league struggled to keep pace with the Yankees and Red Sox, there is now a clutch of teams that includes NYY, Boston, St. Louis, Philadelphia, Texas, Los Angeles Angels, Chicago WS, Detroit, San Francisco, maybe Minnesota. A few teams that spend but rarely contend in, say, the Cubs and Mets. Perhaps one or two more that aren't coming to me right now. The point being is that there is a larger group than there was just a few years back, and that's good for the game.
Yet outside of that top echelon of teams, even if it is growing until it's a solid third of the league, it's fairly bleak from a winning-it-all standpoint. A Milwaukee is a bit of an outlier, an exception proving the rule. The Nationals? Good story here in town, and it's a hell of a lot of fun to take in a game from time to time. I very much enjoy going to a game. They're a long way off, though. How long? At least five years, and that's a very long time in sports terms to wait until your club is even competitive in September. You have to work at being sanguine enough to give them a shot in even the medium term to do some serious damage, possible even win a championship. They're still run like an expansion club, they don't spend to the level of the big clubs.
Fun fact: Everyone knows two, maybe three or four clubs spend above the others. Exclude them from the equation. Now look at the next tier of teams, the teams that have actually enjoyed recent success. Those clubs spend twice as much as the Nationals, in the $115-$125M range on payroll.
I wish I could find the article, but there was a study done recently (before last season, I think) that showed that while there wasn't necessarily a direct correlation between having the highest payroll and winning the World Series, there was a HUGE correlation between high payroll and making the playoffs.
The whole MLB system is broken. Except in very rare circumstances (Tampa), the 'haves' are at a serious advantage over the 'have-nots'. The one vehicle that's supposed to even the playing field between bad teams and good teams is the draft. It doesn't. Big-money organizations are able to spend more on bonus demands, and thus get more out of the draft than small-money teams. And unless they have superb contacts, small-money teams aren't going to beat the big-money teams to the major international prospects either.
So you're left with a cycle that sees teams able to spend big in free agency, make the playoffs, and continuously replenish their farm systems with top talent by throwing money at the problem. Whereas the smaller budget teams have to hope that the few top talents they are able to acquire progress to a point that allows them to compete for a short window.
The MLB needs to either drop any pretense that they care about competitive balance, and scrap the draft and allow buying and selling of players (a la European soccer), or implement hard draft slotting, no draft pick compensation for high payroll teams losing FAs, and an international draft.
They already implemented a pretty strict slotting system moving forward. The problem is that hurts the small(ish) market teams way more than the big ones. You know who spends big on the draft? The Pirates. The Nats. The teams that don't spend on big FAs.
The harder slotting systems make things more slanted towards the big teams. Many high talent MLB draftees have other options, unlike hockey players, that's why the ability to go overslot is so important for some of them especially if you're not an instantly desirable team.
They definitely need to do more to fix it, but the latest fix (severe slotting restrictions) is going to make things worse for the have-nots, not better.
I don't think strict slotting by itself helps small market teams much at all. It needs to be combined with everything else. Sure, Pittsburgh and Washington spend a ton at the draft (a large portion of that is signing their top-10 picks), but then the American League Champion is able to go out and get a 25 year-old, ready-made #2 starter by spending $50M just to negotiate with him.
And the new slotting restrictions, while stricter, still don't prevent the big boys from over-slotting. Paying overages and losing draft picks is nothing to Boston or New York. They'll just easily regain 1st/2nd rounders by letting some of their type A/type B FAs walk. Those overages and lost draft picks are a big deal to Pittsburgh and Washington.
I don't know if I'd even call the new restrictions 'strict'. 'Strict' restrictions are pretty simple - don't approve the contract if it's over slot.
After some years in which the league struggled to keep pace with the Yankees and Red Sox, there is now a clutch of teams that includes NYY, Boston, St. Louis, Philadelphia, Texas, Los Angeles Angels, Chicago WS, Detroit, San Francisco, maybe Minnesota. A few teams that spend but rarely contend in, say, the Cubs and Mets. Perhaps one or two more that aren't coming to me right now. The point being is that there is a larger group than there was just a few years back, and that's good for the game.
Yet outside of that top echelon of teams, even if it is growing until it's a solid third of the league, it's fairly bleak from a winning-it-all standpoint. A Milwaukee is a bit of an outlier, an exception proving the rule. The Nationals? Good story here in town, and it's a hell of a lot of fun to take in a game from time to time. I very much enjoy going to a game. They're a long way off, though. How long? At least five years, and that's a very long time in sports terms to wait until your club is even competitive in September. You have to work at being sanguine enough to give them a shot in even the medium term to do some serious damage, possible even win a championship. They're still run like an expansion club, they don't spend to the level of the big clubs.
Fun fact: Everyone knows two, maybe three or four clubs spend above the others. Exclude them from the equation. Now look at the next tier of teams, the teams that have actually enjoyed recent success. Those clubs spend twice as much as the Nationals, in the $115-$125M range on payroll.
Metro St. Louis isn't a big market in any sense of the word. The Cards have developed a national following and super fervent fans through maintaining a highly successful organization over the span of their history (in the same way that the Packers and Steelers have some of the largest fanbases in the NFL despite playing in small markets. St Louis is a larger market than both of those metro areas, but it's never been described as a large market in any sport). It's important to make that distinction I think because it does give hope to similarly situated organizations that there isn't an impenetrable cap on how thoroughly you can stir the national consciousness. If you are expertly run and wildly successful over a sustained period of time, you too can develop a national following .
In terms of the other clubs you mentioned, Washington as a metro area slots right in with the Bay Area and the Dallas/Ft. Worth metroplex (Boston and Philadelphia too in terms of sheer size, but Boston obviously is NE's team and a national team for that matter which adds to it's aggregate total of fans, and the Phillies have an extensive history in Philadelphia and the surrounding regions that have allowed it to consolidate virtually all of the fan support in that area, thereby maximizing the number of fans in the region), and DC Met is significantly larger than Detroit and Minnesota. The t.v. market breakdown is a little different, but again, the D.C. met is in shouting distance or above every market I mentioned. I'm aware that market size isn't the final determinant in fan appeal, Detroit clearly has more voracious fans than Washington at this point despite playing in a smaller market, but imo and in the opinion of quite a few people who have examined the Nats prospects going forward, the DC area is arid land thanks to the city of DC not having a team for an extended period of time and the O's putrid ways, and it's just waiting to be cultivated.
The point is, those handful of teams that you mentioned that raised themselves from their former station to be able to spend well enough to contend on an annual basis did it through securing a profligate t.v. deal AND increasing gate revenue through an improved product on the field. The Rangers for example had a payroll around 100 million dollars two years ago (correct me if I'm off on that figure a touch, I'm doing this off of recall), and most of their team was developed through good drafting, smart trades (Napoli and Hamilton are the best examples of this, the Tex trade brough back a gaggle of contributors and prospects and the Cliff Lee trade gave them an ace to lead their rotation down the stretch), and a handful of free agent signings. San Fran was a team that had virtually no premier hitters when they won the series (aside from a young Buster Posey, cost controlled), and developed their pitching superbly (and were a bit fortunate in terms of their pitching health). Anyway, they had success, drove up the demand for tickets, increased their viewership numbers substantially, reworked or completely renegotiated their t.v. deals, and now, Texas in particular, have swaths of cash to spend. Remember, the Rangers were the butt of jokes not too long ago, bankrupted themselves partially because of the A Rod deal (although there is disagreement on how much of a factor that actually played in the matter), and were not in any way big gate attractions for a significant period of time.
The Nats aren't fortunate enough to be able to freely shop their television rights, but they are up for renegotiation very soon, and there have been articles in the Post with independent evaluators predicting that their revenue stream from that source could as much as triple this year. Thats significant. They also increase their share of the MASN network one percent each year until they reach 33 percent ownership of the station, and the advantages of the stadium deal helps mitigate the inadequacies of their television arrangement relative to a Texas or similar positioned club (helps, doesn't bring them to parity with).
The point is, the Nats are likely to be able to handle the payroll you outlined in the very near future. We don't know exactly how Lerner intends to run this club with that much potential added revenue because it hasn't happened, but I suspect that he'll increase spending. The incentives in doing so are too significant not to imo in this fairly unique circumstance (a consistent and serious contender would help wrestle away the attention and perhaps loyalty of despondent O's fans in our own metro area, thereby consolidating the Nats fanbase and positioning itself truly to be a large market dynamo, a stronger hand at the negotiating table when the t.v. arrangement is set to be renegotiated again, packed houses and increased merchandise and condiment sales, increased value of the franchise etc.). I think Zuckerman projected their payroll to be around 80 million dollars this season, they'll handle that figure VERY easily, and again, that's before the renegotiated and ascending television deal improvement AND the improvement in attendance that some expect (I was about to type most, but there is disagreement here on the subject) once they start competing for playoff berths with marquee attractions on the docket (Rendon, Harper and hopefully Stras consistently). We'll find out soon enough though, wont we?*
*The last line isn't directed at you personally Drake, but everyone that's been involved in the discussion. I'm not in position to be able to spend the time to continually counter every post on the matter unfortunately, so I just wanted to conclude my statements on the matter thusly.
I do appreciate the spirited discussion from all concerned parties though. Good stuff.
Last edited by TheFountainhead: 02-11-2012 at 12:08 PM.
The O's have a history and a fan base, even if its deep-buried. From what I've seen here, the Nats are more like a hobby to people. There's no history except maybe with the few die hards who are still here that supported the Senator teams.
Nats Park is nothing special. The team is nothing special.
The Nats have to create their own history given the fact that their franchise, at least in terms of their existence in DC, is a fledgling one. We agree on that much, but there are plenty of Nats fans already that aren't hobbyist. My wife and I are season ticket holders, I personally know a multitude of season ticket holders that are avid fans, and there is the potential for so much more. Strong fanbases are generally developed through success on the field, roots ensconced in a city over time and the history and connective tissue that is formed by both or either. The Nats haven't had time to develop any of those things, but the potential is very likely there. Fervor will grow in the city proportional to the development of the team, and once those roots are laid, I'm of the opinion that a strong fanbase will be developed. There's some guess work in nearly every prediction admittedly, but I think it's very reasonable to assume things will unfold that way should the Nats continue to improve.
Nats park is a nice park, certainly nice enough not to dissuade paying customers from attending games. I'm of the opinion that beyond the magical attraction of a handful of parks, people come to see the team(s) playing. PNC Park and OPACY have looked like ghost towns at points over the years because of a horrendous on field product, and the park in San Fran, to me the most beautiful park I've been to by a wide margin saw attendance sky rocket after the team got good, which suggests that the park and the beautiful view of the Bay wasn't enough in itself to sell out consistently.
It's not clear to me what you mean by the team not being special. If you mean the collection of players assembled by the organization presently to perform for the city isn't great, I'd agree (although they are certainly a viable MLB caliber team now, which is a change). They also have the potential to be a special group imo if Harper and Rendon live up to expectations and Strasburg is able to stay healthy over the long haul. If those things happen, the core of this team will be dynamite, and additional pieces can be added to supplement the group.
If you meant the organization isn't special relative to the other great organizations in baseball (Cards, Yanks, Red Sox and Dodgers most notably), you're right, but who the **** cares. The team is damn sure special to me and other Nat fans, and I expect the number of people inclined to believe in the 'specialness' of this group to grow over time. But honestly, and I really mean this, I damn sure don't care how special people in Chicago or anywhere else feel this organization is.
The Nats have to create their own history given the fact that their franchise, at least in terms of their existence in DC, is a fledgling one. We agree on that much, but there are plenty of Nats fans already that aren't hobbyist. My wife and I are season ticket holders, I personally know a multitude of season ticket holders that are avid fans, and there is the potential for so much more. Strong fanbases are generally developed through success on the field, roots ensconced in a city over time and the history and connective tissue that is formed by both or either. The Nats haven't had time to develop any of those things, but the potential is very likely there. Fervor will grow in the city proportional to the development of the team, and once those roots are laid, I'm of the opinion that a strong fanbase will be developed. There's some guess work in nearly every prediction admittedly, but I think it's very reasonable to assume things will unfold that way should the Nats continue to improve.
Nats park is a nice park, certainly nice enough not to dissuade paying customers from attending games. I'm of the opinion that beyond the magical attraction of a handful of parks, people come to see the team(s) playing. PNC Park and OPACY have looked like ghost towns at points over the years because of a horrendous on field product, and the park in San Fran, to me the most beautiful park I've been to by a wide margin saw attendance sky rocket after the team got good, which suggests that the park and the beautiful view of the Bay wasn't enough in itself to sell out consistently.
It's not clear to me what you mean by the team not being special. If you mean the collection of players assembled by the organization presently to perform for the city isn't great, I'd agree (although they are certainly a viable MLB caliber team now, which is a change). They also have the potential to be a special group imo if Harper and Rendon live up to expectations and Strasburg is able to stay healthy over the long haul. If those things happen, the core of this team will be dynamite, and additional pieces can be added to supplement the group.
If you meant the organization isn't special relative to the other great organizations in baseball (Cards, Yanks, Red Sox and Dodgers most notably), you're right, but who the **** cares. The team is damn sure special to me and other Nat fans, and I expect the number of people inclined to believe in the 'specialness' of this group to grow over time. But honestly, and I really mean this, I damn sure don't care how special people in Chicago or anywhere else feel this organization is.
Well...that's great you're an avid fan. That's great you know others. Fact remains is that they're still not drawing near to what their potential is for this area, and the numbers, much like Baltimore's are no doubt inflated. I said before I went to several games last year and the attendance was listed "officially" as mid-20k range...when I could probably tell you maybe half that were actual butts in the seats.
The Nats have had seven seasons here to build a fan base and show progress. Last year was improvement but for the most part they've had some really awful seasons and their most prominent marketing scheme was to market directly to the good citizens of Philadelphia. Instead of focusing on putting a half-decent product on the field, the Lerners and their stooge Kasten marketed seats in Philadelphia, something the organization is only now trying to rectify, after many shameful invasions by Phillies fans.
The team isn't special because other than Zimmerman and Strasburg they've got nothing to really be excited about, Harper notwithstanding. I really wonder if you stopped say, 100 Washingtonians on the street, how many of them be able to name five Nats players? I would bet less than half and probably around a third maybe.
They've got some decent pitching, their numbers were about mid-range for the league. But their offense is weak and much worse, boring. They were 24th in runs last year, 27th in batting avg, 25th in on-base %. They are not going to survive in this division or even sniff the playoffs in the NL without big improvement there. They've had chances to spend money but haven't, unless you count Werth where they stupidly overpaid. Again this offseason went by without looking at upgrading at CF or finding a bona fide leadoff hitter.
Hey that's great they're special to you. I'd love to see them do well also. But the fact is, they're still a mediocre to below avg team that is again most likely not going to make the playoffs. And for this metro area, with its large population and considering its generally more affluent and economically steady than most regions, they have the potential to be packing that park nightly, and they aren't even close yet.
Their pitching will make them a threat this season (if the offense is healthier than it was last season).
Their bullpen was already one of the best in the league, and it should be similar or better (never know how long Clippard will stay as good as he is). Their rotation is now also probably one of the best in the league as long as Strasburg stays healthy.
Then it becomes a question of how the offense shakes out. Does the league figure out Morse? Does Werth come back to something closer to his potential? Is Laroche healthy enough to be an actual contributor? Does Zimn stay healthy? If a few things break their way they're pushing into the wildcard race.
Much of the flaw in the system is also a draft that rewards teams that sign high priced free agents and then turn them over every offseason.
The Yankees, Red Sox and other top clubs will ALWAYS have a deeper farm system because they're getting double and triple the picks of anyone else. The compensation for free agents is highly restrictive on teams who are trying to compete. When someone's getting a first for a player they didn't even want (and they replaced with someone better who they'll keep for 3-4 seasons and get ANOTHER pick for). Type B free agents fill the coffers of the haves and hinder the have nots.
Yes, Pittsburgh and some other bad clubs have spent more on draft picks over the seasons, but in some ways, that's just a by product of the fact that they're drafting in the top 4 or 5 each season, and that they're having to pay a player who might not want to stay in their system.
Going back to the Orioles, they had the best attendance for a good couple of seasons, and very high attendance for a good 10-12 seasons. If there was ever a chance that they could compete (and at least be wild card competitive) you would see them come back. I mean, the hits alone at the Sun when the O's are active in a trade or sign a free agent are absurd. Baltimore is a good baseball town. They could easily be as good as St. Louis is money wise. They have a good tv contract, a good market share, and they play in a lucrative division with solid matchups. they've just been mismanaged from the owner down, and that hasn't helped.
The other problem many of these have nots face is the fact that their scouting and personnel system is paltry compared to the top.
Talking about a league that had a gambling scandal semi-recently that involved the refs and really haven't done anything to increase accountability, though. If anything, they've allowed the refs to take even more liberties.
Mystics have been more active in the last month than the Caps have been in an entire year - acquired two centres (one via trade, one via FA), re-signed face-of-the-franchise Crystal Langhorne, and brought on a decent group for their training camp roster (including Langhorne's former Terp team-mate Laura Harper).
.
