Nationals to fire Acta; replaced by Riggleman

[Guest]

All the Nats really need is a few more outfielders.

[jersey cubs fan]

Sad thing is, I'd bet just about everything that I own that the Washington Nationals will win a World Series before the Chicago Cubs will.

 

That's a stupid bet.

 

I'm sure someone said the same thing about the Diamondbacks and Marlins when they were expansion teams and being terrible.

 

Both of those teams had owners who aggressively purchased players in order to win in the short-term, and they won in their 4th year. The Washington Nationals are in their 5th year (if you don't count the 36 in Montreal) and so far have just gotten worse each season.

[apete6]

Sad thing is, I'd bet just about everything that I own that the Washington Nationals will win a World Series before the Chicago Cubs will.

 

That's a stupid bet.

 

I'm sure someone said the same thing about the Diamondbacks and Marlins when they were expansion teams and being terrible.

 

Both of those teams had owners who aggressively purchased players in order to win in the short-term, and they won in their 4th year. The Washington Nationals are in their 5th year (if you don't count the 36 in Montreal) and so far have just gotten worse each season.

 

How were the Rays in their 5th year? And, while they didn't win it, they were in the WS last year.

[jersey cubs fan]

How were the Rays in their 5th year? And, while they didn't win it, they were in the WS last year.

 

They weren't referenced in the earlier post. But they sucked for a long time before finally being run properly. Still, they were a little lucky to get there, still lost, and probably won't be back in the playoffs this year. Washington would have to seriously change course to get to that level of play. The Cubs are much better off. Regardless of the woe is me attitude amongst Cubs fans, there's no good reason why they can't win a WS before the Nationals.

[SouthSideRyan]

Sad thing is, I'd bet just about everything that I own that the Washington Nationals will win a World Series before the Chicago Cubs will.

 

That's a stupid bet.

 

I'm sure someone said the same thing about the Diamondbacks and Marlins when they were expansion teams and being terrible.

 

I forgot we're cursed or whatever stupid [expletive] you're basing this on

[apete6]

Sad thing is, I'd bet just about everything that I own that the Washington Nationals will win a World Series before the Chicago Cubs will.

 

That's a stupid bet.

 

I'm sure someone said the same thing about the Diamondbacks and Marlins when they were expansion teams and being terrible.

 

I forgot we're cursed or whatever stupid [expletive] you're basing this on

 

How about the fact that we're under .500 in a terrible division, all of our best players are on the downside of their careers and have terrible hamstringing contracts, the team can't add payroll for the foreseeable future, the new owner will likely be more concerned with remodeling the stadium/surrounding area than adding payroll because the fans come either way, and we have a terrible GM and manager that aren't going anywhere soon. Other than that, though, we're awesome.

 

Nationals will have a nucleus of Ryan Zimmerman, Stephen Strasburg, and Bryce Harper and we'll have Soto, Theriot, and Fontenot. Obviously we'll probably be better than them for the next 3 years or so, but I wouldn't consider the Cubs favorites for the World Series unless there are some serious changes that don't appear to be on the horizon.

[jersey cubs fan]

, the new owner will likely be more concerned with remodeling the stadium/surrounding area than adding payroll because the fans come either way,

 

The fans don't really come either way. Attendance only really skyrocketed once they started contending with regularity. Decreasing win totals will result in fewer tickets being sold, especially the big money tickets. People seem to forget it was extremely easy to get Cubs tickets in the 90's. February sell-outs were unheard of. When they first sold tickets online it was easy. Multiple successful seasons and playoff appearances changed that. But had they not turned around the 2005/2006 failures they would never have continued to sell the way they did in 2007 and 2008.

[Jehrico]

Sad thing is, I'd bet just about everything that I own that the Washington Nationals will win a World Series before the Chicago Cubs will.

 

That's a stupid bet.

I don't know, I'd call it a push.

 

We're an old team right now, our window is closing fast with the core we have in place right now. If we don't win it this year, or maybe next year, we're not looking good beyond that. We don't have the farm system nor the personnel in charge to quickly rebuild our franchise once we bust up the core to this team that we have right now. The Nats have some promise in the farm and could have have a good team in a few years if the ownership commits the resources necessary to bring in quality vets to fill the holes their farm doesn't. We're going to have to catch lightning in the bottle or work some very creative trades for some prospects to posture ourselves to be successful into the middle of the next decade. Or Vitters is going to have to become the next Babe Ruth.

[Coach C]

While we're talking about tbe Nationals/Expos team, one must find (if it hasn't been thought of/discussed) it interesting/odd that the Expos logo, if turned upside down, it's closely resembles a "W"

 

http://nationalsreview.wordpress.com/2007/05/

[manbearcub]

very odd that an upside down M would resemble a W

[ISUCubsFan]

I think some of you are greatly overestimating the chances of the Nats winning a title in the near future. They might have a very good team for a few years if they get Strasburg and Harper, have them reach their potential, keep Zimmerman, and get a few more pieces. That's a lot of things that need to happen, especially for a team with their current payroll. Even if most or all of that happens they're still not very likely to win a title in that window. The Cubs will have most of their payroll freed up after 2012, so unless the Nats close the spending gap (doubtful) or hire a great GM I'll take the Cubs in this bet.

[dew1679666265]

Sad thing is, I'd bet just about everything that I own that the Washington Nationals will win a World Series before the Chicago Cubs will.

 

That's a stupid bet.

I don't know, I'd call it a push.

 

We're an old team right now, our window is closing fast with the core we have in place right now. If we don't win it this year, or maybe next year, we're not looking good beyond that. We don't have the farm system nor the personnel in charge to quickly rebuild our franchise once we bust up the core to this team that we have right now. The Nats have some promise in the farm and could have have a good team in a few years if the ownership commits the resources necessary to bring in quality vets to fill the holes their farm doesn't. We're going to have to catch lightning in the bottle or work some very creative trades for some prospects to posture ourselves to be successful into the middle of the next decade. Or Vitters is going to have to become the next Babe Ruth.

 

I don't think we're that far off contending again. I expect us to be competitive again in 2010 and then likely struggle some in 2011 (though we may still be able to be competitive).

 

But then in 2012, we'll have $80 million available if we don't raise payroll a bit from where it is now. I don't expect 0 payroll increases over the next four years, though it could happen. We will have a lot of holes to fill with that $80 million, but if we make some smart moves we can contend. Then in 2013 we have just $19 million currently committed - contending then won't be an issue at all.

[Hairyducked Idiot]

How often does $80 million available in one offseason really turn a team around?

 

The best players don't often hit free agency, and $80 million can run out pretty fast.

[dew1679666265]

How often does $80 million available in one offseason really turn a team around?

 

The best players don't often hit free agency, and $80 million can run out pretty fast.

 

The $80 million doesn't have to be spent entirely in that one offseason. Some can be used for valuable pieces in the next couple of seasons if any come available and some of the needs might be filled through the minor leagues.

 

It's obviously no guarantee that we'll contend for the world series in 2012, but at the same time, there's no reason we have to be a bad team until 2015 or later.

[SouthSideRyan]

How often does $80 million available in one offseason really turn a team around?

 

The best players don't often hit free agency, and $80 million can run out pretty fast.

 

Seriously? $80 Million could sign 4 MVP caliber players.

[jersey cubs fan]

How often does $80 million available in one offseason really turn a team around?

 

The best players don't often hit free agency, and $80 million can run out pretty fast.

 

Seriously? $80 Million could sign 4 MVP caliber players.

 

Yeah, but if you sign them in the middle of November it will run out fast.

 

 

The other point stands though, there isn't likely to be 4 MVP caliber players available. Hendry would spend much of that on middle relievers and versatile bench guys.

[dew1679666265]

How often does $80 million available in one offseason really turn a team around?

 

The best players don't often hit free agency, and $80 million can run out pretty fast.

 

Seriously? $80 Million could sign 4 MVP caliber players.

 

That $80 million is also assuming we keep our payroll at $130 million through the 2011 offseason. The luxury tax by then, however, will be $178 million or more.

 

If Ricketts is willing to go high enough, we could have as much as $120 million available by the start of that season.

[dew1679666265]

The other point stands though, there isn't likely to be 4 MVP caliber players available. Hendry would spend much of that on middle relievers and versatile bench guys.

 

Like I said, it's unlikely that we'll go into that season with only three players under contract. Once Ricketts takes over there will likely be some contracts signed.

 

I doubt they will be of the Soriano size, but as certain guys' contracts run out (Lee, Lilly, Bradley, etc) I would expect more to be signed. The quality of those players will play a large role in our ability to contend in 2011 and 2012.

 

My main point by throwing out that dollar figure was just to point out that we'll have a large part of our payroll available to commit to players by 2012 and don't have that many big deals still on the payroll by then.

[Hairyducked Idiot]

The other point stands though, there isn't likely to be 4 MVP caliber players available. Hendry would spend much of that on middle relievers and versatile bench guys.

 

And what four MVP caliber players will be hitting free agency in that time frame?

[dew1679666265]

The other point stands though, there isn't likely to be 4 MVP caliber players available. Hendry would spend much of that on middle relievers and versatile bench guys.

 

And what four MVP caliber players will be hitting free agency in that time frame?

 

Between 2010 and 2012? I'd guess a few - doesn't Pujols come available by then? How many major FAs generally come available in a 3 year period?

[SouthSideRyan]

And free agency isn't the only way to acquire players that make a lot of money.

 

None of this is to say the Cubs will have 80M to spend in any offseason, but saying 80M doesn't buy you much is absurd even by Kyle's standards.

[Hairyducked Idiot]

And free agency isn't the only way to acquire players that make a lot of money.

 

None of this is to say the Cubs will have 80M to spend in any offseason, but saying 80M doesn't buy you much is absurd even by Kyle's standards.

 

Name the players you'd like to acquire in the next three offseasons, with an expected asking price of $80 million, and start plugging in how many wins above replacement or average you think that team will be.

 

Pujols, if he reaches the open market, would be a wonderful start and probably put them over the top no matter what the spent the remaining $50-$55 million on. But I doubt he's available.

 

Big-money free agents are hit-and-miss at best, and the MVP-caliber ones are few and far between.

 

Yes, free agency is not the only way, but then you are trying to compete with other teams in terms of prospects and not cash, and that's not a competition the Cubs will often win.

Edited July 15, 2009 by Hairyducked Idiot

[Hairyducked Idiot]

$80 million in players in 2009 will buy you:

 

Alfonso Soriano

Aramis Ramirez

Derrek Lee

Ryan Dempster

Ted Lilly

Kosuke Fukudome

 

But I'm sure the next bunch of big-money players we acquire will always have good seasons and never get hurt.

[dew1679666265]

$80 million in players in 2009 will buy you:

 

Alfonso Soriano

Aramis Ramirez

Derrek Lee

Ryan Dempster

Ted Lilly

Kosuke Fukudome

 

But I'm sure the next bunch of big-money players we acquire will always have good seasons and never get hurt.

 

$80 million in players in 2009 will also buy you:

 

Torii Hunter

Vladimir Guerrero

Bobby Abreu

Bobby Fuentes

Juan Rivera

John Lackey

Chone Figgins

 

We'll have to make good decisions with the money as we won't have much extra, but you definitely can build a good team around $80 million. And there's a decent chance we'll have more than $80 million to commit to 2012.

[WreckingMachine]

Angels will be the most interesting team for me to watch this offseason. A lot of money and "core players" are let off the hook after 2009, but some of them are aging and it would probably be best not to re-sign them (i.e. Vlad).

 

If they use this freed-up money wisely and save some for use after the 2010 season, they'll have one of the better cores in the league beginning in 2011.