Originally Posted by Brutus the Pimp
D.C. isn't exactly Cincinnati, Kansas City or Milwaukee. The Nationals have more wiggle room to take this kind of risk. Their revenue is better than a lot of clubs because of their stake in a sports network along with the Orioles. If a team that can only budget $60-70 million errs on a player making $18 million, that's a problem because they'd be hamstrung. But the Nationals can probably afford to take that chance a little more.
They're not the Yankees or Red Sox, and for that reason, they do have to be more careful and make sure they commit to developing players. But I don't think they'll be poverty-stricken if this Werth deal is a bust.
IMO, Washington is potentially a sleeping giant, not unlike the Phillies were, 10 years or so. They've got potential to sell a lot of expensive tickets there, they just need to give people a reason to come.
The Werth deal is risky for sure. Not sure that I'd do it. They've been trying to get a marquee player for years. They tried to get Texeria, but had to settle for Dunn. Dunn has left now, so they are hoping Werth can fill the void and be an upgrade. It's a risky move, for sure, but comparable to us overpaying for Cordero in hopes of jump starting a winning season and becoming relevant again. I can see why they'd do it. It's a calculated risk. It would've been better if they only had to commit for 3-4 years, but that wasn't going to get the job done.
Thank you Walt and Bob for going for it in 2012 AND 2013!
Nov. 13, 2007: One of the greatest days in Reds history: John Allen gets the boot!