Enter Boswell
The Post's main baseball columnist finally decides to weigh in on the Nats, firing a reasoned, well-argued shot across the '07 version of Stan Kasten's "PLAN!"
Tasty excerpts:
"If you're rebuilding, it helps to lose 90. Worse than that serves no purpose. And, once you've made your peace with such losing, it's hard to calibrate how low you'll fall. It's a dangerous game."
"The Nats' new owners may not fully appreciate the risk they are taking. Baseball has many levels of "bad." How lousy can a Nats team be, and for how long, before the potential fan base, which seemed huge when 33,708-a-game turned out in '05, starts to dwindle? Can that shrinkage become permanent? For that matter, does Kasten understand the depth of ill-will that Washington harbors toward baseball after 33 years of being played for suckers?"
"But what if he's [Kasten and his plan] wrong? The proper analysis of any plan includes focus on worst-case possibilities."
"the Nats are playing a high-stakes game in which they bet that Washington fans are sophisticated or patient enough -- or gullible enough -- to embrace a horrible team that didn't have to be bad. The Nats have a respectable everyday lineup and a solid bullpen. If the Nats go 56-106, it was a war of choice."
"The Nationals should rethink what now appears to be their plan for radical inactivity in '07. You don't damage a team's fundamental morale or ruin your relationship with your fans by losing 91 games. But there is some number of defeats -- and it's a lot less than 119 -- that may cause the Nats far more damage than they imagine possible. When you're building -- long-term or short -- penny wise is almost always pound foolish."
Well said, Mr. Boswell.
Though I suspect they'll take this under about as much advisement as they took your $5 million plan to revitalize RFK or your request for them to chip in for a limestone facade at the new stadium.
Tasty excerpts:
"If you're rebuilding, it helps to lose 90. Worse than that serves no purpose. And, once you've made your peace with such losing, it's hard to calibrate how low you'll fall. It's a dangerous game."
"The Nats' new owners may not fully appreciate the risk they are taking. Baseball has many levels of "bad." How lousy can a Nats team be, and for how long, before the potential fan base, which seemed huge when 33,708-a-game turned out in '05, starts to dwindle? Can that shrinkage become permanent? For that matter, does Kasten understand the depth of ill-will that Washington harbors toward baseball after 33 years of being played for suckers?"
"But what if he's [Kasten and his plan] wrong? The proper analysis of any plan includes focus on worst-case possibilities."
"the Nats are playing a high-stakes game in which they bet that Washington fans are sophisticated or patient enough -- or gullible enough -- to embrace a horrible team that didn't have to be bad. The Nats have a respectable everyday lineup and a solid bullpen. If the Nats go 56-106, it was a war of choice."
"The Nationals should rethink what now appears to be their plan for radical inactivity in '07. You don't damage a team's fundamental morale or ruin your relationship with your fans by losing 91 games. But there is some number of defeats -- and it's a lot less than 119 -- that may cause the Nats far more damage than they imagine possible. When you're building -- long-term or short -- penny wise is almost always pound foolish."
Well said, Mr. Boswell.
Though I suspect they'll take this under about as much advisement as they took your $5 million plan to revitalize RFK or your request for them to chip in for a limestone facade at the new stadium.
posted by Chris Needham at
11:46 PM
7 Comments:
Whoda thunk the Lerner group would come in and spend LESS money to field a team than MLB? Does this qualify DC as a small market team now?
By
Anonymous, at 12/06/2006 8:49 AM
In the short term, they're definitely running it as such.
I wonder if they're going to collect revenue-sharing money next year? (I'm not kidding!)
My biggest concern is whether they're going to actually make the commitment to running this franchise with about the same level of financial commitment as the Phillies. They're probably our closest competitor in terms of revenue generation, but that would also take a doubling of the $45 million or so payroll that'll limp out onto the field next year.
By
Chris Needham, at 12/06/2006 9:09 AM
Well....if Captain Leatherpants escapes his leash, imagine the splash of having Barry's farewell tour of the NL be in a Nat uni. It has many of the ingredients necessary: an appearance of trying to help the game, an appearnace of trying to improve the team, a close-to-guarantee that it'll only be for a year, an appeasement to the fans who want money spent, regardless of talent, plus the extra added bonus of having the Washington Nationals on a Hall of Fame plaque in the near future.
By
Anonymous, at 12/06/2006 9:10 AM
Boswell's best line was: "Does Kasten understand the depth of ill will that Washington harbors toward baseball after 33 years of bein played for suckers? By August there might be more people watching stadium construction than are watching the Nationals."
By
Anonymous, at 12/06/2006 9:53 AM
Now you all know why I didn't take the Nats job as manager.
By
Anonymous, at 12/06/2006 9:55 AM
We can always count on Boswell to toe the populist sentiment in these columns.
Why does everyone insist on damning the Nats to PERPETUAL cheapness and non-competitiveness after ONE offseason?
Why? Is it for lack of anything else to say? If we're still talking about this in 2010, then I'll be ready to throw them under the bus, too. Until then, everyone needs to calm down.
By
Brandon, at 12/06/2006 4:12 PM
And we can always count on Kriner when we want hyperbolic condescension. ;)
If you think Boz is damning them the way you said, then I think you haven't read Boz.
By
Chris Needham, at 12/06/2006 5:03 PM
Post a Comment
<< Home