Skip to content

Point/Counterpoint: Would you give Werth $83 million?

Jan 3, 2014, 6:00 AM EDT

USA Today Sports Images USA Today Sports Images

THIS WEEK’S DEBATE: WOULD YOU GIVE JAYSON WERTH A 4-YEAR, $83 MILLION CONTRACT THIS WINTER, IF HE WAS ON THE OPEN MARKET?

MARK ZUCKERMAN: Now here’s an interesting subject. If you take Werth’s 7-year, $126 million contract with the Nationals and remove the terms of the first three years of the deal (which he has now completed), that’s what would remain: 4 years, $83 million. Given the exploding salaries we’ve seen across free agency the last couple of months, it’s not outrageous at all to suggest another club would offer Werth that deal right now. But I wouldn’t. Look, he’s been great for the Nats so far (even with a very disappointing 2011 on his resume). And I think he can still be great for them … for another year or two. It’s the last two years of the deal that concern me (and, honestly, concerned me at the time they signed him in the first place). Werth turns 35 in May. That means the final two years of his contract will come in his age 37 and 38 seasons. Will he be worth $20 million those years? I can’t fathom how he possibly could.

CHASE HUGHES: The fact we are even asking this question is a feather in the cap of Mike Rizzo, who at the time took a lot of heat for signing the aging Werth to such a monstrous deal. But four years later, Werth is coming off one of the best seasons of his entire career and looks much younger than his age of 34 suggests. He’s still owed a lot of money, as you outlined, but I think there are several factors that make him worth it. For one, he does have a great impact in the clubhouse. He commands a lot of respect from his teammates, especially from their best young players such as Bryce Harper. His presence would have to be replaced in some fashion, in my opinion, and it could prolong his overall value. Additionally, Werth was one of the best hitters in the NL last year and kept the Nats afloat. He hit .318 with 25 homers last year, a rare combination of hitting for contact and power. Only eight players in the majors hit at least .300 and had 25 bombs in 2013, and Werth was one of them. The Nats won 86 games last year. How many would they have won without Werth?

MZ: Hey, I’m not in any way suggesting Werth hasn’t been valuable to the Nats. Come to think of it, didn’t I put him 7th on my 2013 NL MVP ballot? Why, yes I did! And I agree with you about the leadership and presence he brings to the clubhouse and the field. But here’s my biggest red flag when it comes to Werth: As good as he’s been on the field the last two years, he hasn’t actually been on the field enough. He has played in only 210 of the Nats’ 324 games. What are the odds of him increasing that percentage as he gets older? Especially in the final two years of this contract? Pretty slim.

CH: The injuries and how many games he’s played is inarguable, you’re right. He hasn’t been able to stay healthy for the Nationals, even last season. I still think, however, he will be worth the money, as long as you get two very good years out of him. Sometimes to get players of Werth’s caliber, you have to take a hit on the back end of their contracts, and as bad as Werth’s durability has been, it gets way worse. Mark Teixeira, for instance, played just 15 games last year while pocketing $22.5 million. Carl Crawford and Ryan Howard — both making at least $20 million — also have been much, much worse deals. Josh Hamilton did not live up to his $17.5 million price tag last year, as well. I guess in the context of the biggest MLB contracts given to position players, Werth has fulfilled his almost as well as anybody. We’ll see which one of us is right on this one in the next few years.

  1. David Proctor - Jan 3, 2014 at 6:15 AM

    I’m not really concerned about Werth hitting, I’m concerned with him staying on the field and playing defense. He’d make a great DH for an AL team. As is, we’ll just have to be more judicious with resting him. Would I give him 4 years/83M? No. But I’d probably give him 3/65, which really just makes the last year of the deal painful. If you had told me that he’d be worth 6 years of his 7 year deal, I’d take it. And so would Rizzo, as Chase said.

    I would add that I think it’s a little bit unfair to suggest he’s not durable for the broken wrist in 2012. That was a freak accident that had nothing to do with age or the body breaking down. I mean the fact is he missed the time, I get that, but it’s not particularly instructive as far as future injuries go moving forward. The hamstring and numerous lower body issues he dealt with in 2013 were a little more concerning to me.

    I’d also point out that while it’s not likely, it’s not impossible that Werth more time on the field than he has the last two years. Carlos Beltran played in only 81 games in his Age 32 season and 64 in his age 33 season. Since then, he’s averaged 146 games and 540 ABs per year. I use Beltran as an example because he played in the NL, meaning he had to play in the outfield like Werth will have to. I understand it’s not the most likely scenario, but has anything about Werth’s career been typical?

  2. Joe Seamhead - Jan 3, 2014 at 7:03 AM

    Game 4′s home run in the 2012 playoffs was probably the greatest AB in the history of Washington baseball. For many of us it was the 126 million dollar justification.But more then anything, the guy’s persona brought the attitude that became Nattitude.I hope that he doles out a double helping of attitude in 2014.

    I don’t see Jayson playing RF for the duration of his contract, nor even being an everyday left fielder in his final two years.If he remains in the outfield for the duration of his career I see him as having a part time starter’s role in left, and coming off of the bench to pinch hit..

    • natsfan1a - Jan 3, 2014 at 4:28 PM

      I don’t do armchair GM financial stuff, but I will say that is my fave in-person Nats moment to date. Also agree on the ‘tude.

  3. sjm308 - Jan 3, 2014 at 7:40 AM

    I love what the Werth deal has brought to this team. Ever since he has arrived, in my mind, baseball here has been just a little more relevant and the results show that. I disagree with David about him being a great DH. That is not something a player like Werth would adapt to after playing in the field for his entire career. I believe it might be difficult to get him off the field in the later years of this contract and hope he will see that the team might benefit from him resting more. I do believe he is a team first kind of guy and his value will continue even if his offense drops (it certainly has to regress some doesn’t it?). Bryce Harper is a better player today and will continue to improve because of what Werth (and maybe even LaRoche) bring to the clubhouse each day. I have written many times here that it is not my money and never will be. I will continue to buy season tickets so yes, that is somewhat my money, but I am all for these guys getting whatever the market bears.

    From the last post – the last 3 comments from Seamhead, SonnyG & JohnC were just uplifting if nothing else. We have a lot to look forward to from this team and its another reason why hope springs eternal and I enjoyed starting my day reading them.

    Go Nats!!

  4. Jw - Jan 3, 2014 at 8:20 AM

    I give him that contract on one condition. It contains a clause that requires him to do an Austin Kearns on Adam LaRoche on the first popup to short right field.

  5. dgourds - Jan 3, 2014 at 8:20 AM

    It’s really not a fair question. His contract is back loaded. Of course he’s not worth 4yrs 83 mil. I’d say only Cabrera is worth that dough. But for 18 mil/yr (126/7yrs), we can have an honest conversation. I’d say the game 4 ab was worth about 10 million on it’s own!

    • pdowdy83 - Jan 3, 2014 at 9:17 AM

      I would have gladly taken Cano at 4/83 and would take Cabrera, Votto, Trout, McCutcheon, and several other players on that contract. The risk is so much lower because they are shorter term deals.

    • Sonny G 10 - Jan 3, 2014 at 12:20 PM

      +1

  6. Hiram Hover - Jan 3, 2014 at 8:51 AM

    The question with these long-term FA deals is not whether they go into the red, but when they do so. In Werth’s case, that probably happens next year or 2015 at the latest, which is still much better than many similar deals.

    I’m surprised neither Chase nor Mark does the back of the envelope WAR calculations (or whatever passes for the back of the envelope in the cyber-age).

    The Nats paid him about $40M over his first three years and he put up ~7.5 WAR, which is probably right at the prevailing FA market rates. The caveat is that more than half of that (4.6 WAR) came last year: he put up 2.3 WAR in 2011 and only 0.7 in 2012.

    Figuring $6M per WAR, Werth needs to put up about 3-3.5 WAR over each of the next 4 seasons. There’s no way he does that–he had the best offensive season last year of his career and won’t repeat it. His defense is weak and will only decline further.

    Those are the cold calculations going forward, but as a fan, I really don’t care. I love how he’s played on the field and the leadership he’s shown. I hope he stays healthy and I look forward to seeing him in a Nats uniform for years to come.

  7. pdowdy83 - Jan 3, 2014 at 9:15 AM

    As far as player aging and regression goes Fangraphs typically docks a player .5 WAR per season as they age. If Werth drops to 4 in 2014, 3.5 in 2015, 3 in 2016 and 2.5 in 2017 the team would more than gladly take that. Those numbers would total up to 20.5 WAR and that would put his total value during the deal at $123mm. That would be 100% totally acceptable in everyone’s eyes I would think.

    Maybe you think he is going to age worse than that. Let’s go with an even more reasonable projection then with 3.5 in 2014, 3 in 2015, 2.5 in 2016 and 2 in 2017. He would still have put up 18.5 WAR in the span of his contract which would be worth $111mm in today’s WAR valuation. The other issue though is the price of a win is going to be far different by the end of his contract vs the start of it. When he signed his deal a win was valued at $5mm and now it is based somewhere around $6mm or a little higher. With the ridiculous spending that is going on and massive influx of money by 2017 his contract may not seem so high. That also holds true for Ryan Zimmerman’s extension. I think that deal is going to pan out as a win EVEN if he moves to 1st. Guys like Howard, Votto and Fielder are getting paid FAR more than Zimmerman to play 1st. Yes a lot of Zim’s value was tied to his fielding but if he isn’t making so many throws his errors should decrease and he could turn out to be a really good 1st baseman.

    • Hiram Hover - Jan 3, 2014 at 9:33 AM

      Good calculations, but a couple of caveats –

      The general approach is not to take just one season’s WAR into account and project from that, but take a three year average. Weighing the last three season’s 50/30/20 gives you a projection for Werth of a little less than 3 WAR for 2014.

      To regress for age, I think it’s typical to take larger deductions for later years – you can disagree about when “later” starts, but for example some calculations for Cano began regressing him 0.7 WAR for every season after age 33, and Werth is already beyond that.

      So for Werth, starting at 3 in 2014 and deducting 0.7 for each season, you get = 3 + 2.3 + 1.6 + 0.9, which rounding off is 8 WAR, which would be $10M+ per WAR. Even with inflation, we won’t see that over the next 4 years.

  8. Section 222 - Jan 3, 2014 at 9:16 AM

    I agree with dgourds comment about the contract being back loaded. That really skews the analysis of whether he’ll be “werth it” in the last few years. In that last year, the Nats will be paying for what he did in 2013 (a truly phenomenal season), and for Game 4 of course. That seems like money well spent to me.

    I’m especially encouraged by the return of Werth’s power. His wrist seems fully healed, and I expect he’ll have a very solid season this year, even if it’s not as good as 2013. And it’s great we have Nate McLouth, not Roger Bernadina, to spell him when needed.

    • Sonny G 10 - Jan 3, 2014 at 12:29 PM

      Excellent observation on having Nate vs Roger. Man does that sound good. Don’t get me wrong. I loved the Shark. He is really a wonderful human being, but this is the Nats and we move on from players who are lacking in production.

  9. Faraz Shaikh - Jan 3, 2014 at 10:32 AM

    I guess they did not need to backload that contract. If they had done it backwards, werth would be owed approx $60 million for four years and last two years will be worth $23-24 million. doesn’t that make him an attractive trade target even for a DH of AL club? He may not be able to play field very often but his plate discipline and some power should hold well into late 30s.

    • Joe Seamhead - Jan 3, 2014 at 10:53 AM

      As has been said before, Jayson has a firm no-trade contract. Unlike a lot of players, he moved his family here and seems intent on spending the rest of his playing career here. In his case I don’t try to look into the crystal ball as to whether the later part of his contract is worthwhile. As sjm308 said, Werth’s signing made baseball in DC more relevant, both to the fan base and to other free agents that wouldn’t hardly give Stan Kasten/Jim Bowden the courtesy of a call back before Jayson signed.

      • Faraz Shaikh - Jan 3, 2014 at 11:02 AM

        I know all that. I was just speculating. He is definitely worth every penny from day one.

      • dgourds - Jan 3, 2014 at 11:18 AM

        I never bought that free agent argument. What free agents of note came to DC after the Werth signing? LaRoach? He would have signed with or without Werth. Soriano? The Nats had the best record in baseball the year before. Haren, come on! It’s just a rationalization for overpaying for him. That said, I like Jayson. He helps us win. Is he worth the cost? The next two years will tell.

      • Section 222 - Jan 3, 2014 at 11:22 AM

        Don’t forget Matt Stairs. :-) He never would have come here if Werth hadn’t signed. :-)

      • Hiram Hover - Jan 3, 2014 at 11:46 AM

        dogurds – agreed.

        In the short term (the 2010-11 off-season) it didn’t work either. The Werth deal was announced about 2 weeks before Greinke vetoed a possible trade to the Nats. It was a trade not an FA deal, but Greinke obviously hadn’t been impressed that DC was now “relevant” and “serious” (and good for us that he wasn’t!).

  10. Doc - Jan 3, 2014 at 11:31 AM

    Players’ exploding salaries and on the field value—hard to find any economic rationale to such a discussion.

    Like what JDub has brought to the team in the past few years. Future? Who knows?

    One thing for sure, a team really doesn’t want to get stuck with too many long term contracts. It’s kinda the death kneel of player development. Lots of examples of how that stuff doesn’t work. Anyone notice how well the Cards have done without Pujols?

    Players are best in their 20′s and early 30′s, and that’s just the basics of human physiology.

    Nats had to sign a player like Werth at the time; but that time is no longer relevant.

    • nats128 - Jan 3, 2014 at 11:47 AM

      I agree. Its like playing with Monopoly money or fake cash at a charity Monte Carlo night.

      Im just glad Jayson Werth is a Nat. His clubhouse persona is what this team needed. Now together with Matt Williams they need to get this team to the post-season once again in 2014. That is priority #1.

  11. trochlis318 - Jan 3, 2014 at 12:01 PM

    other teams would offer 3/56 or 4/64

  12. mlhalldc - Jan 3, 2014 at 12:12 PM

    I didn’t read everything because this is a really silly argument. High-dollar players are signed to long-term contracts that will overpay them in the final years. It’s completely understood that a player will be paid over market value in the final years of a big contract. So would I offer Werth the overvalued back-end portion of his huge multi-year deal? Of course not. But that’s not the point of the deal. You overpay at the end to sign the deal in the first place. You should know this, Mark Zuckerman!

  13. texnat1 - Jan 3, 2014 at 12:22 PM

    Agree with HIramHoover’s analysis.

    In a nutshell, the answer to the question is no, but that doesn’t mean he has been a bad signing.

  14. tcostant - Jan 3, 2014 at 12:43 PM

    I’m thinking Werth will be worth those last four years. And IF didn’t think that when he sighed.: Off topic here, but did everyone notice that massive Billion dollar deal the the Phils signef for thereTV rights? The MASN dealing just got more interesting…

    • TimDz - Jan 3, 2014 at 1:06 PM

      This MASN debacle is going to royally screw the Nationals as the try to compete with the rest of the NL East….
      Selig is going to retire this year and will most likely sit on his hands, so it will fall to the next Commisioner to fix this.

      Personally, I think as long as the Lerners are passively sitting by and letting this happen, it will continue. They will hopefully see that the are getting bilked out of (now litterally) Billions of dollars and will let the powers that be know they need to get this thing resolved….

      • ArVAFan - Jan 3, 2014 at 1:20 PM

        They may have made the business decision that they are better off waiting for Selig’s successor rather than trying to push something through now. They’re real estate people–they’re used to being patient. And I am quite sure they have a “fair” number in mind that they are tracking very closely. They didn’t get to where they are today without keeping a close eye on their numbers.

      • tcostant - Jan 3, 2014 at 1:31 PM

        I agree with ArVAFan, they will wait and the price of ight con’t to go up. they might have to sell MASN to Fox Sports in the end .

      • dhamm6500 - Jan 3, 2014 at 3:19 PM

        The Lerner’s are (B)illionairs. Until the day comes that there is a perception that we could not sign a player that we want because of money, I just don’t think I need to worry about the MASN debacle. And I am not saying it’s not a debacle, because it most certianly is. I just don’t think it affects the on field product. I think it just affects the Lerner’s becoming (($!B$!))illionairs.

      • Sec 3, My Sofa - Jan 3, 2014 at 3:24 PM

        It’s been said in here before, but people don’t become B-B-B-billionaires by pissing money away.

  15. Section 222 - Jan 3, 2014 at 2:07 PM

    Nice story over the holiday in the Post about Stammen finishing his college degree. Good for him.

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/sports/nationals/nats-reliever-craig-stammen-finishing-his-degree-this-offseason/2013/12/26/818ca92e-6ca5-11e3-aecc-85cb037b7236_story.html

    • natsfan1a - Jan 3, 2014 at 4:26 PM

      I saw that one as well. Atta boy, Craig.

  16. Theophilus T.S. - Jan 3, 2014 at 2:17 PM

    Imagine, just for fun, you had an opportunity to sign a 35-y/o Raul Ibanez, except this Ibanez played great D, ran the bases well and was gold in the clubhouse. Would you pay $83MM for four years for that Ibanez? Most likely. Much as I worry about age and injuries — on any player over 30 — I think Werth — whose conditioning has been commented on many times — could well be an uber-Ibanez and the risk the Nats have taken on is well worth the gamble.

  17. breakbad1 - Jan 3, 2014 at 2:23 PM

    I would gladly pay him this amount of money. If we win a World Series, it’s going to be, in large part, because of the winning attitude Werth brought into the organization.

  18. Sec 3, My Sofa - Jan 3, 2014 at 3:20 PM

    In addition to pdowdy’s, among others, good point–we know approximately what a win is worth NOW, but we can only guess what it’ll be worth by 2018. If they don’t sign Werth for this money, whom do they sign instead, and for how much, to do the same job Werth was hired to do–play anywhere in the outfield they need him to, hit anywhere in the order they need him to, ride herd on Bryce (no small job), and generally kick butt in the clubhouse, as well as on the field, and in the press. Even if you had your pick of all baseball players, period, it’s not that long a list of candidates (and probably with Pujols near the top, no?) All that, and keep in mind, even now, let alone then, some players won’t consider DC their first choice, if only because they will be overpaid by somebody else.

  19. Sec 3, My Sofa - Jan 3, 2014 at 3:22 PM

    Or, as Bill Veeck said (paraphrasing), It’s not what he’s worth on the market, it’s what he’s worth to my team.

  20. zmunchkin - Jan 3, 2014 at 3:36 PM

    There are so many things wrong with this question that it boggles the mind. But, of course, that is what makes it a fun debate.

    In addition to the points about the back-loaded contract, whether or not that made the Nats more attractive to other FAs, when evaluating weather you do a 4 year deal now (at either the back-loaded value or a straight-line allocation of the money), is the issue of what is the state of the Nats.

    If they are an about or sub-500 team, absolutely yes. For all the reasons noted above. His clubhouse presence is a big plus. For example, I think it was pointed out by Bill Ladson when asked about Danny’s attitude adjustment to a role player. Ladson commented that if it was an issue, that it would not take long for Jayson to correct it.

    If they are a contending team, it is not as clear, but I would probably lean towards a yes.

    And finally as Theophilus T.S. pointed out, Werth takes great care of his body and conditioning so I suspect he will still be a valuable player towards the end of his contract.

  21. pchuck69 - Jan 3, 2014 at 3:48 PM

    The problem isn’t really what Werth should make (4yr/$83m is far too much for him at this point in his career, btw) but how the Lerners put his salary in its “cap”.

    If what Kilgore/Wagner wrote yesterday is correct, that the “Lerner cap” (since there is no real salary cap in MLB) is $140m, that’s a problem if it includes Werth’s salary. It was known at his signing that it was an overpay. You can’t include the full value of an overpay, that you knowingly made, in your self-imposed cap. When you knowingly make an overpay, you also should know that you’re just going to have to eat part it as far as budgeting goes.

    Including Werth’s overpay, the “Lerner cap” should be between $145m and $150m until Werth contract drops off…in four years. Not accounting for the overpay is a problem because it adversely affects the way the rest of the way the roster is constructed.

    • Jw - Jan 3, 2014 at 4:21 PM

      Kilgore is making that $140M number up. The Lerners have been increasing payroll steadily every year since 2008. What evidence does he have that they plan to stop at $140M? None whatsoever. He didn’t even have his usual “according to a source familiar with the situation” disclaimer.

      • pchuck69 - Jan 3, 2014 at 4:36 PM

        Well, something is keeping Desmond and Zimmermann, unextended.

      • Jw - Jan 3, 2014 at 5:08 PM

        It will happen. Remember the panic Kilgore and others stirred about Zimmerman’s extensions in 2009 and 2012? They happened. The JZimm and Desi extensions will happen too, in plenty of time.

    • Sonny G 10 - Jan 3, 2014 at 5:30 PM

      I wouldn’t worry about any self imposed Lerner cap. I said earlier that the Nats window of opportunity will remain open for a long time. However, Ted Lerner’s window is considerably shorter. If he sees an opportunity to buy a world series, no self imposed cap is going to stand in his way. I firmly believe that.

  22. micksback1 - Jan 3, 2014 at 4:26 PM

    I think this is an out dated question simply because the Werth signing in 2011 was based on showing future free agents that the Nats were serious about contending. Of course today, with the current roster of stars, it would not be necessary to go after a Werth

    • Sonny G 10 - Jan 3, 2014 at 5:33 PM

      Agreed. But it is a fun debate designed to spur some activity on this board.

      Welcome back Mick!

      • micksback1 - Jan 3, 2014 at 6:11 PM

        your right, it is a fun question..
        good to be back Sonny G!

  23. David Proctor - Jan 3, 2014 at 4:28 PM

    Apparently Bryce wants to be 245 in Spring Training, which would be the biggest of anybody on our team (that’s Mike Morse territory).

    • Sonny G 10 - Jan 3, 2014 at 5:36 PM

      Yes, I heard about that. He should think about what happened to the Shark when he came in all bulked up. Hope he’s getting some good advice about it.

  24. Joe Seamhead - Jan 3, 2014 at 5:03 PM

    If the Big Lebowski had been about a baseball player it would have been based on Jayson Werth. He’s The Dude.

    • micksback1 - Jan 3, 2014 at 6:53 PM

      now this is fun. speaking of baseball movies, what Nats coach past or present could be Morris Buttermaker, Bad News Bears 1976 ha ha

  25. letswin3 - Jan 3, 2014 at 7:26 PM

    Off Topic: A guy on another site said that the Nats should swing a big trade of prospects for Stanton, move Werth to first and trade ALR to Ducks Unlimited.

  26. sunshinebobby - Jan 3, 2014 at 8:27 PM

    Totally Werth it. Before he got here, we had Austin (“K-looking”) Kearns patrolling right field. He gives us attitude, a solid bat, great defense and brains. ‘Nuff said.

    Plus, as Mr. Seamhead said earlier, he authored the greatest at-bat in Washington baseball history in at least 80 years, probably longer.

    • Joe Seamhead - Jan 4, 2014 at 7:39 AM

      Yeah, Austin Kearns in right field except when Riggleman sent Christian Guzman out there in a close game in the 9th inning. Of course the ball found him, he misplayed it, the Nats lost the game.

      • Section 222 - Jan 4, 2014 at 10:17 AM

        Oh that was a memorable one Joe. A real Riggleman special. I’ve hated the idea of throwing infielders in the outfield ever since. Was that the same or different game (same series for sure) where the Nats would have won if they ump had called out Berkman on a check swing that was definitely a swing.

        Some losses stick with you, and it’s not just the big games.

  27. veejh - Jan 3, 2014 at 8:49 PM

    Werth the overpay then. Not now that the team is built.

  28. trochlis318 - Jan 3, 2014 at 10:45 PM

    In case anyone is curious the phillies got a 25 year tv contract for a grand total of 2.5 billion dollars, its a lot but it totals out at 100 million per year which i feel like by the end of the contracts (starts in 2015) will actually be lowballed. If i am the nationals i don’t want a flat rate, but instead i want a percentage of revenue because the tv network is making a lot more than what they are giving to teams even if it does seem astronomical. At a flat rate it will increase of the years and not stagnant and eventually fall below market value .

    • letswin3 - Jan 4, 2014 at 11:35 AM

      It just ain’t that simple for the Nationals….Peter Angelos still owns MASN and the Nats are supposed to get a cut. I think the cut has been deferred and deferred (probably some kind of strategic measure dreamed up by Angelos), with the league designated as an arbiter.

      Maybe Mark could dedicate a post to explain what the Nat’s deal with MASN covers, how long the deal will exist, how the splits were designed to work, etc. It apparently was the only way that Angelos would relent and not litigate the Expos move to Washington…..and believe me when I say that ol Pete is litigious.

      • TimDz - Jan 4, 2014 at 2:11 PM

        A point to my conment was made earlier about MASN. The Lerners may be waiting for the new commish to take over before making any requests/demands….
        Given the fact that the MASN agreement allows for a five year reset at fair market value, each new agreement, like Philly’s, just raises the value and, hopefully, will force that Effing troll in Baltimore to either pay up or sell MASN to Fox or CSN…..
        At least let’s hope…

      • Sec 3, My Sofa - Jan 4, 2014 at 3:48 PM

        Mark, along with several other writers and bloggers, did that, more than once. Not in a position to get the link at the moment.

  29. natsguy - Jan 4, 2014 at 2:53 PM

    If uou go on the MASN site and make any comments about the crappy deal the Nats have it gets deleted immediately and you get kicked off the site. Somebody’s a little sensitive. The Lerners need to sue Angelos and MLB for a crappy deal that they didn’t agree to.

    • Sonny G 10 - Jan 4, 2014 at 3:22 PM

      Oh, that sounds like fun. I think I’ll try to get kicked off myself.

      • Sec 3, My Sofa - Jan 4, 2014 at 3:57 PM

        I wonder if you could get a comment like that to stick on the MASN site if you “coded” it, e.g., unusual phrasing, or buried in the text of something unrelated? I mean, if we’re gonna troll, WTH, let’s troll *good.*

      • Sonny G 10 - Jan 4, 2014 at 9:04 PM

        Well, I tried to comment but couldn’t figure out how to do it. Wanted me to log into facebook or something.

  30. natsfan1a - Jan 4, 2014 at 7:22 PM

    Ooh, I like that idea.

  31. natsfan1a - Jan 4, 2014 at 7:26 PM

    Something like this, perhaps?

    “So, how about those O’s? On a somewhat related note, I read somewhere that Mr. Angelos is a Savvy User of Xylophones. Is that true?”

    What?

  32. natsfan1a - Jan 4, 2014 at 7:35 PM

    Wait, that didn’t come out right. Back to the drawing board…

    • Sec 3, My Sofa - Jan 4, 2014 at 8:46 PM

      Heeeeeeee’s a viber!

Archives

Mark joins Rob Carlin and Brent Harris every Thursday at 4 p.m. on Comcast SportsNet for a half-hour show on the Nats, Orioles and rest of MLB. Re-airs Thursdays at 11:30 p.m., Saturdays at 9 a.m. and Sundays at 11:30 a.m.

ON THE RADIO

As ESPN-980 AM's Nats Insider, Mark makes daily appearances on the station's various shows. Here's the 2014 schedule (subject to change)...

MON: 12:45 p.m.
TUE: 2:30 p.m.
WED: 4:30 p.m.
THU: 2:30 p.m.
FRI: 1:30 p.m., 5:30 p.m.
SAT: 10:30 a.m.

*All times Eastern. You can also listen to the station on 94.3 FM, 92.7 FM and online at ESPN980.com.

Follow us on Twitter