Regarding Chris Young, I'd rather not be reminded how badly Selig and his boys screwed the team over.

When is the Post going to cover the behind the scenes scandal brewing with the Nats. According to Fox Sports' Ken Rosenthal, the Lerners are penny pinching -- not even paying people's salaries on time -- and Jim Bowden is driving people away with his childish behavior.

The $36 million payroll is only a symptom of a bigger problem here. The Nats new ownership and management team is not prepared -- or committed -- to doing what's needed to run a ball club in today's game.

See Rosenthal's scathing four-part article:

http://msn.foxsports.com/mlb/story/6761858

Is it sarcastic? I don't want to read it if it isn't sarcastic.

Barry, you better take a long, hard look at this team because after reading Rosenthal...WHY DOES EVERY DC BASEBALL TEAM HAVE SUCH AWFUL OWNERS! Griffith...penny pinching racists, him and his adopted nephew. Quesada - clueless...Short - the less said, the better.

Is Lerner the next name to add to our dishonorable list?

Yes, just saw the Rosenthal report. We will be dealing with these issues in upcoming coverage. Some of it we've written about before -- particularly the Bowden-Kasten-Lerner relationship:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/03/29/AR2007032902471.html

It is our job to monitor all these threads, and indeed we will.

Swanni - Followed your link and read the entire article (only 3 parts that I saw). From my perspective...what a bunch of HOGWASH (substitute your own more colorful explative if desired)!!! This might be the most overblown piece of "alleged" sports journalism I've ever seen. How reliable are disgruntled ex-employees in evaluating their former leadership? Why shouldn't a group who paid half a BILLION dollars for the franchise have oversight on internal spending? Finally, I for one am SICK AND TIRED of hearing about ANYTHING that ANYONE in the Reds organization has to say about Bowded, ESPECIALLY on the subject of Majewski being damaged goods. It's been 10 months, the Reds have two more to submit an official complaint with MLB, and they haven't! Enough already! I'm going to go catch my breath.

Barry,
Glad to hear you will pick up on the Rosenthal report. But, actually, the two major points of his article have not been covered by the Post to date:

1. The Lerners' penny-pinching, which sheds new light on the decision to have a $36 million payroll. And leads to the question of whether the current ownership/management will really spend more in future years.

(The Post seems to accept their statement that they won't pocket any profits for 10 years as a statement of fact. Come on, Barry, make them prove it. If it was a pol on Capitol Hill, he would have to back up such a claim. Ticket prices haven't gone down -- where is the money going?!)

I think the Lerners have sticker shock regarding player salaries, which the elder Lerner all but confessed to in an appearance on a baseball marketing panel during the winter.

2. Jim Bowden's manic personality which has apparently driven quality people away.

A touchy area here, I understand. Bowden has a reputation for freezing reporters out if they challenge him. But that goes with the territory.

Hate to see the national media get this story before our local newspaper even begins to consider writing about it.

AT,
The proof is in the pudding. $36 million payroll -- roughly $20 million less than what MLB ponied up. There's no explanation for that besides penny pinching.

The Nats could have raised their payroll to the 2005 MLB level and added a decent pitcher (12 wins type), a few bench guys and maybe a everyday outfielder. In fact, they could have kept Soriano for an extra $20 million, which is comical because people are now speculating about signing A. Jones of Atlanta.

Folks, we had A. Jones of Atlanta and his name was Soriano. But the Nats refused to spend this year and there can only be one reason.

Penny pinching.

Swanni,

There are institutional issues to be explored with the Lerners, that's for sure.

But let's not pretend that it was as simple of a matter as dropping $20 million in 2007 on all those commodities you mentioned. Getting anyone good would have required contracts of more than one year. If those guys aren't going to be a part of the equation in 2008, 2009 and beyond, why sign them? Especially when it's dubious that it would get us more than 5 extra wins or so. There's no difference between 60 wins and 65 wins.

Soriano signed an 8 year deal. Even reasonable baseball people think that's too long for a 31 year old, as good as he is.

(previous entry continued)... and it's not that we can't be signing people to longer term deals. But when our farm system is in such disarray, why sign guys to buy us 5 feel good wins a year while we wait for the younger core of the franchise to develop.

And A. Jones won't ask for a similar deal?

That's the nature of today's game -- play it or find a different one to invest your time and money.

As for the $20 million, Ortiz was asking for a two-year deal, which even the thrifty Twins agreed to. As he is showing for them, he could have helped the Nats for two years. There were a few other types like that out there.

For instance, Juan Pierre would look good in CF for the Nats right now, wouldn't he? Well, he got $9 million a year and he's only 29. He would still be playing productively in 2008, 2009 and beyond.

But I assume the Nats never even gave him a second thought.

Why?

Penny pinching.

Read Rosenthal's report and it calls into question the Nats' spin that all the money is going to the minors. Ask the scouts who can't get paid if that's the case.

I have this vision of what a Lerner-run organization looks like culturally (based on the coverage in the press and from just a general sense of them as members of the community) and there's nothing in Rosenthal's article that I find surprising or disturbing.

When a new manager comes into an organization, there are always going to be people who disagree with or resent the new way of doing things. I think it is probably healthy in some respects that there are some disgruntled employees that are not getting their way, when compared to the MLB-owned version of the franchise. I don't think it is news that people don't care for Bowden, and that only becomes a problem if people (other GMs) are unwilling to work with him because of his personality.

There's no smoking gun in that article, and frankly I am amazed that they would commit four parts to it... I think you could write something like that about any organization.

There's nothing newsworthy that the Nats are doing that warrants that kind (magnitude) of coverage from Foxsports.

When Ronnie Belliard has to beg for new bats, I think we have a problem.

Folks, you don't think players on other teams are not hearing about these things. This will cripple the Nats in the free agent market -- unless things change quickly.

Why do you think that Lou Piniella, Joe Giardi and Terry Pendleton all turned down the Nats manager's job within a few days of being interviewed? My fear: Because they got a glimpse of what's really planned for the future.

Swanni,

There are valid baseball reasons why the Nats didn't sign Ortiz or Pierre. (Like the fact Ortiz stunk on ice last year and Pierre is overrated and overpaid at $9 million a year.) Also, if Ortiz is in the rotation, who gets bumped? Probably Jason Bergmann, and then we would have never known that he's capable of what he's done the last few starts.

Ramon Ortiz is almost 34. Jason Bergmann is 25. You tell me who has a better chance of being valuable for the Nats over the long haul.

And you must not have read the part of the article that said the Nats budget for scouting and player development is in the top 5 in the majors. (The inefficiency in the reimbursement process is an institutional problem that needs to be corrected, not a sign of penny pinching.)

Belliard got his new bats, by the way. (If he already has 36, why shouldn't have to explain why he needs 12 more?)

I don't know how anyone can walk into any Lerner project anywhere and say that they don't do stuff first-rate.

They're very wise with their money, no question, but they're not afraid to spend it, as long as they get quality as results. Many professional franchises are simply an expensive hobby for their owners, and most have nothing to show for it.

The Lerners are definitely not your run-of-the-mill MLB owners... But look around at other sports franchises, including the Redskins, Caps and Wizards... these teams are as much toys as they are businesses. The Lerners are taking a different approach. That could be good... because they know that winning equals revenue.

So the Nats didn't sign anyone because they thought Jason Bergman would turn out to be Greg Maddox? Come on, they were ready to send the guy to Triple AAA two weeks ago. Heck, he barely made the team.

The point remains: Why $36 million? What could have been harmed if they had spent $46 million? Or $56 million?

Yes, the owners' wallets would have been dented a bit but we would have a better team, a better record -- and a better chance of building a foundation of success.

Rebuilding does not require you to be a penny pincher.

How come I signed a long-term deal if things are so scary for the players about coming to DC?

Austin, my friend, you signed a long term deal because only the Nats would have offered you one. Have you checked your power stats since you left hitter-friendly Cincinnati?

Bottom line: Kearns is a decent player, but not a star, not a clean-up hitter, not even a 5th hitter. He's a 15 home run guy with maybe 70 RBIs.

Should that be the Nats' right fielder of the future?

No one said anything about Bergmann being Greg Maddux. People like Bergmann, Hill and Chico are in the rotation so the Nats can see what they are capable of. That way they know who is worth their time. If you sign a 34 year old placeholder, one of those guys doesn't make the rotation, and then you don't find out that Hill or Bergmann may actually be worth keeping around for an extended period of time.

That is INFINITELY more important than winning 65 games instead of 60 in 2007.

Crap on "Teh Plan" all you want, but there is a method to the madness.

Read all four parts and am annoyed because that's a wasted part of my life that I'll never get back. The Lerners are doing it right in my book. Throwing away millions on over-the-hill, never-was-never-will be losers is not the way to build a long term winner (see Yankees and Orioles). What a buncha whiners.

I may have wanted to wait around to manage the Yankees rather than the Nats.

And I may be old and interested in winning now instead of waiting for rebuilding: "You know, they've got a team that's going to be building for the future. That's a situation that's really not for a guy like me. I think they're going to go for a young manager -- and rightfully so."

Yeah, that's right, the Yankees never win.

Once again, rebuilding doesn't require penny pinching. Are the Lerners so broke that they can't finance the minors and sign a few players as well? I'm not talking about five year deals, but a handful of guys who could make .500 a possibility.

What about this year's season ticket holders? Were they given a discount because the Nats decided to rebuild? I'm sure the folks who come every night would like to see 80 wins instead of 50-60.

Swanni -

sorry, I don't agree with your assessment that Juan Pierre would look good for the Nats. over the past three years, his .avg/.obp/.slg have been mediocre at best. take what nook logan did in his short time here last year and his numbers are practically identical to Pierre's average over his past three season's. Besides stealing bases, there isn't that much to fear in Juan Pierre. So why not see if someone like Nook Logan can give you the same offensive output as a Juan Pierre but at a much cheaper cost.

We all need to keep in mind that the Lerners have owned this team for LESS THAN ONE YEAR! They can not turn things around in that short amount of time. Bud Selig and the other MLB owners killed this franchise over the past few years. Our developmental system was obliterated and we literally had no scouting to speak of. Within less than a year, the Lerners have put into place a scouting system in the Caribbean that will rival most other MLB teams. They are starting to scout in the Pacific region as well. They've hired many more scouts throughout the country and they've already been able to put a couple of prospects into the minor league system. None of this was available one year ago.

I for one am pretty darn proud of what they've managed to do in such little time. I'd much rather know that we can field a competitive team for many years to come with homegrown talent and an occassional big free-agent signing here and there, than to mortgage the future for a few extra wins this season. This team is playing it's heart out for us right now and I am thoroughly enjoying watching these guys play night in and night out. And when some of these guys are playing in a (hopefully not-too-distant) October playoff series, I'll enjoy it that much more because I'll know that I never gave up hope and was there from the beginning.

Sorry for the long rant, but I'm tired from staying up late the last two nights watching two wonderfully pitched ballgames from the west coast.

Rebuilding doesn't necessarily require penny pinching, true. But as I've been trying to say, perhaps ineloquently, you can make a great argument that signing Ramon Ortiz and Juan Pierre would inhibit the rebuilding process. Not signing them is not a sign of penny pinching. Neither is a poor reimbursement process for the scout's expenses, when Rosenthal himself reports the Nats player development budget is top 5 in the majors.

Sure, I'd like them to win 80 games in the meantime. But not if it gets in the way of bringing a consistent contender to DC sooner rather than later.

I would take Juan Pierre over Nook Logan 100 times out of 100. He may be overpaid, but who isn't in MLB?

At some point, you have to bet on proven commodities instead of always saying, "Well, you knows, Alex Escobar may turn into something? Or, maybe Larry Broadway will emerge. Or, that Castro guy -- you know, the guy who hit less than .270 in Double AA -- maybe he's the ticket."

No, folks, you can get a surprise once in a while, but eventually you have to spend money to make money (win games.)

"At some point, you have to bet on proven commodities" and "you have to spend money."

I, and other, believe they will when the time is right. But no team can buy proven commodities for 20-25 roster spots. Look at the Yankees. They have an astronomical payroll and abysmal pitching. (Granted, some of that is injury, but that's part of the equation too. You have to have to players waiting in the wings to step in in case of injury or poor performance to your proven commodities. The Nats don't have that.)

Even the Yankees, Red Sox and Mets have to develop some of their players. After MLB's neglect of the franchise, it will take some time for the Nats to get to where they need to be.

There's a difference between "penny pinching" and deciding to not spend money just to spend money. Fixing the disaster that is the farm system is the most important priority, and it appears the team has made a start. But that's going to take time and even top draft choices are no better than 1/4 shots of panning out. In the meantime the team has to concentrate on signing people who have a chance of being part of the team when the youngsters get ready. Kearns is one of those -- he won't be a superstar, but he could be a solid regular, say 5th or 6th best right fielder in the league. The kind of supplementary player a contender needs. Soriano won't be worth his $20 million in 2010.

I'm only thru the first part of Rosenthal's article and, among several other issues, I noticed this one glaring error:

"The Nationals still could move Cordero and another quality reliever, left-hander Jon Rauch, before the July 31 non-waiver deadline."

Jon Rauch is not left-handed.

Also, in regards to your point:

"At some point, you have to bet on proven commodities"

Juan Pierre is a proven commodity alright -- he's an average-at-best CF. At some point, teams have to see if the younger players in their system are worth keeping around. If someone like Logan can post the same numbers as Pierre, why not give it a chance? It's not like signing Pierre would have made the Nats into a contender anyway.

I'll wrap up my remarks by saying:

The strategy of spending later may turn out to be right. But Rosenthal's report calls into question whether that is the strategy. The current penny pinching raises serious issues about whether the Nats will spend as much as the White Sox, the Braves or several other teams in comparable markets.

Until now, the Post has bought the Nats' spin that they are rebuilding and will spend what's necessary in future years to create a winner. But it's time for some accountability and deeper explanations.

I would like to see challenging columns from guys like Boswell, Wilbon and Wise (the latter two ignore the Nats entirely) and tough beat questions from our boy Barry.

Don't let the Nats get away with spin and promises.

That's all I am asking for.

Someone like Juan Pierre or Ramon Ortiz -- at best -- should be signed as one of the last pieces of the puzzle to fill a hole that you can't fill from within the organization. They are not cornerstones of a franchise, and there's little point to bringing them in to get from 60 wins to 65, when you are going to have to replace them in a year or two anyway.

They keep pulling me back in....

Pierre could have been one of those cornerstones for the future. He has 12 steals this year and is hitting .280. He also covers centerfield like a blanket and does the little things well, like advancing runners, etc. The Dodgers are clearly benefiting from his presence.

Nook Logan, God bless him, is just another way to spell Brandon Watson.

Obviously a lot does have to be taken on some sort of faith, swanni. And if we haven't seen progress in a few (read: two) years and some consistent contending a few years after that, I'll be with you at the front of the pitchfork wielding mob.

Rocket1124,
Sounds like a defense of Iraq, circa 2004. :)

"Nook Logan, God bless him, is just another way to spell Brandon Watson."

Hey, we agree on one thing!

Re: Iraq-

You could make that comment about almost anything involving long range planning and strategy.

Juan Pierre has had exactly one season in which he was an above average hitter. His On Base Percentage this year is lower than Felipe Lopez'. He's a good player to have on your Rotisserie team; on a real team, not so much.

I agree with Wigi. Nothing really surprised or alarmed me. It's all organizational overhaul stuff, both the money issues as well as the personality issues.
I buy, even respect, the scenario that they came in, started taking a look at the craziness that was going on (which is spelled out nicely in Barry's book, National Pastime, btw) and said "whoa nelly. we gotta get a handle on this". They reign everything in, check for every dotted i and crossed t, then once its figured out I guarantee they'll be streamlining it like crazy. It's a perfectly legitimate question to ask, "Why do you need 12 more Ronnie, we just gave you 36?" I'd be worried if they DIDN'T ask those questions.

Juan Pierre -- .302 career batting average.

.349 career On Base Percentage -- right at the league average. Considering he doesn't hit for power, all his offensive value is based upon getting on 1st base -- the one base he can't steal.

Felipe Lopez: .332 career on-base percentage
Pierre: .349

Hmmm....

By the way, Lopez should be a number two hitter; he's not a lead-off guy. But he makes a great number two.

He also should be at second, not short.

Juan Pierre has made over 500 outs for 4 years running.

http://www.baseball-reference.com/p/pierrju01.shtml

Gotta look past the batting average, friend.

Lopez makes more outs than Pierre -- so should Lopez be the leadoff hitter?

Oh, that's right. The Nats didn't sign anyone who could be the leadoff hitter so it has to be Lopez.

Juan Pierre (29):
Career EQA = .257
Career OPS+ = 85

Nook Logan (27):
Career EQA = .256
Career OPS+ = 79

Felipe Lopez (27):
Career EQA = .260
Career OPS+ = 90

Oh, and Ryan Church (27)
Career EQA = .288
Career OPS+ = 115

So, how does $9 million for Juan Pierre help this team at either CF or batting leadoff? With Lopez leading off, and Church in CF, Pierre is actually a regression (as is, sadly, Nook Logan).

Pierre first
Lopez second
Zimmerman third
Church in CF fourth
Johnson fifth when he returns.
Kearns sixth

That lineup could score runs. Imagine Pierre and Lopez stealing bases at the top. Zim would have people on base, etc. etc. etc.

But, oh well,

Make that Church in LF fourth.

And here's another overlooked problem.

Brian Schneider has not been the same catcher since 2005 -- offense or defense. He can't throw people out anymore and he doesn't hit a lick.

Jesus, Jesus better be as good as they hope.

Rosenthal used to cover the Birds for the B'more Sun. He's from Baltimore for god's sake. He hates anything Washington. We're the big town now and have been for 25 years. There was nothing, NOTHING, in that article that indicated SKY IS FALLING. One thing he got right. Two baseball franchises left Washington for what they thought were greener pastures. I wonder where they'd like to be now?

I agree with those who feel that increased financial oversight is not necessarily a negative. I wonder whether things may have been lax enough under MLB that there were instances of expense abuse that would not have been possible given increased oversight.

Back to the Rosenthal piece and "penny-pinching":

Being in the top 5 in MLB budget $ for scouting and player development is smart and expected.

Not reimbursing scout's expenses on time and not hiring minor league strength and conditioning coaches for $5,000 per year is cheap and foolish.

As fans, we have seen the Lerners' penny-pinching up close and personal:

* 25% increase in parking
* Late delivery of season tickets, with some shipped via ground, not air
* Increase in "premium-priced" games
* Fewer (only 11) promotional giveaways
* 8 of the giveaways are for premium-priced games (hence, you pay for your own giveaway)

Barry, Boswell,
Your fans are demanding answers.

Someone asked why this story wasn't "scooped" at home first...because it's NOT A NEWS STORY! If there's any NEWS in there at all, it's enveloped by the surrounding opinion.
Swanni, I think you're just impatient. How can you judge the success of any individual or the "team plan" based on one month of play? Why give me Nook Logan's numbers compared to Juan Pierre's when it doesn't matter how good Nook is this year (so long as he shows even slight improvement)...it matters how good his numbers are in two, four years? Sure, go out and spend money on a couple of free agents, be a contender for one season...then what? Those free agents get older, who replaces them? You've got a barren farm system! Enough, already! Have some patience.