Thanks for the post, and glad you and Bob enjoyed the trip. You both work hard for us, and we are grateful! It's significant that the 4 parks with the biggest dropoff from opening to night two are all in cities where you need arctic gear to watch a game in April: Cincy; Cleveland remember last year's blizzard?); Detroit and Colorado. Perhaps a new promotion would work - issue everyone a new ass for the one that they will freeze off watching the game.

So far Stan Kasten has been right, They've got the attendance they deserve. I went to 21 games last year, and would have gone to more than one game last homestand, but the team just wasn't exciting me enough to show up after work on thursday or friday or show up slightly hungover on saturday. As for the road trip, I have the nats being 14-14 by the end of march/april so I'd like to see them go 6-2 so they can be on their way to doing that by going 4-3 for the end of the month. its a pipe dream maybe, but with cordero back(it puts the bulllpen in the mindset they had last year) and willy mo and dukes coming back I think we will see the offense pop and the bullpen return to their '07 form.

Zimmerman is hilarious on the low attendance last Monday: "It's 30 degrees outside. You crazy? They got HD now."

I'll be worried if numbers are low on the year by July.

If the tickets were as cheap as the owners, the seats would be filled.

Way too early to tell.The weather hasn't consistently been warm. Florida has no household name players - even in their own homes. The Caps are in the playoffs, which is probably siphoning off some Nats Park attendance, And school is still in session. Take a look at attendance figures in box scores in both leagues and crowds are down nearly everywhere.

Oh, and a great record on this road trip would be stealing one from the Mets and Braves, with their Yankee-esque payrolls, and 2 out of three 3 against the Marlins, for a total of 4-4. Anything better would be glorious, and 2-6 not surprising.

Barry, please tell Carpenter that MASN needs to do something about the positioning of their camera(s) behind the plate. They are way too high! Apparently even Tom Verducci called out the Nats as putting out an amateurish telecast. The perspective on ground balls and line drives to the outfield is amateurish and vertigo-inducing as the camera zooms in.

Barry,
By the way, ask Bob C. how he said with a straight face that the Philly fans booed LoDuca because he was an ex-Met.

Even LoDuca said the next day in an interview with Debbie Taylor that it was because of the Mitchell Report.

@swanni,

you know how most broadcasters are - see no evil, hear no evil, speak no evil.

Natscribe,
I know -- but it was laughable. Even a casual fan knew what was going on. Might have been better not to say anything about it all because it destroyed whatever credibility may be there.

I realize Carpy is under the gun -- the Lerners 'fired' him last season before deciding to bring him back when they couldn't talk a few other announcers into joining up. He can't alienate this crew.

@swanni,

it's ok to bag on the other team's faults and indiscretions, but the team you broadcast always has 25 choirboys on the roster! lol!!!!!!

And 25 All-Stars. :)
Don Sutton has compared Tim Redding to just about every HOF pitcher in history.

Barry,

A bit disappointed that your attendance article makes no mention of the great lengths the Post and other media outlets went to in the weeks prior to the season to bill Nationals Park as a transportation disaster waiting to happen. That, coupled with a failure to issue a mea culpa trumpeting that opening day was not a disaster (the Post's story was basically "nothing big went wrong, but let's see about rush hour!"), will necessarily have scared people away. Once fans figure out that getting to the new stadium via Metro or Nats Express is easy, they will start coming back on a regular basis. That'll take some time. I've yet to hear a single person say they were unhappy with their Nats park experience overall after they did make it to a game.

I think the attendance, for me, is absolutely disappointing. Yes, I am shocked. I got in the cue years ago partially because I wanted to be sure I got tickets in the new stadium and it turns out that wasn't necessary. (Not that I mind, I enjoyed every bit of my tickets each year at RFK). Of course part of the problem was probably too high expecations on my part.

On the other hand I am not sure how important it is in the big picture. I do think a winning team will fill the seats. Part of the appeal of baseball is that you can get tickets to almost any game whenever you want. I am more concerned with the pricing mistakes that make the park look emptier than it is on TV. Luckily we don't have many national tv games this year and the one that was live to whole nation had those seats filled. But the other issue is that takes away from the atmosphere at the actual game, and I would even say for the players.

Attn Stan Kasten: You MUST do something to fill those seats---I know it's unorthodox to switch gears in season and some people will be upset but you cannot have those empty seats.

@swanni,

or with the pope in town, maybe 25 all-srat altar boys.

apologize, spelling off this morning. should be "25 all-star altar boys."

I agree that the attendance issue is an important one to follow. Much of the Nats' plans for development have apparently been premised on access to the revenue stream created by big attendance at the new stadium. Plus, let's face it, it is just plain depressing to attend games where the crowd is weak and has little enthusiasm. This affects players also--players like to play in front of good crowds. And that is what everyone thought we would get once Nats Park opened.

However, Barry's article is a great example of what's wrong with the Post's coverage of the Nats. I'm not talking about the content of the article here. But Barry is the beat writer for the Nats. This article should have been written by someone else. Ideally, it should have been a column, if the Post had any columnists who focus on baseball-related issues these days. Otherwise it should have been written by another writer.

Barry, meanwhile, should be focusing on the team. I mean good grief, the article coming out of an off day is a perfect opportunity to write about something big-picture or preview the upcoming series. Barry could have written about the Nats' poor play, or about the Nats' first series against the Mets after knocking them out of the playoffs last season, or maybe about the Nats/Mets players who have switched teams. Instead, Barry just writes a small Journal sidebar about LoDuca, and his efforts are otherwise focused on the attendance issue that someone else should be writing about. This is why the Post's coverage is lacking.

Frontrunner town. Winning team = big crowds

Must say that the Nats (and, yes, the cheap Lerners) should be given credit for the transportation success. It has been easy to get to the park -- and the Nats Express buses have been outstanding.

I am still concerned about the lack of security at Nats' operated parking lots, but maybe they will even coming through on that one, too.

Deep Fried Screech,

I'm not saying that the Post didn't play a role in scaring people away but, Stan the Plan did his part to with the constant "Go Metro" crap and the Nats Radio Ads stating "Don't drive to Nationals Park!" That, I believe, scared the hell of some surburbanites from even trying.

I still have people from all over the country calling me to ask why the park is so empty. I got text messages on Saturday asking me why there was no one at the game.
It's a shame what those president club seats behind home plate are doing to our attendance rep. The lower bowl was PACKED on Sat., but all the people on TV saw where the 95% empty seats behind home plate.

http://gnatsgnation.blogspot.com/

I agree with an earlier poster that the Nationals need to approach ticket sales like the airlines do with last minute fares. There is nothing to be gained by an empty seat and only concession revenue to be gained by filling it. Consider a Dutch auction style price reduction on single game seats. Five days before game day, cut tickets by 10%, etc. and by game day, half-price on what remains. Get the butts in the seats, build enthusiasm and fan base and, hopefully, that will translate into more ticket packages next year. As well, I think most ticket prices in the outfield (along and between the baselines) need to be revisited. Lastly, as mentioned already, the placement of the $300 seats is a visual disaster. Even during sell-outs, that crowd is likely to be hanging out indoors in their club and those seats will look empty. The team might consider reconfiguring behind home plate if for no other reason for the image all the empty seats project on tv.

Attendance is a sensitive issue, and I would have loved to see it higher, but I agree that there just way too many factors that have combined to keep it down....Starting with the dire predictions about traffic, I have season tix and even baseball fans who have wanted to share my package at RFK have opted out this year based on fears created by the Post's frequent articles that predicted chaos and doom. Weather was bad..NCAA's. Caps success. 9 game losing streak. Marlins...and then the opening game followed by a week of losing on the road....add all that up, and what would you expect?

It's a loooong season. Suburbanites will start flooding the park come summer when their kids can stay up later.

For now I shall enjoy shorter concession lines.

In Hollywood, when people leave their seats at the Oscars, the producers rush in flunkies to fill them so the auditorium doesn't look empty on TV.

I would be happy to volunteer to serve as a flunky in Row 1, seat 1 of the Presidential section.

"Five days before game day, cut tickets by 10%, etc. and by game day, half-price on what remains."

The Lerner family owns this team, not the Syms family. ("Where an educated consumer is our best customer.")

Agree with the earlier poster that the WaPo and other media in town scared the bejeezus out of everyone about the parking, metro and traffic. Turns out they were pretty much dead wrong. The negativity that has surrounded the teams move here has dampened the enthusiasm. The long term success of the club isn't in doubt.

At some point the attendance discussion will have to shift up 95 to Baltimore. The Orioles have drawn the two lowest crowds in the history of the park in the last home stand. Even with the visiting crowds for the Yankees and Sox, I think the Orioles may compete with Tampa and Florida for the bottom. Over the next two or three years, the revitalization of the Navy Yard area will make the DC Park a destination, and render the trip for many in the market to Baltimore obsolete. I think that's a real story. DC baseball really will weaken the Baltimore club. Angelos was right, and he deserves it.

@Maximus,

It has always been my contention that Peter the Grate never wanted a team in DC not because this area can't support an MLB team, he KNEW that Baltimore couldn't without our help.

May 9, 2007 (Bloomberg) -- Washington Nationals owner Mark Lerner said the team will have a "substantial" increase in its payroll next season as it moves into its new stadium.

"We will take ourselves to another level," said Lerner, one of the team's principal owners. "We are going to dip into the free-agent market this winter."
__________________________
Logic aside, the franchise was dishonest with the fans, explicitly telling them during the first two seasons that they would become spenders when this year, with the new stadium up and running.

I'll send you $10 American if you can back that up with a published statement from the team.

Posted by: Arkymark | April 15, 2008 9:10 AM

Bottom line:

The Lerners promised to spend serious coin on this team, starting in 2008 -- and they didn't. The fans are just acting accordingly.

"We are going to dip into the free-agent market this winter."

Looks like LoDuca and Perez are those dips.

I'm surprised how bad the Nationals Park rollout has been. Maybe DC really isn't -- yet -- a baseball town. But, the way the stadium has been handled would defy attendance in any town. Consider...

1) The parking situation was effed up throughout the period where season ticket purchases are decided. I'm one ex-ticket holder who didn't buy a season package due to the uncertainty of getting to and from the ballpark. I think the resolution the Nats came up with is fine. (What other MLB team provides free parking and a free shuttle to the ballpark?) But, it came way too late.

2) Single-game tickets should have been made avaialble earlier. When spring training started, you still couldn't buy single tickets. So, as the hype began to build, those who didn't or couldn't buy season packages were told to keep their money. By the time tickets went on sale, it was cold, the team's problems were apparent, and "the moment had passed."

3) The 4/7 game was a joke. Kasten blames the NCAA finals for lousy attendance. He's probably right. So, why did the Nats play on 4/7? The NCAA finals were set long before the MLB scheduled its games. 4/8 was an open day, and the Nats played an away game on 4/6. The Nats should have never let such a critical game (the second game in stadium history, the first "nonspecial" game) be scheduled for 4/7.

4) Season and reserve ticket prices are too high. This year should have been about getting people in the habit of coming to the ballpark. Instead, the pricing has forced many to make choices. And, in the midst of a recession to boot.

5) "The plan." I'm one of those who *do* believe the Nats' building program will yield dividends at some point. But, in the interim, when you field a team where your marquee player is Cristian Guzman...well, you're going to have a hard time attracting a crowd.

As we'll see this week when the Pope visits, people will head to that part of town if there's a reason to. Unfortunately, at this point, there have been few reasons for anyone who's not a die-hard to make the trek. Hmm, do you suppose the Pope can catch?

with the economy in its current condition, people have less discretionary income. money that possibly be spent at nats park is now being spent at the phone booth because of the caps fast finish and playoff run. some of those folks will make their way to the waterfront after the caps season ends. the nats have the misfortune of playing badly while the caps have taken the sporting public by storm. this too shall pass.

I still want to know what return everyone is expecting for this 'coin' they didn't spend.

The big test for me is when there is someone really valuable out there, do we pull out all the stops to get them? Although in today's MLB these guys are getting signed by their own teams. So it all comes down to Zim again.

Barry,

No, I do not agree that the attendance is an important issue to follow.

For all of your good reporting, you have fallen into or perhaps are fostering the negative narrative about the Nats, which has been a constant drumbeat from the Post and the national media since 2005.

Frankly, I am sick of it. Did the media in those other cities that experienced lower attendance in their second games shove this narrative down their readers throats.

Face it Barry, despite the Post's and your best efforts, the team is here to stay. Attendance is a non-issue. Quit making something of nothing.

And while you are at it, start reporting your hometown team like other major league cities do, and for crying out loud quit being an apologist for the Os.

If so, I would love to hear Lerner or Kasten say that. Because they would be laughed out of town. LoDuca was necessitated by trading Schneider--salary-wise, a wash. And Perez was signed as a minor league free agent. Those signings hardly took the Nats to "another level."
____________________
We are going to dip into the free-agent market this winter."

Looks like LoDuca and Perez are those dips.

Posted by: (419 + 1) * 0 | April 15, 2008 10:07 AM

Personally, I would have preferred that they didn't rush the construction of Nats Park. I would have preferred that they timed the opening in conjunction with more of that area being developed. Imagine if the ballpark opened next year along with dozens of restaurants/retail/office buildings (with lots of parking!). Imagine how happy everybody would have been going to the stadium, and how attendance would have been at or near capacity because there is something to do before and after the games around the ballpark (and there would be ample parking). I wouldn't have minded having to go to RFK for one more year if it meant that Nats Park would have opened along with the rest of the New Southeast development.

Attendence is not an important issue yet. I wish the Post would stop making such a big deal about it. There are lots of reasons that attendence wasn't hire for a few of those games. It shouldn't be a big concern. I do think that they need reprice those outfield seats. Who would want to pay $30 to sit out there when you can pay $10 and see the whole field and the scoreboard.

Since the Nats have been in town they have gotten bashed by the Post. The Post keeps saying that this is a Redskins town and treat all other teams as second class citizens. Washington can be a Football and Baseball town, the season overlap very little.

And I agree with Wilbon. The Post has got to stop covering the O's. The Nats are Washington's team. I don't care that some of the people who buy the post may be O's fans, but it is a Washington paper.

Also, for what it's worth, the Nationals had absolutely no say in the scheduling of the 4/7 game. The schedules are set by MLB, which may be indicative of how the league screwed the team again, but there's absolutely nothing that the team (owners, management, players) could have done about that date.

--------------------------------

****

3) The 4/7 game was a joke. Kasten blames the NCAA finals for lousy attendance. He's probably right. So, why did the Nats play on 4/7? The NCAA finals were set long before the MLB scheduled its games. 4/8 was an open day, and the Nats played an away game on 4/6. The Nats should have never let such a critical game (the second game in stadium history, the first "nonspecial" game) be scheduled for 4/7.

***
Posted by: Mt. Vernon Nat | April 15, 2008 10:07 AM

I know I'm illogical, but I don't care. Coming off a 9 game losing streak, with one win in the bag for a new streak to begin, a good record for the trip: 8-0, nothing less.

While I don't completely agree with C'ville Nat, I have noticed that the headlines for all the Nats stories have been negative and harsh. Of course the editors write the headlines. I understand the Nats were on a bad streak but still.

I got blasted in these very comments 2 weeks ago for noting that the Lerners were once again cobbling together a rotation built of five guys from the stands, and in contradiction of their earlier promises to open up the purse strings, and that I was done with the Nats. A prophet is not without honor save in his own country.

This is a bad team. They are fielding only 2 players who are even above league average at their position. They WILL get the attendance they deserve.

3) The 4/7 game was a joke. Kasten blames the NCAA finals for lousy attendance. He's probably right. So, why did the Nats play on 4/7? The NCAA finals were set long before the MLB scheduled its games. 4/8 was an open day, and the Nats played an away game on 4/6. The Nats should have never let such a critical game (the second game in stadium history, the first "nonspecial" game) be scheduled for 4/7.

Posted by: Mt. Vernon Nat | April 15, 2008 10:07 AM

-------------------

@Mt Vernon -- when the schedule was made last year, the 4/7 game was supposed to be the original Opening Day game for the Nats. As most teams do at the start of the season, the day after their Opening Day is an off day. Later on, MLB gave the Nats the Sunday Night Opening Game on ESPN, thus making the 4/7 game the second game of the season. Which is one reason why I think less people showed up, as there was an 8 day break from game one to game two (well that and the facts that it was pretty cold and that the Marlins were the opponents).

Who cares about attendance? Not my problem. Stan's and the Lerner's. They will get what they deserve. Not very original, eh?

I too am bothered by the attendance. Part of it is that the team has been pretty poor -- not just losing games, but losing ugly for a stretch there. It dampens enthusiasm. Although my average attendance is lower than most here (~10 a season), I was always happy in previous years to go out to the park assuming I'd see a scrappy team lose and being fortunate to actually see them win quite a bit. That's rather a different sitch than assuming I'll see a **crappy** team lose.

The parking issue was a giant cluster. They should have had real parking options available. I think people who drive to the game are making a big mistake generally (of course, I live right on the red line), but there have always been a lot of them, and there was so much angst about it of course it scared off fans.

But the biggest thing for me is the tix prices. Maybe I got spoiled at RFK, because I'm told these prices are actually pretty reasonable when compared to the rest of the MLB. But of course, as was said upthread, this isn't the year for price parity. With a new, untested park and a team no one expects to contend, you got to get the butts in the seats anyway, and that means you got to have low prices to make it worth taking a flyer for someone who isn't already a baseball fan.

The thing that really gets me is the huge swaths of empty sections (which are, of course, exactly in the cameras' angles of view). Meanwhile, in the tracking shots of the last couple games you can see tons of folks in other sections. LET THEM MOVE DOWN! There is no reason not to allow folks into better seats when there's no one there to bother. Having a full section and an empty section on camera makes the park look empty -- having the same number of people half-filling each section just makes it look like a typical Tuesday.

I have a few theories, some of which have already been discussed.
1. It's cold.
2. All the doom and gloom about getting to the park.
3. They aren't playing well.
4. DC hasn't been a baseball town for 30 years, it'll take time to build the base.
5. The Nats are somewhat unique in MLB. Every other city that got a new ballpark has had the team for decades. So their product was stale, especially if they weren't winning. So a new park is a way to reinvigorate the fanbase. But in DC, the real new event was in 2005, when there was baseball again. Not enough time has passed between 2005 and now to see crowds eager to overcome all of the items above. The new park is nice and I'm sure attendance will top last year, but now they need to put a winning product on the field.

By the way....did ya know our Nats made some history to open the season?

"How many teams since 1900 have started 3-0 and then found themselves 3-8? Oops. That would be zero. Only Wilbur Wood's 1970 White Sox and Oscar Gamble's 1971 Phillies even made it to 3-7, not surprisingly. Those two teams, for future reference, won 79 and 73 games, respectively." -- Stark, ESPN

I agree with those who say the attendance is disappointing -- and significant.

I've been to the stadium twice so far and while it has nice sight lines and easy Metro access, it's not "special" enough to draw fans on its own, like Camden Yards was back in the day.

That leaves the team to draw fans and, well, you know how that has gone so far. So while attendance will no doubt pick up over the summer, probably not as much as expected.

Since attendance = revenue = ability to attract free agents I believe this is a real concern.

One more thing -- I'm with e that the better option might have been to stay at RFK another year and not rush the new park into service. It's amazing -- and gratifying -- that they made such a great place to watch a game in such a short time, but at the same time, the amenities -- parking being the most important --fell by the wayside. That's not going to be a permanent problem, but the inagural year is the wrong time to have it.

Just wait until Stan the Plan and Mark Lerner start blaming poor attendance/low revenue for their inability to fund "The Plan" given baseball's so-called "crazy out-of-control" salaries. That's when attendance will matter to all of you.

Sigh.

The attendance will approve and steady as the weather gets warmer, if the club can be reasonably competitive. Giving up ten runs a game and nearly being swept at home is not conducive to good attendance. Additionally, I cannot fathom why they don't have day baseball, particularly early in the season. I am as sure as sure can be that the 4/7 game would have been better attended were it played in the day. Day games during the week at RFK always drew well, althought something of a different crowd, i.e. seniors who don't want to go out at night, people, like myself, who could sneak off from work for a couple of hours every now and then, people who are already in town, and after school lets out, younger kids.

Stan, if you're reading ...

Like Swanni, I would also like to offer my services to seat-fill in the $300 seats whenever they are empty (which seems to be all the time).

Actually Stan, why don't you have your employees (i.e. Accounting Department, HR, Business Affairs, etc) sit in those seats during the games? If they're unoccupied it looks bad. This way, it at least looks like people have purchased them.

Also, the seats in the LF/RF Box and LF/RF Bullpen sections have been mostly empty so far this season. Paying $35 for those seats is ridiculous! May I suggest this:

At RFK, there were certain games (Sundays, I believe) where one could buy a package that included: 4 tix, 4 hot dogs, 4 chips and 4 sodas for $44. Perhaps you could do something like this for the LF/RF seats? Instead of $35 a piece, maybe you could create a similar package (say for every Monday or Wednesday game - days where attendance is typically lower). Maybe 4 tix, 4 dogs, 4 sodas for $88? I would consider buying something like this if offered ($22 for an OF ticket? That's more like it!).

Also, why don't more teams do something along the lines of a "Two for Tuesday" type of promotion? If you offered two tickets for the price of one on Tuesdays, attendance would increase, but more importantly, concessions would increase (and we all know that's where the money is made!).

So Stan, if you're interested, give me a call. I have other ideas that I'd love to share with you.

Hey, I got two new people hooked on going to the ballpark last week. One is a Yankees fan (who had to ritualistically disown the Yanks for a night because the people behind us were so annoyingly Yankee fanish) and the other is only marginally into baseball, but is starting to get into watching it and learning the rules.

I propose that everyone bring someone new to the ballpark during the next homestand - someone who wouldn't necessarily go on his or her own. Whether you think the Lerners are cheap or that things are alright, we can all agree that a little grassroots campaign wouldn't hurt, right?

Maybe we can pick a specific day (with a good pitching matchup) and make it "Bring a Friend" day, a grassroots campaign for OUR (not the Lerner's) Washington Nationals?

I am with a couple of you all here:

I like the dutch oven idea. Start to discount tickets a week before, and slowly roll back the price. That will ensure you get people into the park. Even if people are not buying the $90 seats, they'll buy the cheapies; then buy concessions (where the real money is made).

Secondly, the Presidential seats is probably the worst section is baseball. I don't understand why you would make the most visible seats in the house empty by luring those "fans" away to a plush bar and longue area. Not really a baseball thing, more like club level at fed ex.

I think the attendance will turn around here. But it'll be a little while...perhaps a few months, perhaps a year or more. :(

I'm not into predicting records, so I'll leave that to others.

As for attendance, I agree with others that it's too early to tell, but also agree that it will be interesting to watch over the course of the year. On a somewhat related note, I still think that it would be super if the team were to offer mini plans - perhaps a package focusing on weekend games (and I've mentioned that to them in the past). As it stands, I end up putting together my own mini plan each year (averaging probably 24 tickets per year among my husband, my Chicago baseball buddy, and me).

I forgot one!
4a. Crappy marketing! I have one instance where I saw the Nats being marketed outside of a MASN broadcast and all the hoopla surrounding the stadium opening. That was at Eastern Market on Saturday, a non descript guy was walking around and asked if we were Nats fans (my wife had a Nats hat on). He was pushing season ticket plans, we said we already had them and he walked away.

We were at the the Cherry Blossom parade on Sat., and there were thousands of kids there, and I'm thinking to myself, This parade is over at noon, we're only a few miles from the Park ans there is a game starting in an hour. Why aren't the Nats a sponsor? Screech should have been there, mugging for the cameras with the kids, giving out free tickets or vouchers for food or something. This part of the Plan needs work Stan!

Don't really understand this one..?...They poured millions of their own money into upgrades, yet they are cheap because they don't want stan to overpay for underachieving talent?

. . . I, for one, think Barry's story is incredibly out of context. What the average fan sees in the press and elsewhere is that the Nats are young/rebuilding, that the neighborhood around the stadium is bad, that there's no parking (thanks, DC Gov't), and that it's hard to get there by Metro. Add to that the fact that it's 40 degrees at night in April (few day games, by the way), and baseball and hockey playoffs are here. And now there are a "number of sports executives and marketing people who (are) shocked that people weren't flocking to the park"? Are these people smoking something? If so, what is it?

Barry's article illustrates why baseball doesn't have a chance to survive in Washington. Too many people strangling the baby in the crib.

"I think the resolution the Nats came up with is fine. (What other MLB team provides free parking and a free shuttle to the ballpark?) But, it came way too late."

Stan Kasten announced the plan for the RFK shuttle on a radio call-in program very early in the off-season (before the World Series was even over). His announcement of the shuttle program was immediately shot down by the DCSEC guy saying "That deal is not final yet." Well, the deal did materialize just as Stan had announced, but the bad impression from the DCSEC guy's comments lingered long into the winter making it an uncertainty in many fan's minds. What could the team have done any earlier to counteract that chain of events from happening?

Mark me down as one of those folks who was pleasantly surprised at how easy the Metro was. I went to three games -- The Monday, Thursday and Saturday ones, all with varying attendance levels, and even on the 32K-plus day on Saturday after the game, the Metro crowds moved right along.

------------
"Once fans figure out that getting to the new stadium via Metro or Nats Express is easy, they will start coming back on a regular basis. That'll take some time. I've yet to hear a single person say they were unhappy with their Nats park experience overall after they did make it to a game."

I vote for April 27, the date of the Nats Park gathering that we are planning for when John in Mpls will be town.

---

Maybe we can pick a specific day (with a good pitching matchup) and make it "Bring a Friend" day, a grassroots campaign for OUR (not the Lerner's) Washington Nationals?

"How many teams since 1900 have started 3-0 and then found themselves 3-8? Oops. That would be zero."

There are 2,048 possible win/loss combinations in 11 games and there have been fewer than 3,000 combinations of teams/years since 1900. Stark is obviously no mathlete.

Here are the attendance stats for 2008 (from ESPN):

Nats average 28,214 at home (19th in mlb) which is on averages out to being 67% full (16th).

Not the best, not the worst. Kind of in the middle. And the nats are well, in the the lower middle of the standings. I see a correlation.

My goodness!!! Is the sky falling? I wouldn't put a whole lot of stock into the early attendance figures with a 4-9 record. Now, had they come home from that first road trip having a 5-2 record, I'd have been a bit concerned. Should they return home from this next trip with an abysmal record I'd expect the attendance to stay low, even if the weather is good. Should they return with the season record approaching .500, you might spike it up a couple thousand. I would also agree that when school is out the attendance will rise. Lots of great ideas about ticket sales...I like the dutch idea also. If that were to take hold, perhaps fans would buy tickets early in fear that they might not get the good seats on gameday. Stan...are you listening??

prediction: 3-5

2 weeks' attendance is neither interesting nor significant.

I do not live in Washington so I cannot comment on issues such as game attendance, concessions problems, broken hot chocolate machines, clogged isles, travelling and parking. I have to restrict my comments unfortunately to baseball related issues and for that I apologize. I read both the Post's and Times' online sports sections for news on the Nats. Today we had quotes and full articles on LoDuca. Can't we find someone else to quote or write about besides this loser? The coverage is about as anemic as the team itself. The only thing worse are quotes from Bowden. Come guys write about the future.

Aw shucks, thanks for caring.

Actually, I was already going to say that I'm bringing a friend on the 23rd (Jackie Robinson Day, Administrative Professionals Day). When I bought those tickets, Santana was tentatively on schedule to pitch. Not sure if it still works out that way.

But I will be there on the 27th (Orthodox Easter), too! I also have a ticket for the 25th (Arbor Day). And that's just for starters.

I'm actually a little relieved by the attendance numbers, selfishly. At least for one game, I'd like to be able to explore the park, have easy access to concessions, and maybe sneak into another section or two.

Keep in mind, though, the Cubs series are "premium" tickets, meaning they cost $5 more.

They spent OPM -- other people's money on those upgrades. That's from the profits from the team and revenue sharing from MLB.
______________________________________

"They poured millions of their own money into upgrades, yet they are cheap because they don't want stan to overpay for underachieving talent?"

Excuses, excuses, excuses. Man, some of you really are dumb. Other teams opening new stadiums haven't needed to wait for school to be out for attendance to rise. And there are 20 other cities in the country where school is also in session that are outdrawing the Nats. Guess what, it's even colder than DC in some of those other cities. Stan and the Lerners are getting what they deserve for their cheapness and their crappy team, and also for the rinky-dink prodcution in their fancy new stadium (witness concessions and scoreboard problems).

Listen, I know the Lerners personally and you know what, they really like baseball. They think its a great sport. You pitch the ball, you hit the baseball. Go Baseball!

Yes there is reason to be concerned about the crowds - no ifs, ands, or buts. There are reasons why the crowds are low, but not justifications. Reasons include:

1) Anti-marketing. Telling everybody how hard it is to get there dampened the enthusiasm to buy tickets. So did telling everyone that we won't be good for a few more years.
2) No legacy, transient market. Most new ballparks are introduced into cities with an uninterupted legacy of a MLB team. The Nationals are creating a following.
3) Competition. With the Orioles, Wizzards, Freedom, Capitols, and Redskins there is alot of competitoin for sports dollars.
4) Location and Access. The stadium is not that accessible.
5) Economy. This isn't 2000. Companies and individuals are cutting back.
6) Quality. This is not a good team yet.
8) Bad Television Deal. The MASN deal is lousy, MASN programming is heavily slanted towards Orioles.
9) Lack of Interest. For all of the above reasons, there seems to be a general lack of interest in the area.

I think it will get better over time. But it is certainly discouraging from an early return on investment standpoint. The team must pursue better players, but they have to do so on faith. Will the owners invest in building a following or wait for a following to invest? If they choose the latter, it may never come.

to all that say the Lerners are cheap ... you've convinced me. Man I wish this team never came to DC. Wish I'd never bought tickets. I grew up in this area without a hometown team, and now that I have one, you've convinced me to hate them. Now I have to explain to my 3 year old that we can't like the Nats anymore. We can't go to the ballpark ever again. Can't watch anymore games on TV.

Thank you Swanni, Lerners ARE Cheap, and everyone else that's ever posted about the frugalness of these owners. Thank you for letting me see the light and enlightening me! I foever renounce everything Nats!

i dunno about the rest of you, but nothing says "ambiance" more going into nats park than passing an old bus garage and a former liquor store. for chrissakes, it's going to take more than the park itself to attract fans. the immediate area around the stadium is deplorable.

btw ... get over it ...

Not sure the Cubs game will be the best to bring people to for the first time. It will be very crowded and hard to get a ticket for and full of opposing fans. I was thinking another day, though I look forward to seeing John in Mpls and the fact that he can't escape to Burger King and jinx us.

E, since you grew up without a hometown team, let me fill you in on something: it is a time-honored tradition--a right, no less--of home-town fans to rip the owners of the team, especially when the owners are fielding a sorry excuse of a team and asking the home-town fans to give them their hard-earned money. That doesn't mean that the fans ripping the owners don't go to games or root for the team. They just want better. Now, if you want to defend the owners, by all means, go for it.

To denounce the lerners and cast off the Nats because of "cheap" ownership is moronic. Listen people, this is not baltimore, where the ownership is more of a dictatorship. The lerners are taking a hands off approach and letting stan the man run the show. If anything, call that man cheap. Another thing. They told you what they were going to do: be cheap. So don't act surprised. They will be cheap for a year or two.

Has anyone seen the rankings of our minor league system. Baseball America and similar sites have them very high (top 5). So they are growing a team ranking than buying one.

IDIOTS. I'm sure the same people calling the nats "cheap" are the same ones who want free hillarycare...handouts!

As a brief foray into Learners are cheap, I think it should be noted that I don't care how cheap they are if they spend money well enough to make a winning ballclub. I suspect the Learners Are Cheap crowd agrees, they just think they're not and it is already evident. Like all things baseball, we'll know in a few years.

natsscribe you have a valid point, but at the same time coming out of the metro onto half street and seeing right into the stadium is amazing everytime. I can just imagine little kids always remembering that. But yes, the development of Half Street is important and I wish it was done already but what are you gonna do? What's done is done.

2-6?

That would be better than the last 8 games...

Vandy: Attendance is only a piece of the revenue stream. Who understands MLB revenue streams? Boswell wrote recently about the premium seats being worth hundreds of thousands in attendance at RFK prices. Attendance=revenue=ability to attact free agents is way too simplistic. In fact, attracting free agents=winning=attendance=revenue is probably more realistic.

Cliffy: How would more time have done anything about parking? That park will never have parking like RFK. Doesn't need it, either.

Lerners ARE cheap: The Plan minimizes salaries by developing prospects who do not get 'crazy out-of-control' salaries.

Observer: NOT hard to get to by Metro, incredibly easier than RFK. A fraction as far to walk to the station and much closer to the downtown transfers. See Juan-John's comment. NOT a bad neighborhood either, also better than RFK and getting better everyday. Also, baseball can't fail in DC for another 29 years. To move the team, the lease would have to be broken and that requires MLB to buy the stadium, unused presumably, from DC.

Attendance is Stan's problem, not ours. They will get what they deserve.

The attendance article is leaving out a HUGE factor when comparing ball clubs opening new parks. The Reds, Tigers, Orioles, and Indians, all had over 100 years of history in the same town with a generational fan base.

I am a child of the '60s. I grew up with the new Senators who we still called the Nats. My older brothers would give me the business about my Nats not being the "real" Nats since their "Nats" left town in '60.

What we need is a fan base builder. That comes with cheap seats or with a playoff winner on the field.

Since we are years away from "loving" the Nats to the core - as in following the ballclub is part of our DNA just as it is with the Redskins - I recommend we go with the cheap seats. Make every outfield seat $10 all year and the house will be filled!

GoNats: Great point about Half Street. It is already better than RFK! That place wasn't exactly the Elysian Fields. How soon we forget!

Good points. That date just came to mind because some of us already have our tix and were planning to get together.

---

Not sure the Cubs game will be the best to bring people to for the first time. It will be very crowded and hard to get a ticket for and full of opposing fans. I was thinking another day, though I look forward to seeing John in Mpls and the fact that he can't escape to Burger King and jinx us.

Posted by: Section 506 (Before moving) | April 15, 2008 11:21 AM

Keep in mind, though, the Cubs series are "premium" tickets, meaning they cost $5 more.

Posted by: John in Mpls

Of course, everything will be a-ok once Smiley Gonzales is an all-star SS, Burgess and Marrero are pounding out 35+ HRs, and Detwiler, Smoker, McGeary, Zimmermann, and Balester all blossom into high-quality ML pitchers. If anyone wants to bet that more than 2 of those guys ever pitch 200 innings in a season for the Nats, I would be happy to go double-or-nothing on the ten bucks Arkymark owes me.

If you've ever heard Stan Speak. He says something like this. "the best way to build a team is through trades, not free agents." The guy built the braves through a farm system and many great trades. Likewise, his plan for the nats includes developing talent, and then packaging them in trades for proven game-tested players.

GoNats, I feel the same way about the view of Nats Park on exiting the Metro.

I agree with e. Can't we just relax and enjoy some ballgames for cryin' out loud? Is DC a "baseball town?" What the heck does that mean, anyway? If it means that we fill the ballpark regardless of how the team is playing and what the weather's like, then, no, DC's not a "baseball town." Why would you expect it to be at this point in the city's history with Major League Baseball?
Other than St. Louis, what city meets that standard? I watched a few innings of the Indians/Red Sox game last night, and the stadium looked substantially empty (and half of the people there were Red Sox fans). Cleveland - not a "baseball town." I remember when the Red Sox stunk, and Fenway was substantially empty most of the time. Boston - not a "baseball town." Baltimore - as this year's attendance clearly shows, not a "baseball town." Pittsburgh, Cincinnati, Detroit - none of them meet that standard, so none are "baseball towns." Miami? Please. Oakland? They had to block off the entire upper deck.
My vote - no more stories about attendance until it somebody in management actually blames their unwillingness to spend on free agants on the low attendance.

Aflac!?

@Lerners ARE Cheap --

it's a joke, son. Don't you get it?!

I'm fully aware of my right to rip ownership of pro teams. While I did not have a hometown baseball team, I did/do have the Skins, Bullets, Caps, etc. While I loved Jack Kent Cooke and everything he did to make the Skins a winning team, I loathe little Danny Snyder and everything he's done to make the Skins a non-winning team. Abe Pollin in the 90's? Useless. Held onto Wes Unseld as a coach, GM and right-hand man for WAY too long. Almost ruined the Bullets.

Listen, I want the Nats to do well. I want a winning team. I want the owners to do their job, as well as the president, the GM, the manager and the players. But I am not expecting this to happen overnight.

When the Expos moved to DC, I expected to see a few seasons of bad teams. I expected no true hope for a few years, as the Expos were left for dead by MLB.

Once they came to DC and a new ownership group was picked (later than it should have been, thank you very little Bud Selig), I expected some turnaround, but not immediately. I expected to see growth in the minors. And you know what? It's all come true.

We all need to have a little patience. As someone noted earlier, we can not make a true judgment of the Lerners in only one and a half years (that's how long they've been running the team). If, after this season (and into next) the team is not considerably better, and the team has not picked up a player or two that will make the difference between being in the playoffs and watching them at home (either by a FA signing or a siginficant trade), then maybe I'll consider whether or not they are cheap.

But until then, please lay off on the "Lerners are cheap" stuff.

Stan Kasten DID NOT build the Braves. This is the biggest myth around. The guy is a snake-oil salesman. John Schuerholz and Bobby Cox built the Braves. Tell someone in Atlanta that Stan built the Braves and let me know when they stop laughing.

To Tom Servo:

DC is not a baseball town. It's HOCKEYTOWN USA!!!!! C-A-P-S CAPS! CAPS! CAPS!

@6th & D,

I, too, grew up with the expansion Senators and still proudly sport my navy blue cap with the red-striped seams and the red=on-white curly "W." What this team needs to do is to offer incentives to draw more families to the park like giveaways aimed at their children to help build the fan base. I remember how the Senators would have bat days, ball days, Boy Scout days, safety patrol days, etc., to help get families out to DC Stadium. The current ownership and management seems more interested in attracting the high-roller crowd to fill their expensive seats. Baseball, more so than any other sport, is generational, and the teams in cities like New Yprk, Boston, Chicago and St. Louis are part of the fabric of those cities. We're still in the thread-gathering stage in DC after a 34-year absence.

FWIW, the team site lists kids' glove and kids' jersey promotions for early June.

E, don't call me "son.". If you have a 3 year old son, I venture to say that I am older and--quite obviously from the content of your posts--wiser than you.

As I stated in another post above, please do let me know when it "all comes true" about the Nats prospects all succeeding here in DC. Maybe when Barry is up in NY, he can fill some of you less avid baseball fans in on how "Generation K" panned out. Most prospects flame out. It is unfortunately likely to happen here too. And then the cheap Lerners are going to say that it "isn't time" to sign big-name free agents, which they especially can't afford because attendance and revenues stink.

So far this season I have been to all but two of the games (season tickets in 404). Here is what I have noticed:

-Getting to the park by Metro is easier than a weekday commute trip. The most I have had to wait at L'Enfant is 8 minutes. (The Metro folks seem to be moving trains based on demand, not schedule. That is working well). I had expected a long, painful commute; that has not happened. (I come in from Alx). I must say "well done" to the WMATA folks.

- The weather for many of the games has been way too cold/wet/windy. Only the hard-core fans show up for those games. I suspect the numbers will pick up with the warmer weather and the arrival of the popular Cubbies.

- It does though seem like whole sections are vacant. On Saturday 233 and 235 looked completely empty. On Sunday it looked like those two plus 229 and 231 were vacant (right field mezzanine). It is hard to see how there could be no ticket holders in those section.

-The last 2/3 of the Presidential Seats (right behind home plate) are always empty (except for opening day). Those are $300 per seat, so out of reach for most. But it must look bad on the tv to see all of those seats empty.

My guess is that once the weather warms up the fans will turn out. I may not be helping things much, I have been telling my colleagues to wait for warmer weather to go. It just seems like a cold, wet day at the ballpark is not the best way to experience the new park.

I think we have several issues affecting stadium attendance. One is the weather, another is folks being scared away by what the media, and another is cost for seats in certain sections of the stadium.

As the weather gets warmer people will venture out. It's been cold and rainy for a bunch of the games. It's not baseball weather yet.

Also, people will come to realize that the doom and gloom about the stadium is mostly BS. The stands will start filling as the word gets out.

Speaking of the media, I'd like to start seeing some positive coverage in the press!

For example, how about that Nats Express? It a hit! You can't beat the deal. Its free and gets you to the stadium without a hassle. Also, how about that Metro? Wasn't it supposed to be chaos? Did they actually pull it off? And, where's the expected gridlock? Every game that I've gone to, I've zoomed in and out of my parking lot without a problem. For me, it's actually been easier than RFK.

Given the issues highlighted in the press, folks in our area are waiting to see how things pan out. As the word gets out more seats will be filled.

Lastly, I think the Nats have a problem with how they priced certain sections of the ballpark. They could lure more fans if they lowered the price. For example, it's sad to see the empty stands below the scoreboard. Those seats should not be selling for $33. The same goes for the LF and RF bullpens. How about lowering those to $20 or offering 2 for 1 specials or something like that. It's also sad to see the empty Diamond club seats. Those seats need to be in the $80-100 range. Selling them for $150 without food included makes no sense.

Ownership and marketing should consider selling mini-plans, along the lines of 5, 7, 10 games. Cobble a mini-plan together with some other marketing idea, like weekends or Sundays or pick-your-own games (admittedly, I've seen these types of promotions offered by our AL neighbor to the north). That would help to fill seats. The 20, 41, full season plans are restrictive in terms of time and money.

And now for something completely different, for the folks that are interested.

It was well discussed that B. Schneid is doing a great deal better than Paul Lo Booca (I don't usually make fun of names, but his comment in the notebook about pretending they yell "Duuuuuuuke" made me laugh) and we've already clarified that stats at this time of year mean absolutely nothing.

But when has scant information ever stopped us from pretending to be all knowing?

Schneider is at .324/.409/.324 this year in 44 plate appearances (PA).
Lo Duca is .200/.317/.286 in 41 plate appearances.
(Probably a good time to review AVG/OBP/SLG at Wikipedia, if you haven't already this year)

Their splits tell a more detailed story. Top number is with men on, bottom is without men on.

Schneider
.412/.450/.412 (20 PA)
.250/.375/.250 (24 PA)

Lo Duca
.235/.350/.353 (20 PA)
.167/.286/.222 (21 PA)

Big surprise, poor hitters do better when there are men on base, though Schneider's 162-point increase is certainly much higher than we might expect.

The really interesting thing was that Schneider's 2007 splits were completely backwards. Again, men on above bases empty.

Schneider
.212/.308/.335 (218 PA)
.253/.340/.336 (259 PA)

But Lo Duca shows this same backwards split. What's going on here? Are those double plays? Makes sense in Schneider's case, because the times with a man on first (check www.baseball-reference.com, I have to work today, unfortunately) he's expectantly lower. But not so for Lo Duca.

Any great explanations out there?

I must say this has been one of the more interesting discussions I've read in a while. Very thoughtful comments.

One more observation on getting to the Park. I've taken the Metro twice and it's been a snap. Much, much easier than the Metro to RFK. Even my jaded teenage daughter said "Wow" the first time we got off the Metro and came face to face with the view of the stands from centerfield.

As far as the neighborhood goes, when you walk down that fenced portion of Half Street to the stadium you have no sense of the neighborhood at all. It's smooth sailing right into the centerfield gate.

Went to the game Friday nite with some friends visiting from Atlanta. They couldn't believe how easy it was to get there on Metro. Is it crowded after a game? Sure, but isn't that to be expected when any event (hockey game, concert, basketball game, Papal Mass, baseball game) lets out?

Getting to the stadium is not an issue, in my opinion. But again, great posts today!

The attendance is never good in the beginning of the season in dc (95-97). Look it up.

The bigger issue is the 300 dollar seats. They are a complete eysore. They should refund everyone 200 per seat and move people down to the first three rows -- every game where you see the empty seats from the cf camera are embarassing and make a casual viewer NOT want to got to the game. They need to create some excitement, and that is an immediate way to do so. Eat crow and move on, Stan.

Samantha7, that is an excellent idea that they sell mini-plans. For some reason, Stan has no interest in it (for now). Someone an another Nats' bulletin board posted verbatim an email exchange he had with Stan wherein he suggested this. Stan's response? Go to tickets.com and create your own 10-game mini-plan. No explanation as to why they aren't available. Another example of Stan's puzzling "I can do no wrong" attitude.

Lerners are cheap: If 2 of those 5 ever pitch 200 innings or one of those 3 ever hits 35 homers, the Plan can be deemed WILDLY successful!

Regarding Stan, according to Schuerholz' book (good read, you might want to pick it up), Stan hired him. He discusses Stan, his relationship with Stan, etc. throughout the book. It gives a good insight on what role Stan actually had in building the Braves.

Thanks Stan. :) I would counter, don't go to tickets.com, go directly to the box office, as I generally do, and avoid the online fees.

---

Go to tickets.com and create your own 10-game mini-plan.

It seems another foodfight has erupted on Planet NJ this morning.

My take: The low attendance is a surprise. It can be explained away, and Mt. Vernon and others have done an excellent job of going over the reasons why, in hindsight, attendance is as low as it is. But Stan, the Lerners et al have to be at least a bit surprised by this. They had to expect that more of those corporate seats would be taken by now, and that more ST packages would have been sold, particularly in right center. You don't plan to open your season in a new park with a losing team and half the seats empty. However, for a litany of reasons (politics, weather, pricing, competition, parking, marketing, losing, etc.), the park is not drawing as well as it should right now.

So they find themselves off course, and the question now is what, if anything, to do about the fact that attendance is lacking, if you will. Stan is buying time when he says "We'll get the attendance we deserve," which is clever and meaningless at the same time, because no matter what the attendance is, you can point to reasons why that's what you deserve.

One answer might be simply to wait and hope for the best. What if the weather had been great, the Caps had missed the playoffs and the team had started the year on a nine-game winning streak? We might well be having an entirely different discussion here. So the "things will turn around" view could eventually prove correct.

It might be too early to offer steep discounts on tickets -- what does that say to the loyal fans that ponied up early? "Hey, if you'd waited, you coulda had that $35 seat for $17.50!" If things don't turn around and the contention that they've mispriced a lot of seats carries the day, they still might need to wait until next year to fix the problem.

I call foul on this one.

-----

IDIOTS. I'm sure the same people calling the nats "cheap" are the same ones who want free hillarycare...handouts!

Dick, you are wrong about that because The Plan is premised on almost total development from within. So while that kind of success rate would, I agree, be a success for most teams that are pursuing a standard team-development path, it would be a failure of the Plan. The only way that success rate could possibly lead to a contending--much less championship--team would be through significant multiple free agent signings. Which the cheap Lerners have said is not what they intend to do and is not part of The Plan.

Another factor that tends to get overlooked is the impact of the new lobbying/gift restrictions on the Hill and elsewhere in government. A lot of those good seats at RFK were filled by companies (and their guests) that aren't able to do that any longer.

How can it be too early to tell whether having 1/3 of luxury suites unsold--as reported today by Barry--is a success or not? Are companies suddenly going to sign contracts for them for the rest of the season once school is out or the weather gets better? Of course not. These are lost sales attributable to either the Nats overestimating the market and setting prices too high, or poor marketing, or both.

And let's not forget, part of Boz's "20k at Nats Park is like 30k at RFK" pronouncement was contingent on luxury suites being sold. Different story if they're empty...

In addition, it devalues the season tickets in those sections.

For example, when the Learners took over in 2006, Kasten repriced many seats, starting on the Grand Reopening of RFK.

As a result of the repricing, not only were single-game tickets for my section cheaper than what I paid per ticket for my plan, but so were single-game tickets for the section in front of me. I still had nine of my twenty games remaining where my seats were suddenly worth half of what I paid for them.

(I contacted a ticket rep, who promised me free ticket vouchers. I follwed up several times, but never heard back. Bummer.)

This is why you have to be careful repricing tickets mid-season. You cannot mess with a loyal season ticket base. Plans are the best way to drive revenue (and attendance figures). You have to treat these people right.

-----

It might be too early to offer steep discounts on tickets -- what does that say to the loyal fans that ponied up early?

506,

just a guess. but loduca's G/F favors fly ball tendencies. maybe thats it? he puts the ball in the air more often than most hitters?

Snorted my milk out my nose there!

(I think you mean Dutch AUCTION. And no, I'm not going to Tin Yurl "dutch oven.")
**********
I like the dutch oven idea...

Posted by: Things will turn around | April 15, 2008 10:37 AM

Some numbers from Boz on Kornheiser's show today...
The Average bump you get from a new stadium is 37%. Current bump is 33%. Bump excluding opening day (both years) 46%. One other interesting factiod, the first time the Yankees averaged more than 33k per game (Nationals 2005 average) _ever_ was 1998.
I also wonder how much suite and premium seat uptake was affected by the new Congressional lobbying rules adopted in 2006 (2007?).

CiL: I agree, but what I can't figure out is why if, in fact, 60-70% of those president's club seats are sold, why are they 80% empty? (And contributing to how bad it looks on TV). Are those people not coming? Are they coming but basking in the warm comfort of their buffet spread? Is there any chance that the club would answer those questions?

Traffic and transportation to the game is exellent BECAUSE Kasten and the Post warned everyone ahead of time.

I'm very happy when the stands are filled, but otherwise I don't think attendance is an important story.

Reasons for lack of attendance will all be speculation (see dozens of above comments) and getting better attendance is the team's job. I don't really need to read more about it.

I'm with flynnie on the record for the road. One each from Mets and Braves, 2 out of 3 from the Marlins for a 4-4 road record and I'm happy.

On to lighter matters:

MIB, 1a, let's see if we can keep the Rally Squirrel concept alive for a bit. I think it has some potential.

Traveler, 1a is right, [AB] is the new [RF]. Or at least another option. As a Yankee, Aaron Boone hit a walkoff homer against the BoSox in the playoffs a few years back, echoing a similar event years before when the then-cursed Socks were undone by a homer from light-hitting Bucky Dent. For years after Red Sox fans referred to Dent as "Bucky [RF]ing Dent." Hence, "Aaron [RF]ing Boone" was born. And now, [AB] = [RF].

So, I take it that (419+1)*0 is not 419+1? If so, (i) welcome; (ii) what's the deal with that moniker; and (iii) interesting point about the (evidently) completely useless argument that starting the season 3-8 has anything to do with anything.

Finally, I think we need to go 5-3 on this road trip. I'd settle for 4-4 because it's the Mets and the Braves on the road. We need to sweep at Florida though.

That is simply untrue. You can use talent at the prospect level to trade for major league talent. Just ask Detroit.

Also, Kasten has never said that free agency is not part of the plan. He as averse to overspending for marginal talent. That's just good business. Free agency is better suited to plug holes or acquire role players (unless you can get a steal).

You can't build a team without some level of free agency. But to completely overhaul a team that was so decimated by MLB owndership, you need to develop talent on the farm. This restocking will not only allow the team to develop its own stars, but also to acquire missing pieces through trades.

-----

The only way that success rate could possibly lead to a contending--much less championship--team would be through significant multiple free agent signings. Which the cheap Lerners have said is not what they intend to do and is not part of The Plan.

I attended Sunday's game with other hearty souls who braved the cold weather. But here's my thing: we live in the far exurbs -- about 15 miles south of Fredericksburg, but work in DC. The commute is awful (up at 3 a.m. to start!). Last year at RFK there were at least 4 weekday afternoon games to attend; they provide an option for folks like us to take off from work at noon, see a game, and still have plenty of time to catch a VRE train home. With folks moving farther and farther out, and with no weekday afternoon options at all, that will negatively affect attendence. I did it once, this past Sunday, just to see the new stadium, but I doubt I'll repeat it.

One problem with "setting up your own plan" is that you don't get some of the advantages of having a season-ticket plan (consistent seat, MVP discount at the team store, etc.). I like the idea of a Friday/Saturday/Sunday-specific plan because it's easier to plan your ballpark visits in advance vis-a-vis your work schedule. The Yankees, Phillies and Mets do it...why not the Nats?

Regarding Lo Duca vs. Schneider, a few things to consider:

* Once Estrada is fully healthy, Lo Duca may get a bit more time off.

* Neither Lo Duca nor Estrada are being planned as the long-range first-string catcher. That will be Flores, who is being groomed for that role but is spending most of 2008 in the high minors, playing every day, getting the experience he needs -- especially handling many of the pitchers he'll be working with over the next few years.

Are you losing something with Lo Duca compared to Schneider? Certainly, especially defensively. It's a brief regression you take in exchange for long-term progress, especially since you acquired a possible breakout star in Milledge in return.

ah, I was wondering what Dutch ovens had to do with it anything.

----

Snorted my milk out my nose there!

(I think you mean Dutch AUCTION. And no, I'm not going to Tin Yurl "dutch oven.")

OK, Bobby, from now on, I AM Rally Squirrel.

To Bill: The main reason there are no weekday afternoon games this year (save for federal holidays and a 4:35 start later this month) is because the Nationals needed to gauge what kind of parking would be needed on those days in an area where there are several federal office buildings such as DOT. As things settle into place, such games should be scheduled, and there may be a few in 2009. But the team and the District wanted to have some of the infrastructure in place first, and I don't blame them.

"Another factor that tends to get overlooked is the impact of the new lobbying/gift restrictions on the Hill and elsewhere in government. A lot of those good seats at RFK were filled by companies (and their guests) that aren't able to do that any longer."

I think this is dead on. My red-headed, Cubs-fan girlfriend (by the way, who was it who forced me to add red-headed to the name by repeatedly using the acronym RHCFG, was it you NatsNut?) works for a lobbying firm and they've reduced their tickets from 9 to 4 and completely dumped their Verizon Center box because of this. When the stadium was designed, tickets for hill staffers were still the norm.

Old guy, awesome post, thanks for that info. The grammarian in me forces me to point out that factoid is something that resembles, but is not, a fact, much as humanoid is something that resembles, but is not, a human. Pretend I didn't say it, though, because your post was awesome.

theraph, I will check out those splits this afternoon, good thought.

(cue Star Wars theme)

Oh and I'm thinking we need to go 4-4 on the road trip (or 5-3 if we can manage to sneak a series win out of NY or ATL).

All Barry S did was report the fact that Nationals Park does not have the "buzz" that all of the other post-1991 ballparks did when they opened. That is the story that the rest of the MLB cities are talking about. It may change in late April, May, summer... or it may never change.

Don't take it personally and throw bombs at other towns. Or just sign the bottom of your emotional posts "I hate Baltimore" or "I hate Cleveland" or whatever city it is that riles you. I'm sure they hate you too ;)

That's a great point, Bill.

The Atlanta game on April 30th is at 4:35. The Milwaukee game on May 26th is at 1:35.

And that's it. That's one businessperson's special on a Monday and one odd 4:35 start on a Wednesday.

There really needs to be at least one afternoon weekday game per month. Maybe Kasten was worried about transportation issues with rush hour and what not. But this is DC, where people work, but don't live. Get 'em while they're already in town.

I assume the Star Wars Theme is for the Rally Squirrel, stepping up to the plate with his light saber?

506,
Yea, might have been me, now I think about it. I thought it was you, but you had only mentioned her red hair in the women's t-shirt discussion.

It came when I said I had no TV, you proposed, and I declined for fear of your "red-headed, cubs fan girlfriend" kicking my a**.

Man, that was about 150 baseball years ago.

May 26th is a Business(wo)mans Special only if you work Memorial Day...

E, don't call me "son.". If you have a 3 year old son, I venture to say that I am older and--quite obviously from the content of your posts--wiser than you.

Posted by: Lerners ARE Cheap | April 15, 2008 11:46 AM
----------------------
LAC --
1) I quoted the great animated rooster, Foghorn Leghorn when I wrote "It's a joke, son. Don't ya get it?" So, I apologize if you didn't get that joke either.
2) You wrote, "I venture to say that I am older and--quite obviously from the content of your posts--wiser than you." My reply: F-YOU and the horse you rode in on! Who the heck are you to say that you are wiser than me (or anyone else on this blog)? All I tried to say was that it is too soon to gauge whether or not the Lerners can be considered cheap. You took that and made it personal by saying that I am inferior to your great intellect. You can determine this by reading one or two comments from me? Wow! You are a genius. I bow down to you, oh great one! Oh yeah, one more thing ... "Up your nose with a runner hose!"

Or maybe 150 *blog* years is more like it.
_____________

Man, that was about 150 baseball years ago.
Posted by: NatsNut | April 15, 2008 12:52 PM

Wrong. Now you are assuming something like a 75%+ "success" rate of the prime prospects who are part of the Plan. We already talked about one of Burgess/Marrero hitting 35 HRs for the Nats, and 2 of Detwiler, McGeary, Smoker, Zimmermann, Balester becoming proven 200+ innings starters for the Nats. So now you're talking about the other guys who don't do that becoming prime trading chips? That just doesn't happen. Guys flame out. Some of them may flame out this year. Not everyone becomes either a success for the Nats or brings a proven star in return, to think that might happen is just fantasy. It didn't happen for the Tigers either.

And speaking of the Tigers, they signed significant free agents--Rodriguez and Ordonez--*before* the Tigers were ready to contend. Plus, factor in the Tigers' willingness to shell out huge bucks above slot in the draft (Verlander et al.), against which McGeary pales in comparison. So, the Tigers have a better pool with which to work than does Stan the Plan, because they're willing to shell out bucks up front that the Lerners aren't willing to do.

Now are the Nats going to start doing what the Tigers did? If so, great, and people will rightly stop calling the Lerners cheap. But that would be a huge change in approach from The Plan. The Lerners have said that under The Plan they might sign "one or two" free agents to plug holes when the Nats are ready to contend. That is not what the Tigers did by any stretch. What the Lerners currently appear to be doing is something with which you should be readily familiar with living in Minnesota: they are trying to catch lightning in a bottle, and then waving goodbye to their home-grown stars once they become too expensive for their shallow pockets.

Anyway, what year is the Plan supposed to come to fruition? I really don't know. Can you tell me?
___________________
That is simply untrue. You can use talent at the prospect level to trade for major league talent. Just ask Detroit.

Also, Kasten has never said that free agency is not part of the plan. He as averse to overspending for marginal talent. That's just good business. Free agency is better suited to plug holes or acquire role players (unless you can get a steal).

You can't build a team without some level of free agency. But to completely overhaul a team that was so decimated by MLB owndership, you need to develop talent on the farm. This restocking will not only allow the team to develop its own stars, but also to acquire missing pieces through trades

Posted by: John in Mpls | April 15, 2008 12:28 PM

From a story on FoxSports.com and as Barry once said in one of his chats:

"I always think of Stan Kasten telling me the story of warning the Lerners that fans "will call you cheap, and they'll probably call you cheap bastards."

John in Mpls, I believe May 26th is Memorial Day....so not a businessman's special even.

@gonats

john probably was distracted because he's also busy contributing to the caps blog as well.

e, big breath, you're not going to be Learners ARE Cheap at his own game. You've got to stick to playing your way: smart, insightful, and witty. Nobody wins in a blog urinating match, anyway, so let him dominate for his hollow victory.

Learners ARE Cheap, what's your goal here? Some folks flat out won't believe it, some of us don't feel we have enough information to decide, and some folks here are positive they are already. What does this really accomplish for you? Minds seem to be made up for today, until there is more information, so no need to try to persuade anymore.

A new question. What team did everyone cheer for in 2004?

@506,

remember, it's always easier to rail about how someone else either does or doesn't spend his money.

i'm going to indulge in one of my worst habits: pointing out flaws (especially ridiculous flaws) in peoples' arguments.

Mt. Vernon Nat said:
"But, in the interim, when you field a team where your marquee player is Cristian Guzman...well, you're going to have a hard time attracting a crowd."

can you be more disingenuous with your argument? guzman? you mean the guy who's, at best, 7th or 8th in their list of who they market (i.e., i haven't seen him in any marketing material yet this season)?

zimmerman
chief
johnson
milledge
rauch
kearns
WMP

even if you consider that arguable, there's no way he's even in the top 3. you really destroy a lot of the credibility you build in having a halfway decent position by making a comment like that. why should i take anything you say seriously if you can't even take it seriously enough to not be intellectually dishonest in your argument? you come across as a politician smearing his opponent with half-truths.

LAC: We'll have to agree to disagree on this one. I would also point out that we get a pick or two this year. Looks like what may be a GREAT pick next year, so what you see today may not be all that you get.

Moving on, if we all want to worry about something that we can't control, why not worry about the NAMING RIGHTS! It has been reported that $10 million annually is expected. At an average ticket price of, say, $20 (you can pick your own number and do your own math), that equates to 500,000 more fans a season or over 6,000 per game in equivalent revenue! Enough to buy LAC a premium free agent!

Now that's something we can all get apoplectic over!

"CiL: I agree, but what I can't figure out is why if, in fact, 60-70% of those president's club seats are sold, why are they 80% empty?"

Presidential Seats (80% empty) and luxury suites (2/3rds sold) are two different things. The luxury suites are located above the club level and below the Infield Gallery. The suites have two or three rows of seating in front of them, but if those rows are full or empty it is not all that noticeable. If the Presidential Seats (and Diamond Box Seats) are empty, either because they're not sold or because the seatholder is inside the associated club, it is VERY noticeable, as those seats are front and center on TV.

Cap Hill, there are 2 related but different things going on here.

The thing I was talking about was luxury suites (in the back of the club level), as opposed to the premium Presidential/Diamond seats. It's hard for most fans to see on game day how the Nats are doing with the suites. But Barry reported that the luxury suites are 1/3 unsold. That's with respect to initial contracts that the Nats would reap significant revenue on. When they're unsold, the Nats don't even have the opportunity to sell the game tickets and huge catering expenses/concessions that are associated with those suites when used. Suites that are sold but not used on a particular game day also mean lost revenue, but not as much as suites that aren't sold in the first place. The bottom line on the luxury suites is that there's no way suites should be 1/3 vacant in Year One of a new ballpark, someone dropped the ball here real bad.

As to the seats down front, I went to the Open House the Nats held on April 5, and most of those seats are in fact sold as you state, though there are a good number of President's Club seats unsold. There are fewer Diamond Club seats unsold, even on a relative basis. I sit close to those seats, so I have a good view on whether the people are there and just hanging in the club (by the way, there is no window on to the field from the President's Club, just tv monitors). And so far, they're just not coming. And having talked to a few people, I think the problem is that those seats were primarily sold to corporations (potentially cannibalizing suite sales?) because the price tags were so high, and the companies are just not using the seats. That's much more of an image problem--though a very serious one I agree--than a revenue problem. The Nats probably make more money off those seats when they're sold but unfilled (since they come with free food), but the hit to their image is really bad.
* * * *
CiL: I agree, but what I can't figure out is why if, in fact, 60-70% of those president's club seats are sold, why are they 80% empty? (And contributing to how bad it looks on TV). Are those people not coming? Are they coming but basking in the warm comfort of their buffet spread? Is there any chance that the club would answer those questions?

Posted by: Capitol Hill | April 15, 2008 12:25 PM

Great question for the gang, 506.

Lifelong Cleveland Indians fan here (last night really hurt).

People tend to throw "look how people flocked to Jacob's Field when it opened" when comparing attendance at Nationals Park. After 60 years of Municipal Stadium (and you thought RFK was a dump), and, let's face it, fewer options for spending your entertainment dollar than in DC, it's not really a fair comparison.

i'll reiterate (in short) what i said before to the tiger's analogy.

look at their top prospects and when they came up, and look at who was already on the team and was established, when they signed irod and ordonez. they signed them in 04 and 05. they had more established players (and top prospects) either on their team in 04 and 05 or on the cusp (they came up in 06) than we do. and they were in the WS in 06.

btw, it's interesting that people use ordonez as their example of the FA signing. ordonez, at the time, was exactly the kind of guy bowden would sign. a player with great talent, but significant injury risk (coming off of microfracture surgery on his knee). a lot of so-called experts questioned the signing, even with the injury clauses, at the time as being far too risky. and i'm guessing that many here would make the same kind of comments. it turned out great for them, but it was definitely considered a risky, high-upside signing in 2005. it's revisionist to consider it any other way.

I wasn't shocked by attendence. I think the organization thinks Washington baseball fans are less sophisticated than they are. Kasten said that people here would never have seen anything like the new stadium. Well...I've lived here my whole life, and I've seen plenty of stadiums exactly like it -- in Cincinnati, Pittsburgh, Philadelphia. Doesn't mean its not a nice stadium, but people here are largely from other places (its the nature of the town), and those of us that are local still do a fair bit of travelling.

When I was in Cincinnati last year for the Nats series, the stadium (four years old) was empty. Cincinnati has a nice park, good baseball fans and whole lot less to do in it than Washington does. People come when the team wins. Having a starting rotation from the scrap heap, a left fielder who was given away by the Red Sox, and trading away one of the most popular players (Schneider) in the off season isn't helping attendence.

The one thing about Nationals Park that I don't like is that it seems to be more about amenities than baseball. If I wanted to hang out at a sports bar, I'd go to the ESPN Zone, not a baseball game. If I wanted to have my child 'build a bear', I'd take him to the mall, not the ballpark. It would be nice if as much attention was paid to the baseball as it is to Ben's Chili Bowl and the Playstation Pavillion.

Thanks, CiL. I was asking primarily about the seats down front (and on TV). I should have been more clear.

The attendance article is leaving out a HUGE factor when comparing ball clubs opening new parks. The Reds, Tigers, Orioles, and Indians, all had over 100 years of history in the same town with a generational fan base. I am a child of the '60s. I grew up with the new Senators who we still called the Nats. My older brothers would give me the business about my Nats not being the "real" Nats since their "Nats" left town in '60. DC, except for us old timers, are confused. There are guys who are just a few years younger than I who only knew the O's growing up. I, on the other hand, went to Memorial and Camden Yards more for the party rather than love for the O's. What we need is a fan base builder. That comes with cheap seats or with a playoff winner on the field. Since we are years away from "loving" the Nats to the core - as in taht love is part of our DNA - I recommend we go with the cheap seats.

Posted by: 6th and D | April 15, 2008 8:14 AM
___________________________________________

Actually the O's moved to Baltimore in 1954 and before that were in St. Louis and Milwaukee. Unless you're counting the old Baltimore Orioles who later became the New York Yankees or the AAA Baltimore Orioles. Of course if you're going to do that than you have to definitely include all the old Nats/DC teams, in terms of "fan base"

I wasn't following any baseball team in 2004. The last time I did (prior to 2007) was in 1992, the Pirates.

I had no team in 2004. In 2001 I officially gave up on following the Orioles, though, in truth, I hadn't followed them for several years seriously.

I posted this question for JiM, I'll ask it again here along with some related questions in view of Dick and 231's subsequent posts, for anyone who is happy with how things are going for the Nats:

By what year do you believe The Plan is supposed to come to fruition? At what point would you become frustrated if The Plan does not yield a contending team?

Before 2005, I followed the SF Giants, whose "plan" was to bring in as many free-agent geezers as possible to prop up Huge Giant Head B. Bonds. The way SF has cratered the past few years, I'm glad to support the Nats.

O's Exec's history outline brings up a good point. When Baltimore was truly a baseball town in the '90s it was only after less than 40 years of history, but with two world series titles and seven penants (five of them in the 17 year period from 1966 - 1983). They haven't won a pennant since, and yet it took nearly 20 years for Angelos to destroy his fan base.

O's Exec, any idea what their attendance looked like in the twelve years from '54 - '66?

If this team doesn't have mid-20's guys with serious upside and slightly older guys in their prime at every position and in the rotation, along with some depth in the minors by 2011, then I'll be worried.

I didn't have a major league team from 1971 till 2005 though I did follow ML baseball. I mostly went to minor league and college summer league games and my team is the Bethesda Big Train.

"Old Guy", Great Post about what Boz said regarding Yankees attendance. Bottom Line: Win and people will come...sad but true.

"Lerners ARE Cheap", The Lerners/Nats signed their first 20 picks last year in the draft so, I don't understand your comparison with the "Tigers' willingness to shell out huge bucks above slot in the draft (Verlander et al.)" Sounds to me like they are NOT being cheap with scouting and signing draft picks which is a huge part of the "Plan."

"506", I was a huge Cincinnati Reds fan before the Nats came. Born and raised in NVA but, never bought into the O's...Thank God.

Ok, didn't mean to include the Browns...uh Orioles. Sorry O's Exec.

That shuttle bus from RFK is WAY to good to be true. I went to 3 games by Green Line, and then last Friday night took the shuttle. I had a bunch of kids with me from the neighborhood and didn't want to buy Metro fares for all of them. Talk about painless! And the price is right. And I think I prefer going this way than using Metro. They have the whole operation down to a science. It is very well done and convenient.

Actually, I made no assumption of 75% success. That would be absurd.

Because here's the thing. The Plan never stops. The comittment to build quality players within your organization is one that needs to be maintained in order to be effective.

Not all of them will be effective. Not even most of them will be effective. But you have to keep stocking the farm. And honestly, trades involving players who never make it happen pretty frequently. You think every player the Twins acquired for Santana are going to pan out? Highly touted prospects have a value - even if they eventually flame out.

I can't tell you when The Plan will come to fruition. Honestly, it depends on your definition of success. I don't think there's a year Stan has circled on his calendar as The Year We Win It All.

But it's about more than just putting ONE good team out there. It's about sustained success. And to do that, you have to rebuild from within.

Really, it's more The Philosophy than it is The Plan. And more and more teams are adopting it.

-----

So now you're talking about the other guys who don't do that becoming prime trading chips? That just doesn't happen.

@Dick: For me, since the Lerners didn't lock down the naming rights before the season started (heck, a YEAR ago), it'll always be Nationals Park to me.

Couple that with the fact that since they waited so long, chances are pretty good that they won't get the original amount they'd hoped to get.

F