Classy organization.

Pray they don't alter it any further.

Due to injury

A data point in explaining why an organization that plays in one of baseball's most affluent markets has had so much trouble retaining its young talent (Harper, Soto, Rendon, Turner) over the years.

The Nats were steady contenders from 2012 through 2019, and yet their attendance in none of those years ever matched what they drew in their first year at dilapidated RFK Stadium.

I'm interested if they will have to change the RFK stadium name if Jr advances to the Oval Office. Maybe they could get Pfizer to buy naming rights

Huh, hadn't noticed the Nationals have never had 3 million show up to a season. Peak was year 1 (2005) at 2,731,993 with 2.5 cracked in 2013, 2014, 2015, 2017,2018. Best year in Montreal was 2,320,651 in 1983 - 8 times the Nationals have done better, but just 4 times in a non-playoff year (Expos famously only made the playoffs in 1981 despite having 3 HOF'ers in Carter, Dawson, and Raines full time from 81-83 along with near HOF'er Steve Rogers). The nationals WS year fits right in with the Expos 79-83 seasons for attendance (better than 79/80, worse than 82/83, 81 was the strike year). Worst for the Nationals is 2021 with 1,465,543.

Seems the Nationals have their fan base of around 1 1/2 million who'll show up even for a crap team with COVID around. But casual fans won't pack it - official capacity: 41,546, best in 2023 38,853, just 3 games over 35k. The Cardinals despite having their worst season in a generation or two are averaging over 40k a game. 5 teams are averaging more than the best they have had.

Increasing attendance is a multi-year process, and the Nationals were disadvantaged by the 2020 Covid season wiping out their opportunity to build on their 2019 World Series win. Since then, poor performance and trading Turner & Soto have soured quite a few fans. There’s room for growth, with new ownership and resolving the MASN mess likely to help.

The Nats were steady contenders from 2012 through 2019, and yet their attendance in none of those years ever matched what they drew in their first year at dilapidated RFK Stadium.

I want to second Andy's pt. One of the posters seems to be saying that the Nats werent putting enough into the team but if I recall correctly wasnt there a 5 or 6 year stretch where the Nats had the best overall record in baseball? It was clear that they were really trying to at least win one for Lerner. No?

Increasing attendance is a multi-year process, and the Nationals were disadvantaged by the 2020 Covid season wiping out their opportunity to build on their 2019 World Series win. Since then, poor performance and trading Turner & Soto have soured quite a few fans. There’s room for growth, with new ownership and resolving the MASN mess likely to help.

I dont know about that. There were several primates here that have expressed something else. What creates jumps in attendance (as opposed to having a large metro area) is chasing a world series for first time and b) a new stadium. Both of these are usually one year shots. But then again because I am starting with premise of "jumps in attendance" then I guess thats already going to be a given. The only exception that I can recall is KC because they saw sustained high attendance throughout there runs in the 80s and lately.

If you look at other small or med market teams there's really no way to have sustained attendance figures that are higher than whatever metropolitan base population you have to start with. PIT and CIN in 70s and later CIN in 80s for example. The PIT if I recall only had a couple of big years in there once when they opened Three Rivers and then the 71 Championship and then another peak corresponding to 79 champ or perhaps it was the year earlier when they made a run.

The only exception that I can recall is KC because they saw sustained high attendance throughout there runs in the 80s and lately.

Cleveland sold out for years in a row in the 90s.

The only exception that I can recall is KC because they saw sustained high attendance throughout there runs in the 80s and lately.
Cleveland sold out for years in a row in the 90s.

...because of a new stadium and sudden title chase. Also the Browns moving out at virtually the same time probably didn't hurt them.

Seems the Nationals have their fan base of around 1 1/2 million who'll show up even for a crap team with COVID around. But casual fans won't pack it - official capacity: 41,546, best in 2023 38,853, just 3 games over 35k.

There are going to be different perspectives on this, but for many fans Nats Park is a royal PITA to get to from the Maryland suburbs if you don't live near a Metro stop. If you drive, you have to fight through the downtown evening rush hour to make it by game time, and the parking fees are often much higher than the price of the ticket. When it comes to public transportation the ideal central location for the area as a whole would've been near the Shaw / Howard U. Metro stop, which is ironically within a stone's throw of the old Griffith Stadium.

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

If you look at other small or med market teams there's really no way to have sustained attendance figures that are higher than whatever metropolitan base population you have to start with. PIT and CIN in 70s and later CIN in 80s for example. The PIT if I recall only had a couple of big years in there once when they opened Three Rivers and then the 71 Championship and then another peak corresponding to 79 champ or perhaps it was the year earlier when they made a run.

But if you look at the attendance figures from the 70's, when both the Reds and the Pirates had new multiplexes and were both in consistent contention, the Reds were always in the top 3 in NL attendance, and often 1st or 2nd. Whereas the Pirates were usually in the bottom half of the league, with a 10th and an 11th thrown in.

I am about the same distance from Camden Yards as I am to Nationals Park, as the crow flies. But I can get to the Yards in less than an hour, and Nats Park takes me an hour and a half, maybe two if traffic is especially bad. Hopping on the Metro certainly decreases stress but doesn't really save time.

I've gone to a Nats game here and there, but the Orioles are much more convenient.

I am about the same distance from Camden Yards as I am to Nationals Park, as the crow flies. But I can get to the Yards in less than an hour, and Nats Park takes me an hour and a half, maybe two if traffic is especially bad. Hopping on the Metro certainly decreases stress but doesn't really save time.

That's pretty much my experience, coming from Kensington in MoCo, near Einstein HS. 25-30 minute walk to the Wheaton Metro (parking is scarce), transfer at Metro Center and then walk to the park. Total time about 75-90 minutes, depending on getting at the Metro at the right time. Whereas Camden Yards is more like an hour total, allowing for a parking garage a few blocks north of the park.

The only exception that I can recall is KC because they saw sustained high attendance throughout there runs in the 80s and lately.

Cleveland sold out for years in a row in the 90s.

...because of a new stadium and sudden title chase. Also the Browns moving out at virtually the same time probably didn't hurt them.

TL;DR - Good teams draw fans.

Expanding on #17 - the Mets drew 3,168,000 the first year Citi was open, haven't topped 2.8 million since, and have averaged just over 29,000 per game in that span (capacity 40,000).

The White Sox have topped 2M once since '11, averaging just under 24,500 fans in another 40,000 seat park.

That's pretty much my experience, coming from Kensington in MoCo, near Einstein HS. 25-30 minute walk to the Wheaton Metro (parking is scarce), transfer at Metro Center and then walk to the park.

Have you checked lately? With many still working from home, METRO ridership is way down, which has freed up some parking spaces, at least that’s the case in Northern Virginia. Even pre-pandemic, only the 1:00 PM weekday games were somewhat problematic for METRO parking. It probably hasn’t helped that METRO cut back on the parking spaces at some of the later stations, thinking it would encourage people to take buses but it mostly caused people to skip the subway, too, and stick to their cars.

I think it was already mentioned but the Nats and most teams in mew ballparks don't play in very big parks as compared to previous stadiums.

During their good years they drew rather well based on the size of their ballpark. Then as mentioned they got smacked with Covid right when they should have been getting a good bump.

I'm interested if they will have to change the RFK stadium name if Jr advances to the Oval Office

RFK stadium is following a similar trajectory to Jr's reputation.

Nationals:

"Stephen Strasburg is and always will be an important part of the Washington Nationals franchise. We support him in any decision he makes and will ensure that he receives what is due to him.


"It is regrettable that private discussions have been made public through anonymous sources attempting to negotiate through the media. While we have been following the process required by the collective bargaining agreement, behind-the-scenes preparations for a press conference had begun internally. However, no such event was ever confirmed by the team or promoted publicly. It is unfortunate that external leaks in the press have mischaracterized these events.

"It is our hope that ongoing conversations remain private out of respect for the individuals involved. Until then, we look forward to seeing Stephen when we report to spring training."

What a weasel worded press release. I think the translation is "We're not going to let him retire unless we get financial concessions."

No. They want him to retire. Strasburg won't do it unless he's properly compensated. Which is fine. Nobody is doing anything wrong. Shocker, i know

Ok, maybe I misread

“it was the Nationals who approached Strasburg about retiring and paying him the full amount of his contract, sources briefed on the matter say. The team wants to change the terms.”

and

It is regrettable that private discussions have been made public through anonymous sources attempting to negotiate through the media.

as meaning the team wants to change the payout.

The National don’t have any leverage here. If Strasburg doesn’t retire due to disability, the Nationals will need to keep him on the offseason roster, costing them a spot on the 40-man, or they can cut him, in either case he still gets all the money. Maybe they’re fussing over paying him off in a lumps sum, but I don’t see why the Nationals would go down that road in the current inflationary environment.

Due to a career ending injury, if he retires the team still has to pay out the full terms of the contract, is my understanding. The benefit to the team is they get to reclaim the 40-man roster spot and not lose someone to the Rule 5 draft every winter.

Presumably the subject of the negotiations was the timing of the payments. It seems apparent the Nationals and Strasburg's representatives struck some kind of (verbal, non-contractual) deal, and now the team is reneging, so Strasburg isn't retiring.

When I saw the headline my first thought was that he had had a miraculous recovery and was headed back to the mound. The real story was disappointing.

I don't think there is such a thing as a career ending injury in a legal sense. Every athlete in the world has a body with "career ending" damage to it.

In terms of leverage the Nats can make Stephen keep on rehabbing at a designated spot with their trainers and doctors.
It isn't much but it is 3 more years of obligations to Stephen.

In the end i think Stephen will get every penny that he wants from the Nats.

Per the CBA if a player retires due to a certified medical reasons, the team still owes him the contract in full--of course, I can only imagine the certification process for that is complex and offers great potential for rancor. This thing is probably on its way to an arbitrator.

But since it's clear enough he's not going to pitch in the majors again, it's in the Nats' interest for him to retire. Otherwise they'll be running a 39 man roster for the next 3 winters yet.

But since it's clear enough he's not going to pitch in the majors again, it's in the Nats' interest for him to retire. Otherwise they'll be running a 39 man roster for the next 3 winters yet.

As Clapper noted in #26, the Nationals can release him to re-claim the roster spot.

Bowden had a tweet up on the day this happened that basically said the Nats/SS were fine. Manfred (or his buddies in the MLB office ) got wind of all of this and called the owners to kill it off because it set a bad precedent for other owners

He deleted this tweet but the wording of the nationals statement suggests to me there's fire where there is smoke