PDA

View Full Version : Nationals take BP at new stadium


itsnotrequired
09-19-2007, 08:42 AM
http://img210.imageshack.us/img210/8770/wilymopenabpatnewnatsstub0.jpg

http://img113.imageshack.us/img113/4020/139029220468e41d3a8duw2.jpg

http://www.misschatter.com/janf/index.php/2007/09/16/nationals-take-batting-practice-at-new-stadium/

palehozenychicty
09-19-2007, 12:51 PM
When I went down to DC for Labor Day weekend, I saw the skeleton over on South Capitol Street. It will be an impressive facility, and it's relatively accessible by Metro and the roads. That team is going to be very good very soon. You just watch...

DSpivack
09-19-2007, 01:01 PM
When I went down to DC for Labor Day weekend, I saw the skeleton over on South Capitol Street. It will be an impressive facility, and it's relatively accessible by Metro and the roads. That team is going to be very good very soon. You just watch...

Going to my first (and last baseball) game at RFK tonight! Can't wait for the new stadium to open. They will become a top 10, if not top 5, franchise (economically, at least) not before long.

thomas35forever
09-19-2007, 01:16 PM
Reminds me of Bonds taking BP at AT&T when it was still under construction.

WhiteSox5187
09-19-2007, 02:11 PM
Did the White Sox do that at New Comiskey? I recall that photo of Ventura and Fisk (wearing the 1919 uniform and I believe hard hats) in the new ballpark while it was still under construction. Was that just a publicity photo or was there an actual event in the new ballpark then?

Fenway
09-19-2007, 02:32 PM
It really looks nice

http://d.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/p/ap/20070919/capt.b6623030cc2f4d6fa556e2777ba618c1.nationals_st adium_dccd101.jpg

Lip Man 1
09-19-2007, 03:29 PM
Regarding the notion that because of a new ballpark the Nationals are going to become "very good, very soon..."

That didn't work so well for the Pirates or Brewers did it?

Teams win because they have good talent, and good front office types... having a large payroll doesn't usually hurt either since that equates to better talent.

Do the Nationals have any of those?

Lip

palehozenychicty
09-19-2007, 04:13 PM
Regarding the notion that because of a new ballpark the Nationals are going to become "very good, very soon..."

That didn't work so well for the Pirates or Brewers did it?

Teams win because they have good talent, and good front office types... having a large payroll doesn't usually hurt either since that equates to better talent.

Do the Nationals have any of those?

Lip


They do have some pitching talent coming through the minors, and Kasten, along with Schuerholz, built the Braves franchise from nothing. Secondly, the Nationals are already in the top ten of MLB's most valuable franchises without putting a lot of money into payroll.

Hokiesox
09-19-2007, 04:50 PM
They do have some pitching talent coming through the minors, and Kasten, along with Schuerholz, built the Braves franchise from nothing. Secondly, the Nationals are already in the top ten of MLB's most valuable franchises without putting a lot of money into payroll.

That's because they have unbelievable local support for such a losing team. That's probably going to continue for at least a little while. Washington does a pretty good job sticking with losing teams (see: Bullets/Wizards, Capitals, and Redskins). Unfortunately, the city's history with MLB is not as shining...

It's a toss-up I say.

MeteorsSox4367
09-19-2007, 04:52 PM
Regarding the notion that because of a new ballpark the Nationals are going to become "very good, very soon..."

That didn't work so well for the Pirates or Brewers did it?

Teams win because they have good talent, and good front office types... having a large payroll doesn't usually hurt either since that equates to better talent.

Do the Nationals have any of those?

Lip

Hey, Lip: As for young talent, the Nationals do have a good amount. Their young pitchers (Hanrahan, Lannan, etc.) are all expected to have bright futures. Of course, they also could turn out to be the next Scott Ruffcorns. As for the bullpen, Cordero's solid and even Sox castoff Jon Rauch has pitched well.

And I'm also a huge fan of third baseman Ryan Zimmerman. The kid has range, power and from having watched quite a few of their games this season, also seems to enjoy playing baseball. The Nats are set at third for the next 15 years.

palehozenychicty
09-19-2007, 04:57 PM
That's because they have unbelievable local support for such a losing team. That's probably going to continue for at least a little while. Washington does a pretty good job sticking with losing teams (see: Bullets/Wizards, Capitals, and Redskins). Unfortunately, the city's history with MLB is not as shining...

It's a toss-up I say.

They do support junk, but the Redskins were perennially a good team until Snyder ran them into the ground with his rotisserie style of team development. The Wizards have been a respectable team recently, but no threat to win a title anytime soon. The Caps have Ovechkin, Kolzig, and prayers. We shall see.

DSpivack
09-19-2007, 04:58 PM
Regarding the notion that because of a new ballpark the Nationals are going to become "very good, very soon..."

That didn't work so well for the Pirates or Brewers did it?

Teams win because they have good talent, and good front office types... having a large payroll doesn't usually hurt either since that equates to better talent.

Do the Nationals have any of those?

Lip

I don't think they'll win any time soon, but I think they will consistently draw well in the new park, especially if they can get a tv deal worked out (the current one Angelos worked out pretty well for the Orioles). I think they could quickly become one of the most valuable franchises in MLB.

Lip Man 1
09-19-2007, 07:29 PM
Folks:

There's a difference between being valuable from a financial standpoint and good on the field.

No argument with the first part of that statement but regarding the second..again a new stadium didn't help the Brewers and Pirates that much from that standpoint.

I just disagree with the fan who posted they were going to be "very good, very soon."

I do like Zimmerman though.

Lip

Viva Medias B's
09-19-2007, 08:12 PM
When I first saw the title of this thread, I thought the Nasty Nats sold the naming rights to the stadium to British Petroleum.

Hitmen77
09-19-2007, 09:13 PM
That's because they have unbelievable local support for such a losing team. That's probably going to continue for at least a little while. Washington does a pretty good job sticking with losing teams (see: Bullets/Wizards, Capitals, and Redskins). Unfortunately, the city's history with MLB is not as shining...

It's a toss-up I say.

How do you figure? At the risk of bringing up the A word on this site - the Nationals are ranked 25th in attendance.

Brian26
09-19-2007, 09:13 PM
Did the White Sox do that at New Comiskey? I recall that photo of Ventura and Fisk (wearing the 1919 uniform and I believe hard hats) in the new ballpark while it was still under construction. Was that just a publicity photo or was there an actual event in the new ballpark then?

You made me pull out my '91 Upper Deck cards! :D:

I'm pretty sure it was just some publicity shots.

http://s72.photobucket.com/albums/i172/brian2653/DSCN1208.jpg

WSox597
09-19-2007, 09:26 PM
There's a difference between being valuable from a financial standpoint and good on the field.

This is true, just look 8 miles to the north of US Cellular to see that in action.

Vernam
09-19-2007, 09:37 PM
That infield looks comparable to the Urinal's, only not quite as rocky. :cool:

Vernam

skobabe8
09-19-2007, 10:04 PM
That infield looks comparable to the Urinal's, only not quite as rocky. :cool:

Vernam

There's some BAD acting in that picture.

DSpivack
09-19-2007, 10:54 PM
How do you figure? At the risk of bringing up the A word on this site - the Nationals are ranked 25th in attendance.

DC is a big sports town (and a major east coast market), but they're 25th in attendance because of RFK and their awful performance. When they were .500 a couple years ago, they drew well. Then again, that could've been just the novelty factor since they were new.

A few years ago they were a homeless franchise owned by the league. Granted it's just a guess, but in last April's Forbes value rankings, they were already ranked 9th in MLB.

http://www.forbes.com/lists/2007/33/07mlb_The-Business-Of-Baseball_Value.html?thisSpeed=10000

Once the revenues start flowing in from the new ballpark, at the least they should be players in free agency. That doesn't mean they have a good organization, though. That'll take longer.

Hitmen77
09-19-2007, 11:07 PM
DC is a big sports town (and a major east coast market), but they're 25th in attendance because of RFK and their awful performance. When they were .500 a couple years ago, they drew well. Then again, that could've been just the novelty factor since they were new.

A few years ago they were a homeless franchise owned by the league. Granted it's just a guess, but in last April's Forbes value rankings, they were already ranked 9th in MLB.

http://www.forbes.com/lists/2007/33/07mlb_The-Business-Of-Baseball_Value.html?thisSpeed=10000

Once the revenues start flowing in from the new ballpark, at the least they should be players in free agency. That doesn't mean they have a good organization, though. That'll take longer.

I understand. I also agree that their new ballpark may bring in big crowds and a lot of revenue.

However, to say they are worth a lot of money or that they drew a lot of fans in DC's first baseball season in 33 years doesn't mean that "they have unbelievable support for such a losing team".

DSpivack
09-19-2007, 11:12 PM
I understand. I also agree that their new ballpark may bring in big crowds and a lot of revenue.

However, to say they are worth a lot of money or that they drew a lot of fans in DC's first baseball season in 33 years doesn't mean that "they have unbelievable support for such a losing team".

No, but the Redskins sell out a 90,000 seat stadium and have a waiting list of 150,000, so fans might just have a lot of support for a losing team! :redneck