Bottom line up-front: Leave aside all of the arguments about whether or not the Nationals should have invested more in player payroll 2022-26. They’re not important now. But the important point right now is that the balance of the 2026 season and (in particular) the 2026-27 offseason provides a unique “positive storm” confluence of events that the Nationals are arguably in near-perfect position to take advantage of…IF THE TEAM IS WILLING TO SIGNIFICANTLY INCREASE INVESTING IN PLAYER PAYROLL STARTING NOW.
And if the team doesn’t seize this advantage by showing a significant investment in players (such as +$50M in player payroll spending above upcoming arbitration increase by the beginning of the 2027 season), when so many positive factors are lined up, it’s completely understandable if Nationals fans decide the answer to “If not now, when?” is really “Never.”
In that case ownership can expect Nationals fans to respond by “sitting on their wallets” and refusing to spend on a team unwilling or unable to invest their money in the product on the field—and join the already-strong local chorus demanding the team be sold to an ownership group that *is* willing to invest in players as well as development.
An “almost perfect positive storm.” The 2026 Washington Nationals have:
– A strong cost-controlled core of young hitters who are already (all together now) leading MLB in runs scored (!). Only Luis Garcia Jr. will depart team control after 2027, and after him CJ Abrams is the only starter whose last year of team control is 2028. Pretty much everyone else is under team control through the 2030 season or later!
– A promising pipeline of additional young hitters on the brink of MLB arrival this year and what look like more strong prospects on the way towards arrival in 2027-2029.
– A clear weakness to focus attention on (pitching, starting pitching, bullpen pitching and more pitching). Yes, there are arms on the way in the near/mid-term. No, they aren’t enough by themselves to get this team into the post-season/become title contenders.
– Rock-bottom payroll commitments, Whether by accident or design the 2026-27 Nationals will have *lots* of room to add payroll with commitments at or near the bottom of MLB teams.
So there is a firm foundation, clear areas of need and lots of room to grow. Whether or not this was intentional, this is a *great* place to be in. With Strasburg’s $32.8M 2026 salary coming off the books there will easily be room to add $50M in player payroll above (i.e., not including) anticipated arbitration increases for players like LG Jr and CJ Abrams. That would still leave the Nationals somewhere around #20 in MLB player payroll commitments.
Showing a commitment to the team doesn’t require the Nationals to go “full Steve Cohen” either. I envision this Nationals team spending rising steadily relative to other MLB teams over the next 2-3 seasons to reach the midpoint (possibly later the top third?) of MLB team spending. That would show fans ownership is committed and investing in their product even if the Nats never match Dodgers-Mets-Yankees-Phillies level of spending.
Where to spend: extensions and free agents. Be flexible here, but both must be pursued. Extensions of young players in particular will provide a critically important signal of the team’s commitment as well as letting fans cheer for familiar players knowing they will be here for years. Free agent spending can then focus on filling specific areas of need (*cough* pitching *cough*).
Yes, players can say no to extensions—and fans must remember this. But it is also true players don’t have the opportunity to say no unless a team makes an offer. Foster Griffin’s comment that he hasn’t been contacted was a deeply disappointing alarm bell. And while the Nats have *HAD* (past tense) an arguable case about extending players, that argument has faded.
As BackwardsK’s detailed breakdown a couple of weeks ago here on Nats.Talk showed, while someone (i.e., me) could plausibly argue circa 2023-24 Nationals history showed they were at least as good if not better than MLB average at extending young players…by July 2026 that was not a good argument. Simply put, more than half of MLB now has at least two promising players who have signed long term extensions. Several have more. The Nationals have one modestly talented player (Keibert Ruiz) signed to an extension in 2023.
That doesn’t cut it anymore and the longer that goes on the stronger a negative signal it sends to the fan base. Sure, many players will say no. It’s their right, after all. But the way around that is to ask many players about their interest in signing an extension until you find those (like Gio Gonzalez Ryan Zimmerman, Stephen Strasburg, and Ruiz) who are willing to say yes. Some won’t take the money like Ian Desmond, Jordan Zimmermann, Bryce Harper, and Juan Soto. You can’t get them all. Just as signing free agents requires engaging a range of targeted players until you find those who are willing to say yes. Nobody will say yes if you don’t ask them.
Revenues should hopefully be there for increasing player payroll (extensions or free agents). You could easily pay for a Foster Griffin extension today if they would sell the stadium naming rights.
Nationals fans have demonstrated they are willing to come out to the park in much better numbers when they perceive team ownership is committed (through both quality of play and spending invested in the team). Leave aside for now things like MLB streaming packages, stadium naming rights and other revenue streams. The Nationals fanbase has shown they will back a winning team—with “backing” defined as “give you near-average MLB attendance” (11th-16th out of MLB teams 2012-19). Even if one assumes the local fan base never rises above the “MLB average” line, “MLB average” would be a solid revenue stream that beats the current “13th in the NL” level.
The danger. You have to pay money to make money in MLB. Beware the “Tampa Bay north” siren song.
Owners may love the glimmering image of creating a “development monster” that provides a constant stream of new players while trading away anyone who looks like they are about to get expensive. That approach can (as long as you continually develop better than your peers) build more wins…but it will not bring more fans. Which in turn can trap a team in a permanent self-fulfilling cycle where low revenues force player departures which lead to more low revenues and so on.
While it’s true the Rays have been a contender more often than not over the past two decades, the admirably successful “development monster” churn that keeps them there has pinned their attendance to the floor. Put another way, a fan base that constantly watches their best players get traded away early (the Tampa Bay model) is a fan base that has only reached as HIGH as 13th out of 15th in attendance for their league twice in the last 16 years. Two years out of 16 they managed to escape the bottom two teams in AL attendance.
If you want to permanently crimp your revenue stream, follow the Tampa Bay model.
And if revenue streams are a major concern, a team’s ownership should be aggressively looking for additional revenues. Getting MLB streaming/TV packages figured out should bring the team into parity with most of the league on that front at least. But leaving things like the “why haven’t you done this yet?” stadium naming rights issue fallow (if the MARLINS and PIRATES—the only two NL teams averaging less attendance than the Nats—can sell stadium naming rights what’s the hold up here?) undone is hard to understand.
More to the point, intentionally or not failure to get things like stadium naming rights done just add to the “Lerners aren’t committed to the team” messages fans have been receiving for the past several years. Which leads in turn to lower revenues.
Bottom line: the Nationals are in an enviable position with a “perfect positive storm” of good news placing them on the threshold of being a major force in MLB after the league finalizes the upcoming CBA wrangles. But trying to be a major force on the cheap—the “Tampa Bay north” model—would be voluntarily trapping itself at the bottom of MLB in revenues. And leading a growing number of fans like me, who have been season ticket holders in some form since 2012, to drop their support. Why should fans continue to invest their hard-earned cash if ownership won’t?
Over to you, Lerners. This offseason is GO time, and you need to commit. Either take advantage of this excellent position by increasing your investment in player payroll or commit to selling the team to an ownership group that will do what you refuse to.
Leave a Reply