Lerners got rich doing it their way; this time, it cost the Nationals a manager
|
Version 0 of 1. The Lerner family suffers from an addiction. Its origins are easy to understand, but it continues to bedevil the Washington Nationals at irregular, but usually damaging, intervals. What is their addiction? The belief that, whatever the issue, they can do it themselves and that they will almost always be right. The proof, at least in their own minds: their fortune, estimated at $4 billion, amassed in many ways — none of them having the slightest similarity to baseball. The Lerners, close-knit and reticent, interact little with the rest of the sport; and they seldom contradict patriarch Ted, 90, on anything. That insularity, almost a novice arrogance, makes them tough to buck whether you’re on the opposite side of a negotiation from them, or even on their side. But the bill for selective hearing, for preferring “Yes, sir,” always comes due. This week’s embarrassment with the Nationals illustrates the price. [The 10 most embarrassing moments in Nationals history] Last week, the team picked competent Bud Black to be the next manager, then probably mishandled the early stages of their negotiations over an actual contract. Managers want money, but they also desperately need guaranteed years to give them authority in their clubhouse. The Lerners started at one year with Black. The only number that’s lower is zero. You can debate how much that first offer would have put in Black’s pocket — once you include a buyout provision for a second season, maybe it was $2.5 million altogether. But in the same week that Don Mattingly got $10 million over four years from Miami, Black and the Nats weren’t going to have an easy trip from the engagement rings to the wedding ceremony. The Nationals, according to a person with knowledge of the situation, worked their way up to three guaranteed years at money that would be well above the average major league managing salary, perhaps in the top 10. But once the bloom is off a romance — about the time Black left his second interview, this one in private with Ted Lerner — the operative phrase becomes “start dating other people.” [Nationals’ manager search a fiasco of the Lerners’ doing] If this sounds like less than a state-of-the-art way to pursue someone you’ve decided you want as your manager, then that’s consistent with previous Nats debacles. If you’re going to get to three years — which works — then you don’t start at one year, which throws wrenches in gears. But the Lerners do things their way. Sometimes that makes them seem as out of the loop on how baseball business is done as Matt Williams not knowing Bryce Harper got choked in his own dugout. On Tuesday, the Nats gave the manager job to equally competent and more experienced Dusty Baker, their second choice by a thin margin. So in a matter of days, the Nats ownership got blasted for disrespecting Black, whether that was actually the case or not, while also ensuring that Baker would accept the job as a fallback candidate. As for Mike Rizzo, a general manager who has built a team that has averaged 91 wins the past four seasons, this episode doesn’t seem like how he does business. [Nationals hire Dusty Baker as manager] For the past two weeks, at the playoffs and World Series, there has been much talk of Black-or-Baker. The consensus was that both were solid, experienced managers,neither wonderful, both with strengths and weaknesses, but that the Nats were lucky to have such a decent choice. Black, 58, was classy, bright and exceptional with pitchers, but his .477 winning percentage with zero first-place finishes in 81 / 2 San Diego seasons was worrisome. Could he win? Baker, 66, was charismatic, a former all-star player who was a genuine buddy of generations of musicians from Jimi Hendrix and Carlos Santana, to current hip-hop and country stars. He could handle big (or obnoxious) stars. Baker would jack up the energy in what had become a flat clubhouse. But his track record with keeping pitchers healthy or going deep in the playoffs was suspect. Could he win it all? And he’d had health problems. [Dusty Baker is long on baseball experience — and life experience] Was either perfect? No. On the other hand, how could you go seriously wrong? Well, the Nats sure found a way. As professional sports ownerships go, the Lerners are somewhere in the middle of the pack. And they tend to improve with time. But that is damning with faint praise when you realize the low height at which the ownership bar is often set by the likes of Peter Angelos and Daniel Snyder, whose faces could serve as Halloween masks. Perhaps the only good news is that each year the stories about how out of touch the Lerners are with industry reality seem to get slightly less chilling. They grasp, “You just can’t do it that way in baseball.” But each step has a price. For example, the recently impoverished Mets ownership, their wealth damaged by the Bernie Madoff investment scandal, still managed to back General Manager Sandy Alderson when he wanted to add key players, such as Yoenis Cespedes, at the July 31 trade deadline. In contrast, the Nats were paralyzed in pursuing left-handed bat (and Gold Glove winner) Gerardo Parra to improve their injured lineup. Why wouldn’t the Nats increase payroll in midseason? Because that’s not how “we” do it. Maybe they’ll learn to be more flexible by next July 31 — a year late. The Lerners have had so much success for so long, including a huge increase in the value of the team, that they trust their own judgment totally but have difficulty respecting the views of anyone outside their tight circle. They farm projects out to key family members — such as getting the all-star game for D.C. (a success) or negotiating a reset of huge regional cable TV rights with MASN (so far a failure). Ironically, one of those who actually does have Ted Lerner’s ear is agent Scott Boras, who represents Harper, Max Scherzer, Stephen Strasburg, Anthony Rendon and Jayson Werth. It’s like Boras found the key to the safe lying in the parking lot. Meanwhile, others — first Stan Kasten and now Rizzo — embrace a role as the team’s public face and loyal Lerner guard dog with sharp teeth (or tongue). Kasten left as soon as his contractual obligations and conscience would allow it — with, like everyone else, kind exit day words for the Lerners. Rizzo’s current deal is up at the end of 2016; the Nats have options to retain him in 2017 and 2018. The Nats’ front office has assembled a slew of executive, scouting, coaching and advanced-analytics talent. How many of them would seek new surroundings if those who chose them were gone? That’s a worst-case scenario for the Nats. But the Lerners should pay attention. They were shocked the day Kasten told them he would be gone within weeks. Some of his friends had known for a year. The Lerners are good people. But they are, even by the standards of billionaire owners, isolated from their own kingdom. They don’t sufficiently value those who have built them two NL East division champions in the past four seasons. Their hearts are in the right place: dreaming of a title for their home town. The problem is with their ears. They don’t listen. If they don’t start, how will they ever learn? More coverage: Jim Bowden: Lerners wouldn’t pay for Joe Girardi and got Manny Acta The 10 most embarrassing moments in Nationals history Fancy Stats: Dusty Baker won’t ruin the Nationals’ pitching staff The intertwined careers of Bud Black and Dusty Baker |