Skip to content

Nationals’ payroll to rise above $100 million for the first time

Jan 10, 2013, 12:46 PM EDT

Image (1) money%20bag.jpg for post 4218

By re-signing Adam LaRoche to a two-year, $24 million deal the Nationals’ payroll is all but certain to rise above $100 million for the first time in franchise history, notes Mark Zuckerman of

It has always been the intention of the organization, at the direction of the Lerner family, to steadily increase payroll as the club improved. The Nationals ranked near the bottom of the league in payroll through most of their first seven seasons of existence, bottoming out in 2007 with a total figure of only $37.3 million.

That number has steadily increased each of the last five years, with the Nationals’ Opening Day 2012 payroll of $92.5 million establishing a franchise record that will be broken once again in 2013.

If the Nationals do as expected and trade Michael Morse that would shed $7 million from the 2013 payroll, although general manager Mike Rizzo insisted yesterday that there’s no financially driven motivation for dealing Morse. In other words, the Nationals have plenty of money even with their first $100-plus payroll on the horizon.

  1. rockthered1286 - Jan 10, 2013 at 1:08 PM

    Meanwhile, in Baltimore….

    • captainwisdom8888 - Jan 10, 2013 at 1:21 PM

      im a die hard phils fan, but I love seeing teams like the nationals find some success while being relatively new and severely outmatched in cap space

    • paperlions - Jan 10, 2013 at 1:22 PM

      Hey, Angelos is a civic leader and local hero!

    • dagnats - Jan 10, 2013 at 1:22 PM

      Angelos is terrible….

    • rockthered1286 - Jan 10, 2013 at 3:11 PM

      look- if there’s ever been one thing that O’s and Nat’s fans can agree on it’s that sour taste in your mouth and cold chill up your spine that you get anytime someone mentions Uncle Pete the penny pincher. Rapscallion. That’s what he is.

      While I’m happy FINALLY having a winning organization in Baltimore, I now fear that Uncle Pete is now thinking “See? I was right! We don’t need to spend to build a winning franchise…” As proven by our 2012 offseason entitled “Much Ado About Nothing.”

    • theguywhosaidit - Jan 10, 2013 at 4:23 PM

      This comment is made worse by the fact they get the majority of the Nats TV money… All the more reason to dislike Angelos?

  2. kyle7561 - Jan 10, 2013 at 1:22 PM

    Nothing wrong with spending and getting results, especially with a young core of players. The only contract that has not lived up generally is Jayson Werth, who had a solid 2012 season (not to mention a playoff walk off HR).

    The Nationals are spending wise (Re-signing LaRoche, extending Zimm, trading for Span)

  3. stex52 - Jan 10, 2013 at 2:00 PM

    Welcome to the Big TIme, Nats. Nothing wrong with a 100 MM$ payroll, managed wisely. But it’s a different set of problems from what you’ve faced in the past.

    • DelawarePhilliesFan - Jan 10, 2013 at 3:37 PM

      And a far lower number from what they face in the future!

  4. klownboy - Jan 10, 2013 at 2:49 PM

    Nice to see the Nats getting serious. Looking forward to going to some home games this season…

  5. brianabbe - Jan 10, 2013 at 11:00 PM

    Yeah, Washington is easily one of the ten largest markets in the US, and Baltimore is 25th or so. Easy on those comparisons. Once the Nats establish themselves over the next 3-5 years with this nucleus all under control through 2015 at the least, they’ll be in position to spend $100 annually without blinking. I’ll be interested to see how their new TV deal shakes out. I would bet it’s just shy of what the Rangers got.

Leave Comment

You must be logged in to leave a comment. Not a member? Register now!

Top 10 MLB Player Searches
  1. D. Wright (3158)
  2. G. Stanton (2564)
  3. M. Teixeira (2485)
  4. H. Olivera (2406)
  5. Y. Cespedes (2387)
  1. J. Fernandez (2360)
  2. K. Medlen (2181)
  3. Y. Puig (2132)
  4. G. Perkins (2087)
  5. J. Eickhoff (2059)