Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity
On Twitter: AdamKilgoreWP and PostSports  |  Facebook  |  E-mail alerts: Sports and Redskins  |  RSS

Panera, Bruney, 99 problems

Morning notes

Greetings from Panera Bread on The Avenue in Viera, where the ghost of a certain former Nats beat writer still permeates the place. (Note to Barry, if you're reading this in Vancouver: There's now a Five Guys at The Avenue. Obviously, this changes everything.)

It was an abbreviated workout that took place this morning at the Nationals' minor league complex, owing to a fierce wind that, when combined with unseasonably cool temperatures in the high 40s and low 50s -- again, you won't hear me complaining to you snow-bound folks up north -- had players bundled up in sweatshirts and knit hats. A group of position players took their batting practice to the cages next to the locker room, which are partially protected from the elements, and some pitchers cut short their long-toss sessions.

But here are a few notes gleaned from the workout:

*More arrivals: Pitchers John Lannan, Brian Bruney and Chuck James made it to Viera today, as did infielder Pete Orr. (In yesterday's post, I also neglected to mention that new outfieldfer Chris Duncan is here as well.) Very few pitchers are missing at this point -- off the top of my head, just Jason Marquis, Matt Capps, Shairon Martis, Ross Detwiler and Miguel Batista. (Well, and Chien-Ming Wang, I suppose.)

*Bruney was fresh off his arbitration hearing in Tampa, and was expecting to hear word on the outcome later this morning. Bruney, who had never attended an arbitration hearing before, said it was "an ugly process" that was "not the ideal way" to start a relationship with a new franchise. From appearances, the gap between the sides (Bruney was asking for $1.85 million, while the team was offering $1.5 million) appeared small enough to find a middle ground near the midpoint, but Bruney said, "I'm glad I stood up for what I believe in -- that's something I'd do every time. I believe in the market, and what the market tells me. If I didn't do this, I'd be letting down every reliever who comes after me."

*Collin Balester (who, by the way, is sporting a killer one of these this spring) has seen his beloved uniform No. 40 poached for a second consecutive spring by a more veteran pitcher. Last year, it was Daniel Cabrera (really?!). This year, it is Chien-Ming Wang.

Balester, though, is determined to make the best of the situation and has requested No. 99 instead. Problem is, he made the same request last year and it was denied by equipment manager Mike Wallace. I don't like Balester's chances any better this year, but a kid can dream, right?

By Dave Sheinin  |  February 17, 2010; 11:45 AM ET
Categories:  Ian Desmond  
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   Del.icio.us   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: Wang contract details, arbitration cases
Next: Potomac Nats' Strasburg plan

Comments

"Bruney, who had never attended an arbitration hearing before, said it was "an ugly process" that was "not the ideal way" to start a relationship with a new franchise. From appearances, the gap between the sides (Bruney was asking for $1.85 million, while the team was offering $1.5 million) appeared small enough to find a middle ground near the midpoint"

Even more sauce for the "Lerners are Cheap" goose.

Posted by: periculum | February 17, 2010 11:55 AM | Report abuse

Number 99 must cost more.

Posted by: dfh21 | February 17, 2010 12:08 PM | Report abuse

For those who are interested, I have the Nats opening day payroll at an estimated:

--------> $64,164,000 <--------

This includes the salary due to Strasburg, and a $1M buyout to Kearns. It includes Bruney and Burnett at the higher of the two submitted arbitration figures. And includes est'd salaries for the young guys like Mock who'll be renewed by the club. As for the exact players, the last 5 guys to make the team - all will be making near the rookie minimum and will likely all be between $400K and $450K. So, my number is of course, not exact. But should be in the neighborhood.

I can put it up in a google spreadsheet if enough people want to see it.

Posted by: comish4lif | February 17, 2010 12:09 PM | Report abuse

Maxwell Smart always liked 99.

Posted by: periculum | February 17, 2010 12:10 PM | Report abuse

Rizzo had better make a trade for a ***real*** starting pitcher.

Posted by: periculum | February 17, 2010 12:15 PM | Report abuse

Carrying the discussion forward:

SCNats,

OK. I will for discussions sake remove the payroll issue off the table for a moment.

What moves other than signing Strasburg, which, quite frankly, was a no brainer that had to be done, have the Nats made that makes you feel so positive about the future?

I'm not trying to be a wiseguy here, I really want to know.

Because, I don't see a farm system that is improving over the last 3 years. For example, I look at the Red Sox, Rangers, Rays, Marlins, etc. and I see very deep farm systems that improved greatly over the last 3 years.


Posted by: Section505203 | February 17, 2010 12:27 PM | Report abuse

Bruney lost his arbitration case.

Posted by: ramgut | February 17, 2010 12:29 PM | Report abuse

Post baseball editors/staff:

Speaking of Nats beat writers, is someone at The Post going to inform your audience about what is going on with the hiring of the Nats' new beat writer? Or is it not important to you that we have some clue about how the paper is going to be handling Nats coverage this year? One would think that the recent experience with Zuckerman's fundraising shows pretty clearly that there is an audience here that actually cares about who is going to be covering the Nats--and that we do have some alternatives online. It wouldn't be hard for you all to keep your audience informed of what is going on, and yet you don't do it.

Kilgore's hiring has been reported in several forums, but not officially by The Post. Meanwhile, he still appears to be employed by The Globe and reporting on the Pats and NFL. Sheinin is at Spring Training, but The Post has told us nothing about whether Chico will be covering all or part of Spring Training as well, or even whether Chico will be covering part of the regular season until Kilgore starts. Show us some respect and let us know what's going on. The alternatives to this online forum are becoming more and more appealing every day.

Posted by: CoverageisLacking | February 17, 2010 12:39 PM | Report abuse

Collin, don't worry. I'm sure #40 will be available when you're pitching for Syracuse...

Posted by: baltova1 | February 17, 2010 12:39 PM | Report abuse

Time for Tracee to jump in ...

Posted by: periculum | February 17, 2010 12:41 PM | Report abuse

If I were Ballester, I'd request number 37. Make Strasburg pay for it.

Posted by: JohninMpls | February 17, 2010 12:42 PM | Report abuse

Wouldn't it make sense, for continuities sake, for the Post to send the 2010 beat reporter to Viera? I appreciate and enjoy Dave's work, but c'mon.

Posted by: MBUSA | February 17, 2010 12:42 PM | Report abuse

Wondering if anything will ever come of #1 draft pick (2006) Colton Willems? Most of the other #1's have at least moved up the ladder and are in AA/AAA by now.

Posted by: periculum | February 17, 2010 12:44 PM | Report abuse

Makes on think that the Post (like the Times) believes the Lerners and their efforts to be irrelevant. Maybe they will go back to covering the verdamnt Orioles.

Posted by: periculum | February 17, 2010 12:46 PM | Report abuse

"Time for Tracee to jump in ..."

Tracee's in Vancouver. If she jumps in the mud there, they might never be able to pull her out.

Posted by: nunof1 | February 17, 2010 12:47 PM | Report abuse

I basically agree with you, periculum, but I don't think the Nats need to trade for a starting pitcher. Suck it up and sign another free agent. If you can get Washburn at a reasonable price, I'd sign him. An old proverb stated constantly by the Orioles' front office people (back when they knew what they were doing), "You can never have enough pitching."

If some combination of Olson, Wang, Chico and Chuck James bounce back from injuries, and several of the young guys blossom and you have a surplus of starters (what a problem that would be!), you can always trade somebody.

A little historical note: in 1979 the O's signed Steve Stone as a free agent starter, to be their fifth starter at a time when teams still used four starters for much of the season. It was a headscratcher at the time. In 1980, Baltimore had some injury problems and suddenly, Stone became a key guy. He throw a million curve balls, won 25 games and became the Cy Young winner. He also basically blew out his arm, but he was 33 and the Orioles didn't care. They still had Palmer, Flanagan, McGregor, Dennis Martinez and Storm Davis. Because you can never have enough pitching.

Posted by: baltova1 | February 17, 2010 12:47 PM | Report abuse

"If I were Ballester, I'd request number 37. Make Strasburg pay for it."

Strasburg already bought that number off Pat Listach.

Posted by: nunof1 | February 17, 2010 12:49 PM | Report abuse

Considering the season Bruney had last year, he was a fool to ask to $1.85 million and should have taken the $1.5 million the Nats offered and saved himself sitting through the ugliness of arbitration.

Posted by: KenzAFan | February 17, 2010 12:52 PM | Report abuse

Maybe they didn't want to hear endless choruses of 99 Bottles of Beer on the Wall?

Posted by: natsfan1a1 | February 17, 2010 12:58 PM | Report abuse


HEY,

Okay all you experts, I thought you couldn't trade a draft pick in the draft? Or is Boston even smarter than everyone thought?
See the price for John Lackey below?

_______________________________________________________________
Offseason In Review: Boston Red Sox
By Tim Dierkes [February 16, 2010 at 12:05am CST]
Next up in our Offseason In Review series, the Red Sox.

Major League Signings

John Lackey, SP: five years, $82.5MM. ***Also gave #29 pick to Angels.***
______________________________________________________________

Posted by: periculum | February 17, 2010 12:59 PM | Report abuse

"But we have been at or near the bottom in performance, payroll and prospects, all the while being at or near the top in profits."

If they are at or near the top in profits, then how is it that the value of the franchise has gone down $50M in the three years since the Lerners bought it? Being able to turn profits in the face of poor on-field performance should result in an increase in the value of a franchise, wouldn't you think? I mean, look at the Redskins. They've been stinking up the joint for over 15 years, but thanks to Dan Snyder's blatant profit gouging they are the most valuable team in football. You don't see the Lerners doing such profit gouging, so where are these profits you speak of coming from? You can't even tag them for bleeding us dry with high ticket prices on the one hand when on the other hand the stands are pretty empty. The obvious conclusion is that the profits aren't as high as you say they are, because otherwise the franchise would not be losing value.

Posted by: nunof1 | February 17, 2010 1:03 PM | Report abuse

Boston gave up the pick because Lackey was a type-A free agent, you dip.

Posted by: SpashCity | February 17, 2010 1:03 PM | Report abuse

They are referring to a compensatory pick. Not pick traed, just a pick awarded due to Type A status....

Posted by: natbiscuits | February 17, 2010 1:05 PM | Report abuse

"Boston gave up the pick because Lackey was a type-A free agent, you dip.

Posted by: SpashCity | February 17, 2010"

Gee numbnuts I could have sworn more than a few knuckle draggers like you said that you weren't allowed to trade picks for players ...

Posted by: periculum | February 17, 2010 1:06 PM | Report abuse

Bruney is an idiot. Trying to portray his desire for higher pay as some selfless noble cause based on belief in the free market and standing up for "all relievers who come after." GMAFB. Moron. Glad he lost.

Posted by: kfisher32 | February 17, 2010 1:06 PM | Report abuse

"They are referring to a compensatory pick. Not pick traed, just a pick awarded due to Type A status ...."

Ah, I thought it was one of those go to the end of the round and get a pick ... didn't know the signing team could lose one?

Posted by: periculum | February 17, 2010 1:07 PM | Report abuse

Ah, I thought it was one of those go to the end of the round and get a pick ... didn't know the signing team could lose one?

Not knowing about draft pick compensation makes you a dip.

Posted by: SpashCity | February 17, 2010 1:11 PM | Report abuse

"If some combination of Olson, Wang, Chico and Chuck James bounce back from injuries, and several of the young guys blossom and you have a surplus of starters (what a problem that would be!), you can always trade somebody."

In other words: hope for a miracle? That doesn't make sense for a team that lost over 100 two years running. It seems like the model says they have to be far more aggressive about acquiring talented young prospects (Chapman). Except for last year's draft of Strasburg, Storen, Holder, and Karns that hasn't exactly happened?


Posted by: periculum | February 17, 2010 1:12 PM | Report abuse

Fortunately Bruney believes in the market...unfortunately the market did not believe in him. Is it a service or disservice to the other relievers when you lose? I'm not hammering on Bruney here, I just think that agents and players continue to treat the market like it is always going up and never flat or down. Note to self, "it's the economy, stupid".

Posted by: natbiscuits | February 17, 2010 1:13 PM | Report abuse

"Not knowing about draft pick compensation makes you a dip.
Posted by: SpashCity | February 17, 2010"

I have cousins in upstate NY who have the last name of Demperio.
That happens to be their nickname. Love to tell them all about you next time you visit beautiful NT State as many are in law enforcement. A few tickets should help change your attitude.

Posted by: periculum | February 17, 2010 1:14 PM | Report abuse

What's really disheartening is that Rizzo stated he accomplished what he set out to do. Marquis, Pudge and Capps was his big goal for a 100 loss team?

Posted by: dovelevine | February 17, 2010 1:15 PM | Report abuse

@nunof1

If you don't like the numbers that Forbes publishes, argue with them, not with me.

And I could use the same circuitous logic to argue that the value of the franchise has not decreased. If they're making $45MM profit a year, obviously the value of the franchise is going up???

You can't take one Forbes number (franchise value) to try and disprove another Forbes number (profit).


Forbes link:
http://www.forbes.com/lists/2008/33/biz_baseball08_The-Business-Of-Baseball_Rank.html


************


"But we have been at or near the bottom in performance, payroll and prospects, all the while being at or near the top in profits."

If they are at or near the top in profits, then how is it that the value of the franchise has gone down $50M in the three years since the Lerners bought it? Being able to turn profits in the face of poor on-field performance should result in an increase in the value of a franchise, wouldn't you think? I mean, look at the Redskins. They've been stinking up the joint for over 15 years, but thanks to Dan Snyder's blatant profit gouging they are the most valuable team in football. You don't see the Lerners doing such profit gouging, so where are these profits you speak of coming from? You can't even tag them for bleeding us dry with high ticket prices on the one hand when on the other hand the stands are pretty empty. The obvious conclusion is that the profits aren't as high as you say they are, because otherwise the franchise would not be losing value.

Posted by: Sunderland | February 17, 2010 1:16 PM | Report abuse

"It seems like the model says they have to be far more aggressive about acquiring talented young prospects (Chapman). Except for last year's draft of Strasburg, Storen, Holder, and Karns that hasn't exactly happened?"
_______________________________________________________________


Holder and Storen were considered overreaches that were more "signable." Storen looks like he may work out but, only time will tell.

The only thing the Lerner/StanK led Nats are "agreessive" about is the recruitment of Phillies fans to come fill the seats at Nats Park on opening day.

They have never been agressive about signing players. Period.

Posted by: Section505203 | February 17, 2010 1:19 PM | Report abuse

haha a whole family of Dips

Posted by: SpashCity | February 17, 2010 1:20 PM | Report abuse

way to rub him the wrong over 350k nats

Posted by: bford1kb | February 17, 2010 1:25 PM | Report abuse

"You can't take one Forbes number (franchise value) to try and disprove another Forbes number (profit)."

If Forbes is putting out numbers that don't jive with each other, why not? And BTW, Forbes estimates an operating income number, not profit. They aren't the same thing. Operating income does not include interest or taxes paid. In the case of the purchase of the Nationals, it's generally acknowledged that there's a debt that's being serviced. That debt service is also known as interest, and it serves to reduce profit. Therefore, just because their operating income is at the top of the Forbes list, it doesn't mean their profit is. Given the loss in the team's value, it would appear that whatever profit there is is not all that much.

Posted by: nunof1 | February 17, 2010 1:43 PM | Report abuse

I'll take my Dips over yours in a dark alley any day Splashy me boy-o.

Okay so I like research let's just see what's up over at Forbes.

2008 13th 460 3 54 153 43.7
2009 14th 406 -12 62 184 42.

2008: the rosy butt chiks picture:
(PLEASE note very important foot-note #8)

Team Value $460 mil (1)
Breakdown:
Sport : $170m
Market: $161m
Stadium: $19m (courtesy of your tax dollars)
Brand Management: $44m

The Washington Nationals
are owned by Theodore Lerner (Net Worth: $2.5 billion),
who bought them in 2006
for $450 mil.

2007 Wins-to-player cost ratio 145 (8)


The skinny
Forced to play three years in ancient RFK Stadium after their move from Montreal before the 2005 season, the Nationals finally get the revenue-rich stadium that led Theodore Lerner to pay $450 million for the team in 2006. The city will sell up to $611 million in bonds to finance the 41,200-seat stadium, whose final cost is expected to reach $700 million when upgrades and enhancements by the team on the video system and scoreboard are completed. The new stadium's 66 luxury suites and 2,700 club seats should generate $25 million a year for the Nats, almost three times what the team earned at RFK.

Major corporate sponsors are PNC Financial (nyse: PNC), Geico, Southwest Airlines (nyse: LUV).

1-Yr Value Chg. 3%
Ann. Value Chg. (2) NA
Debt/Value 3 54%
Revenue (4) $153 mil
Operating Inc. (5) $43.7 mil
Player Expenses (6) $57 mil
Gate Receipts (7) $46 m


The always ubiquitous but important fine print:

1 Value of team based on current stadium deal (unless new stadium is pending) without deduction for debt (other than stadium debt).
2 Current team value compared with latest transaction price.
3 Includes stadium debt.
4 Net of stadium revenues used for debt payments.
5 Earnings before interest, taxes, depreciation and amortization. 6 Includes benefits and bonuses.
7 Includes club seats.
8 Compares the number of wins per player payroll relative to the rest of the MLB. Postseason wins count twice as much as regular season wins. A score of 120 means that the team achieved 20% more victories per dollar of payroll compared with the league average.

Posted by: periculum | February 17, 2010 1:47 PM | Report abuse

No MLB team is going to let anyone look at their books, so operating income is as close as we're going to get for profit.


And maybe the value is dropping because the economy stinks. Maybe the value is dropping because TV viewership is so low and advertising revenues are in decline. I got no idea, and you got no idea.

But it is ridiculous to declare as an "obvious conclusion" that profits are lower than estimated because the estimated value of the franchise is declining

Posted by: Sunderland | February 17, 2010 1:51 PM | Report abuse

eam Value $406 mil (1)

The Washington Nationals
are owned by Theodore Lerner (Net Worth: $3.5 billion),
who bought them in 2006
for $450 mil.

2008 Wins-to-player cost ratio 95 (8)
**** Very Important Number and why the value went down ... at least so says Forbes again refer to foot-note as to why. ******

Breakdown

Sport: $86m - 21 %
Market $167m - 41%
Stadium $106m - 28%
Brand Mgmt: $46m - 10%

1-Yr Value Chg. -12%
Ann. Value Chg. NA (2)
Debt/Value 62% (3)
Revenue $184 mil (4)
Operating Inc. $42.6 mil (5)
Player Expenses $75 mil (6)
Gate Receipts $65 mi (7)

Sport: Portion of franchise's value attributable to revenue shared among all teams.
Market: Portion of franchise's value attributable to its city and market size.
Stadium: Portion of franchise's value attributable to its stadium.
Brand Management: Portion of franchise's value attributable to the management of its brand.
N/A: Not applicable.

According to Forbes, again, the Lerner's are Cheap goose holds the high ground:

The skinny
The owners of the Washington Nationals have **** badly botched the job **** thus far of trying to successfully bring Major League Baseball to the nation's capital for the third time. Blame the Lerner family, who bought the team in 2006 for $450 million and dominate the ownership group. Managing Principal Owner Theodore Lerner and the four other family members who are principal owners furnish one of the league's lowest payrolls despite a new, taxpayer financed stadium. The Nationals lost 102 games last year, the most in the majors. The team's goodwill is also evaporating as GM Jim Bowden resigned in March amidst a federal investigation involving the skimming of signing bonuses given to Latin prospects and a scandal involving the team signing a player who lied about his age.
Revenues and operating income are for 2008 season and are net of revenue sharing.

Split definitions and foot-notes between the two posts.


Posted by: periculum | February 17, 2010 1:56 PM | Report abuse

"And maybe the value is dropping because the economy stinks. "

According to Forbes, and perhaps they aren't an authority you would listen to but the value is dropping because ownership screwed up ... botched things so bad that it may exceed what happened with the Redskins. Basically the value dropped according to their yardstick because the team stinks and the players' value plummeted.

Posted by: periculum | February 17, 2010 1:59 PM | Report abuse

For the Nationals, revenue shared among all teams plummeted from 170 million to $86 million between 2008 and 2009. They aren't a team fans around the world are interested in seeing ... even for Philly fans.

This is directly attributable to ownership.

Posted by: periculum | February 17, 2010 2:02 PM | Report abuse

I never tire of Post writers slamming Viera. First of all, what could be funnier than a writer noting there are not a lot of entertainment or dining out opportunities in a small town? I mean, that's about as funny as it gets now that Lenny Bruce is out of the business. Plus I get to feel superior to pathetic people who live their lives in that dump.

Posted by: markfromark | February 17, 2010 2:03 PM | Report abuse

"According to Forbes, and perhaps they aren't an authority you would listen to but the value is dropping because ownership screwed up ... botched things so bad that it may exceed what happened with the Redskins. Basically the value dropped according to their yardstick because the team stinks and the players' value plummeted."

But isn't it the fundamental premise of the Lerners are Cheap crowd that ownership is mocking the fans by throwing an inferior product onto the field and raking in the dough? Now you're trying to say that because the Lerners are Cheap the team is losing value, which translates into a decrease in the Lerners' net worth. Something just doesn't add up here - and it's your logic.

Posted by: nunof1 | February 17, 2010 2:17 PM | Report abuse

I like 99 too, she was hot... maybe he should ask for 86?

Posted by: destewar | February 17, 2010 2:36 PM | Report abuse

I don't get how Ballestar can "lose" his number. He is on the 40 man right now, yes? He has been wearing number 40 in the past, yes? So it is his unless he decides to give it up. Cabrera pitched in #49. I noticed that Jesus Flores is now wearing #26, likely due to Jerry Owens, which seems very wrong to me.

Posted by: LurkerNowPoster | February 17, 2010 2:55 PM | Report abuse

If you wanna get down to it, LNP, it isn't his; it's the team's.

I dunno what the pecking order is. Seniority in the majors? Career wins? Quality of Blaupunkt? It sounds like Strasburg had to ask, but Wang got to demand. But then, maybe Balester's number wasn't so much "poached" as he gave it up and is now grumbling good-naturedly.

In other words, I have nothing to say here. Maybe I'll do better in the new posts.

Posted by: Scooter_ | February 17, 2010 3:08 PM | Report abuse

People who believe this team, unless it is on the top 5 payrolls, is cheap will never be swayed until the Lerner's spend the money; in fact, should this team be better then expected I expect the cry to be 'think how good we could have been if we had just spent more'. People who believe in 'the plan' see progress when perhaps the progress isn't there. Since my exposure to the Nats is by TV my position might change - admittedly I'm not forking over 10's of thousand of dollars to see an inferior product - but my outlook is optimistic for the short term future of the team. You aren't going to change this team from the worst organization in baseball to one of the best in a couple of years and certainly not when you hire the wrong GM and put your faith in him.

Posted by: SCNatsFan | February 17, 2010 3:29 PM | Report abuse

For me, as a long time member of the Nats are cheap camp, I'd be happy if the Nats got into the top half of MLB salaries and hung around the middle. But these guys have more than enough money to afford a payroll out of the bottom 5.

And to paraphrase Stan Kasten, as a fan, I shouldn't care about payroll. Stan, I'll make you a promise, you win me 90 games on average for a few years, and I won't care if you are 30th in payroll.

Posted by: comish4lif | February 17, 2010 3:58 PM | Report abuse

I'd be happier if the club was in the middle of the pack someplace on payroll -- at least then it would not be such a glaring issue, if nothing else. I would be happier if they were being agressive enough to get young talent and lock it up, whether through trades, international signings, the draft, FA market, whatever.

But they do this annual dance of grabbing a bunch of hopefuls and crossing their fingers that some of them hit. Prayer for luck is a real part of the Plan. This is exactly what they did 4-5 years ago and every year since. But for style, not much has changed from the Bowden days and it is because ownership is now, as they were then, tight with the budget and not smart enough with the baseball decisions to get by on less money than the average club.

I am optimistic that the 2010 club could surprise, that Guz will be better, that Zim and Dunn will perform, that Marquis will indeed eat a bunch of innings, that Dukes might really arrive, and that maybe, just maybe some unexpected pitching shows up -- but it is tiresome to live on hope for the planets to allign instead of being able to look down a roster and say that this or that guy can be realistically relied upon for valuable performance.

I want to see them trade for a SP and take on some salary if they have to do it. Meche (head he is right handed, by the way), Lowe, Harang/Arroyo, Chris Young, Bonderman/Robertson, etc. -- the pricier the contract the less they'll have to give up in return. The club can afford it -- all of this talk about equity stake in the club being up or down is meaningless. There is simply no reason for the Nats not to spend on par with Baltimore, KC, Milwaulkee or Cleveland. The Lerners and their stack of deep pocketed partners need to inject some capital into this beast and get more pieces now. If they build it, we will come.

Posted by: dfh21 | February 17, 2010 4:02 PM | Report abuse

The comments to this entry are closed.

 
 
RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2010 The Washington Post Company