Author Topic: Nationals @ Rockies, Game 1  (Read 5449 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline JMW IV

  • Posts: 11295
  • Name on the Front > Name on The Back
Re: Nationals @ Rockies, Game 1
« Reply #400: July 07, 2009, 12:30:14 AM »
better than 24-56 :rofl:

how much better?

keep in mind, we'd still have early-season Olsen, Cabrera, Hanrahan, etc.

Offline DPMOmaha

  • Posts: 18220
Re: Nationals @ Rockies, Game 1
« Reply #401: July 07, 2009, 12:32:31 AM »
how much better?

keep in mind, we'd still have early-season Olsen, Cabrera, Hanrahan, etc.
Goodness how I'd love to restart the season with the current squad...

Offline JMW IV

  • Posts: 11295
  • Name on the Front > Name on The Back
Re: Nationals @ Rockies, Game 1
« Reply #402: July 07, 2009, 12:35:58 AM »
Goodness how I'd love to restart the season with the current squad...

oh yes, I know.

but Hammonds is acting like all we would have needed to do was just sign Hudson and we'd be set.

I wanna know just how much of an effect he thinks Hudson alone would have had on the team we started the season with.

I wouldn't be badgering him if he were complaining about not signing quality pitchers or something.

but this notion that Hudson is the key to everything is laughable.


Offline sportsfan882

  • Posts: 86602
Re: Nationals @ Rockies, Game 1
« Reply #403: July 07, 2009, 12:40:15 AM »
yep we wouldn't be any better with Hudson. The bad bullpen, Manny Acta, and Cabrera and Olsen ruined this season.

Over the last few months the offense has since gone into the tank.

Offline ronnynat

  • Posts: 23228
Re: Nationals @ Rockies, Game 1
« Reply #404: July 07, 2009, 12:42:18 AM »
yep we wouldn't be any better with Hudson. The bad bullpen, Manny Acta, and Cabrera and Olsen ruined this season.

Over the last few months the offense has since gone into the tank.

It's definitely been a team effort.

Offline JMW IV

  • Posts: 11295
  • Name on the Front > Name on The Back
Re: Nationals @ Rockies, Game 1
« Reply #405: July 07, 2009, 12:46:07 AM »
we aren't 24-56 because we didn't sign Hudson.

we're 24-56 because we went into this season with the worst bullpen on the face of the planet, an Olsen with a dead arm, one of the worst starting pitchers in all of baseball, no Outfielders who could adequately man CF to cover for Dunn in LF, handing the starting RF job to a bum who just happened to be "hot" against spring training scrub pitchers and got everyone's hopes up again, and a dumb ass manager who doesn't hold his players accountable for their play and stubbornly relies on his favorites even when they suck. and a Front Office that takes WAY too long to realize when something isn't working and to pull the plug on it.

fact is, if the Lerners had "just spent some money" and signed Hudson...we'd still have had ALL the problems listed above.


Offline hammondsnats

  • Posts: 37348
  • LAC 8)
Re: Nationals @ Rockies, Game 1
« Reply #406: July 07, 2009, 12:47:47 AM »
again, did i ever say he is the key to all possible success?  no i didn't.  that's laughable that you thought i did.

but if you look, we haven't gotten much production out of our second basemen.  at catcher, it's unfortunate jesus flores was hurt, but other than that we've been getting production from every other position.  second base we haven't.

i'm with you relief pitching should be a key focus this offseason, but i would really like to see us go after a legit 2B. 

Offline shoeshineboy

  • Posts: 7411
  • Walks Kill!! Walks Kill! Walks Kill!!!!
Re: Nationals @ Rockies, Game 1
« Reply #407: July 07, 2009, 08:36:08 AM »
we aren't 24-56 because we didn't sign Hudson.

we're 24-56 because we went into this season with the worst bullpen on the face of the planet, an Olsen with a dead arm, one of the worst starting pitchers in all of baseball, no Outfielders who could adequately man CF to cover for Dunn in LF, handing the starting RF job to a bum who just happened to be "hot" against spring training scrub pitchers and got everyone's hopes up again, and a dumb ass manager who doesn't hold his players accountable for their play and stubbornly relies on his favorites even when they suck. and a Front Office that takes WAY too long to realize when something isn't working and to pull the plug on it.

fact is, if the Lerners had "just spent some money" and signed Hudson...we'd still have had ALL the problems listed above.


Signing Hudson would have been the right thing to do as long as they did it early in order to show that they were serious and gone after pitching that we needed.

Not signing Hudson is simply part of the pattern - the same pattern that had them waiting until the last minute to sign Dunn, the same pattern that had them rely upon a crappy bullpen, the same pattern that had them not sign decent pitching, and the same pattern that led them to rely upon the likes of Daniel Cabrera and not have anything in place to cover for a rough start from pitchers like Olsen and others.

This team's record is directly related to the fact that we have 16 blown saves. Signing one guy would not have made a difference. The fact that we were in a position to blow that many games and not in a position to win enough of the other games is directly related to a pattern of assembling a roster with glaring pitching and defensive weaknesses. They once again chose to enter a season and roll the dice on a big gamble that a few guys could be depended on. A month later, the likes of a Hanrahan, Cabrera, and a poor performing Scott Olsen had tanked the season, and this FO had done nothing to shore up the roster ahead of time to guard against it.

Hudson, plus a couple of legitimate relievers, plus a veteran starter, minus Cabrera, would have had a different result.

Offline PANatsFan

  • Posts: 37061
  • dogs in uncensored, nudes in gameday
Re: Nationals @ Rockies, Game 1
« Reply #408: July 07, 2009, 09:00:35 AM »
SSB, I know that you know Hudson failed a physical. What if he signed him and he couldn't play through the wrist pain. Would you be giving Bowden and the Lerners slack for at least trying, or decrying it as another boneheaded waste?

Offline Minty Fresh

  • Posts: 16833
  • Mantra of the SSS
Re: Nationals @ Rockies, Game 1
« Reply #409: July 07, 2009, 09:28:24 AM »
but they signed your mancrush. wtf are you whining about?

oh, and just pre-emptively...Orlando Hudson has been BENCHED due to playing like crap. read about it they other day. just sayin'.

You say crap like this and YOU get on ME?

I'm saying that you acting like Hudson would make some sort of ridiculously-overblown difference just because he costs more than Hernandez and Gonzalez is stupid.

it's too late now. we didn't sign Hudson. wtf are you going to do about it, besides whine about it every time the Nats lose, as if not signing Hudson is the only damn reason we lost.

yes, we get it. the Lerners are Cheap, they should have signed every single damn free agent on the Market and we should have a 250m payroll.  fine, your point is made. come off it already.

what's done is done. it can't be changed now.

we signed Dunn. we signed Beimel. we didn't sign Hudson. get over it already.

:?

JMad,

From here on out, I don't wanna freaking hear it from you.

Offline shoeshineboy

  • Posts: 7411
  • Walks Kill!! Walks Kill! Walks Kill!!!!
Re: Nationals @ Rockies, Game 1
« Reply #410: July 07, 2009, 09:37:20 AM »
SSB, I know that you know Hudson failed a physical. What if he signed him and he couldn't play through the wrist pain. Would you be giving Bowden and the Lerners slack for at least trying, or decrying it as another boneheaded waste?

I think the physical is what needs to be questioned as well. I understand your point. It would have been one thing if the offseason had been well run otherwise and we missed out on one guy. To me, not signing Hudson has had limited impact on the outcome of the season. The pattern of how the last offseason was run - both in terms of moves (an non-moves made), how they were made, along with the failure of not cutting Bowden loose before it was too late, is what made the difference. Not signing an allstar, gold glove 2B who filled a glaring need is simply a symbol of all of the inaction and failure of siezing a once in a decade opportunity.

Of course, once we were stuck with what Manny still calls "the most talented team he has had" the blown saves can be chalked up to a combination of bad moves and a ridiculous commitment to pitchers like Hanrahan that everyone knew sucked. They dug a hole early, and no matter how much you pay players, playing through a lost season after a month and a half leads to diminished performance. It's human nature.

Offline spidernat

  • Posts: 54504
  • The Lerners are Cheap AND Crooked
Re: Nationals @ Rockies, Game 1
« Reply #411: July 07, 2009, 10:12:21 AM »
SSB, I know that you know Hudson failed a physical.


  That was the easy excuse for not signing him.

Offline Lintyfresh85

  • Posts: 33837
  • Next year, maybe?
Re: Nationals @ Rockies, Game 1
« Reply #412: July 07, 2009, 10:15:24 AM »
I'd say Hudson at least gives up a 26-54 record. A two game swing...

Hell, maybe his professional attitude rubs off on some other players and we catch fire.

You never know.

Offline PANatsFan

  • Posts: 37061
  • dogs in uncensored, nudes in gameday
Re: Nationals @ Rockies, Game 1
« Reply #413: July 07, 2009, 10:24:23 AM »
  That was the easy excuse for not signing him.


Read the rest of the post you giant dork.

Offline R-Zim#11

  • Posts: 1609
Re: Nationals @ Rockies, Game 1
« Reply #414: July 07, 2009, 12:10:38 PM »
Signing Hudson would have been the right thing to do as long as they did it early in order to show that they were serious and gone after pitching that we needed.

Not signing Hudson is simply part of the pattern - the same pattern that had them waiting until the last minute to sign Dunn, the same pattern that had them rely upon a crappy bullpen, the same pattern that had them not sign decent pitching, and the same pattern that led them to rely upon the likes of Daniel Cabrera and not have anything in place to cover for a rough start from pitchers like Olsen and others.

This team's record is directly related to the fact that we have 16 blown saves. Signing one guy would not have made a difference. The fact that we were in a position to blow that many games and not in a position to win enough of the other games is directly related to a pattern of assembling a roster with glaring pitching and defensive weaknesses. They once again chose to enter a season and roll the dice on a big gamble that a few guys could be depended on. A month later, the likes of a Hanrahan, Cabrera, and a poor performing Scott Olsen had tanked the season, and this FO had done nothing to shore up the roster ahead of time to guard against it.

Hudson, plus a couple of legitimate relievers, plus a veteran starter, minus Cabrera, would have had a different result.


Jim Bowden. That's the plug that needed to be pulled long before it was...

From Jon Heyman today (no idea of it's validity, but if it IS true...wow...):

Quote
Link: http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2009/writers/jon_heyman/07/06/midseason.awards/1.html

Ed Wade Award (NL Worst Executive): Jim Bowden, formerly of the Nationals. His collection of outfielders who can't catch and pitchers not quite ready for prime time has left little doubt that he's the winner (or is it loser?). Word is the Nats higher-ups want to get so far away from Bowden that they don't want to consider GM candidates (or perhaps even managerial candidates) with any serious ties to him.