Author Topic: Nats talking to jon garland  (Read 2586 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline JMW IV

  • Posts: 11330
  • Name on the Front > Name on The Back
Nats talking to jon garland
« Topic Start: December 06, 2009, 11:48:47 PM »
Its on mlbtr.

didnt rizzo say we werent targetting garland or players of his caliber?

Offline houston-nat

  • Posts: 19034
Re: Nats talking to jon garland
« Reply #1: December 06, 2009, 11:49:49 PM »
Its on mlbtr.

didnt rizzo say we werent targetting garland or players of his caliber?
I bet you anything Blob Wadson misquoted him and it was actually Jon Lackey that Rizzo said he wasn't seeking.

Offline sportsfan882

  • Posts: 93630
Re: Nats talking to jon garland
« Reply #2: December 06, 2009, 11:53:59 PM »
why can't we put all of these rumors and winter meetings postings in one thread?

you are posting stuff that has already been posted.

Offline cmdterps44

  • Posts: 15537
  • Future
Re: Nats talking to jon garland
« Reply #3: December 06, 2009, 11:55:33 PM »
Technically, it was in the all of baseball section. This was just limited to the Nationals so I assume it should be here or the Wire over the Around the League section.

Offline sportsfan882

  • Posts: 93630
Re: Nats talking to jon garland
« Reply #4: December 06, 2009, 11:57:30 PM »
I don't care where the thread is. Let's just put all of these rumblings into one "Winter Meetings" thread as to not clutter the forum and make it easy to find all of the important news.

Should be an exciting week.

Offline DPMOmaha

  • Posts: 22084
Re: Nats talking to jon garland
« Reply #5: December 07, 2009, 12:03:23 AM »
So, if we sign Garland and trade for Vazquez, I'd be ok with that.

Offline UMDNats

  • Posts: 14611
Re: Nats talking to jon garland
« Reply #6: December 07, 2009, 12:09:29 AM »
meh. wake me up when we're actually signing or acquiring someone.

Offline houston-nat

  • Posts: 19034
Re: Nats talking to jon garland
« Reply #7: December 07, 2009, 12:14:50 AM »
So, if we sign Garland and trade for Vazquez, I'd be ok with that.
Yeah, that'd be mighty fine.

Offline DPMOmaha

  • Posts: 22084
Re: Nats talking to jon garland
« Reply #8: December 07, 2009, 12:19:05 AM »
Yeah, that'd be mighty fine.
I might have understated that a bit...

Offline Spinman

  • Posts: 2158
  • Grandpa Spinman
Re: Nats talking to jon garland
« Reply #9: December 07, 2009, 04:47:59 AM »
Here's a great link to show which FA are still available and who signed with who already. Also, I have a hunch, Dana Brown will do a deal with the Nats this off season.

http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/features/freeagents

Offline dirtynat

  • Posts: 68
Re: Nats talking to jon garland
« Reply #10: December 07, 2009, 04:52:45 AM »
Lackey and Smoltz.  F Garland. 

Offline PANatsFan

  • Posts: 37395
  • dogs in uncensored, nudes in gameday
Re: Nats talking to jon garland
« Reply #11: December 07, 2009, 07:01:54 AM »
. Also, I have a hunch, Dana Brown will do a deal with the Nats this off season.


Excellent!

Offline hammondsnats

  • Posts: 37377
  • LAC 8)
Re: Nats talking to jon garland
« Reply #12: December 07, 2009, 08:01:14 AM »
Its on mlbtr.

didnt rizzo say we werent targetting garland or players of his caliber?

haha very solid point jmad.  i'm okay with garland as one of our guys.  i wanted him last year ... he's not an ace, but can eat innings.

Offline PebbleBall

  • Posts: 3440
  • Now that right there is baseball.
Re: Nats talking to jon garland
« Reply #13: December 07, 2009, 09:26:05 AM »
Also, I have a hunch, Dana Brown will do a deal with the Nats this off season.


The stunner for Halladay?

Offline Ray D

  • Posts: 10058
Re: Nats talking to jon garland
« Reply #14: December 07, 2009, 09:26:54 AM »
I bet you anything Blob Wadson misquoted him and it was actually Jon Lackey that Rizzo said he wasn't seeking.
The problem with that is that Ladson said "Lackey OR Garland".  However, I don't put any stock in anything Ladson says.

Offline PebbleBall

  • Posts: 3440
  • Now that right there is baseball.
Re: Nats talking to jon garland
« Reply #15: December 07, 2009, 09:27:05 AM »
I bet you anything Blob Wadson misquoted him and it was actually Jon Lackey that Rizzo said he wasn't seeking.

It's definitely either that or Rizzo misspoke.  Either way in context you can tell they're talking about Lackey. 

Offline PebbleBall

  • Posts: 3440
  • Now that right there is baseball.
Re: Nats talking to jon garland
« Reply #16: December 07, 2009, 09:32:12 AM »
The problem with that is that Ladson said "Lackey OR Garland".  However, I don't put any stock in anything Ladson says.

Actually Ladson said Lackey, Garland was in the Rizzo quote. 

Ladson:

Quote
So signing starter John Lackey or relievers Billy Wagner or Mike Gonzalez seem unlikely, unless they agree to a deal in Washington's price range.

Rizzo:

Quote
"We don't think that the free-agent class leads us to [pay big money]," Rizzo said. "I believe the things we need or want the most are out there, and we are going to address it. I don't see us going after that super free agent like Matt Holliday or Jon Garland. I don't see us playing on that level. We don't think it's a fit for us."

To me I think it's clear he means Lackey, he's the only pitcher that even approaches that sort of status.   Who knows for sure I guess.

Offline Ray D

  • Posts: 10058
Re: Nats talking to jon garland
« Reply #17: December 07, 2009, 09:51:05 AM »
Right, I recall now, got Lackey and Halladay confused. Ladson quoted Rizzo as saying "Matt Holliday or Jon Garland", but I assumed Rizzo said Roy Halladay rather than Matt Holliday (and that Ladson screwed that up) because at least he would have been talking about two pitchers, but even then, talking about those two in the same sentence - well, I just figured, this is Ladson talking so it doesn't really mean anything.

Offline houston-nat

  • Posts: 19034
Re: Nats talking to jon garland
« Reply #18: December 07, 2009, 10:46:13 AM »
If we're going to do a deal with Dana Brown this offseason, a random thought: the Jays have a pretty sweet second baseman...

Offline Spinman

  • Posts: 2158
  • Grandpa Spinman
Re: Nats talking to jon garland
« Reply #19: December 07, 2009, 05:16:11 PM »
If we're going to do a deal with Dana Brown this offseason, a random thought: the Jays have a pretty sweet second baseman...
You never know. We are pitcher heavy and for a team like the Blue Jays to deal it might be for a few of our young guns for either a 2nd baseman or a said pitcher?

I would imagine teams are looking at Detwiler, Balester, Mock, Clippard. No arm problems with these guys.   Stammen, JD, J Zimm, have already been under the knife so would be a tough to trade candidates.

Just my thoughts about Dana Brown.  He knows our guys. He knows who has the most upside. Lets not count the Nats out just yet.

I'm also curious who the player to be named later is after the physical is done.

Offline DPMOmaha

  • Posts: 22084
Re: Nats talking to jon garland
« Reply #20: December 07, 2009, 05:21:41 PM »
The aformentioned yet unnamed 2b would be awfuly expensive, as far as people they'd ask for, woudn't he?

Offline Ray D

  • Posts: 10058
Re: Nats talking to jon garland
« Reply #21: December 07, 2009, 05:22:59 PM »
Detwiler, Balester, Mock, Clippard. No arm problems with these guys.   
And outside of Clippard, no talent with these guys.

Offline houston-nat

  • Posts: 19034
Re: Nats talking to jon garland
« Reply #22: December 07, 2009, 05:23:32 PM »
The aformentioned yet unnamed 2b would be awfuly expensive, as far as people they'd ask for, woudn't he?
Yes.

Offline DPMOmaha

  • Posts: 22084
Re: Nats talking to jon garland
« Reply #23: December 07, 2009, 05:26:51 PM »
Yes.
I'd certainly consider it though.  Hammer, young pitcher, pbtnl and cash.  I'd like that infield.

That being said, last year was the first year he put up big offensive numbers.  I think he could do very well with this lineup though.

Offline tomterp

  • Global Moderator
  • ****
  • Posts: 33162
  • Hell yes!
Re: Nats talking to jon garland
« Reply #24: December 07, 2009, 05:28:05 PM »
And outside of Clippard, no talent with these guys.

 :stir: