Author Topic: The "Former Nat Watch" Thread (2009)  (Read 1965 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline NatsAddict

  • Posts: 4095
The "Former Nat Watch" Thread (2009)
« Reply #125: April 16, 2009, 03:17:23 PM »
wow, he just dropped a routine infield pop fly.

the freaking Braves runner should have been on second base.

The Braves scorer should be fired.  He also gave Francoeur a double when he advanced to 2b on a throw, a clear single and FC.  He is notorious for crap like that, though.  He's unquestionably the worst scorer in all of baseball.

The "Former Nat Watch" Thread (2009)
« Reply #126: April 16, 2009, 04:53:25 PM »
Don't worry. EB's stats will go up within the next week or so. The Fish are playing the Nats again. :?

Offline UMDNats

  • Posts: 12293
The "Former Nat Watch" Thread (2009)
« Reply #127: April 16, 2009, 05:42:07 PM »
over/under .500 BA versus the nats next series by bonifacio

im thinking he goes .700 versus us with 4 SB and another home run

Offline NatsAddict

  • Posts: 4095
The "Former Nat Watch" Thread (2009)
« Reply #128: April 16, 2009, 06:05:28 PM »
Don't worry. EB's stats will go up within the next week or so. The Fish are playing the Nats again. :?

If so, you need to change your avi (very nice by the way) to Flogging St. Claire.

Offline houston-nat

  • Posts: 17038
The "Former Nat Watch" Thread (2009)
« Reply #129: April 16, 2009, 06:51:43 PM »
If so, you need to change your avi (very nice by the way) to Flogging St. Claire.
Flogging Randy sounds too homoerotic...

Offline nats2playoffs

  • Posts: 18711
The "Former Nat Watch" Thread (2009)
« Reply #130: April 17, 2009, 07:39:06 PM »
Brian Schneider was placed on the 15-day disabled list with a muscle strain in his back, the NY Daily News' Mets blog reports.


Offline sportsfan882

  • Posts: 88935
The "Former Nat Watch" Thread (2009)
« Reply #131: April 18, 2009, 08:07:13 PM »
Hill looks phenomenal so far against Philly. His velocity is hitting 90-91 consistently and his 2-seam fastball looks absolutely brilliant. He just struck out Ibanez with the bases loaded and 2 outs on a sick change-up.

Offline hammondsnats

  • Posts: 37363
  • LAC 8)
The "Former Nat Watch" Thread (2009)
« Reply #132: April 18, 2009, 09:33:16 PM »
Hill finished with 5 ip, 3 h, 2 er, bb, 3 k

YEAH WE DIDN'T NEED HIM?!?!

Offline sportsfan882

  • Posts: 88935
The "Former Nat Watch" Thread (2009)
« Reply #133: April 18, 2009, 09:47:43 PM »
this team is dumb as crap. Rizzo has done nothing so far to prove anything to me.

Offline eagleskins

  • BANNED FOREVER
  • Posts: 2946
The "Former Nat Watch" Thread (2009)
« Reply #134: April 19, 2009, 01:53:58 AM »
Getting rid of Hill was absolutely crazy.  If he gets hurt, who cares?

Offline tomterp

  • Global Moderator
  • ****
  • Posts: 28697
  • Hell yes!
The "Former Nat Watch" Thread (2009)
« Reply #135: April 19, 2009, 10:10:51 AM »
Getting rid of Hill was absolutely crazy.  If he gets hurt, who cares?

NOTLD couldn't handle the stress.

Offline The Chief

  • Posts: 30136
    • http://www.wnff.net
The "Former Nat Watch" Thread (2009)
« Reply #136: April 19, 2009, 10:16:15 AM »
NOTLD couldn't handle the stress.


"Now you're just getting nasty"


The "Former Nat Watch" Thread (2009)
« Reply #137: April 19, 2009, 10:29:07 AM »
NOTLD couldn't handle the stress.

Again, talk to me when he pitches a full season. It isn't like he would be winning here anyways considering even if he did get his slack ass out to the mound for DC, the offense and bullpen wouldn't be backing him up at all.

You've got to wonder, if Hill's "resurgence" is due to actually being healthy (which we all know he isn't) or he completely pulled a Felipe Lopez on us. Either way, he is a piece of crap pitcher and it is only a matter of time.

Offline PANatsFan

  • Posts: 37208
  • dogs in uncensored, nudes in gameday
The "Former Nat Watch" Thread (2009)
« Reply #138: April 19, 2009, 10:33:52 AM »
Again, talk to me when he pitches a full season. It isn't like he would be winning here anyways considering even if he did get his slack ass out to the mound for DC, the offense and bullpen wouldn't be backing him up at all.

You've got to wonder, if Hill's "resurgence" is due to actually being healthy (which we all know he isn't) or he completely pulled a Felipe Lopez on us. Either way, he is a piece of crap pitcher and it is only a matter of time.

Guys with wuss-arm and 58 career starts won't get anywhere by hotdogging.

The "Former Nat Watch" Thread (2009)
« Reply #139: April 19, 2009, 10:36:23 AM »
Guys with wuss-arm and 58 career starts won't get anywhere by hotdogging.

Got him off the Nationals didn't it? That's all Felipe Lopez apparently wanted.

Offline hammondsnats

  • Posts: 37363
  • LAC 8)
The "Former Nat Watch" Thread (2009)
« Reply #140: April 19, 2009, 10:44:56 AM »
Hill never complained and was always a model team player for us, even with the injuries.  He always said the right things and was very close to most of his teammates (has a house in Viera next to a bunch of the other guys).  Flop complained to the media, didn't get a long with a lot of the guys and his performance on the field was bush league esque.  Two completely different cases. 

I don't know if Hill is going to stay healthy all year - odds say no - but so far, so good.  I hope he continues to win.

Offline tomterp

  • Global Moderator
  • ****
  • Posts: 28697
  • Hell yes!
The "Former Nat Watch" Thread (2009)
« Reply #141: April 19, 2009, 10:46:18 AM »
There's no comparison between FLOP and Hill, none. 

The "Former Nat Watch" Thread (2009)
« Reply #142: April 19, 2009, 10:51:58 AM »
Hill never complained and was always a model team player for us, even with the injuries.  He always said the right things and was very close to most of his teammates (has a house in Viera next to a bunch of the other guys).  Flop complained to the media, didn't get a long with a lot of the guys and his performance on the field was bush league esque.  Two completely different cases. 

Two completely different cases of dealing with anger and displeasure. Lopez was an idiot and aired his laundry. Hill possibly just didn't want to pitch for a team that he knew wasn't going to back his up. So why not sit on the DL and collect the paycheck? Some around here believe John Patterson did this very thing and it's not questioned, but apply such logic to Shawn Hill and people start whining and moaning. I am not saying this was the case, but if you really want to analyze and question all the would haves, should haves, could haves, it's a legit point to think about. Just making discussion.

There's no comparison between FLOP and Hill, none. 

Keep telling yourself that. What member of this team do you really think wants to be here currently? Wil Nieves probably?

Offline hammondsnats

  • Posts: 37363
  • LAC 8)
The "Former Nat Watch" Thread (2009)
« Reply #143: April 19, 2009, 10:55:08 AM »
Two completely different cases of dealing with anger and displeasure. Lopez was an idiot and aired his laundry. Hill possibly just didn't want to pitch for a team that he knew wasn't going to back his up. So why not sit on the DL and collect the paycheck? Some around here believe John Patterson did this very thing and it's not questioned, but apply such logic to Shawn Hill and people start whining and moaning. I am not saying this was the case, but if you really want to analyze and question all the would haves, should haves, could haves, it's a legit point to think about. Just making discussion.

No chance.  He was pitching this spring and scheduled for that Friday start until the team said no thanks, goodbye.  Since, he's made two starts for the Padres.  Oh well, it's in the past.

I still can't get over how bad Joel Hanrahan is.

Offline tomterp

  • Global Moderator
  • ****
  • Posts: 28697
  • Hell yes!
The "Former Nat Watch" Thread (2009)
« Reply #144: April 19, 2009, 10:55:29 AM »
Hill possibly just didn't want to pitch for a team that he knew wasn't going to back his up. So why not sit on the DL and collect the paycheck?

If you have evidence that Hill was dogging it because he didn't want to be here, cough it up.  Otherwise, stifle.

Online blue911

  • Posts: 17325
The "Former Nat Watch" Thread (2009)
« Reply #145: April 19, 2009, 10:56:05 AM »
I hold Hill to the standard as any other major league starter, he has to consistently pitch into the 7th inning. Right now he isn't even pitching into the 6th consistently  and has forced the bullpen to pitch 4 innings in each of his starts.

The "Former Nat Watch" Thread (2009)
« Reply #146: April 19, 2009, 11:01:23 AM »
If you have evidence that Hill was dogging it because he didn't want to be here, cough it up.  Otherwise, stifle.

Give me the same for John Patterson and I will. It's only fair.


Offline tomterp

  • Global Moderator
  • ****
  • Posts: 28697
  • Hell yes!
The "Former Nat Watch" Thread (2009)
« Reply #147: April 19, 2009, 11:23:47 AM »
Give me the same for John Patterson and I will. It's only fair.



I don't think Patterson was dogging it either, just hurt.  So there is no evidence to be presented.

Offline JCA-CrystalCity

  • Global Moderator
  • ****
  • Posts: 19263
  • Platoon - not just a movie, a baseball obsession
The "Former Nat Watch" Thread (2009)
« Reply #148: April 19, 2009, 09:58:58 PM »
Again, talk to me when he pitches a full season. It isn't like he would be winning here anyways considering even if he did get his slack ass out to the mound for DC, the offense and bullpen wouldn't be backing him up at all.

I'll take issue with this one, too.  All I would have wanted out of Hill was about half a season of starts so we could have managed Zimmermann's work load.  If Zimmermann throws over 160 innings this year, then that will compound the crime of releasing Hill over about $30K (the difference between releasing him in mid march and at the end of spring training).

Offline DPMOmaha

  • Posts: 18571
The "Former Nat Watch" Thread (2009)
« Reply #149: April 20, 2009, 12:49:19 AM »
Brad Wilkerson retired today.