Author Topic: Nationals vs Mets, Game 3  (Read 2682 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline cmdterps44

  • Posts: 15535
  • Future
Re: Nationals vs Mets, Game 3
« Reply #550: July 31, 2011, 06:56:04 PM »
I typed an extra 0.  If I meant 1,000 I'd have added the comma.

And my "issue" is that we're all so desperate for a decent CF that we're talking about adding Michael Bourn.
What exactly is your definition of a decent CF'er if not Bourn?

This is my issue. I'm just curious what you don't find in Bourn. I mean I've listed reasons why he would be an obvious upgrade over anything we've had so I'm just trying to hear a counter argument.

Offline PatsNats28

  • Posts: 8384
Re: Nationals vs Mets, Game 3
« Reply #551: July 31, 2011, 07:37:32 PM »
As I said, I typed an extra 0.  :-[

Even so, while you're trying to make it sound small, you understand intuitively that the difference between a .250 hitter and a .300 hitter is quite significant, even though the .300 hitter is only getting 5 extra hits per 100 ABs. Same logic applies here.

Offline Minty Fresh

  • Posts: 16407
  • M. V. P.
Re: Nationals vs Mets, Game 3
« Reply #552: July 31, 2011, 08:25:31 PM »
This is my issue. I'm just curious what you don't find in Bourn. I mean I've listed reasons why he would be an obvious upgrade over anything we've had so I'm just trying to hear a counter argument.

If Bourn just cost us money then I wouldn't really have an issue.  It's giving up on kids who factor into the future that I have an issue with. 

I agree that he's better than Bernadina, but he's not better than having Bernadina/Clippard/Lombardozzi/anyone else useful.

Offline Minty Fresh

  • Posts: 16407
  • M. V. P.
Re: Nationals vs Mets, Game 3
« Reply #553: July 31, 2011, 08:26:05 PM »
Even so, while you're trying to make it sound small, you understand intuitively that the difference between a .250 hitter and a .300 hitter is quite significant, even though the .300 hitter is only getting 5 extra hits per 100 ABs. Same logic applies here.

I refer you to the quote from Bull Durham here....

Offline cmdterps44

  • Posts: 15535
  • Future
Re: Nationals vs Mets, Game 3
« Reply #554: July 31, 2011, 08:30:50 PM »
If Bourn just cost us money then I wouldn't really have an issue.  It's giving up on kids who factor into the future that I have an issue with.  

I agree that he's better than Bernadina, but he's not better than having Bernadina/Clippard/Lombardozzi/anyone else useful.

Well I would agree with you if that were the trade proposed but we don't know whether we talked to Houston about much. So I understand your point.

I would at least think we would've have given up a quality pitcher or two like Millone and maybe one of the single A guys. Then maybe Marrero or something. I would be more inclined to trade pieces that we have plenty of and that are currently blocking progress: like Marerro or some of the pitchers.

Its silly to assume that players of Clippard/Lombardozzi's quality would be offered up compared to what the Braves sent to Houston though.

Offline PatsNats28

  • Posts: 8384
Re: Nationals vs Mets, Game 3
« Reply #555: July 31, 2011, 08:46:01 PM »
I refer you to the quote from Bull Durham here....

Haven't seen that movie.

Online JCA-CrystalCity

  • Global Moderator
  • ****
  • Posts: 17557
  • Platoon - not just a movie, a baseball obsession
Re: Nationals vs Mets, Game 3
« Reply #556: July 31, 2011, 09:09:42 PM »
This is my issue. I'm just curious what you don't find in Bourn. I mean I've listed reasons why he would be an obvious upgrade over anything we've had so I'm just trying to hear a counter argument.
he'd only solve your problem through 2012.  We really don't need him this year.  he's more valuable to a current contender that is young and likely to contend next year.  IOW, the Braves.

Offline PatsNats28

  • Posts: 8384
Re: Nationals vs Mets, Game 3
« Reply #557: July 31, 2011, 10:01:14 PM »
he'd only solve your problem through 2012.  We really don't need him this year.  he's more valuable to a current contender that is young and likely to contend next year.  IOW, the Braves.

It's a valid point. Signed through next year, already 28 YO. Span made more sense for this team.

Offline tomterp

  • Global Moderator
  • ****
  • Posts: 27951
  • Hell yes!
Re: Nationals vs Mets, Game 3
« Reply #558: July 31, 2011, 10:10:46 PM »
Is anybody here still talking about the game?    :roll:

Offline PatsNats28

  • Posts: 8384
Re: Nationals vs Mets, Game 3
« Reply #559: July 31, 2011, 10:20:56 PM »
Is anybody here still talking about the game?    :roll:

that was a good win.

we should sign brian goodwin.

WE BETTER freakING SIGN GOODWIN AFTER WE DUMPED ALL THAT SALARY, LERNERS ARE CHEAP BASTARDS AND MIKE RIZZO IS A BUM WHO SHOULD HAVE TRADED PEANUTS FOR BOURN  :panic:

 :mg:

Offline aspenbubba

  • Posts: 2220
Re: Nationals vs Mets, Game 3
« Reply #560: August 01, 2011, 08:37:39 AM »
We lost 17 of the next 21 after that win.

So if I am calculating correctly for the Nats to equal the 2005 TO DATE version all we have to do is win FOUR games between now and August 22 for our 55th  victory of the season.

Offline Minty Fresh

  • Posts: 16407
  • M. V. P.
Re: Nationals vs Mets, Game 3
« Reply #561: August 01, 2011, 09:52:45 AM »
Haven't seen that movie.

:?

I know, I know, you're only 17.  :lol:

Offline hammondsnats

  • Posts: 37348
  • LAC 8)
Re: Nationals vs Mets, Game 3
« Reply #562: August 01, 2011, 10:29:46 AM »
Jordan zimmermann is the real deal