Author Topic: Define Natitude  (Read 46172 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline MarquisDeSade

  • Posts: 13458
  • Magic City is the place for me.
Re: Define Natitude
« Reply #300: December 21, 2011, 10:51:10 PM »
It's a move, that's to be celebrated after the inaction of this offseason.

Offline comish4lif

  • Posts: 2543
  • Too Stressed to care.
Re: Define Natitude
« Reply #301: December 21, 2011, 10:51:58 PM »
That was because he wanted a 2 year deal but we only offered him a 1 year deal.  Then he went and signed a 1 year deal with Tampa.
No no no and no. Get your facts straight. Peralta was arbitration eligible last year. So what if he wanted 2 years. You take his ass to arbitration and he gets his 1 year deal at a fair rate.


Offline PebbleBall

  • Posts: 2539
  • Now that right there is baseball.
Re: Define Natitude
« Reply #302: December 21, 2011, 10:52:23 PM »
I've always had a feeling Mark is going to go on a massive spending spree when Ted passes on.

100%.  They aren't one and the same.  If a full-on baseball uniform and glove for a 60-year-old man is not a wasteful expenditure, I don't know what is.

Offline PowerBoater69

  • Posts: 9863
    • Twitter
Re: Define Natitude
« Reply #303: December 21, 2011, 10:53:06 PM »
Our bench sucked last year.  A significant upgrade to our bench is every bit as valuable as would be a CF upgrade.

Bench players rack up hundreds of PA's over the course of a season.  Upgrading the group of bench players needs to be done and should be applauded. 

I'd say that landing a type A centerfielder would have a significantly larger impact on the team than any bench player.  That being said, our bench did suck last year and an upgrade does need to occur, hopefully we are not finished yet.

Offline PANatsFan

  • Posts: 37010
  • dogs in uncensored, nudes in gameday
Re: Define Natitude
« Reply #304: December 21, 2011, 10:57:37 PM »
No no no and no. Get your facts straight. Peralta was arbitration eligible last year. So what if he wanted 2 years. You take his ass to arbitration and he gets his 1 year deal at a fair rate.





Yep - it was more about his expendability I think. Or his paycheck, I guess. Kimball when healthy is just as good. zdk has said a lot of insane crap here.

Our bench sucked last year.  A significant upgrade to our bench is every bit as valuable as would be a CF upgrade.

Bench players rack up hundreds of PA's over the course of a season.  Upgrading the group of bench players needs to be done and should be applauded. 

STOP MAKING SENSE!

Offline Lintyfresh85

  • Posts: 33586
  • Lets go to work
Re: Define Natitude
« Reply #305: December 21, 2011, 11:01:28 PM »

STOP MAKING SENSE!

Are the Nats now at the point where they're only a bench player away from going over the top?

No?

Then until that's the case... and the team has shown improvement in the areas that actually hurt it the worst i.e. leadoff/CF... of course a bench signing is not going to be praised as a genius signing.

Offline tomterp

  • Global Moderator
  • ****
  • Posts: 27568
  • Hell yes!
Re: Define Natitude
« Reply #306: December 21, 2011, 11:03:50 PM »
I'd say that landing a type A centerfielder would have a significantly larger impact on the team than any bench player. 

I am not referring to any one bench player, but the bench as a whole. 

We need CF, starting pitcher, and bench as top priorities.

Offline Lintyfresh85

  • Posts: 33586
  • Lets go to work
Re: Define Natitude
« Reply #307: December 21, 2011, 11:05:24 PM »
I am not referring to any one bench player, but the bench as a whole. 

We need CF, starting pitcher, and bench as top priorities.

So now signing bench players is the mark of a solid off-season? I'm confused. I thought Rizzo stated his goals were front of the rotation starter and a leadoff/CF'er.

When was bench added to the list? When he realized he couldn't accomplish his goals once again? Or was it when he saw the 2012 budget?

Offline wpa2629

  • Posts: 16001
  • No Trade Clause
Re: Define Natitude
« Reply #308: December 21, 2011, 11:05:25 PM »
Are the Nats now at the point where they're only a bench player away from going over the top?

No?

Then until that's the case... and the team has shown improvement in the areas that actually hurt it the worst i.e. leadoff/CF... of course a bench signing is not going to be praised as a genius signing.

No one is saying it's a genius signing, we're saying it isn't a bad signing.

Now if it's the only thing the Nats do this year, then yes, of course it's disappointing, to say the least, but it still wouldn't be a bad signing.

Offline Lintyfresh85

  • Posts: 33586
  • Lets go to work
Re: Define Natitude
« Reply #309: December 21, 2011, 11:06:25 PM »
No one is saying it's a genius signing, we're saying it isn't a bad signing.

Now if it's the only thing the Nats do this year, then yes, of course it's disappointing, to say the least, but it still wouldn't be a bad signing.

Well tick tock... there's not a ton of FA's left out there. DeRosa and Cameron very well may be the impact guys the Nats bring in.

Offline DPMOmaha

  • Posts: 17899
Re: Define Natitude
« Reply #310: December 21, 2011, 11:06:54 PM »
Are the Nats now at the point where they're only a bench player away from going over the top?

No?

Then until that's the case... and the team has shown improvement in the areas that actually hurt it the worst i.e. leadoff/CF... of course a bench signing is not going to be praised as a genius signing.

If they had even a decent bench last year it nets them three or four more wins last year.  A good bench is just as vital as any of the other needs this team has.

Offline wpa2629

  • Posts: 16001
  • No Trade Clause
Re: Define Natitude
« Reply #311: December 21, 2011, 11:07:08 PM »
Well tick tock... there's not a ton of FA's left out there. DeRosa and Cameron very well may be the impact guys the Nats bring in.

Yeah, pretty sure no one (including the Nats) are calling Cameron and DeRosa impact signings

Offline JCA-CrystalCity

  • Global Moderator
  • ****
  • Posts: 17180
  • Platoon - not just a movie, a baseball obsession
Re: Define Natitude
« Reply #312: December 21, 2011, 11:07:26 PM »
Linty - lots of people complained about the bench, so it is hard to be too down on the signing of one of the better multi-position players for the past few years.  What I think is right is that while this is a positive move, it is disappointing that there does not seem to be progress toward needs A, B, and C (CF, a leadoff hitting MI or CF, and #2/#3 starter).

Offline Ali the Baseball Cat

  • Posts: 10540
  • babble on
Re: Define Natitude
« Reply #313: December 21, 2011, 11:07:37 PM »
Sad but true
The problems with that idea are 1) more than half of the STH base has already done so, dropping as low as it's going to go and 2) the Nats depend more on the Red Loft party scene, the kids zone, and visiting fans than they do on local die hards who actively follow the offseason moves.


Offline Lintyfresh85

  • Posts: 33586
  • Lets go to work
Re: Define Natitude
« Reply #314: December 21, 2011, 11:07:40 PM »
Yeah, pretty sure no one (including the Nats) are calling Cameron and DeRosa impact signings

You're right... I guess it'd be more apt to call them the only signings.

Offline tomterp

  • Global Moderator
  • ****
  • Posts: 27568
  • Hell yes!
Re: Define Natitude
« Reply #315: December 21, 2011, 11:08:12 PM »
So now signing bench players is the mark of a solid off-season? I'm confused. I thought Rizzo stated his goals were front of the rotation starter and a leadoff/CF'er.

When was bench added to the list? When he realized he couldn't accomplish his goals once again? Or was it when he saw the 2012 budget?

Our bench sucked last year, we need a significant upgrade.  I'm saying it, I don't care what Rizzo says.  I don't hang on his every word like some folks do around here.  Johnson has been saying it, of course.  The whole "hairy chested" thing.

And signing a bench doesn't mean we don't need a CF or starter.  That should be so obvious I don't even need to say it, but since you're admittedly confused...     :lol:

Offline wpa2629

  • Posts: 16001
  • No Trade Clause
Re: Define Natitude
« Reply #316: December 21, 2011, 11:09:52 PM »
You're right... I guess it'd be more apt to call them the only signings.

We'll know soon enough.

In the meantime, there's no reason to be upset about DeRosa, it's a good signing and it fills a need.

Offline Lintyfresh85

  • Posts: 33586
  • Lets go to work
Re: Define Natitude
« Reply #317: December 21, 2011, 11:11:31 PM »
Our bench sucked last year, we need a significant upgrade.  I'm saying it, I don't care what Rizzo says.  I don't hang on his every word like some folks do around here.  Johnson has been saying it, of course.  The whole "hairy chested" thing.

When smart people like you post applauding the move...(which in itself is totally fine, I love me some DeRosa... but without bigger moves, means nothing) it gives some posters ammunition to say things are going fine blah blah blah the team is spending its money wisely and so on and so on.

If even the most ardent SSS don't start holding people accountable in the FO/Ownership how will public pressure ever start to mount on the Nats to do the fans right?


Offline tomterp

  • Global Moderator
  • ****
  • Posts: 27568
  • Hell yes!
Re: Define Natitude
« Reply #318: December 21, 2011, 11:19:08 PM »
When smart people like you post applauding the move...(which in itself is totally fine, I love me some DeRosa... but without bigger moves, means nothing) it gives some posters ammunition to say things are going fine blah blah blah the team is spending its money wisely and so on and so on.

If even the most ardent SSS don't start holding people accountable in the FO/Ownership how will public pressure ever start to mount on the Nats to do the fans right?

See the edits to my post, you were quick to quote me before I finished. 

Building a solid bench is necessary and useful.  It doesn't in any way absolve Rizzo/Lerners from filling the other holes, and I have never implied in any way that it does.  But I'm not going to pretend I don't approve of bench signings because we need a CF and starter too.

Offline The Chief

  • Posts: 30003
    • http://www.wnff.net
Re: Define Natitude
« Reply #319: December 21, 2011, 11:26:33 PM »
Building a solid bench ... absolve Rizzo/Lerners from filling the other holes, ... it does.  ... I ... approve of bench signings because we need a CF ...

As quoted by the sanity brigade :mg:

Offline spidernat

  • Posts: 53132
  • The Lerners are Cheap AND Crooked
Re: Define Natitude
« Reply #320: December 21, 2011, 11:26:55 PM »
:lmao:

Online Vega

  • Posts: 3942
Re: Define Natitude
« Reply #321: December 21, 2011, 11:46:01 PM »
As quoted by the sanity brigade :mg:
Officially renaming the GoinFU in my LEGO universe to the Sanity Brigade.

Offline The Chief

  • Posts: 30003
    • http://www.wnff.net
Re: Define Natitude
« Reply #322: December 22, 2011, 12:01:42 AM »
Officially renaming the GoinFU in my LEGO universe to the Sanity Brigade.

I though GoFU was the neutral faction?

Online Vega

  • Posts: 3942
Re: Define Natitude
« Reply #323: December 22, 2011, 12:03:19 AM »
I though GoFU was the neutral faction?
Sanity is neutral.

Offline The Chief

  • Posts: 30003
    • http://www.wnff.net
Re: Define Natitude
« Reply #324: December 22, 2011, 12:03:50 AM »
Sanity is neutral.

But it's not...  "sanity" was PA's rally cry for LANC and it got subverted by devious LAC/LoD folks.