Author Topic: Define Natitude  (Read 45366 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline MarquisDeSade

  • Posts: 13447
  • The Truth.
Re: Define Natitude
« Reply #175: December 21, 2011, 09:54:16 PM »
2 straight years of 10 game improvement is delivering.

He's not going to deliver another 10 wins with the talent he has right now.


Offline tomterp

  • Global Moderator
  • ****
  • Posts: 27033
  • Hell yes!
Re: Define Natitude
« Reply #177: December 21, 2011, 09:56:18 PM »
He's not going to deliver another 10 wins with the talent he has right now.

Hey, you edited your post!   :doh:

C'mon, you know those 100 loss teams are on Bowden. 

Offline PC

  • Posts: 38394
Re: Define Natitude
« Reply #178: December 21, 2011, 09:57:14 PM »
2 straight years of 10 game improvement is delivering.

That just moved them from god-awful to bad and from bad to mediocre.  It's a stretch to call that delivering.  It's certainly not winning.

Offline MarquisDeSade

  • Posts: 13447
  • The Truth.
Re: Define Natitude
« Reply #179: December 21, 2011, 09:58:38 PM »
Hey, you edited your post!   :doh:

C'mon, you know those 100 loss teams are on Bowden. 

Oh, I know.  I only removed that because the wording made no sense.  Anyway, the team improved by 10 wins for two straight seasons but they started at 100+ loses.  60-70, no big deal.  70-80, takes some talent and luck.  But 80-90?  It's going to take a lot more than luck for that to happen and, as the team is right now, that's not going to happen.

Offline PANatsFan

  • Posts: 37010
  • dogs in uncensored, nudes in gameday
Re: Define Natitude
« Reply #180: December 21, 2011, 09:58:50 PM »
That just moved them from god-awful to bad and from bad to mediocre.  It's a stretch to call that delivering.  It's certainly not winning.

80-81 is about as close as you can get to winning

Offline MarquisDeSade

  • Posts: 13447
  • The Truth.
Re: Define Natitude
« Reply #181: December 21, 2011, 09:59:23 PM »
80-81 is about as close as you can get to winning

It's also good enough to have you sitting at home with your pud in your hands in mid October.

Offline PowerBoater69

  • Posts: 9806
    • Twitter
Re: Define Natitude
« Reply #182: December 21, 2011, 10:01:12 PM »

If there's one way to freak up your career, it's whining about your former bosses to the media.



Offline Spinman

  • Posts: 2111
  • Grandpa Spinman
Re: Define Natitude
« Reply #183: December 21, 2011, 10:02:48 PM »
The Nats said they didn't want to give Oswalt a 3 year deal so Oswalt says he's OK with a 1 year deal through the media....Why isn't he signed? Lets go back just 1 year... they didn't want to pay Joel Peralta $925,000 so they let him go??? Who is judging talent on the Nats? Peralta pitches lights out and will make over $2 Million this year with a playoff contender! They let Hanrahan go...at this rate we could nearly field a team of former Nats players that have been to the playoffs. All because of not wanting to pay the guys. If I were Zim I wouldn't sign an extension right now. By over paying( Werth) one year doesn't mean you don't pay at all the next year. If things don't change in a hurry 2011 will be the last time the Nats reach 80 wins for a long, long time.

Offline PowerBoater69

  • Posts: 9806
    • Twitter
Re: Define Natitude
« Reply #184: December 21, 2011, 10:03:54 PM »
http://www.masnsports.com/phil_wood/2011/12/some-followups.html?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter


So Woods says that there are wide disparities among clubs in their spending on player development, easy enough to believe, but I'd bet my house that the Nats are on the bottom half of the league.

Offline wpa2629

  • Posts: 15581
  • No Trade Clause
Re: Define Natitude
« Reply #185: December 21, 2011, 10:03:58 PM »
That just moved them from god-awful to bad and from bad to mediocre.  It's a stretch to call that delivering.  It's certainly not winning.

Since Rizzo took over the club has improved by 20 games, that is incontrovertible. It's not conjecture, it's not projection, it's not statistics, it's fact.

There is no evidence that the Nats have gotten worse since he became GM. Will the Nats get better? Will they be contenders? Will the owners do what it takes? That is all open for debate.

But the club winning more games since Rizzo becoming GM is not.

Offline PowerBoater69

  • Posts: 9806
    • Twitter
Re: Define Natitude
« Reply #186: December 21, 2011, 10:05:39 PM »
The Nats said they didn't want to give Oswalt a 3 year deal so Oswalt says he's OK with a 1 year deal through the media....Why isn't he signed? Lets go back just 1 year... they didn't want to pay Joel Peralta $925,000 so they let him go??? Who is judging talent on the Nats? Peralta pitches lights out and will make over $2 Million this year with a playoff contender! They let Hanrahan go...at this rate we could nearly field a team of former Nats players that have been to the playoffs. All because of not wanting to pay the guys. If I were Zim I wouldn't sign an extension right now. By over paying( Werth) one year doesn't mean you don't pay at all the next year. If things don't change in a hurry 2011 will be the last time the Nats reach 80 wins for a long, long time.

How much of a feeling is there among the young players that they need to do their six years here and then move on at the first opportunity?

Offline wpa2629

  • Posts: 15581
  • No Trade Clause
Re: Define Natitude
« Reply #187: December 21, 2011, 10:06:42 PM »
The Nats said they didn't want to give Oswalt a 3 year deal so Oswalt says he's OK with a 1 year deal through the media....Why isn't he signed? Lets go back just 1 year... they didn't want to pay Joel Peralta $925,000 so they let him go??? Who is judging talent on the Nats? Peralta pitches lights out and will make over $2 Million this year with a playoff contender! They let Hanrahan go...at this rate we could nearly field a team of former Nats players that have been to the playoffs. All because of not wanting to pay the guys. If I were Zim I wouldn't sign an extension right now. By over paying( Werth) one year doesn't mean you don't pay at all the next year. If things don't change in a hurry 2011 will be the last time the Nats reach 80 wins for a long, long time.

I swear to God if one more person mentions Joel Hanrahan as the "one that got away" I'm going to go all Rick Flair on this joint.

Hanrahan sucked here. He was given every opportunity time and time again to succeed and he didn't. He sucked. We didn't call him Gas Can Hanrahan because he was hot, ok, we called him that because he sucked.

The rest of your post about not wanting to pay guys like Peralta, etc., I'm with you on all of that.

Offline zimm_da_kid

  • Posts: 6166
Re: Define Natitude
« Reply #188: December 21, 2011, 10:07:05 PM »
Lerners are a bunch of freaking chode ass mother freaking bastards who will screw any chance the nationals have of long term success in the ass.  I cant' freaking believe this.  During the winter meetings Millar kept running his freaking mouth about our freaking money tree.  Well, Millar those are some high branches.  freak the Lerners.  Please sell the team.

Offline MarquisDeSade

  • Posts: 13447
  • The Truth.
Re: Define Natitude
« Reply #189: December 21, 2011, 10:07:17 PM »
But the club winning more games since Rizzo becoming GM is not.

It's unfortunate that he continues to fail in delivering what he promises every offseason (top-of-the-rotation starter, leadoff CF) and continues trolling us with LAC/LAI lines ("payroll relief" anyone).  The team got better once they stopped giving total bums mid-level contracts and had some of their farm make it to the show, shocker. 

Offline MarquisDeSade

  • Posts: 13447
  • The Truth.
Re: Define Natitude
« Reply #190: December 21, 2011, 10:08:33 PM »
Not keeping Joel Peralta was a total headscratcher. 

Offline Lintyfresh85

  • Posts: 33557
  • Lets go to work
Re: Define Natitude
« Reply #191: December 21, 2011, 10:09:08 PM »
Which may longer be a strength thanks to MLB screwing us over with the new draft rules. :?

Offline wpa2629

  • Posts: 15581
  • No Trade Clause
Re: Define Natitude
« Reply #192: December 21, 2011, 10:09:19 PM »
How much of a feeling is there among the young players that they need to do their six years here and then move on at the first opportunity?

What young players are you talking about? Only Ryan is facing free agency anytime soon and unless he doesn't get an extension, why would the other players feel they should do their 6 years and move on?

Offline Spinman

  • Posts: 2111
  • Grandpa Spinman
Re: Define Natitude
« Reply #193: December 21, 2011, 10:09:33 PM »
How much of a feeling is there among the young players that they need to do their six years here and then move on at the first opportunity?
After paying their dues...I am sure they are hoping for a trade to a contender! (Thank God!)

Offline Tyler Durden

  • Posts: 7971
  • Leprechaun
Re: Define Natitude
« Reply #194: December 21, 2011, 10:09:41 PM »
These Lerners are such turds. 

Offline zimm_da_kid

  • Posts: 6166
Re: Define Natitude
« Reply #195: December 21, 2011, 10:09:46 PM »
Not keeping Joel Peralta was a total headscratcher. 

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.

Offline zimm_da_kid

  • Posts: 6166
Re: Define Natitude
« Reply #196: December 21, 2011, 10:10:17 PM »
These Lerners are such turds. 

You're being way to nice to them

Offline PANatsFan

  • Posts: 37010
  • dogs in uncensored, nudes in gameday
Re: Define Natitude
« Reply #197: December 21, 2011, 10:10:57 PM »
Oswalt is now wanted by like 12 teams and he has zero competitive fire (he keeps flirting with retirement and suspiciously sucked until he got trade from Houston).  That's a poor signing in my opinion.

Offline Spinman

  • Posts: 2111
  • Grandpa Spinman
Re: Define Natitude
« Reply #198: December 21, 2011, 10:11:43 PM »
I swear to God if one more person mentions Joel Hanrahan as the "one that got away" I'm going to go all Rick Flair on this joint.

Hanrahan sucked here. He was given every opportunity time and time again to succeed and he didn't. He sucked. We didn't call him Gas Can Hanrahan because he was hot, ok, we called him that because he sucked.

The rest of your post about not wanting to pay guys like Peralta, etc., I'm with you on all of that.
Hanrahan was a year earlier (2009) that is why it was mentioned.
Peralta 2010 etc...

Offline PowerBoater69

  • Posts: 9806
    • Twitter
Re: Define Natitude
« Reply #199: December 21, 2011, 10:11:54 PM »
After paying their dues...I am sure they are hoping for a trade to a contender! (Thank God!)

To follow up, is that a common mind set around the franchise?  Or is there a core group that expects to play out their careers here in DC?