Author Topic: Define Natitude  (Read 44115 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Vega

  • Posts: 3457
Re: Define Natitude
« Reply #325: December 22, 2011, 12:07:22 AM »
But it's not...  "sanity" was PA's rally cry for LANC and it got subverted by devious LAC/LoD folks.
Hmm. Didn't know that. I suppose I'll keep GoinFU, with individual members referred to as Newts, per your suggestion.

Offline Nathan

  • Global Moderator
  • ****
  • Posts: 10477
  • Wow. Such warnings. Very baseball. Moderator Doge.
Re: Define Natitude
« Reply #326: December 22, 2011, 01:49:26 AM »
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.
It's as if I have a car with a slipping clutch, leaking head gasket, and a blown right passenger speaker.  Yeah, it's nice to fix and upgrade the stereo, but fixing the clutch plate and replacing the head gasket are more pressing needs that should have been addressed before worrying about teh baws beatz.


Offline hammondsnats

  • Posts: 37330
  • LAC 8)
Re: Define Natitude
« Reply #327: December 22, 2011, 02:25:59 AM »
just repeat the boz line again ...

Quote
The Washington Nationals never really seem to learn. Or, rather, the Lerners don’t. As soon as you think they start to get it, they backslide again.

Offline hammondsnats

  • Posts: 37330
  • LAC 8)
Re: Define Natitude
« Reply #328: December 22, 2011, 02:32:59 AM »


You mean like, Gio Gonzalez? Aren't they getting Gio Gonzalez?

Again, Boswell wrote a crappy piece that strikes a chord with people emotionally and they drool all over it.

just stop right there.

For so many years you've done this act before.  Whenever Boz writes something about your boys in the positive light, you praise him with the sanity / :clap: routine.  But when he sheds the real - cough cough - negative light, you sit there and call him a hack.

Just too funny man. 

Offline hammondsnats

  • Posts: 37330
  • LAC 8)
Re: Define Natitude
« Reply #329: December 22, 2011, 02:42:01 AM »
hahahahahahahaha damn i had a fun night but it would've been so awesome to have been on here during these conversations.

i told you folks years ago, LAC.  boswell just painted a wonderful picture there.

:lmao: :lmao: :lmao: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:


Offline hammondsnats

  • Posts: 37330
  • LAC 8)
Re: Define Natitude
« Reply #330: December 22, 2011, 02:44:53 AM »
Who cares if he buys a lot of legos and nudie mags?

well obviously you care he gets a bad rep around here

Offline cmdterps44

  • Posts: 15352
  • Future
Re: Define Natitude
« Reply #331: December 22, 2011, 02:46:36 AM »
C-C-C-C-C-Comboooo Breaker

Offline hammondsnats

  • Posts: 37330
  • LAC 8)
Re: Define Natitude
« Reply #332: December 22, 2011, 02:55:07 AM »


finish him

Offline PANatsFan

  • Posts: 36938
  • dogs in uncensored, nudes in gameday
Re: Define Natitude
« Reply #333: December 22, 2011, 06:23:34 AM »
just stop right there.

For so many years you've done this act before.  Whenever Boz writes something about your boys in the positive light, you praise him with the sanity / :clap: routine.  But when he sheds the real - cough cough - negative light, you sit there and call him a hack.

Just too funny man. 



Are you really that stupid? In his zeal to go off on a rant, the logical foundation of the piece is missing. It was bad journalism. The subject of the article is irrelevant to that statement.

Online The Chief

  • Posts: 29980
  • Very 2014. Wow.
    • http://www.wnff.net
Re: Define Natitude
« Reply #334: December 22, 2011, 07:31:49 AM »
No one has addressed the logical flaw that the MASN money hasn't changed yet and isn't guaranteed to do so. Or the fact that they could sign Prince and Cespedes.
Boswell BASES his whole piece on the MASN money, which is a logical flaw. It's a poor piece because he focused on emotion and not on the fact that the MASN money is actually irrelevant to the low payroll.
You admitted the logical flaw. It's a poor piece.
Are you really that stupid? In his zeal to go off on a rant, the logical foundation of the piece is missing. It was bad journalism. The subject of the article is irrelevant to that statement.

This isn't a high school debate.  You can't "win" on a technicality.  Whether the increased TV money is coming or not is completely irrelevant to the general point of the piece, which is that the Lerners need to stop micromanaging payroll and trust their execs.  The fact that you keep harping on the "logical flaw" of putting the cart before the horse while dropping turds like this...

Quote
Or the fact that they could sign Prince and Cespedes.
You mean like, Gio Gonzalez? Aren't they getting Gio Gonzalez?

...deserves some kind of award.  Increased TV money is practically a forgone conclusion compared to this stuff, but even if it doesn't happen, it doesn't magically invalidate everything said in the piece.

Are you really that stupid?

:spit: :lmao:

Offline PowerBoater69

  • Posts: 9789
    • Twitter
Re: Define Natitude
« Reply #335: December 22, 2011, 07:33:53 AM »
For those who have suggested that Boz writes one thing one day and the opposite the next, the quotes below are from an on-line chat on Monday, a full TWO days before he wrote the column ripping into the Lerners.

Quote from: Boz
Here's a different way to interpret the Nats willingness to hold what they have, build a bench __hey, lets get started on that, fellas__ and see if a trade for CF develops.

Who have the Nats added?  The question might be rephrased: Added since when?  Who do the Nats have now, when ST starts, that they didn't have at the All-Star break?

*Stephen Strasburg (full recovery, 25 starts, not 5 in '12).
*Jordan Z (for 32-33 starts, not 25).
*Adam LaRoche, for 145 games, not 30-40 bad ones. Career OPS .815.
*Chien-Ming Wang (for 25-30 starts, not 10).
*Bryce Harper (for 80 games, not 0, maybe if called up in June).
*Brad Pea****, for whole season, not September.
*Tommy Milone, for full season, not September.
*Steve Lombardozzi, for full season, not just September.
*Ross Detwiler, for full season, not just half a season.
*Ryan Mathues for full season, not 60 games.

This may be rationalizing inactivity. But it's still interesting.


In response to: "I think it is now safe to say that the Lerners are cheap."
Quote
I'm quite sure you're wrong on this. Once you go $126M for one player, and you have SS and Harper coming, plus lots of others, you have committed yourself long-term. That doesn't mean they are committed specifically to spending for '12.


Quote
The Nats did NOT think thjat, as a group, Pea****, Milone, Matheus, Lombardozzi, Marrero, etc., would develop this fast. That makes '13 and '14 look better as a time to spend for your first big push, rather than '12-'13.

They still need to get cracking. And I still think Oswalt is worth a 3-year deal. But the bad years from Werth and LaR, coupled with the good years from so many kids, may have changed their internal time table.

I know Davey Johnson, though he doesn't phrase it this way, thinks thjat Job 1 right now is to find out exactly which of the young players are part of a postp-season quality team and which aren't. Then, as he says, "Put on the icng AFTER the cake is baked."

If you want "blame" Davey a little. He really likes what he's holding __if you upgrade the bench. And he wants to know that the Big Buy actually fits the Nats needs when  they have a chance to win __whether he's the manager then or not. He really is a long-view guy.


Quote
Rizzo has the authority. But he wants to keep it! He really has a good sense of Ted, imo. Rizzo wants value and, as he said to me recently, "Once I get a number in my head on what I think a player is worth, I don't change much." That's who he IS __a talent evaluator. That's what he brings. If he thinks __and he does think these things __Buerhle isn't worthy four years; Oswalt isn't worth three years; Cepedes isn't worth $40-50M; Darvish isn't worth God-knows-how-much; BJ Upton isn't worth a key Nats player just to control him for one year; Pujols and Fielders aren't worth THAT to the Nats because they're set up fine at 1st base. 

Is this stubborn? Yes. But if you are a team builder, you can't sway with the wind. You have to stick to your guns. If you are right enough, you get to be in a parade. If you are wrong enough, you get fired. He was right, when the world was mostly wrong, on Dunn. (he won't say it because he likes Dunn so much, but he saw a significant downward trajectory to his career, but nothing like what happened in '11. So far, he looks very wrong on Werth __a huge miss, if it works out that way.


Quote
Why do I still wonder, against all logic and every view that various Nats have given, that they';ll be tempted to jump into Fielder. Naaah. That's the stubborn part. He's just not going to do it because he thought about it all season. He's not going to let the market tell him what he thinks. Mr. Market is there to be taken advanatage of. But it's fatal is you listen to Mr. Market.


Quote
To me, the hidden factor with the Nats is how much their offense can improve in one year if Z''man (.825), LaRoche (.815), Morse (.855) and Werth (.830) simply produce their CAREER OPS in '12 and Espy (.737), Ramos (.767) and Desmond (.680) simply improve a hair on theirs. And what if Harper (,897 in the minors), comes up and produces at a .775 rate. The MLB average is in the low .700s. That ought to be a very good offense.



http://live.washingtonpost.com/ask-boswell-1219.html

Offline Tyler Durden

  • Posts: 7971
  • Leprechaun
Re: Define Natitude
« Reply #336: December 22, 2011, 08:33:19 AM »
For those who have suggested that Boz writes one thing one day and the opposite the next, the quotes below are from an on-line chat on Monday, a full TWO days before he wrote the column ripping into the Lerners.

In response to: "I think it is now safe to say that the Lerners are cheap."

http://live.washingtonpost.com/ask-boswell-1219.html


It really looks like someone pretty high up in the Nats front office really wanted to get the message out that it was the Lerners, not Rizzo or 'the Plan' or 'Phase II,' that was driving this offseason's lack of spending.

Offline Lintyfresh85

  • Posts: 33368
  • Lets go to work
Re: Define Natitude
« Reply #337: December 22, 2011, 08:35:14 AM »
So, then, Rizzo was the rat so to speak.

Offline MarquisDeSade

  • Posts: 13447
  • The Truth.
Re: Define Natitude
« Reply #338: December 22, 2011, 08:41:29 AM »
So, then, Rizzo was the rat so to speak.

Perhaps Rizzo is learning, the hard way I might add, that the Lerners Are Incompetent. 

Offline wpa2629

  • Posts: 15391
  • No Trade Clause
Re: Define Natitude
« Reply #339: December 22, 2011, 08:41:29 AM »
So, then, Rizzo was the rat so to speak.

I think it's safe to assume that ... sounds like someone was trying to send a message. Seems to happen a lot with Boz

Offline MarquisDeSade

  • Posts: 13447
  • The Truth.
Re: Define Natitude
« Reply #340: December 22, 2011, 08:41:53 AM »
I think it's safe to assume that ... sounds like someone was trying to send a message. That happens a lot with Boz

A message that's going to fall on deaf ears.

Offline blue911

  • Posts: 15558
Re: Define Natitude
« Reply #341: December 22, 2011, 08:45:44 AM »
This is classic Davey Johnson.

Offline PowerBoater69

  • Posts: 9789
    • Twitter
Re: Define Natitude
« Reply #342: December 22, 2011, 08:48:21 AM »
This is classic Davey Johnson.

That seems more plausible than Rizzo.

Offline wpa2629

  • Posts: 15391
  • No Trade Clause
Re: Define Natitude
« Reply #343: December 22, 2011, 08:50:22 AM »
This does sound like Davey - maybe him and Rizzo are in cahoots

Offline PowerBoater69

  • Posts: 9789
    • Twitter
Re: Define Natitude
« Reply #344: December 22, 2011, 08:58:11 AM »
This does sound like Davey - maybe him and Rizzo are in cahoots

Wouldn't that be quite a sign of a cohesive organization?  The GM and manager plotting to undermine ownership.  That type of dysfunction leads to a GM resigning in disgrace, a team president walking away and taking pot shots at his old club, and a manager quiting on a winning team.

Offline Tyler Durden

  • Posts: 7971
  • Leprechaun
Re: Define Natitude
« Reply #345: December 22, 2011, 09:03:58 AM »
Wouldn't that be quite a sign of a cohesive organization?  The GM and manager plotting to undermine ownership.  That type of dysfunction leads to a GM resigning in disgrace, a team president walking away and taking pot shots at his old club, and a manager quiting on a winning team.

You're right - if ownership is dead set on maintaining a $60 or $70 mil payroll, we're pretty much screwed.

Good GM's won't want to work here.  Good managers and players won't come here.  We can probably get by on the strength of the farm and the young players in the system for a while, but with the changes to the draft, it won't last very long and there is a ceiling on how high that can take you.

Offline wpa2629

  • Posts: 15391
  • No Trade Clause
Re: Define Natitude
« Reply #346: December 22, 2011, 09:11:30 AM »
Wouldn't that be quite a sign of a cohesive organization?  The GM and manager plotting to undermine ownership.  That type of dysfunction leads to a GM resigning in disgrace, a team president walking away and taking pot shots at his old club, and a manager quiting on a winning team.

Ownership had nothing to do with Bowden and Riggleman leaving, in fact, I'm certain the owners are the only reason these guys were even employed by the Nats in the first place. Bowden and Riggleman made their own beds, particularly Riggleman who is just an idiot.

Kasten is something else entirely though and more comparable with what you're describing. I think it's safe to assume that Kasten and the Lerner's had different agendas. Though, it's not likely I'll ever shed a tear now that Kasten is gone.

Offline PowerBoater69

  • Posts: 9789
    • Twitter
Re: Define Natitude
« Reply #347: December 22, 2011, 09:16:38 AM »
Ownership had nothing to do with Bowden and Riggleman leaving, in fact, I'm certain the owners are the only reason these guys were even employed by the Nats in the first place. Bowden and Riggleman made their own beds, particularly Riggleman who is just an idiot.

Kasten is something else entirely though and more comparable with what you're describing. I think it's safe to assume that Kasten and the Lerner's had different agendas. Though, it's not likely I'll ever shed a tear now that Kasten is gone.

Your second statement contradicts your first  statement. 

Losing three guys in upper management in three separate ugly manners is not a good thing no matter how you spin it. 

Offline Tyler Durden

  • Posts: 7971
  • Leprechaun
Re: Define Natitude
« Reply #348: December 22, 2011, 09:19:42 AM »
If Rizzo is forced out for outing ownership's lack of willingness to spend or for pushing back too hard against their cheapness, then the scenario PowerBoater laid out looks a lot closer to real life.

Offline MarquisDeSade

  • Posts: 13447
  • The Truth.
Re: Define Natitude
« Reply #349: December 22, 2011, 09:20:29 AM »
The Riggleman resignation was a classic vote of no confidence from upper management and the ownership group the second Rizzo said "Maybe you're not".