Author Topic: Define Natitude  (Read 45462 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline comish4lif

  • Posts: 2532
  • Too Stressed to care.
Re: Define Natitude
« Reply #400: December 22, 2011, 03:15:32 PM »
The nats to MASN was the life raft the Os got in exchange for loosing the largest and richest part of their market- no way it happens



Selig should have told Angelos that MLB territories are assigned by the MLB League Offices (as per the franchise agreement that Angelos signed) and that Angelos could go pound sand down a rat hole.

Offline mitlen

  • Posts: 23165
  • We had 'em all the way.
Re: Define Natitude
« Reply #401: December 22, 2011, 03:16:51 PM »
Selig should have told Angelos that MLB territories are assigned by the MLB League Offices (as per the franchise agreement that Angelos signed) and that Angelos could go pound sand down a rat hole.

Hate to contaminate the rat hole.


Offline HalfSmokes

  • Posts: 14295
  • You're sicke Jesse, sick sick sick
Re: Define Natitude
« Reply #402: December 22, 2011, 03:16:52 PM »
Selig should have told Angelos that MLB territories are assigned by the MLB League Offices (as per the franchise agreement that Angelos signed) and that Angelos could go pound sand down a rat hole.

Angelos would have sued (he was already threatening to if the team moved to dc) and the MLB didn't want its dirty laundry aired in open court

Offline comish4lif

  • Posts: 2532
  • Too Stressed to care.
Re: Define Natitude
« Reply #403: December 22, 2011, 03:21:20 PM »
Angelos would have sued (he was already threatening to if the team moved to dc) and the MLB didn't want its dirty laundry aired in open court

Not sure how Angelos could justify a suit to invalidate a contract that he signed...

Offline HalfSmokes

  • Posts: 14295
  • You're sicke Jesse, sick sick sick
Re: Define Natitude
« Reply #404: December 22, 2011, 03:21:54 PM »
Not sure how Angelos could justify a suit to invalidate a contract that he signed...

territorial rights were part of what he purchased when he bought the team

Offline DPMOmaha

  • Posts: 17722
Re: Define Natitude
« Reply #405: December 22, 2011, 03:29:08 PM »
The nats to MASN was the life raft the Os got in exchange for loosing the largest and richest part of their market- no way it happens

The only way I see that happening is if MASN were to go bankrupt or something like that.  And with the production quality of those pre and post game shows...

Offline MarquisDeSade

  • Posts: 13447
  • The Truth.
Re: Define Natitude
« Reply #406: December 22, 2011, 03:30:13 PM »
The only way I see that happening is if MASN were to go bankrupt or something like that.  And with the production quality of those pre and post game shows...

Why strive to do better when you're getting paid either way.  Besides, nobody is watching MASN anyway.  :stir:

Offline comish4lif

  • Posts: 2532
  • Too Stressed to care.
Re: Define Natitude
« Reply #407: December 22, 2011, 03:37:55 PM »
territorial rights were part of what he purchased when he bought the team

Territorial rights are assigned by MLB. The Rays and MLB didn't compensate the Marlins and Braves when they were granted a franchise.

Offline MarquisDeSade

  • Posts: 13447
  • The Truth.
Re: Define Natitude
« Reply #408: December 22, 2011, 03:41:10 PM »
Territorial rights are assigned by MLB. The Rays and MLB didn't compensate the Marlins and Braves when they were granted a franchise.

But were there shady shenanigans with the Rays like there were with the Expos?

Offline Minty Fresh

  • Posts: 16098
  • Crud, No! I want to play ball!
Re: Define Natitude
« Reply #409: December 22, 2011, 03:41:49 PM »
Natitude is trading away the farm you so highly praise for a #3 starter.

Offline MarquisDeSade

  • Posts: 13447
  • The Truth.
Re: Define Natitude
« Reply #410: December 22, 2011, 03:42:53 PM »
Natitude is trading away the farm you so highly praise for a #3 starter.

That a similar could have been had for straight cash.

Offline Lintyfresh85

  • Posts: 33558
  • Lets go to work
Re: Define Natitude
« Reply #411: December 22, 2011, 03:49:47 PM »
That a similar could have been had for straight cash.

BUT THAT WASN'T PART OF THE PLAN

Offline PowerBoater69

  • Posts: 9810
    • Twitter
Re: Define Natitude
« Reply #412: December 23, 2011, 07:50:13 AM »
From the comment section of Boz's column bashing the Lerners:

Quote from: Thomas_Boswell
12/22/2011 9:37 PM EST
Tom Boswell here.
 
The Gio Gonzalez trade was the precipitating cause for Thursday morning's column and it's tone of urgency. 
 
"However, here's what's worse than not opening the checkbook for free agents __and it's what I suspect is happening now. If your baseball people say, 'We finally have the prospects to trade for a key piece. We'll have to give up lots...but it's the right move,'" .then the owner should say, "Yes." 
 
Glad that Ted Lerner and the Nats board said, Yes."
 
Have a great night.

Hey old man Lerner, how does it feel to know that your GM played you like a nag in the media?  When you said "no", Rizzo called up his buddy at the Post and got them to write a column calling you out for being cheap.  Bet you love that.  So what happens next time Rizzo has big plans that you don't agree with?  Do you dare say no?  This little trick worked once, surely it will work again.  One phone call from Rizzo, Boz whips up another hit piece and every internet trouble maker in town rips the team until ownership is forced to cave in to Rizzo's demands.  That sounds like a healthy business atmosphere. 

Offline natsfan4evr

  • Posts: 6171
Re: Define Natitude
« Reply #413: December 23, 2011, 07:55:00 AM »
From the comment section of Boz's column bashing the Lerners:

Hey old man Lerner, how does it feel to know that your GM played you like a nag in the media?  When you said "no", Rizzo called up his buddy at the Post and got them to write a column calling you out for being cheap.  Bet you love that.  So what happens next time Rizzo has big plans that you don't agree with?  Do you dare say no?  This little trick worked once, surely it will work again.  One phone call from Rizzo, Boz whips up another hit piece and every internet trouble maker in town rips the team until ownership is forced to cave in to Rizzo's demands.  That sounds like a healthy business atmosphere. 

It could have been Davey Johnson
Who knows who it was? It doesn't matter...all that matters is that the team is better this morning than it was yesterday.

A few of us mentioned that the Boswell column was being used in this manner, so it is not that surprising if that was indeed the case.

Offline PowerBoater69

  • Posts: 9810
    • Twitter
Re: Define Natitude
« Reply #414: December 23, 2011, 07:59:33 AM »
It could have been Davey Johnson
Who knows who it was? It doesn't matter...all that matters is that the team is better this morning than it was yesterday.

A few of us mentioned that the Boswell column was being used in this manner, so it is not that surprising if that was indeed the case.

Not surprising at all that the column was directly linked to the Gonzo deal; what is surprising is that Boz was so stupid as to openly admit that fact.  If someone on my team didn't like a decision of mine and went outside of the group to get it overturned, they would never regain my trust.  (Probably why I was so popular with all of my ex-bosses.)

Offline natsfan4evr

  • Posts: 6171
Re: Define Natitude
« Reply #415: December 23, 2011, 08:06:16 AM »
Not surprising at all that the column was directly linked to the Gonzo deal; what is surprising is that Boz was so stupid as to openly admit that fact.  If someone on my team didn't like a decision of mine and went outside of the group to get it overturned, they would never regain my trust.  (Probably why I was so popular with all of my ex-bosses.)

Maybe it is a threat...Prince is still unsigned as far as I'm aware.
The fact is that the Nats are a Fielder away from competing this season...the facts don't lie, the Nats payroll is still excruciatingly low. As a Nats fan, I don't care if Ted Lerner has his feelings hurt.

Offline PowerBoater69

  • Posts: 9810
    • Twitter
Re: Define Natitude
« Reply #416: December 23, 2011, 08:08:23 AM »
Maybe it is a threat...Prince is still unsigned as far as I'm aware.
The fact is that the Nats are a Fielder away from competing this season...the facts don't lie, the Nats payroll is still excruciatingly low. As a Nats fan, I don't care if Ted Lerner has his feelings hurt.

Well obviously I don't care much for Ted Lerner but he does have the power to crap can Rizzo at any time and I guarantee that if Lerner finds out with absolute certainty that Rizzo was the leak we'll be shopping for a new GM.

Offline PebbleBall

  • Posts: 2414
  • Now that right there is baseball.
Re: Define Natitude
« Reply #417: December 23, 2011, 08:08:25 AM »
That a similar could have been had for straight cash.

By this point you know they aren't actually similar.

Offline natsfan4evr

  • Posts: 6171
Re: Define Natitude
« Reply #418: December 23, 2011, 08:14:03 AM »
Well obviously I don't care much for Ted Lerner but he does have the power to crap can Rizzo at any time and I guarantee that if Lerner finds out with absolute certainty that Rizzo was the leak we'll be shopping for a new GM.

Good luck getting another halfway decent GM then. The O's had 2 guys turn down the position because of the reputation of Peter The Pig.

Offline PowerBoater69

  • Posts: 9810
    • Twitter
Re: Define Natitude
« Reply #419: December 23, 2011, 08:23:23 AM »
Good luck getting another halfway decent GM then. The O's had 2 guys turn down the position because of the reputation of Peter The Pig.

I fully agree.  Good GMs are very hard to come by, even if Rizzo isn't among the elite at a minimum he would be difficult to replace.  Which is why it is disturbing that Boz has implicated him as having committed gross insubordination.  You disagree with my decision so you get my name trashed in the media?  GTFO!  I really don't want Rizzo fired but even assuming that he's safe for now, there has to be a great deal of mistrust from ownership toward their top guy.

Offline blue911

  • Posts: 15989
Re: Define Natitude
« Reply #420: December 23, 2011, 08:25:43 AM »
Good luck getting another halfway decent GM then. The O's had 2 guys turn down the position because of the reputation of Peter The Pig.


They did better than the Astros, at least Kim Ng agreed to an interview.

Offline Tyler Durden

  • Posts: 7971
  • Leprechaun
Re: Define Natitude
« Reply #421: December 23, 2011, 08:44:27 AM »
I think Rizzo is only a year into a five year contract.  Maye 2 years into it.

To state the obvious, how this turns out will depend on how Gio performs.  If he performs well, all will be forgotten, or at least forgiven, by whoever's feelings got hurt here.  If Gio sucks, the semi-public griping to the media will be brought up again and again in the 'against' column.


Offline MarquisDeSade

  • Posts: 13447
  • The Truth.
Re: Define Natitude
« Reply #422: December 23, 2011, 09:16:46 AM »
By this point you know they aren't actually similar.

If you're looking at them as two players only, sure.  If you have to take into consideration spending vs. cheap labor not so much, but in terms of actual talent Gio>Burley by a long shot.

Offline blue911

  • Posts: 15989
Re: Define Natitude
« Reply #423: December 23, 2011, 09:20:37 AM »
If you're looking at them as two players only, sure.  If you have to take into consideration spending vs. cheap labor not so much, but in terms of actual talent Gio>Burley by a long shot.

Gio has the "stuff" that the experts claim you need to win in the post season. Getting there remains elusive at this point.


*I know Buehrle pitched well in the 2005 post season, but that was long ago. He didn't awe anybody in 2008.

Offline MarquisDeSade

  • Posts: 13447
  • The Truth.
Re: Define Natitude
« Reply #424: December 23, 2011, 09:23:08 AM »
Right, my point was it's not simply a case of deciding one player is currently better than the other for certain people that make decisions with this team.  If I gave the impression that right now, today, Gio isn't significantly better than Burley I apologize because that's not true.