Author Topic: The "Former Nat Watch" Thread (2016)  (Read 53588 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline mitlen

  • Posts: 58423
Re: The "Former Nat Watch" Thread (2016)
« Reply #100: March 16, 2016, 07:42:56 PM »
The Chicago Bulls allegedly lost out on LeBron James because they would not give his entourage locker room access. It's been a bad half decade for Jerry Reinsdorf-owned teams and giving non-players clubhouse access.

Hoiberg and Reinsdorf would be out of a job.

Offline madj55

  • Posts: 7654
Re: The "Former Nat Watch" Thread (2016)
« Reply #101: March 16, 2016, 08:30:01 PM »
He's a quitter, bailed on his team, just like Riggleman. Too bad a couple of our overpaid guys don't have kids.
Jayson Werth's son goes to the same school as my little brother.

Offline PowerBoater69

  • Posts: 12521
    • Twitter
Re: The "Former Nat Watch" Thread (2016)
« Reply #102: March 16, 2016, 09:17:41 PM »
Jayson Werth's son goes to the same school as my little brother.

Didn't know he had kids.

Offline whytev

  • Posts: 8768

Offline NatsGirl

  • Posts: 204
Re: The "Former Nat Watch" Thread (2016)
« Reply #104: March 16, 2016, 10:38:56 PM »
Yeah I gotta side with the White Sox on this one.  I'm sure players felt awkward having a kid in the clubhouse with them all the time and felt like they had to censor themselves around him.  It was probably never an issue when LaRoche was with the Nats because all our players (at least when he was there...now we have Papelbon, who surely would've caused drama about Drake) are so vanilla and non-confrontational. 

Online varoadking

  • Posts: 23585
  • Monsters of da Midway
Re: The "Former Nat Watch" Thread (2016)
« Reply #105: March 17, 2016, 04:15:19 AM »
I'm pretty sure all our overpaid players have kids.

I don't think Max has any kids...

Offline UMDNats

  • Posts: 14611
Re: The "Former Nat Watch" Thread (2016)
« Reply #106: March 17, 2016, 09:30:18 AM »
The Chicago Bulls allegedly lost out on LeBron James because they would not give his entourage locker room access. It's been a bad half decade for Jerry Reinsdorf-owned teams and giving non-players clubhouse access.

Because it's totally OK to give Lebron's sketchy boys locker room access!

Online HalfSmokes

  • Posts: 19600
Re: The "Former Nat Watch" Thread (2016)
« Reply #107: March 17, 2016, 09:35:19 AM »
Because it's totally OK to give Lebron's sketchy boys locker room access!

Lebron plus hangers on and at least a finals appearance vs. no Lebron and an early exit- I wish the wizards had been in a position to take that deal. I wonder if the warriors would tell curry they have a problem with riley at press conferences (a couple of dozen other teams probably don't)? Part of the problem with a max contract is that there is no reason for stars not to shop around for teams willing to accommodate their whims and no reason for teams stuck in the lottery to not agree to anything a star demands

Offline UMDNats

  • Posts: 14611
Re: The "Former Nat Watch" Thread (2016)
« Reply #108: March 17, 2016, 09:57:41 AM »
I don't follow the NBA but aren't the Bulls good enough where they can say, "No thanks we don't need that headache?" The Cavs' only hope was LeBron.

And bringing your kid to a press conference here and there or around the clubhouse on a regular basis is normal and fine. I see it a lot. But every day, his own locker, and crap? come on. Players also don't want some dude's entourage hanging out every day. It's annoying.

Online HalfSmokes

  • Posts: 19600
Re: The "Former Nat Watch" Thread (2016)
« Reply #109: March 17, 2016, 10:08:50 AM »
I don't follow the NBA but aren't the Bulls good enough where they can say, "No thanks we don't need that headache?" The Cavs' only hope was LeBron.

they were good enough to be in the playoffs but with no hope of ever getting out of the east- absent one of a handful of star players or the perfect organization (i.e. the spurs) there's a cap on how far an NBA team can go. The stars know it, so they play GM (the team's only choice is to say no, and the new contracts have opt outs, so their choice is really to bend over to the player or to start over again- it's only going to get worst for teams as Durant, Westbrook, Curry all sign new contracts over the next couple of seasons)

Quote
And bringing your kid to a press conference here and there or around the clubhouse on a regular basis is normal and fine. I see it a lot. But every day, his own locker, and crap? come on. Players also don't want some dude's entourage hanging out every day. It's annoying.

I can see that, but if putting up with the entourage is the cost of getting that player, teams will do if the player is good enough (NBA is probably the only league where a player could openly pull that)

Offline Ali the Baseball Cat

  • Posts: 14781
  • babble on

Offline skippy1999

  • Posts: 16401
Re: The "Former Nat Watch" Thread (2016)
« Reply #111: March 17, 2016, 10:51:57 AM »
I don't think Max has any kids...

:lmao: you never miss an opportunity to pick on Max :lol:

That's nuts.

Agreed, pretty weird.

Offline UMDNats

  • Posts: 14611
Re: The "Former Nat Watch" Thread (2016)
« Reply #112: March 17, 2016, 12:10:16 PM »

I can see that, but if putting up with the entourage is the cost of getting that player, teams will do if the player is good enough (NBA is probably the only league where a player could openly pull that)

definitely agree that if laroche was still good, the white sox would deal with the headache

Offline whytev

  • Posts: 8768
Re: The "Former Nat Watch" Thread (2016)
« Reply #113: March 17, 2016, 12:11:20 PM »
I don't think Max has any kids...

Then my statement stands.

Online varoadking

  • Posts: 23585
  • Monsters of da Midway
Re: The "Former Nat Watch" Thread (2016)
« Reply #114: March 17, 2016, 03:16:01 PM »
Then my statement stands.

Only if we are paying him n Loonies...'cause that would be like $1.83, right?

Offline captkirk42

  • Posts: 1243
    • Curly W Cards
Re: The "Former Nat Watch" Thread (2016)
« Reply #115: March 17, 2016, 03:29:38 PM »
OK so how different is having a player's kid in the clubhouse/locker room different than having the ball boys in those areas? The ball boys are better behaved just because they have a job to do? Sometimes the players themselves are not much better than 12 year olds in the locker room and clubhouse. :shrug:

Online HalfSmokes

  • Posts: 19600
Re: The "Former Nat Watch" Thread (2016)
« Reply #116: March 17, 2016, 03:42:42 PM »
OK so how different is having a player's kid in the clubhouse/locker room different than having the ball boys in those areas? The ball boys are better behaved just because they have a job to do? Sometimes the players themselves are not much better than 12 year olds in the locker room and clubhouse. :shrug:

the ball boy's dad isn't both one of the highest paid and one of the worst players on the roster - I'm sure Kenny Williams is pretty happy about how this worked out

Online varoadking

  • Posts: 23585
  • Monsters of da Midway
Re: The "Former Nat Watch" Thread (2016)
« Reply #117: March 17, 2016, 03:45:00 PM »
I'm sure Kenny Williams is pretty happy about how this worked out

So is my 83 year old mother...a lifelong Sox fan...

Online Natsinpwc

  • Posts: 12682
Re: The "Former Nat Watch" Thread (2016)
« Reply #118: March 17, 2016, 03:49:16 PM »
So is my 83 year old mother...a lifelong Sox fan...
They have reported on ESPN that the players were going to boycott the game today but were talked out of it by the manager. So doesnt sound like the players were the ones objecting. So Kenny may have won the battle but lost the war.

Offline mitlen

  • Posts: 58423
Re: The "Former Nat Watch" Thread (2016)
« Reply #119: March 17, 2016, 04:02:47 PM »
They have reported on ESPN that the players were going to boycott the game today but were talked out of it by the manager. So doesnt sound like the players were the ones objecting. So Kenny may have won the battle but lost the war.

As in most work places, a few did go to Williams and are now faces in the crowd.   

Offline whytev

  • Posts: 8768
Re: The "Former Nat Watch" Thread (2016)
« Reply #120: March 17, 2016, 04:18:28 PM »
Only if we are paying him n Loonies...'cause that would be like $1.83, right?

Fresh. You should do standup.

Online varoadking

  • Posts: 23585
  • Monsters of da Midway
Re: The "Former Nat Watch" Thread (2016)
« Reply #121: March 17, 2016, 04:23:12 PM »

Offline mitlen

  • Posts: 58423
Re: The "Former Nat Watch" Thread (2016)
« Reply #122: March 17, 2016, 04:27:06 PM »
Fresh. You should do standup.

Don't encourage him.     :)

Offline PC

  • Posts: 47236

Online HalfSmokes

  • Posts: 19600
Re: The "Former Nat Watch" Thread (2016)
« Reply #124: March 17, 2016, 04:51:03 PM »
I wonder if that counts as accrued service time if it occurs in season