Author Topic: The "Former Nat Watch" Thread (2016)  (Read 48583 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Vega

  • Posts: 5235
  • Supremely Fashionable
Re: The "Former Nat Watch" Thread (2016)
« Reply #75: February 28, 2016, 03:11:13 PM »
Toronto has signed Rafael Soriano to a minor league deal.

Offline whytev

  • Posts: 8768
Re: The "Former Nat Watch" Thread (2016)
« Reply #76: February 28, 2016, 03:19:33 PM »
Toronto has signed Rafael Soriano to a minor league deal.

Please win the closer job.  Please win the closer job.  Please please please.

Offline welch

  • Posts: 11727
Re: The "Former Nat Watch" Thread (2016)
« Reply #77: February 28, 2016, 04:47:41 PM »
He didn't want to be here!

https://www.washingtonpost.com/sports/nationals/jordan-zimmermann-has-found-a-soft-landing-place-with-detroit-tigers/2016/02/27/aa27c06a-dc99-11e5-81ae-7491b9b9e7df_story.html?postshare=601456671992149&tid=ss_tw


Quote
Zimmermann said the Nationals’ offers “were not exactly the greatest.” He wanted a no-trade clause, but the Nationals haven’t given one since Jayson Werth’s deal before the 2011 season.

“If I sign long term, I don’t want to play for a couple years and get shipped out,” Zimmermann said. “I want to stick with a team and be here for a while.”

<snip>

“I can buy a house, move my stuff, don’t have to worry about moving,” he said. “I have two kids now, so that part is now taken out of consideration. . . . After five, six years of living in condos and apartments, it gets old. It feels like you’re constantly packing.”

Offline PC

  • Posts: 47236
Re: The "Former Nat Watch" Thread (2016)
« Reply #78: March 06, 2016, 12:19:24 AM »
Braves release David Carpenter.

Offline Mr Clean

  • Posts: 4108
Re: The "Former Nat Watch" Thread (2016)
« Reply #79: March 07, 2016, 02:35:48 PM »
Desmond should have waited. STL loses SS Peralta.

He should call his agent, fire him, then hire him back and fire him again.   

Offline PC

  • Posts: 47236
Re: The "Former Nat Watch" Thread (2016)
« Reply #80: March 15, 2016, 02:33:16 PM »
 Colleen Kane‏@ChiTribKane

Adam LaRoche has told White Sox he plans to step away from baseball. Teammates asked him to sleep on it, but he's confident in decision.

Online JCA-CrystalCity

  • Global Moderator
  • ****
  • Posts: 23943
  • Platoon - not just a movie, a baseball obsession
Re: The "Former Nat Watch" Thread (2016)
« Reply #81: March 15, 2016, 04:27:58 PM »
Colleen Kane‏@ChiTribKane

Adam LaRoche has told White Sox he plans to step away from baseball. Teammates asked him to sleep on it, but he's confident in decision.
I'm guessing it is the first time someone said, "Chicago is nice, but I really want to go out and fire my guns and I just don't have the opportunity here."

Offline Ali the Baseball Cat

  • Posts: 14363
  • babble on
Re: The "Former Nat Watch" Thread (2016)
« Reply #82: March 15, 2016, 04:48:55 PM »
Maybe he didn't want to be associated with 44

Offline Mattionals

  • Posts: 4027
Re: The "Former Nat Watch" Thread (2016)
« Reply #83: March 16, 2016, 03:41:37 PM »
So LaRoche retired because Kenny Williams wouldn't let him bring his kid into the clubhouse everyday. From the four years LaRoche spent with the Nats, I can't remember Drake ever getting in the way or being a distraction. I think Kenny Williams is a big d-bag for that.

Online HalfSmokes

  • Posts: 18696
Re: The "Former Nat Watch" Thread (2016)
« Reply #84: March 16, 2016, 03:48:34 PM »
So LaRoche retired because Kenny Williams wouldn't let him bring his kid into the clubhouse everyday. From the four years LaRoche spent with the Nats, I can't remember Drake ever getting in the way or being a distraction. I think Kenny Williams is a big d-bag for that.

Is not a distraction the bar for bringing a kid to work? The kid had his own locker- that's the kind of crap a star can get away with not a veteran playing out the tail end of a final contract

Offline UMDNats

  • Posts: 13518
  • hire a-rod
Re: The "Former Nat Watch" Thread (2016)
« Reply #85: March 16, 2016, 03:59:23 PM »
So LaRoche retired because Kenny Williams wouldn't let him bring his kid into the clubhouse everyday. From the four years LaRoche spent with the Nats, I can't remember Drake ever getting in the way or being a distraction. I think Kenny Williams is a big d-bag for that.

What proof do you have of this?

It's kind of annoying to bring your kid into the office every damn day. The players already deal with a lot of bullcrap in the clubhouse with fat media members hovering every afternoon, having some crappy player's teenage kid lingering is probably not that welcome (not that a player would say anything publicly).

Offline whytev

  • Posts: 8768
Re: The "Former Nat Watch" Thread (2016)
« Reply #86: March 16, 2016, 04:07:11 PM »
What proof do you have of this?

It's kind of annoying to bring your kid into the office every damn day. The players already deal with a lot of bullcrap in the clubhouse with fat, loser media members hovering every afternoon, having some crappy player's teenage kid lingering is probably not that welcome (not that a player would say anything publicly).

He made sure Drake would be allowed before signing. It was in every article. So this is in bad faith.

Offline UMDNats

  • Posts: 13518
  • hire a-rod
Re: The "Former Nat Watch" Thread (2016)
« Reply #87: March 16, 2016, 04:12:00 PM »
Quote
White Sox GM: "There has been no policy change with regards to allowance of kids in the clubhouse, on the field, the back fields during spring training. This young man that we're talking about, Drake, everyone loves this young man. In no way do I want this to be about him.

"I asked Adam, said, 'Listen, our focus, our interest, our desire this year is to make sure we give ourselves every opportunity to focus on a daily basis on getting better. All I'm asking you to do with regard to bringing your kid to the ballpark is dial it back.'

"I don't think he should be here 100 percent of the time - and he has been here 100 percent, every day, in the clubhouse. I said that I don't even think he should be here 50 percent of the time. Figure it out, somewhere in between.

"We all think his kid is a great young man. I just felt it should not be every day, that's all. You tell me, where in this country can you bring your child to work every day?"


Adam's kid had his own locker, I mean come on. Adam is free to do what he wants by retiring but this seems like a really reasonable request from the White Sox.

Online HalfSmokes

  • Posts: 18696
Re: The "Former Nat Watch" Thread (2016)
« Reply #88: March 16, 2016, 04:15:13 PM »
He made sure Drake would be allowed before signing. It was in every article. So this is in bad faith.

and if he hadn't hit .200 with 12 home runs it probably wouldn't be an issue- crappy players tend not to get special privileges unless they were smart enough to get it in writing

Offline UMDNats

  • Posts: 13518
  • hire a-rod
Re: The "Former Nat Watch" Thread (2016)
« Reply #89: March 16, 2016, 04:37:58 PM »


Totally normal, guys!

Offline Mr Clean

  • Posts: 4108
Re: The "Former Nat Watch" Thread (2016)
« Reply #90: March 16, 2016, 04:44:07 PM »
That kid belongs in school.

Offline mitlen

  • Posts: 52203
  • We had 'em all the way.
Re: The "Former Nat Watch" Thread (2016)
« Reply #91: March 16, 2016, 04:54:12 PM »
That kid belongs in school.

Isn't he home schooled?

Online HalfSmokes

  • Posts: 18696
Re: The "Former Nat Watch" Thread (2016)
« Reply #92: March 16, 2016, 04:59:01 PM »
nope- small town public school doesn't give a crap if their tax base takes his kid out of school for the spring (the daughter has to go to school because playing hookie with dad isn't for girls)

https://www.washingtonpost.com/sports/nationals/for-adam-laroche-nationals-spring-training-is-take-your-son-to-work-day-every-day/2013/02/25/5c313814-7f95-11e2-a350-49866afab584_story.html

Offline mitlen

  • Posts: 52203
  • We had 'em all the way.
Re: The "Former Nat Watch" Thread (2016)
« Reply #93: March 16, 2016, 05:02:42 PM »
nope- small town public school doesn't give a crap if their tax base takes his kid out of school for the spring (the daughter has to go to school because playing hookie with dad isn't for girls)

https://www.washingtonpost.com/sports/nationals/for-adam-laroche-nationals-spring-training-is-take-your-son-to-work-day-every-day/2013/02/25/5c313814-7f95-11e2-a350-49866afab584_story.html

Wow   ....    must be nice.

Offline whytev

  • Posts: 8768
Re: The "Former Nat Watch" Thread (2016)
« Reply #94: March 16, 2016, 05:55:40 PM »

Adam's kid had his own locker, I mean come on. Adam is free to do what he wants by retiring but this seems like a really reasonable request from the White Sox.

He cleared it all before signing. They agreed to get him, then tried to change the rules. Whatever you think of it, it was important to him enough to make it a major selling point, so they're dicks.

Either way, he was an albatross and did them a favour.

Offline Mr Clean

  • Posts: 4108
Re: The "Former Nat Watch" Thread (2016)
« Reply #95: March 16, 2016, 06:00:58 PM »
Ex-players on MLB radio are all saying the kid has no business in the locker room.

I never understood it myself. Does he pay attention to his other children?

Offline Natsinpwc

  • Posts: 9782
Re: The "Former Nat Watch" Thread (2016)
« Reply #96: March 16, 2016, 07:06:47 PM »
He cleared it all before signing. They agreed to get him, then tried to change the rules. Whatever you think of it, it was important to him enough to make it a major selling point, so they're dicks.

Either way, he was an albatross and did them a favour.
You don't know what the contract really said--it might have had some out clauses for the team.  In any event seems weird to have your kid with you all day at work. 

Offline PowerBoater69

  • Posts: 11357
    • Twitter
Re: The "Former Nat Watch" Thread (2016)
« Reply #97: March 16, 2016, 07:10:18 PM »
He's a quitter, bailed on his team, just like Riggleman. Too bad a couple of our overpaid guys don't have kids.

Offline whytev

  • Posts: 8768
Re: The "Former Nat Watch" Thread (2016)
« Reply #98: March 16, 2016, 07:20:31 PM »
He's a quitter, bailed on his team, just like Riggleman. Too bad a couple of our overpaid guys don't have kids.

I'm pretty sure all our overpaid players have kids.

Offline Count Walewski

  • Posts: 1758
Re: The "Former Nat Watch" Thread (2016)
« Reply #99: March 16, 2016, 07:40:09 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.