Author Topic: The "Former Nat Watch" Thread (2017)  (Read 39038 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline mitlen

  • Posts: 58423
Re: The "Former Nat Watch" Thread (2017)
« Reply #300: June 02, 2017, 12:48:26 PM »
Looking way way up at the Mendoza line...brutal

:spit:    You can't get there from here.

Offline varoadking

  • Posts: 23585
  • Monsters of da Midway
Re: The "Former Nat Watch" Thread (2017)
« Reply #301: June 02, 2017, 01:02:54 PM »
:spit:    You can't get there from here.

He's 23 for 152...only has to go 17 for his next 48. 

Offline mitlen

  • Posts: 58423
Re: The "Former Nat Watch" Thread (2017)
« Reply #302: June 02, 2017, 01:03:43 PM »
He's 23 for 152...only has to go 17 for his next 48. 

I'm takin' odds.     :)

Offline spidernat

  • Posts: 70817
  • The Lerners are Cheap AND Crooked
Re: The "Former Nat Watch" Thread (2017)
« Reply #303: June 02, 2017, 01:24:57 PM »
So he has to hit .350 for the next 3 weeks or so.

Offline whytev

  • Posts: 8768
Re: The "Former Nat Watch" Thread (2017)
« Reply #304: June 02, 2017, 02:59:40 PM »
He's 23 for 152...only has to go 17 for his next 48.

That's exactly one of his usual tears.

Offline mitlen

  • Posts: 58423
Re: The "Former Nat Watch" Thread (2017)
« Reply #305: June 02, 2017, 03:20:54 PM »
That's exactly one of his usual tears.

You think he'll be at .200 by the end of June?     (Just asking)

Offline RobDibblesGhost

  • Posts: 28065
Re: The "Former Nat Watch" Thread (2017)
« Reply #306: June 02, 2017, 03:22:24 PM »
Braves DFA Emilio Bonifacio

Offline whytev

  • Posts: 8768
Re: The "Former Nat Watch" Thread (2017)
« Reply #307: June 02, 2017, 03:24:03 PM »
You think he'll be at .200 by the end of June?     (Just asking)

I'd take the over on that. He seems to have unlimited rope and he started off this badly last year before he turned into Bonds for a month.

Offline mitlen

  • Posts: 58423
Re: The "Former Nat Watch" Thread (2017)
« Reply #308: June 02, 2017, 03:30:08 PM »
I'd take the over on that. He seems to have unlimited rope and he started off this badly last year before he turned into Bonds for a month.

Gotta keep an eye on him to see how it works out.     VaRK will let us know.    :)

Offline skippy1999

  • Posts: 16400
Re: The "Former Nat Watch" Thread (2017)
« Reply #309: June 02, 2017, 03:35:03 PM »
I'd take the over on that. He seems to have unlimited rope and he started off this badly last year before he turned into Bonds for a month.

I'll take the under all day every day, Danny's done.

Online NJ Ave

  • Posts: 3221
Re: The "Former Nat Watch" Thread (2017)
« Reply #310: June 02, 2017, 04:12:54 PM »
I would take DFA before the end of June before I'd say .200 by the end of June.

Offline whytev

  • Posts: 8768
Re: The "Former Nat Watch" Thread (2017)
« Reply #311: June 02, 2017, 04:17:56 PM »
I would take DFA before the end of June before I'd say .200 by the end of June.

But he is on the Angels. There are no stakes and nobody is putting pressure on him. You DFA sunk costs when they are costing someone else playing time and when the wins matter. The Trout injury ensured that none of this matters.

Offline skippy1999

  • Posts: 16400
Re: The "Former Nat Watch" Thread (2017)
« Reply #312: June 02, 2017, 04:19:14 PM »
But he is on the Angels. There are no stakes and nobody is putting pressure on him. You DFA sunk costs when they are costing someone else playing time and when the wins matter. The Trout injury ensured that none of this matters.

do they not have any minor leaguer they can be using this time to see what they've got/try to develop?

Offline mitlen

  • Posts: 58423
Re: The "Former Nat Watch" Thread (2017)
« Reply #313: June 02, 2017, 04:19:20 PM »
I'm gonna start a poll.

Online NJ Ave

  • Posts: 3221
Re: The "Former Nat Watch" Thread (2017)
« Reply #314: June 02, 2017, 04:35:05 PM »
But he is on the Angels.

You are probably right here. The Angels, after all, have zero minor league talent in addition to zero major league talent.

But you only need a 1% chance of him being DFAd for me to rank it more likely than him batting .200 by July 1.

Offline spidernat

  • Posts: 70817
  • The Lerners are Cheap AND Crooked
Re: The "Former Nat Watch" Thread (2017)
« Reply #315: June 02, 2017, 04:46:14 PM »
You are probably right here. The Angels, after all, have zero minor league talent in addition to zero major league talent.

But you only need a 1% chance of him being DFAd for me to rank it more likely than him batting .200 by July 1.


The dude they called up to play 2B has been just as bad as Espinosa so he may stick around but only because of that. Plus, Espinosa seems to have some creepy effect on some people and they keep believing in him. We have at least "3" posters here who are still gargling his nuts.

Offline varoadking

  • Posts: 23585
  • Monsters of da Midway
Re: The "Former Nat Watch" Thread (2017)
« Reply #316: June 02, 2017, 05:49:35 PM »

The dude they called up to play 2B has been just as bad as Espinosa so he may stick around but only because of that. Plus, Espinosa seems to have some creepy effect on some people and they keep believing in him. We have at least "3" posters here who are still gargling his nuts.

You sure about that...I think Slate has finally moved on...

Offline dracnal

  • Posts: 1164
Re: The "Former Nat Watch" Thread (2017)
« Reply #317: June 02, 2017, 06:51:10 PM »
You sure about that...I think Slate has finally moved on...

As fun as it is to take shots at Slate, don't forget that Espi was the reason he the observation, 'Above Average is not Good.'

Offline varoadking

  • Posts: 23585
  • Monsters of da Midway
Re: The "Former Nat Watch" Thread (2017)
« Reply #318: June 02, 2017, 06:52:36 PM »
As fun as it is to take shots at Slate, don't forget that Espi was the reason he the observation, 'Above Average is not Good.'

A WNFF Classic right up there with "Mindfact."

Online Natsinpwc

  • Posts: 12677
Re: The "Former Nat Watch" Thread (2017)
« Reply #319: June 02, 2017, 07:04:22 PM »
As fun as it is to take shots at Slate, don't forget that Espi was the reason he the observation, 'Above Average is not Good.'
Slate bends his words like Uri Geller's spoons.

Offline dracnal

  • Posts: 1164
Re: The "Former Nat Watch" Thread (2017)
« Reply #320: June 02, 2017, 07:10:44 PM »
Slate bends his words like Uri Geller's spoons.

He hides a coin and uses it as a lever?

Online Natsinpwc

  • Posts: 12677
Re: The "Former Nat Watch" Thread (2017)
« Reply #321: June 02, 2017, 07:12:58 PM »
He hides a coin and uses it as a lever?
Whatever it takes.

Offline spidernat

  • Posts: 70817
  • The Lerners are Cheap AND Crooked
Re: The "Former Nat Watch" Thread (2017)
« Reply #322: June 02, 2017, 07:42:41 PM »
You sure about that...I think Slate has finally moved on...


By the three I meant the trinity of Canada/expos/and the other guy. :twisted:

Offline spidernat

  • Posts: 70817
  • The Lerners are Cheap AND Crooked
Re: The "Former Nat Watch" Thread (2017)
« Reply #323: June 02, 2017, 07:43:46 PM »
As fun as it is to take shots at Slate, don't forget that Espi was the reason he the observation, 'Above Average is not Good.'


:clap:  The only time Slate doesn't waver on his opinions is when it comes to Trump.

Offline whytev

  • Posts: 8768
Re: The "Former Nat Watch" Thread (2017)
« Reply #324: June 03, 2017, 02:13:30 AM »
do they not have any minor leaguer they can be using this time to see what they've got/try to develop?

They have no system, and if they did they wouldn't want to burn service time.