Author Topic: Plan "B" (Read 131052 times)

PANatsFan · « **Reply #2300 on:** January 16, 2009, 04:03:06 pm »

Quote from: Nat of the LivingDead on January 16, 2009, 04:00:40 pm

I think your talking:

JD Single Barrel. They individually number each bottle they send out. I've had a small sample of this and I loved it. I might splurge one day, buy a bottle, and sit on it until the Nats win the World Series.

Well my first born child will come first (and yours certainly will) so maybe for that. I'm sitting on some serious wine for special occasions already.

hammondsnats · « **Reply #2301 on:** January 16, 2009, 04:03:18 pm »

i would happily buy everyone shots of tequila on here if we went to the playoffs. hell if we finished above .500.

Nat of the Living Dead · « **Reply #2302 on:** January 16, 2009, 04:07:16 pm »

My favorite Tequila of all time:

Yes, that is a real scorpion put at the bottom of every bottle. Hard to find this brand much anymore, at least in NC. This stuff is killer. Absolutely smooth, so freaking smooth. You can take three or four shots of this back to back and not feel a thing. 15 minutes later....BAM!

hammondsnats · « **Reply #2303 on:** January 16, 2009, 04:08:31 pm »

I should change the thread title to Plan "D" for drunk. If we don't improve at least we have alcohol.

spidernat · « **Reply #2304 on:** January 16, 2009, 04:15:11 pm »

Quote from: cmdterps44 on January 16, 2009, 04:00:34 pm

Yes you do.

On New Years I had Soco shots and Patron, I dont think i was face in the floor ass in the air but more of laying in a wet puddle in the laundry room... I heard it was a fun night.

Quote from: Nat of the LivingDead on January 16, 2009, 04:00:40 pm

I might splurge one day, buy a bottle, and sit on it until the Nats win the World Series.

I'm sure it ages nicely.

Nat of the Living Dead · « **Reply #2305 on:** January 16, 2009, 04:22:33 pm »

Quote from: spidernat on January 16, 2009, 04:15:11 pm

I'm sure it ages nicely.

I doubt it, but not drinking it will be hard. We all need to make sacrifices.

BerkeleyNat · « **Reply #2306 on:** January 16, 2009, 04:22:47 pm »

Quote from: hammondsnats on January 16, 2009, 03:47:23 pm

ps, you'll probably be able to personalize your beer jersey before we're allowed to personalize our new jerseys!

I have two of those!

MrMadison · « **Reply #2307 on:** January 16, 2009, 04:29:23 pm »

Quote from: cmdterps44 on January 16, 2009, 04:00:34 pm

On New Years I had Soco shots and Patron, I dont think i was face in the floor ass in the air but more of laying in a wet puddle in the laundry room... I heard it was a fun night.

the day I decided to stop drinking was the day that when I went to work, a female co-worker told me I called her sister in NY (I was stationed in Louisiana at the time)and was talking nasty on the phone to her the previous night...and I had absolutely no recollection of anything that happened that night. not to mention I was still drunk(so much so that I couldn't stand up straight, I was leaning like Michael Jackson in the Smooth Criminal video) when I showed up at formation at 6 in the morning. (thank god there was no PT that morning, I would have been DONE).

that was the first, and only, time I got so drunk that I blacked out, and i swore I'd never do it again.

I don't like "hearing" that it was a fun night when I don't remember any part of it.

BerkeleyNat · « **Reply #2308 on:** January 16, 2009, 04:30:26 pm »

Southern Comfort for this guy here.

BerkeleyNat · « **Reply #2309 on:** January 16, 2009, 04:33:08 pm »

Quote from: MrMadison on January 16, 2009, 04:29:23 pm

the day I decided to stop drinking was the day that when I went to work, a female co-worker told me I called her sister in NY (I was stationed in Louisiana at the time)and was talking nasty on the phone to her the previous night...and I had absolutely no recollection of anything that happened that night. not to mention I was still drunk(so much so that I couldn't stand up straight, I was leaning like Michael Jackson in the Smooth Criminal video) when I showed up at formation at 6 in the morning. (thank god there was no PT that morning, I would have been DONE).

I don't like "hearing" that it was a fun night, so to speak.

Ah..the military days. I loved going to PT and sweating out the alcohol.

cmdterps44 · « **Reply #2310 on:** January 16, 2009, 05:01:22 pm »

Yea well I don't plan to do that again, I was just eager to get buzzed/tipsy/whatever the hell you want to call it, and I didnt buy any beer but was offered some shots... sorta snuck up on me. At least I wasn't obnoxious (ive heard from many people i was fine thankfully)

MrMadison · « **Reply #2311 on:** January 16, 2009, 05:12:16 pm »

Strike another one off the list for Dunn suitors.

Quote

Brewers No Longer Interested In Dunn
By Tim Dierkes [January 16 at 10:24am CST]

MLB.com's Adam McCalvy spoke to Brewers GM Doug Melvin, who indicated the team is no longer interested in free agent slugger Adam Dunn. The possibility was considered when the Brewers were discussing a Mike Cameron trade with the Yankees (Corey Hart would've moved to center field). Cameron and Hart are staying put.

Another scenario, which Ken Rosenthal discussed a week ago, is trading Prince Fielder and replacing him with Dunn. McCalvy doesn't dismiss the idea outright, but notes that the Crew would be treading water in terms of lefthanded bats.

http://www.mlbtraderumors.com/2009/01/brewers-no-long.html#comments

Dunn's options are getting limited....

cmdterps44 · « **Reply #2312 on:** January 16, 2009, 05:14:07 pm »

Quote from: MrMadison on January 16, 2009, 05:12:16 pm

Strike another one off the list for Dunn suitors.

http://www.mlbtraderumors.com/2009/01/brewers-no-long.html#comments

Dunn's options are getting limited....

I think someone said this earlier but without an article... i hate bein the person that says this but yea...

Still at least its getting limited.

houston-nat · « **Reply #2313 on:** January 16, 2009, 11:07:08 pm »

Ken Rosenthal is joining the growing ranks of pundits - pundits only! - who think that the Nationals will end up with Orlando Hudson. Apparently the market for Orlando is very, very thin indeed.

Nat of the Living Dead · « **Reply #2314 on:** January 16, 2009, 11:09:55 pm »

Quote from: houston-nat on January 16, 2009, 11:07:08 pm

Ken Rosenthal is joining the growing ranks of pundits - pundits only! - who think that the Nationals will end up with Orlando Hudson. Apparently the market for Orlando is very, very thin indeed.

Big question is: why?

houston-nat · « **Reply #2315 on:** January 16, 2009, 11:10:46 pm »

Here's the blog Jorge Says No! on Orlando Hudson's market:

Quote

So where have all the suitors gone?

Mets: Still have Luis Castillo. Until they move Castillo, Hudson will remain a pipe dream

Yankees: Showed interest at the beginning of free agency, but shied away after acquiring Nick Swisher and Mark Teixeira.

Indians: Acquired Mark DeRosa instead. No need for Hudson.

Nationals: The wild card in the Hudson sweepstakes. After losing Teixeira, the Nationals could use a splash to start building a winner in DC. They have the money to spend, but are they interested?

Cardinals: Have a glaring hole at second base, but I doubt they have the money to make a push for Hudson.

Giants: Another team with a glaring hole at second base, but once again, do they have the money to spend? Hudson would be a good fit here, but the Giants need more pop than Hudson can provide.

DCFan · « **Reply #2316 on:** January 17, 2009, 07:42:16 am »

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/discussion/2009/01/09/DI2009010903004.html

Quote

Hawthorne, D.C.: I am wondering if the economic troubles are influencing the Nats? I am referring to not signing their top draft pick, not signing costly international players, not trading for players with significant contracts, and so far not signing free agents?

Tom Boswell: Just the opposite should be true. If the Nats DON'T improve their team, THEN they are going to have real "economic problems" eventually as they drive away fans.

The Nats were smart and lowered ticket prices after last season. If they could provide a watchable product, at least they have it priced right. But in a serious recession there is no right price to watch a 102-loss team. BTW, the Nats tickets are about half what the Caps cost, from what I can tell. I paid $105 to sit 20 rows up from the ice. Good Lord, a great club level seat, with restaurants, etc., costs $45-to-$55 at Nats Park. And there are now more than 15,000 seats priced at $20 or less.

That's baseball's trump card in bad times -- the only reasonably priced tickets in pro sports. I don't mean the $2,500 box seats in new Yankee Stadium. Nats now have lots of box seats in the corners for $30 (season price).

But will they attract anybody to sit in them?

It shouldn't be hard. Seriously. As of Wednesday night, there were still 113 free agents unsigned. HELLO, Lerner family! This is called opportunity. The market has come back to you. Your '10 roster, as currently projected, including a Zimmerman contract, is less than $45-million.

This is an absolutely perfect moment for the Nats. If they don't take advantage of it, shame on them.

Today's data point: Kevin Youkilis, who'll be 30 on Opening Day, resigned with the Red Sox for four years for $40-million. No, he's not a free agent. So it's not "comparable" to Dunn and others. But, after three fine full years, and a break out year last season, Youkilis still accepted a $14-million Red Sox option in a FIFTH year of the deal.

Just shows how sane the market really is.

Step up, Nats.

Another whiny Nats fans who expects the Lerners to spend ever penny they have on free agents and Boswell, worst writer in sports who only cares about the Redskins.

Minty Fresh · « **Reply #2317 on:** January 17, 2009, 10:16:44 am »

Quote from: Nat of the LivingDead on January 16, 2009, 11:09:55 pm

Big question is: why?

Seriously. If Orlando CABRERA is willing to move to 2B, wouldn't he be a better option than Hudson?

blue911 · « **Reply #2318 on:** January 17, 2009, 10:32:24 am »

Quote from: Minty Fresh on January 17, 2009, 10:16:44 am

Seriously. If Orlando CABRERA is willing to move to 2B, wouldn't he be a better option than Hudson?

Cabrera is three years older and Hudson is better against right handers.

houston-nat · « **Reply #2319 on:** January 17, 2009, 10:47:27 am »

Quote from: blue911 on January 17, 2009, 10:32:24 am

Cabrera is three years older and Hudson is better against right handers.

Just think, if Orlando Hudson used to play for the Reds, we wouldn't even be having this discussion.

sportsfan882 · « **Reply #2320 on:** January 17, 2009, 01:38:54 pm »

Phils, Hamels agree to 3 year, $20.5 Million dollar contract that will cover all 3 of his "arbitration years".

I don't get the point in signing that kind of deal since he is under club control for the next 3 years anyways. He'll still be a FA in 2011 just like RZ.

spidernat · « **Reply #2321 on:** January 17, 2009, 01:57:35 pm »

That's probably more of a gesture to show the player how much they appreciate him. He's been a stud for them. This way he won't feel so underpaid for the next 3 years. It gives him some financial security in the meantime and it'll probably make him more willing to sign a big deal with the Phillies once the time arrives.

KnorrForYourMoney · « **Reply #2322 on:** January 17, 2009, 02:47:43 pm »

Exactly. Now he's guaranteed that money for the 2nd and 3rd arb years.

blue911 · « **Reply #2323 on:** January 17, 2009, 03:10:04 pm »

Quote from: ACTAvation Energy on January 17, 2009, 02:47:43 pm

Exactly. Now he's guaranteed that money for the 2nd and 3rd arb years.

I think Sportsfan was asking "What's in it for the Phillies?"

MrMadison · « **Reply #2324 on:** January 17, 2009, 03:13:02 pm »

Quote from: blue911 on January 17, 2009, 03:10:04 pm

I think Sportsfan was asking "What's in it for the Phillies?"

they don't risk having to pay more money than what he signed for, through the arbitration process.

Quote

Hamels makes $4.35MM this year, $6.65MM in 2010 and $9.5MM in 2011

according to Heyman, those are the terms of the deal.

I'm pretty sure that if Hamels had gone to arbitration, he would have gotten much more than 4.35m.

so what's in it for the Phillies is, they save money in 2009, at the expense of 2011.