Author Topic: Discuss the Ownership  (Read 4970 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Evolution33

  • Posts: 5093
    • Blown Save, Win
Re: Discuss the Ownership
« Reply #75 on: February 04, 2010, 03:44:01 pm »
Old.. .http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/03/09/AR2007030902180.html

New... http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/01/25/AR2010012503336.html

Seems the same to me, but I'm sure you're right things have really changed..............

For the most part those first batch of guys are still with the team. So things have changed.

Offline PANatsFan

  • Posts: 37398
  • dogs in uncensored, nudes in gameday
Re: Discuss the Ownership
« Reply #76 on: February 04, 2010, 03:44:35 pm »
freak it, the Lerners weren't cheap enough - they gave absurd extensions to Kearns, Dmitri, and Guzman - and now the team is stuck with Guzman. If they were cheap, they could have thrown money at Hudson and Desmond would be starting.

Offline Dave B

  • Posts: 6033
Re: Discuss the Ownership
« Reply #77 on: February 04, 2010, 06:43:16 pm »
You have to spend money to make money.

not when fans of STL, CHI, NYM, PHI, LAD, the occasional AL East team, etc attend games

Offline Dave B

  • Posts: 6033
Re: Discuss the Ownership
« Reply #78 on: February 04, 2010, 06:44:15 pm »
This is lunacy. They had more than reasonable offers out to most of the appealing free agents

sure they did...

Offline Dave B

  • Posts: 6033
Re: Discuss the Ownership
« Reply #79 on: February 04, 2010, 06:51:25 pm »
Hudson's asking for 6m guaranteed as a starting point. 

the Nats are the only ones willing to even go to 4 at all with him.  He'll take 3-4m to play for a contender, like the Twins. he wants 6m and not a penny less to play for the Nats.


thats called the sucky team premium.

Offline blue911

  • Posts: 18599
Re: Discuss the Ownership
« Reply #80 on: February 04, 2010, 06:55:42 pm »
sure they did...

So this is it, Dave? All of your posts are the "Lerners are cheap"? It's pathetic, why bother to post if that's all you can come up with is 2 year crap that no longer is relevant?

Offline The Chief

  • Posts: 31838
    • http://www.wnff.net
Re: Discuss the Ownership
« Reply #81 on: February 04, 2010, 06:58:11 pm »
Hudson's asking for 6m guaranteed as a starting point. 

the Nats are the only ones willing to even go to 4 at all with him.  He'll take 3-4m to play for a contender, like the Twins. he wants 6m and not a penny less to play for the Nats.

get your money back. sell your OD tickets. then boycott the Nats. have fun.

While I think the whole LAC harping is boring and am not afraid to say so, I have to wonder why Pudge is worth 6m, but Hudson is not.

Offline NatsAddict

  • Posts: 4099
Re: Discuss the Ownership
« Reply #82 on: February 04, 2010, 06:58:45 pm »
You have to spend money to make money.

The reverse is true under Selignomics.

Offline Obed_Marsh

  • Posts: 7593
Re: Discuss the Ownership
« Reply #83 on: February 04, 2010, 07:02:06 pm »
...I have to wonder why Pudge is worth 6m, but Hudson is not.

Good question.

My guess is they planned to trade him if Desmond was not a fluke but they thought that might be hard at 6m. Granted, we'll probably never know.


Offline Dave B

  • Posts: 6033
Re: Discuss the Ownership
« Reply #84 on: February 04, 2010, 07:15:20 pm »
So this is it, Dave? All of your posts are the "Lerners are cheap"? It's pathetic, why bother to post if that's all you can come up with is 2 year crap that no longer is relevant?
i used all my optimistic posts in years 1-4 or whatever it was. on my random stops through the actual baseball threads, i just counter overly lerners are not cheap posts and other things that i find faulty.

all i did in this thread was correctly point out that assclown was wrong, sarcastically reply to PA's steadfast belief in "reasonable" offers being made, and point out that as a sucky team we have to pay more (probably shouldnt have become a sucky team).

i should be more understanding of the LANC fervor because it is probably a similar response to my pro-bowdenism from years ago (i almost thought he was really good because i started out making lots of "he's not that bad" arguments when people thought he was the antichrist)

Offline KnorrForYourMoney

  • Posts: 16304
  • pissy DC sports fan
Re: Discuss the Ownership
« Reply #85 on: February 04, 2010, 07:18:03 pm »
Even though I'd be cool with getting Adam Kennedy or possibly making an acquisition via trade, I'm pretty bummed about this.

But I'm not going to go on a LAC rant or anything.  Who knows why or how these FA's keep going to other teams, so it's no use.

I'm just pissed that I've put so much into the Nats over these last few years, and they were supposed to have been on track to improve substantially, yet they're still one of the lesser franchises.  I mean, I understand that it takes a while, but crap, when the hell is this freaking team at least going to get out of Pirates/Royals/Orioles status?  It'll be hard to stay this dedicated to the Nats if they can't get around at least 75 wins this year, and I don't have much hope that they will.

Offline Dave B

  • Posts: 6033
Re: Discuss the Ownership
« Reply #86 on: February 04, 2010, 07:20:53 pm »
so to answer the original question. yes this is it (at least in the baseball section).  i cant make chicken soup out of chicken crap anymore. i can't bring myself to search for this year's  "if schneider hits like he did in the second half last year and guillen gets healthy and guzman stops being blind, and nj stays healthy, and...and... and..."

if they get good, maybe i'll go to games. but i got off the jets wagon last year when they got favre and didnt get back on this year

i just hate what the lerners have done. it didnt have to be this way we won 81 and 71 games with the schmucks bowden and MLB running things. it isnt hard to be a decent MLB team especially while pocketing 40 million in profits (on top of the 20 they made at rfk i think).  they wanted to have it all. freak them. the best i can hope for is that when i say things like this, they die a little inside

Offline blue911

  • Posts: 18599
Re: Discuss the Ownership
« Reply #87 on: February 04, 2010, 07:53:09 pm »
so to answer the original question. yes this is it (at least in the baseball section).  i cant make chicken soup out of chicken crap anymore. i can't bring myself to search for this year's  "if schneider hits like he did in the second half last year and guillen gets healthy and guzman stops being blind, and nj stays healthy, and...and... and..."

if they get good, maybe i'll go to games. but i got off the jets wagon last year when they got favre and didnt get back on this year

i just hate what the lerners have done. it didnt have to be this way we won 81 and 71 games with the schmucks bowden and MLB running things. it isnt hard to be a decent MLB team especially while pocketing 40 million in profits (on top of the 20 they made at rfk i think).  they wanted to have it all. freak them. the best i can hope for is that when i say things like this, they die a little inside

You're an jerk.

Just so you understand, you're an jerk. Nobody makes you log onto Washington Nationals Fan Forum, yet you elect to and then spend all of your time trying to elicit an argument. That sir, makes you an jerk. Polite people may call you a troll but we both know you're an jerk.

Offline NatsAddict

  • Posts: 4099
Re: Discuss the Ownership
« Reply #88 on: February 04, 2010, 07:55:37 pm »
Speaking as a Marlins fan, I am quite envious of the GM, managerial/coaching, and player personnel moves the Nats have made in the past year.   The Nats are clearing out the deadwood and adding bricks; I see a clear attempt being made to improve the team.  It reminds me of the good ol' days when Dombrowski was with the Fish, getting a couple pieces each year, building a solid rotation, and leaders emerge knowing how to lead.  In the not too distant future, I expect threads debating which starter has the best fastball, the best curve, best change, the best overall arsenal of pitches, who would you rather face in a 3-2 or 0-2 count, etc.   That is when the fun will really begins.  I see the 2010 Nats as something like the 2001 Marlins (which, contrary to popular belief did not lose 100 games, going 76-86 with a young rotation learning the game).  

The biggest difference I see between the 2001 Marlins and the 2010 Nats is that the Marlins had Perry Hill as an infield coach under who's tutelage Derek Lee, Luis Castillo, and Mike Lowell all won GG.  Hill wants to get back into the dugout, but not with the Pirates (after their firesale last year)  who have control of him this year while he sits and Pirate are not permitting him to talk with other team.  As soon as possible after the end of the WS, the Nats need to go after and acquire Hill to support the rotation.

Offline KnorrForYourMoney

  • Posts: 16304
  • pissy DC sports fan
Re: Discuss the Ownership
« Reply #89 on: February 04, 2010, 08:05:25 pm »
You're an jerk.

Just so you understand, you're an jerk. Nobody makes you log onto Washington Nationals Fan Forum, yet you elect to and then spend all of your time trying to elicit an argument. That sir, makes you an jerk. Polite people may call you a troll but we both know you're an jerk.

freak that.  Dave B is awesome.  He's just pissed at the team.

Speaking as a Marlins fan, I am quite envious of the GM, managerial/coaching, and player personnel moves the Nats have made in the past year.   The Nats are clearing out the deadwood and adding bricks; I see a clear attempt being made to improve the team.  It reminds me of the good ol' days when Dombrowski was with the Fish, getting a couple pieces each year, building a solid rotation, and leaders emerge knowing how to lead.  In the not too distant future, I expect threads debating which starter has the best fastball, the best curve, best change, the best overall arsenal of pitches, who would you rather face in a 3-2 or 0-2 count, etc.   That is when the fun will really begins.  I see the 2010 Nats as something like the 2001 Marlins (which, contrary to popular belief did not lose 100 games, going 76-86 with a young rotation learning the game).  

The biggest difference I see between the 2001 Marlins and the 2010 Nats is that the Marlins had Perry Hill as an infield coach under who's tutelage Derek Lee, Luis Castillo, and Mike Lowell all won GG.  Hill wants to get back into the dugout, but not with the Pirates (after their firesale last year)  who have control of him this year while he sits and Pirate are not permitting him to talk with other team.  As soon as possible after the end of the WS, the Nats need to go after and acquire Hill to support the rotation.

Thanks for that, NatsAddict.  Makes me feel a little better about this team's situation.

Offline Dave B

  • Posts: 6033
Re: Discuss the Ownership
« Reply #90 on: February 04, 2010, 08:08:52 pm »
You're an jerk.

Just so you understand, you're an jerk. Nobody makes you log onto Washington Nationals Fan Forum, yet you elect to and then spend all of your time trying to illicit an argument. That sir, makes you an jerk. Polite people may call you a troll but we both know you're an jerk.

i probably should find better uses of my time. i do contribute positively in the caps and beer thread though and every now and then get distracted in here.  i would contend i dont try to elicit anything (or at least not much). the only really deep argument i started was the leonsis one last week (and i think i brought up some valid points why the nats cant follow a caps model even though it is a popular comparison).  this thread already had 4 pages before i got involved and commented on already made comments. 

actually i didnt expect an argument pertaining to any of my original posts.  its pretty clear you dont have to spend money to make money. i'll admit i was being a dick to PA, but the whole "they made offers" thing is hearsay and "reasonable" is debatable.  it is also logical that bad teams have to pay more to attract talent.  what was so wrong? how was any argument going of length to be spawned from that? the only reason i changed my avatar lately (if that it getting you riled up) is a saw an nba score for LAC and thought it was funny and looked for a cool logo and found one

Offline Dave B

  • Posts: 6033
Re: Discuss the Ownership
« Reply #91 on: February 04, 2010, 08:19:33 pm »
the more i think of it the more i dont get into any huge arguments here about LAC at least not this offseason. i do a lot of drive-bys though. is that so wrong?

its freakin hondo's and the chief's fault. hondo started it and chief made a new fucing thread called "discuss the ownership". i fully intended to go to class and learn something tonight and that crap is staring me in the face. and here i am talkin about why i type what i do

Offline Obed_Marsh

  • Posts: 7593
Re: Discuss the Ownership
« Reply #92 on: February 04, 2010, 08:21:42 pm »
I'm not going to call you names Dave but if I never hear another soup and crap comparison I'll be a happy man. :)

Offline Dave B

  • Posts: 6033
Re: Discuss the Ownership
« Reply #93 on: February 04, 2010, 08:23:35 pm »
I'm not going to call you names Dave but if I never hear another soup and crap comparison I'll be a happy man. :)

do i use that one a lot? blame my grandma. she might tell you to go crap in your hat though

Offline Obed_Marsh

  • Posts: 7593
Re: Discuss the Ownership
« Reply #94 on: February 04, 2010, 08:31:25 pm »
do i use that one a lot? blame my grandma. she might tell you to go crap in your hat though

As long as it is not in my soup. ;)

Not too much but enough that I've associated it as one of your catch phrases.

Offline The Chief

  • Posts: 31838
    • http://www.wnff.net
Re: Discuss the Ownership
« Reply #95 on: February 04, 2010, 09:45:15 pm »
its freakin hondo's and the chief's fault. hondo started it and chief made a new fucing thread called "discuss the ownership". i fully intended to go to class and learn something tonight and that crap is staring me in the face. and here i am talkin about why i type what i do

This made me laugh.

Blame Hondo though, I'm innocent  :halo:

Offline Obed_Marsh

  • Posts: 7593
Re: Discuss the Ownership
« Reply #96 on: February 04, 2010, 09:52:37 pm »
Hey the Grandma stories were good. :)

Granted I could give a crap about the LAC discussion. I'd trade the ownership for someone smarter or someone who spent more but I doubt anyone is going to let me decide who owns them.

Offline PANatsFan

  • Posts: 37398
  • dogs in uncensored, nudes in gameday
Re: Discuss the Ownership
« Reply #97 on: February 04, 2010, 09:56:46 pm »
While I think the whole LAC harping is boring and am not afraid to say so, I have to wonder why Pudge is worth 6m, but Hudson is not.

There's two healthy 2B and a SS they want to convert to a 2B on the roster, but there was only one catcher who can't hit.

Offline PANatsFan

  • Posts: 37398
  • dogs in uncensored, nudes in gameday
Re: Discuss the Ownership
« Reply #98 on: February 04, 2010, 09:59:05 pm »
By the way, Ted Lerner parked next to me, tapped my door with his, didn't check to see if he'd scratched the car, and drove off.







No, he didn't, but that's the gist of this thread. Blah dee bloo dee blah blah.

Offline tomterp

  • Global Moderator
  • ****
  • Posts: 33885
  • Hell yes!
Re: Discuss the Ownership
« Reply #99 on: February 04, 2010, 10:03:06 pm »
the more i think of it the more i dont get into any huge arguments here about LAC at least not this offseason. i do a lot of drive-bys though. is that so wrong?

Historically I've enjoyed your posts but lately everything is just a downer.