Author Topic: Nationals new 1B discussion (Read 76528 times)

Yeah, I'm kind of thinking out loud, wondering if anyone is going to present a reason that I shouldn't want Lee instead of LaRoche. I'm aware that his power numbers are there, but three years for him seems too long.

Lintyfresh85 · « **Reply #656 on:** December 17, 2010, 01:33:07 pm »

I think the only thing LaRoche really has going for him is that he's left handed... and Lee, well he isn't.

Tyler Durden · « **Reply #657 on:** December 17, 2010, 01:33:38 pm »

I'm coming around to Lee as well. For some reason, I see LaRoche ending up with the O's. Rizzo just doesn't seem that high on LaRoche. If Lee goes to a contender while LaRoche ends up with the O's, though, I'll be concerned. We're looking at Brad Hawpe or Russ Branyan along with Morse at 1B. That's going to hurt the team - maybe not at 1B, but in other areas.

hammondsnats · « **Reply #658 on:** December 17, 2010, 01:36:01 pm »

Quote from: Tyler Durden on December 17, 2010, 01:33:38 pm

I'm coming around to Lee as well. For some reason, I see LaRoche ending up with the O's. Rizzo just doesn't seem that high on LaRoche. If Lee goes to a contender while LaRoche ends up with the O's, though, I'll be concerned. We're looking at Brad Hawpe or Russ Branyan along with Morse at 1B. That's going to hurt the team - maybe not at 1B, but in other areas.

you never know we could always make a trade or anything, but if we're only looking at the current free agents as options ...

here's a crazy idea ... why not get lee and hawpe? Lee will play majority at 1st, with hawpe bouncing back from OF and 1B? we add a lefty bat in hawpe and we still have a 1B who can play good defense and knock in 20+ homers.

Lintyfresh85 · « **Reply #659 on:** December 17, 2010, 01:41:27 pm »

Supposedly, Hawpe is even more defensively challenged than Dunn was.

Lintyfresh85 · « **Reply #660 on:** December 17, 2010, 01:43:01 pm »

Wait.

They were ok going three with LaRoche... but not Dunn?

spidernat · « **Reply #661 on:** December 17, 2010, 01:45:24 pm »

Quote from: Lintyfresh85 on December 17, 2010, 01:43:01 pm

Wait.

They were ok going three with LaRoche... but not Dunn?

LaRoche is cheaper so that makes it OK.

Evolution33 · « **Reply #662 on:** December 17, 2010, 01:46:20 pm »

Quote from: Lintyfresh85 on December 17, 2010, 01:43:01 pm

Wait.

They were ok going three with LaRoche... but not Dunn?

They were more than ok with a third year for Dunn their offer was 3/36 or something like that. They didn't want to offer him the fourth year, and besides I haven't seen any news on the nats offer to LaRoche.

Tyler Durden · « **Reply #663 on:** December 17, 2010, 01:46:52 pm »

Quote from: hammondsnats on December 17, 2010, 01:36:01 pm

you never know we could always make a trade or anything, but if we're only looking at the current free agents as options ...

here's a crazy idea ... why not get lee and hawpe? Lee will play majority at 1st, with hawpe bouncing back from OF and 1B? we add a lefty bat in hawpe and we still have a 1B who can play good defense and knock in 20+ homers.

Not a bad idea. If Hawpe shows he can hold down 1B along with Morse and Bernie shows he can play LF full time, Lee could be flipped at midseason.

JMW IV · « **Reply #664 on:** December 17, 2010, 01:46:52 pm »

i am fine with lee or laroche.

prefer laroche because he is younger and leftie.

but fine with Lee also.

hammondsnats · « **Reply #665 on:** December 17, 2010, 01:49:04 pm »

Quote from: Strasburg37 on December 17, 2010, 01:41:54 pm

If the Nats have indeed offered LaRoche a third year, as has been reported today, I would guess that his signing is imminent.

where do you see that ... interesting.

JMW IV · « **Reply #666 on:** December 17, 2010, 01:49:31 pm »

Quote from: spidernat on December 17, 2010, 01:45:24 pm

LaRoche is cheaper so that makes it OK.

oh come on dude. it is obvious that Rizzo didnt want Dunn at any price.

you see nothing but payroll in everything the nats do.

Lintyfresh85 · « **Reply #667 on:** December 17, 2010, 01:50:39 pm »

Quote from: Evolution33 on December 17, 2010, 01:46:20 pm

They were more than ok with a third year for Dunn their offer was 3/36 or something like that.

Boswell has said many times that Dunn would have signed a 3/37 deal during the season, but the Nats refused to offer it to him,.

comish4lif · « **Reply #668 on:** December 17, 2010, 01:50:48 pm »

Quote from: blue911 on December 17, 2010, 01:07:35 pm

Why would Atlanta take Troy Glaus over LaRoche?

Atlanta has a 1B Prospect ready to go - Freddie Freeman. Glaus is their Plan B.

Do you see that Mike Rizzo, a major leaguer as Plan B. As opposed to... well, nothing.

JMW IV · « **Reply #669 on:** December 17, 2010, 01:52:02 pm »

Quote from: Lintyfresh85 on December 17, 2010, 01:43:01 pm

Wait.

They were ok going three with LaRoche... but not Dunn?

it is time for you to let go dude. he is gone.

Dunn wasnt Rizzo's type of player. simple as that. Rizzo didnt want him at all for any price.

cant ya'll see that?

Rizzo has a clear vision of how the team should be built, and dunn didnt fit it. neither did willingham.

Evolution33 · « **Reply #670 on:** December 17, 2010, 01:57:44 pm »

Quote from: Lintyfresh85 on December 17, 2010, 01:50:39 pm

Boswell has said many times that Dunn would have signed a 3/37 deal during the season, but the Nats refused to offer it to him,.

Yes he has said that but also said they did make that offer in the last two months of the season.

Lintyfresh85 · « **Reply #671 on:** December 17, 2010, 02:00:44 pm »

Quote from: Evolution33 on December 17, 2010, 01:57:44 pm

Yes he has said that but also said they did make that offer in the last two months of the season.

Right.

If they had really had any intention of bringing him back, they would have offered it to him in ST, or the beginning of the season. Clearly, Dunn told them he was going to test the market after the trading deadline passed. The offer was nothing more than token. Hell, Dunn blew Rizzo's cover when he announced that Rizzo never called him after the year ended.

Mike was never going to bring back Dunn, no matter how much or how little the price tag was. He's just not a Rizzo guy.

EdStroud · « **Reply #672 on:** December 17, 2010, 02:01:52 pm »

Quote from: comish4lif on December 17, 2010, 01:50:48 pm

Atlanta has a 1B Prospect ready to go - Freddie Freeman. Glaus is their Plan B.

Do you see that Mike Rizzo, a major leaguer as Plan B. As opposed to... well, nothing.

Glaus is not with Atl he was granted Free Agency on Nov 1st

Evolution33 · « **Reply #673 on:** December 17, 2010, 02:03:19 pm »

Quote from: Lintyfresh85 on December 17, 2010, 02:00:44 pm

Right.

If they had really had any intention of bringing him back, they would have offered it to him in ST, or the beginning of the season. Clearly, Dunn told them he was going to test the market after the trading deadline passed. The offer was nothing more than token. Hell, Dunn blew Rizzo's cover when he announced that Rizzo never called him after the year ended.

Mike was never going to bring back Dunn, no matter how much or how little the price tag was. He's just not a Rizzo guy.

Dunn also said Kenny Williams never talked to him. Dunn told his agent to get him the best deal. Rizzo, Kenny Williams, Jim Hendry, and whoever else never spoke directly with Dunn, only to his agent.

RyanTheRiot · « **Reply #674 on:** December 17, 2010, 02:05:00 pm »

We should all be glad that the hated Orioles are offering LaRoche three years and we aren't