BREAK UP THE F-ING NATIONALS

DeathFromAbove1979 wrote:
Probably Stras too.

With the new park, I think CC is the last big name free agent pitcher signing the Yanks have.  They will have to trade for and develop pitchers from now on.  We've already seen a number of veteran premiere free agent pitchers turn them down and I think that trend continues.

ive always seen strasburg as way more likely to leave the nats than harper

not quite sure why (probably that strasburg's personality always makes him seem kinda grumpy about being here)

if i had to choose one of them to stay here for a very long time itd be bryce, no contest

Harper could handle NY.  I'm not so sure about Strasburg.

I could see Stras going out west, maybe closer to home. I'd love to see Bryce stay around. Who knows though, his popularity can only rise, we'll see how successful Nats are down the road…

Also, what is it with the Nats thumping or getting thumped? 13 to 4? For real?

I hope Strasburg's arm make it til he is traded but I'm skeptical…

They should definitely keep Bryce Harper no matter what…

It was good to see him go 8 innings [finally], but we'll see. According to "experts" his "mechanics" still need work.

wow.  this team is just a mess right now.

I believe they're around the pace they were last year.. Not to mention the injuries. It also seems like anyone in the #2 slot can't do dick at the plate. Werth was supposed to return Friday, now they're saying it could be 2 more weeks. Uy.

24-17 May 21st, 2012
23-22 May 21st, 2013.

chaz wrote:
A shame…being west coast AL team we never see much of Trout out here. 

Your move, Mr. Harper….

vansmack wrote:

chaz wrote:
A shame…being west coast AL team we never see much of Trout out here. 

Your move, Mr. Harper….

….How many games has he even played on the west coast trip? I haven't been keeping up cuz the games are too late on our end :\

Nats at .500; Angels 9 under.  Meh.

Shemp wrote:
Nats at .500; Angels 9 under.  Meh.

Neither are worth bragging about considering the pre-season hype.

The reasons are obvious - Anaheim doesn't have your pitching staff, and the Nat's don't have Mike Trout.

vansmack wrote:

Shemp wrote:
Nats at .500; Angels 9 under.  Meh.

Neither are worth bragging about considering the pre-season hype.

The reasons are obvious - Anaheim doesn't have your pitching staff, and the Nat's don't have Mike Trout.

Yet, they have Mike Trout and are 9 under………… What's the arguement? Nats are better because of their entire pitching rotation, yet the Angels are better because they have Mike Trout?

Mike Trout > Stras, Gio, JZimm, Haren, and Detwiler? Really?

DeathFromAbove1979 wrote:
Yet, they have Mike Trout and are 9 under………… What's the arguement? Nats are better because of their entire pitching rotation, yet the Angels are better because they have Mike Trout?

Mike Trout > Stras, Gio, JZimm, Haren, and Detwiler? Really?

It was a joke, but your deductive reasoning skills still leave something to be desired.

The Angels would be better with Stras, Gio and JZimm (haha, you said Haren….$13M for 4-5 and an ERA over 5.00 in the NL - that's the only thing Anaheim got right in the off season).

The Nats would be better with Trout, because only Miguel Cabrera is a better hitter than Mike Trout.

That's all that joke was implying.

Nats don't have enough offensive power.. getting rid of Morse.I don't know about that move..

Morse is .242/.305/.462 with Seattle. In whose place would you start him?

hutch wrote:
Nats don't have enough offensive power.. getting rid of Morse.I don't know about that move..

James wrote:
Morse is .242/.305/.462 with Seattle. In whose place would you start him?

hutch wrote:
Nats don't have enough offensive power.. getting rid of Morse.I don't know about that move..

well I guess some games he'd play first and some games in the outfield like last year


when i checked his numbers about two weeks ago he looked allright…

then i looked at laroche and he had the worst numbers ever so i thought he could play some at first..

but maybe things have changed and laroche has heated up..

vansmack wrote:

DeathFromAbove1979 wrote:
Yet, they have Mike Trout and are 9 under………… What's the arguement? Nats are better because of their entire pitching rotation, yet the Angels are better because they have Mike Trout?

Mike Trout > Stras, Gio, JZimm, Haren, and Detwiler? Really?

It was a joke, but your deductive reasoning skills still leave something to be desired.

The Angels would be better with Stras, Gio and JZimm (haha, you said Haren….$13M for 4-5 and an ERA over 5.00 in the NL - that's the only thing Anaheim got right in the off season).

The Nats would be better with Trout, because only Miguel Cabrera is a better hitter than Mike Trout.

That's all that joke was implying.

I meant to put an asterisk by Haren's name lol.

Desire more from me. I thrive on it.

there was no room for morse here. despite getting picked off a few too many times, span's been great in the field and at the plate (it isnt his fault no one drives him in) and now that laroche is out of his slump hes a far better overall player than morse. plus with the infield arms as shaky as theyve been they need his glove bad. the only player morse might have deserved to bump out of a starting spot is werth, and that obviously wasnt gonna happen. i liked morse a lot but he was an awful fielder.

i think the biggest thing the nats lost with that trade was his personality. he seemed like a guy that kept the clubhouse loose, and they apparently don't have that anymore. they need to lighten up and quit trying to be perfect in every situation.

luckily the rest of the division is awful and the braves arent pulling ahead like they could, so the nats arent gonna be out of it for a while. they really need to start putting some winning streaks together though.

There's an easy fix for the Nats offensive woes - call up Rendon, and have him play second base, like he has been in Double A ball.  He's hitting .350 down there - even if he hits .240 in the bigs, it's .100 points better than Espinosa.

Clearly, Espinosa's shoulder is worse than he's leading on.