Strasburg throws a shutout...

  1. You have chosen to ignore posts from TheFoe13. Show TheFoe13's posts

    Re: Strasburg throws a shutout...

    In response to pinstripezac35's comment:

    In response to TheFoe13's comment:

     

    LOL! love the new avatar zac

     



    thanks mef ?

    I find yours most interesting as well

     



    correct.

    and it's Iron Maiden.

    from the song/poem "Rime of the Ancient Mariner"

     
  2. You have chosen to ignore posts from southpaw777. Show southpaw777's posts

    Re: Strasburg throws a shutout...

    In response to georom4's comment:

    In response to southpaw777's comment:

     

    I agreed with what they did. several doctors suggested the same thing. Fans dont care though. then again, its not their potential 200,000,000M investment.

     




    it's not? funny, i thought the paying fans pay the salaries....

     




    I think they would rather build a team that can sustain years of success for the FANS, than playing for one year and possibly hurting the foundation of their young team. Its called smart business.

     
  3. You have chosen to ignore posts from southpaw777. Show southpaw777's posts

    Re: Strasburg throws a shutout...

    In response to georom4's comment:

    In response to maxbialystock's comment:

     

    I really disagree with georom in the OP.  The 100 wins showed the Nationals have staying power and will be back with this young team.  Strasburg was coming off tommy john surgery, to say nothing of his age/experience.  Why gamble on what looks like a terrific future? 

    Or think about this.  Why give the Washington fans a WS in the first year Washington--stretching back many decades (Washington, first in war, first in peace, and last in the American League)--was even competitive? 

     



    dont know why my response was deleted but i will say it again - Strasburg has NO LIMITS for this year...so basically what you folks are saying who supported this move that those 5 starts or so in the postseason (maybe 35 innings) would have jeopardized his career and shortened it? Really? I can understand puling him off of some starts late in the year after they made the playoffs but to sit him for the remainder of the season, including pennant games? over 35 innings?  

     

    please tell me again how that was a good idea...




    we already have told you why, you just dont like the answers.

     
  4. You have chosen to ignore posts from BosoxJoe5. Show BosoxJoe5's posts

    Re: Strasburg throws a shutout...

    In response to georom4's comment:

    In response to maxbialystock's comment:

     

    I really disagree with georom in the OP.  The 100 wins showed the Nationals have staying power and will be back with this young team.  Strasburg was coming off tommy john surgery, to say nothing of his age/experience.  Why gamble on what looks like a terrific future? 

    Or think about this.  Why give the Washington fans a WS in the first year Washington--stretching back many decades (Washington, first in war, first in peace, and last in the American League)--was even competitive? 

     



    dont know why my response was deleted but i will say it again - Strasburg has NO LIMITS for this year...so basically what you folks are saying who supported this move that those 5 starts or so in the postseason (maybe 35 innings) would have jeopardized his career and shortened it? Really? I can understand puling him off of some starts late in the year after they made the playoffs but to sit him for the remainder of the season, including pennant games? over 35 innings?  

     

    please tell me again how that was a good idea...



    Yes it could have. you are only suppose to increase the workload of a pitcher by 30 percent each year before you wear them out. This is statistically proven to be the case and on top of that it looks like it is going to really work out for them. I would have skipped starts during the season to use him down the stretch. Is it worth it to jeopardize the future for a couple extra starts.

     
  5. You have chosen to ignore posts from Joebreidey. Show Joebreidey's posts

    Re: Strasburg throws a shutout...

    In response to georom4's comment:

    but I guess he wasnt needed in the postseason....

    rule #1 - always play your best players....right, "Bradley should be sent down folks"?



    Since your post-

    Strasbourg is 0-4 with an ERA > 4.00

    JBJ went 3-29 with -0- HRs.

    Maybe Rule #1 should go back to being not considering 1 games as a large sample size.

     
  6. This post has been removed.

     
  7. You have chosen to ignore posts from M1A2. Show M1A2's posts

    Re: Strasburg throws a shutout...

    If Victorino's back continues to plague him, Bradley could be headed back.

     
  8. You have chosen to ignore posts from southpaw777. Show southpaw777's posts

    Re: Strasburg throws a shutout...

    .

     
  9. You have chosen to ignore posts from georom4. Show georom4's posts

    Re: Strasburg throws a shutout...

    In response to Joebreidey's comment:

    In response to georom4's comment:

     

    but I guess he wasnt needed in the postseason....

    rule #1 - always play your best players....right, "Bradley should be sent down folks"?

     

    Since your post-

     

    Strasbourg is 0-4 with an ERA > 4.00

    JBJ went 3-29 with -0- HRs.

    Maybe Rule #1 should go back to being not considering 1 games as a large sample size.


    -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    im not sure what stats you are manipulating but he is 1-4 with an ERA of 3.16 with a K/W ration of approx 5-1

    i wish all of our starters were that bad...and NO ONE has responded to my main point...so i will write it again....

     Strasburg has NO LIMITS for this year...so basically what you folks are saying who supported this move that those 5 starts or so in the postseason (maybe 35 innings) would have jeopardized his career and shortened it? Really? I can understand puling him off of some starts late in the year after they made the playoffs but to sit him for the remainder of the season, including pennant games? over 35 innings?

     

     
  10. You have chosen to ignore posts from S5. Show S5's posts

    Re: Strasburg throws a shutout...

    In response to georom4's comment:



    dont know why my response was deleted but i will say it again - Strasburg has NO LIMITS for this year...so basically what you folks are saying who supported this move that those 5 starts or so in the postseason (maybe 35 innings) would have jeopardized his career and shortened it? Really? I can understand puling him off of some starts late in the year after they made the playoffs but to sit him for the remainder of the season, including pennant games? over 35 innings?  

     

     

    please tell me again how that was a good idea...

     

    ************************

    To say that it would have shortened his career is forecasting the future, something none of us are particularly good at.  What we are saying is that it could have jeopardized his career.  And that was a chance the Nats didn't want to take.

     

    Call it "the straw that broke the camel's back" syndrome if you like.  Strasberg was coming off TJ surgery and pitching better than anyone could have imagined he would, but where is the breaking point after that surgery?  People who know a lot more about medicine than you and I do (I refer to them as "doctors") apparently told the FO of the risk involved and the FO made the decision. 

    Apparently you would have had him pitch in the playoffs last year in the hope that the Nats would be WS champions.  You've been around sports long enough to know that no team has a lock on a championship.  Stuff happens and the best team doesn't always win.  Had Strasberg pitched and the Nats NOT won the WS and trasberg got hurt the second-guessers (you?) would have been out in force asking why in the name of God did they let this young pitcher pitch KNOWING he could ruin his arm???

    There's a risk/reward ratio in everything.  The Nats FO decided that the risk (potentially losing his career) was greater than the potential reward (one potential WS championship).  As a fan I don't like that decision but I still think it was the right one.  

    The "Win now at all costs" attitude is IMO one of the reasons why the Sox went 84 years without a WS championship.  They made some foolhardy trades and acquisitions in an attempt to win it NOW rather than hold on to people who could be the mainstays of future teams. 

    The most glaring example of that is the trade of Jeff Bagwelll for Larry Anderson.  Bagwell had the MiLB numbers to clealy be a major contributor at the next level but the Sox needed a BP aram to make a run at the WS that year.  Anderson did his job but in the long run...was it worth giving up Bagwell's career for?

    The same thing holds true for the Nats as well as for the Sox in the JBJ decision.  There's nothing wroing with short term pain in exchange for long term gains. 

     
  11. You have chosen to ignore posts from Kingface12. Show Kingface12's posts

    Re: Strasburg throws a shutout...

    In response to M1A2's comment:

    If Victorino's back continues to plague him, Bradley could be headed back.




    He's not coming back until the 20 days is up......or until he learns to hit a curve or inside pitch....which by the look of it could be a while.

     

Share