And That's Why They Play the Games!

by Graham on Sep 28, 2008 4:17 PM PDT Comment 90 comments

61-101, and we didn't even secure the #1 overall pick next June. Good bloody riddance, 2008.

0 recs | Comment 90 comments

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

At least we went out with a win AFTER the Nats lost.

Now let the offseason rumblings and rumors begin!

by seattlesundevil on Sep 28, 2008 4:19 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs

Well, at least we secured the #2 overall pick

Made possible only by completely tanking the last road trip of the season. The competition for losing was tough this year considering Tampa Bay only had to drop 96 games to secure the #1 spot.

My take on the 2008 season? It was massively disastrous but I’m glad it happened for the sake of the future.

by ThundaPC on Sep 28, 2008 4:46 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs

Our final record makes me think of the old saying

“You win 60 games and you lose 60 games. What you do with the rest of them is what counts.”
We chose to win one of them. One of them. =/

by katal on Sep 28, 2008 4:50 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs

We gave the others away to Major League Teams.

by ThundaPC on Sep 28, 2008 4:52 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

If we had chosen to lose that one and another one I'd have my dreams of Strasburg intact.

This stupid team can’t even lose right.

by Graham on Sep 28, 2008 4:53 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

it's 54 games

60 + 60 + 60 = 180.

So we won 7 games wooo :)

by phil333 on Sep 28, 2008 5:45 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

60 + 60 + ? = 162

by ThundaPC on Sep 28, 2008 5:58 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Exactly.

by Teej on Sep 28, 2008 7:35 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Hey...

the Nationals fucked up signing one first-round pick this year, so they get two picks next year.

You think they’re going to draft the consensus best player in the draft AND another first-rounder AND sign them both?

by craig3410 on Sep 28, 2008 4:52 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs

I don't actually see any reason why not.

They might go for signability, of course, but assuming that they’ll pass on the top talent just because of that would be crazy. But there is hope.

by Graham on Sep 28, 2008 4:54 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Yes, it's better for us that they have #1 instead of SD

but not that much better

by seattlebruin on Sep 28, 2008 9:47 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

The Padres have always tried to save a few bucks in the draft. After the Crow Fiasco, the Nats might be willing to make a big splash — like Pittsburgh did this year. I still see San Diego going the cheap route until something makes me change my mind.

No one knows what’s going to happen, but I’d trust San Diego over Washington to screw up that top pic.

by Teej on Sep 28, 2008 11:30 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Not sure there either

yeah, Matt Bush immediately springs to mind, but I think the overriding factor here would be that Strasburg is from SD and is a lifelong Padres fan (at least according to his bio)

by seattlebruin on Sep 29, 2008 6:20 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Fair point. The village folk might have burned the park to the ground had the Padres passed on him.

by Teej on Sep 29, 2008 8:08 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

The Nats

- They’ll have better picks this draft as well (1st compared to 9th)
- Despite being awful, they drew 400,000 more fans this year in a shiny new ballpark

They’ll probably have more money and more reason to spend it.

by Gomez on Sep 29, 2008 8:57 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Hey mariners

thanks for the shitstorm season from hell.

Cuba Si! Yanqi No!

by Patrick517 on Sep 28, 2008 4:54 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs

Its ok

The Nationals deserve it.

by Edgar for Pres on Sep 28, 2008 5:04 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs

Whoever we draft will be pretty good after all we do have the #2.

Don’t screw this one up M’s.

by Slurvey on Sep 28, 2008 5:06 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs

So...

Is there a consensus number 2 pick? Who are some guys we could draft at number 2?

by Combs on Sep 28, 2008 5:08 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs

This is, of course, assuming the Nationals take Strasburg first

by Combs on Sep 28, 2008 5:08 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Check out this mock draft

Alex White #2 Overall RHP out of North Carolina?

by Combs on Sep 28, 2008 5:17 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

They arent trying to nail the draft pick for pick

But its good to get an idea of who’s stock is high.

by Combs on Sep 28, 2008 5:21 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Here is a list of some of the prospects in the 09 draft.

by Slurvey on Sep 28, 2008 5:23 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

oops.

http://draftinfo.wordpress.com/2008/08/27/updated-2009-mlb-draft-prospects-1-20/

by Slurvey on Sep 28, 2008 5:23 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

There is like a tie for #2 but it could be Ackley, Green, or Crow.

by Slurvey on Sep 28, 2008 5:11 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

uh.

by Graham on Sep 28, 2008 5:12 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

uh what?

by Slurvey on Sep 28, 2008 5:14 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Uh why the hell is Crow on your list.

by Graham on Sep 28, 2008 5:17 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Actually I'm wonderng that now...

by Slurvey on Sep 28, 2008 5:19 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

I really like the little bit that I've read/seen of Green.

by CstSnow on Sep 28, 2008 5:15 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

If Green builds off his Cape performance, he'd be the guy

in my opinion . His positional value compared to Ackley puts him as the clear #1 position prospect at this point in time.

Of course we have a good number of months for that to change

by DarkLou on Sep 28, 2008 5:46 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

I agree too he can field his posistion and hit very well.

Also this allows us to move Truinfel to 3rd where he might be better off.

by Slurvey on Sep 28, 2008 5:58 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Are we really going to start this this early?

by Fogel on Sep 28, 2008 6:12 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

I'd rather see Triunfel at 2B, and I think that is where most project him to at this point

by DarkLou on Sep 28, 2008 6:31 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Hm good point.

BOOYA! You got Slurved!

by Slurvey on Sep 28, 2008 6:32 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Triunfel's arm is too good to waste at second

by seattlebruin on Sep 28, 2008 9:48 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

So either third or CF/RF?

by BrianL on Sep 28, 2008 9:54 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

(If he doesn't stick at short)

by BrianL on Sep 28, 2008 9:54 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

It would be stupid to waste his bat in right or center if he could play a decent second.

9=8

by JI on Sep 28, 2008 9:56 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

I think Fogel does have a point aren't we doing this way to early?

BOOYA! You got Slurved!

by Slurvey on Sep 28, 2008 10:06 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

This is dramatically different than a 2009 mock draft.

Carlos Triunfel is already in our system.

by BrianL on Sep 28, 2008 10:08 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

From the (albeit limited) number of times I've seen him, I think he has an outside shot to stick at short

but third looks a lot more likely. If he can’t stick at short I wouldn’t want him at second either, since he’ll move off due to outgrowing SS physically (he’s still very skinny at this point).

I still think it’d be a waste to put his bat in a corner as well. Don’t think he has the speed to play center.

by seattlebruin on Sep 28, 2008 10:08 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

I'd personally like to see him at third somewhere in the future.

Move that Tui assface to a corner OF spot.

by BrianL on Sep 28, 2008 10:12 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

In Tacoma plz

by Nick S on Sep 28, 2008 10:55 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

If he doesn't stick at SS he probably ends up at 3B eventually

by Gomez on Sep 29, 2008 8:58 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

If Ackley was to play CF or something that would make this a little more interesting.

Also he is a lefty bat but let’s wait before we make any assumptions.

BOOYA! You got Slurved!

by Slurvey on Sep 28, 2008 7:54 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

He's a first baseman.

This reminds me of F’nA’s

by Graham on Sep 28, 2008 8:14 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Who says he can't play somewhere else?

I even heard he might switch to 2B. He can play the OF and can be speedy he is a solid defender at first but if he could switch to and OF position his stock would rise.

BOOYA! You got Slurved!

by Slurvey on Sep 28, 2008 8:43 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Why would you think that someone who plays 1B in college is capable of playing a more difficult defensive position at a higher level?

J.K.L.

by acblue on Sep 28, 2008 8:59 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

He split time in the OF/1B.

BOOYA! You got Slurved!

by Slurvey on Sep 28, 2008 9:02 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

But did he play those positions competently?

by BrianL on Sep 28, 2008 9:04 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Or is he there because he does the least amount of damage defensively

at the low end of the defensive spectrum?

by BrianL on Sep 28, 2008 9:05 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

He is a solid defender at first and good at right.

He has too much speed for a 1B but spent time there his freshman year I see him more in RF/LF CF might be a stretch though.

BOOYA! You got Slurved!

by Slurvey on Sep 28, 2008 9:09 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

It's exceedingly rare for players to move up the defensive spectrum.

J.K.L.

by acblue on Sep 28, 2008 9:12 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

He is one of those OF/1B guys.

Where do you want to kill his speed for power or move him to first so where he can focus on power and he ended up splitting time there. From what I’ve heard/seen he is a very hard guy to double up.

BOOYA! You got Slurved!

by Slurvey on Sep 28, 2008 9:18 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

OF/1B guys make terrible centre fielders

by Graham on Sep 28, 2008 10:10 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

There's a reason they're OF/1B.

When a manager is playing them either in left field or first base (the easiest defensive positions to play in the defensive spectrum), it’s usually to soften the impact of that player’s lack of defensive ability.

A typical OF/1B is someone like Raul Ibanez or Adam Dunn. Terrible in the field so the manager plays them in a position where they will do the least amount of damage.

(Unfortunately for us LF and RF are swapped on the spectrum at Safeco)

by BrianL on Sep 28, 2008 10:18 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Well if a guy is primarily an OF who is put at first because he's a good fielder, there's the possibility

I wouldn’t want to write Ackley off without ever having seen him play.

by seattlebruin on Sep 28, 2008 10:19 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Yeah, but that's generally not what you think about when you see OF/1B.

by BrianL on Sep 28, 2008 10:37 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Besides,

doesn’t Ackley have a jacked up arm or something that’s forcing him to be a 1B/DH type?

by AZSEAfan on Sep 28, 2008 10:55 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Just trying to play devil's advocate

by seattlebruin on Sep 29, 2008 6:20 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Also this comment actually makes zero sense

by Graham on Sep 28, 2008 10:22 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Players end up at 1B because they lack footspeed

A lack of footspeed is the last thing you want in CF. Such players often play LF/RF because teams are willing to play slower guys in the corners. Doesn’t make them a full-out OF.

by Gomez on Sep 29, 2008 8:59 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs