Pedro... Randy I think started with themQuote:
Originally Posted by HoustonGM
Printable View
Pedro... Randy I think started with themQuote:
Originally Posted by HoustonGM
I know. Randy pitched 11 games for them. Pedro was with them for four years and had one exceptional year before leaving. Dawson/Raines/Carter played their entire peaks in Montreal.Quote:
Originally Posted by TheNamelessPoet
The true fail is that this thread only made it 3 pages in 8 months time
trueQuote:
Originally Posted by HoustonGM
The Detroit statues incorporate motion, but they do a way better job. For example, Hal Newhouser has the proper amount of limbs.
I'd say Vlad deserves to be on that top 3, don't you think?Quote:
Originally Posted by HoustonGM
He played a lot less than the other 3 - 2,000 plate appearances or so, which is about 3-4 seasons worth.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sipimi
By WAR w/ Montreal:
Gary Carter - 52.3
Tim Raines - 46
Andre Dawson - 43.6
Vlad Guerrero - 32.4
I stand corrected. Can you post the link to those stats HGM? I'd like to see where Rogers, Wallach and others stand.Quote:
Originally Posted by HoustonGM
Who the hell considers that better?Quote:
Originally Posted by haveacigar
http://www.baseballprojection.com/war/g/guerv001.htmQuote:
Originally Posted by Sipimi
http://www.baseballprojection.com/war/c/cartg001.htm
http://www.baseballprojection.com/war/d/dawsa001.htm
http://www.baseballprojection.com/war/r/raint001.htm
It's just the playing time difference, really. If you give Guerrero another 3-4 years worth at his average of 4 WAR per season (which is actually unfavorable to him since I counted his partial 1996 and 1997 seasons as one full season), he'd be right around Dawson/Raines.
From those WAR numbers, Steve Rogers (45.8) would be ahead of Dawson in 3rd position. Now I understand why my uncle could never shut up about him!Quote:
Originally Posted by HoustonGM
I'd rank Dawson higher than Rogers if I was doing a ranking. 2 wins isn't very much when spread over the course of 10+ seasons, and Dawson was a 6 WAR player at his peak, while Rogers was more like a 4 WAR player, so a "career" WAR difference of 2 is easily overcome by the peak difference for me.
I don't think you understand the mentality of the baseball fan in DC. IMO it's akin to the football fan of the Ravens. Do they acknowledge the existence of a team prior to the Ravens? Or do they lovingly accept the memory of the Colts?Quote:
Originally Posted by actionjackson
I am not saying that Expos fans wont see the Nats as "their team" and continue to root for them. But I feel (and I think alot of local baseball fans feel) that the Nationals are more an extension of the Senators than than the Expos.
That being said, Walter Johnson is one the most memorable baseball players to play in DC, so they erected a statue of him, whats not to like about that? Its not like the Twins were jumping up and down to get a statue of the guy.
I have this weird thing where I don't want my baseball heroes mutated.Quote:
Originally Posted by etothep
Thanks for your opinion. It would be really useful to have a site where they show every team all-time WAR leaders (per position, per decade, etc.) so that we could make that kind of comparison easily.Quote:
Originally Posted by HoustonGM
Just checked some Expos' players and, even though everybody always said that Andres Galarraga was the most valuable 1B in the history of the team, I just realized that Ron Faily was more valuable (10+ WAR) than Galarraga.
This is the ultimate pot calling the kettle black statement and it a) p!sses me off and b) demonstrates your ignorance about those three players, not to mention the 3 that actually have statues that you're unfamiliar with. To claim that you're unfamiliar with Walter "Big Train" Johnson, Josh Gibson, and Frank "Hondo" Howard and then turn around and accuse me of trolling for extolling the virtues of a HoFer and a should be HoFer (Carter and Raines) and a Hall of Very Gooder who happens to be in the Hall (Dawson) is, to put it mildly, pretty fu(king hypocritical.Quote:
Originally Posted by CCamels73
Carter is a top 5 all-time catcher and a no-brainer HoFer. Raines would already be in the Hall, if the BBWAA could extract their heads from their a$$e$ and recognize his greatness. He's barely outside the top 10 all-time in LF and probably the third best leadoff hitter behind the always overlooked Billy Hamilton and Rickey Henderson. As for Dawson, according to the BBWAA (not me) he's a HoFer. As HGM said, they were at their best with the Expos (now the Nationals) and when you think about their careers, you think of them as Expos. To put it another way, when Raines joins Carter and Dawson in Cooperstown all three will wear Expos caps and thus are greats that are part of the Washington Nationals organization's history whether they choose to acknowledge it or not.
As long as you're willing to admit that you're the weird one for thinking thatQuote:
Originally Posted by haveacigar
I hate to get off topic but when have I ever trolled in these forums? maybe you could refresh my memory....Quote:
Originally Posted by actionjackson
Does it really bother you that the Nationals organization erected statues to great players (yes I have since updated my knowledge about them) that played in DC not QC (Montreal). Which do you you think means more to baseball in the Capital? Players that played through great years in Canada, or locally? I don't think it takes a rocket scientist to figure that out!
How about we not let the Nationals erect statues of anyone or anything until they can finish a season with a winning record or at least finish better than 4th in their division
That is pretty weird. I'd love for Ichiro to grow 2 extra sets of hands and go up to bat with 3 bats.Quote:
Originally Posted by haveacigar
But Expos fans will never see the Nats as "their team", nor will they "continue to root for them", unless of course the Nationals change course and suddenly it hits them that their history is actually 41 seasons and counting, not 5, and recognize and celebrate their past. It's what classy teams with smart business sense like the Avalanche (as Sipimi mentioned) do. Mickey Mouse outfits like the Natinals are near-sighted and amnesiac about the organization prior to its existence as "their team". Really, there's not a lot to remember about the Nats in their 5 year history aside from all the blunders that this thread is about, but it would be a much more complete picture with the Montreal years in there.Quote:
Originally Posted by CCamels73
If you look at the Nationals' leaderboard, it's dominated by names like Rusty Staub, Tim Raines, Vladimir Guerrero, Ron Fairly, Larry Walker, Nick Johnson, Ken Singleton, Moises Alou, Gary Carter, Bob Bailey, Tim Wallach, Steve Rogers, Pedro Martinez, Dennis Martinez, Javier Vazquez, Jeff Reardon, Ken Hill, Jeff Fassero, and Bill Gullickson. 2 no-hitters by Bill Stoneman (one in the ninth game of the organization's existence), a no-hitter by Charlie Lea and a perfect game by "El Presidente El Perfecto" Dennis Martinez. All washed away because they didn't happen (Nick Johnson's exploits excepted) in Washington. Sad.
The worst thing the Nats did though was returning the numbers 8 (Gary Carter), 10 (Andre Dawson; Rusty Staub), and 30 (Tim Raines) to circulation. 8 was given to Marlon Anderson and then Aaron Boone. 10 was given to Royce Clayton, Brandon Harper, and then Ronnie Belliard and 30 was worn by Mike Stanton and then Chris Booker. Ugh, what a farce. Kee-rist, At least give them to good/very good ballplayers.
All I'm saying is your organization already has a nice history if you include its pre-Washington history. Why not celebrate it? Why not welcome the old Expos players back into the family, instead of making them baseball orphans? It doesn't take much effort on the organization's part and it demonstrates class instead of whatever the organization is demonstrating right now.
You accused me of trolling. How is it trolling on my part to suggest that Carter, Raines and Dawson were great players worthy of statues? You made this accusation while questioning the merits of those three players and simultaneously admitting that you were not familiar with the accomplishments of Walter Johnson, Josh Gibson, and Frank Howard. How is it not inflammatory (or trolling if you will) to accuse me of trolling when all I was suggesting was that the Nationals embrace their entire history. It's not like I was being one of the kids on this site and trying to start a p!ssfight and then egging it on. Accusing me of trolling when I asked a perfectly reasonable question is in fact trolling, hence the pot and kettle reference.Quote:
Originally Posted by CCamels73
A nice history?
The Expos played baseball for 35 years having won the division ONCE. Had the '94 season not been interrupted, they might have won again, so that gave them 1 post season appearance during their time in QC. Odds were in their favor of producing a few HOF'ers in 35 years time, but we see now how few it really was.
And this is what you think they should reflect on? I think they should be looking for the future because the past was pretty terrible (if you count the Expos as part of that past).
This attack on Expos/Nationals history is brought to you by a baseball fan in a city whose teams in various incarnations as the Blue Legs, the Olympics, the Statesmen, the Nationals, and the Senators over close to 100 total seasons have now appeared in the playoffs exactly three times and won the whole enchilada exactly once: in 1924 when you only had to win one four out of 7 playoff round to win it all.Quote:
Originally Posted by CCamels73
Be grateful that 1994 happened to the Expos because without it, you might still be waiting for a baseball team. What's that oft repeated refrain? "Washington: First in the nation; Last in the American League". Indeed.
Awesome! Then we can end this argument now, because clearly that means no statues at all are necessary. After all, if it's all about the future, and the past was 100% crap in your opinion, then there isn't anything worth building a monument to.Quote:
Originally Posted by CCamels73
I think you all have missed the point of my posts.
IMO the Nationals have celebrated the history of baseball in the District of Columbia by erecting statues to those greats that have played there. What is not to like about that? It seems like the move would endear more local 'potential' fans to appreciate the local history instead of semantic history. And fans are what count right? not critics that are already fans of something else. So be critical, its not going to make a difference I bet if you ask fans of baseball in DC they would agree with me.
When a team moves I think their record books should be cleared, the name changed, etc,etc. Kinda like when Cleveland kept their name and records and Baltimore basically got the players, but with no records. I also hate teams like the Hornets where they move and keep the name. I find it hard to believe that many people from Montreal care about the Nationals. If I was a fan and my team moved, I wouldn't continue to root for them. If the Brewers moved I would probably root for the White Sox. Their might be a few players I would root for, but over time I would have no connection with the team anymore.
dont forget... they didnt care about them to begin with... the moved because they had no fans in the seats... yes they lost fans... BUT they didnt have many to lose unfortunatlyQuote:
Originally Posted by MichelleWie
apparently they are getting ming-wang as well.
They are really getting **** done this off-season ;)
If they don't sign Wang to a deal above 1 million or so I think it's a low risk/high reward type signing.
I'd sign Wang to a similar deal as Bedard.
You don't pass up a chance to get your hands on Wang ...Quote:
Originally Posted by 200tang
Added Willy Taveras today.
this isn't a failure.
but Strasburg will start the season in the minors....thought I would share.
They also released Elijah Dukes this morning according to the Washington Post.
THAT would seem like a failQuote:
Originally Posted by McPhale
Assuming there's nothing that's happened that we've yet to hear about (and with Elijah Dukes, that's certainly a possibility), absolutely.Quote:
Originally Posted by filihok
Knocked up another 17 year old?
WIN! er....FAIL!Quote:
Originally Posted by OregonDuck1989