it was only a few days ago I heard on the radio he was going to play through it. I guess that's a bad sign.

Darwin Barney is available.

Lombardozzi and Espinosa will be ok for a while, but it's pretty risky thinking of Mark DeRosa as your backup middle infielder. Maybe this gives Lombardozzi a chance to improve his numbers from the right side. Rivero would be the AAA call up, but he has a bad defensive reputation at short.

The Nats are in pretty decent shape, but grabbing a decent catcher and a backup MI at the deadline wouldn't be the worst idea.

I wonder if Pudge would come back for one more stretch run. Even if he can't hit a lick anymore, he can probably still play better defense with his eyes closed than the sorry backup catchers we're running out there right now.

DeRosa said. “Big hit after big hit, he’s basically been the captain of our infield for all of the first half of the season so to lose him is tough.”

Well, move over Derek Jeter! I was wondering how in the world Desmond was hitting all those home runs and XBH with a painful oblique. I guess each one made the tear a little bit bigger. He'll be sitting until mid-August no doubt if the Nats want him to be an offensive force down the stretch. Rushing this injury can only make things worse.

Espinosa came up as a shortstop and has done good work there, nothing wrong with playing him there. It's too bad that the Nats have two first basemen, but Davey wants to keep Morse's bat in the lineup on the off chance that he smacks a dinger.

The Nats need a catcher who can throw farther than 50 feet with accuracy. Their other needs are left to discussion.

2 weeks seems short. Other people have taken a 4-6+ weeks to come back from oblique injuries, but I guess this one might not be as severe. If he can really come back in 2 weeks it doesn't sound that bad. If he's going to have now power the rest of the year, that's a different story.

the loss of Ian Desmond would seem like a major blow to our offensive production

Didn't know you were on the team! Wow, an active MLBer on BBTF.

Didn't know you were on the team! Wow, an active MLBer on BBTF.

You do realize this is the stupidest, most hackneyed, and least edifying sports criticisms out there, right? No -- apparently you don't, because you wrote the post, so let me educate you:

I root for the Nationals. I'm a fan. It's reasonably inevitable and not at all shameful or worthy of mockery that I refer to them as 'my team' or in the first-person plural, as a reflection of my feelings of investment in their success. It is a common colloquial expression of the depth of partisan attachment to them as a team. It does not indicate a lack of maturity, or intelligence.

Meanwhile, the sorts of online 'wits' who think they're oh-so-clever and proving a brilliant point by taking issue with this kind of locution are, to put it bluntly, pretty much insufferable turds.

I root for the Nationals. I'm a fan. It's reasonably inevitable and not at all shameful or worthy of mockery that I refer to them as 'my team' or in the first-person plural, as a reflection of my feelings of investment in their success. It is a common colloquial expression of the depth of partisan attachment to them as a team. It does not indicate a lack of maturity, or intelligence.

It is pretty much shameful and worthy of mockery that you refer to them as "we" and "our." They are men, making a living. You are not on the team. You are not picking up a bat, throwing a ball, or even cleaning a jock. You are watching them. On TV.

Meanwhile, the sorts of online 'wits' who think they're oh-so-clever and proving a brilliant point by taking issue with this kind of locution are, to put it bluntly, pretty much insufferable turds.

Tee-hee

You are watching them. On TV.

Providing the revenue streams making it possible for the Nationals to field a team.

Tens of thousand of shameful, mockery-worthy people.

Providing the revenue streams making it possible for the Nationals to field a team.

Watching the Nats on tv mostly provides revenue for Peter Angelos.

Didn't know you were on the team! Wow, an active MLBer on BBTF.

A few years ago, someone tried to drop that sort of crap on me when I referenced the Toronto Maple Leafs as "we" (by accident, really).

I then pointed out that my wife is a teacher, and her pension plan was the primary stock holder of the Toronto Maple Leafs corporation (MLSE). Technically, by marriage and by stock holding, I actually had an invested financial interest in the Maple Leafs.

I actually had an invested financial interest in the Maple Leafs.

It is much less frustrating to root for the Maple Leafs' cashflow than the team on the ice.

I agree that the old "I didn't know you were on the team" retort got old years ago.

I'm going to agree with both Joey and Eso. I sometimes say "we" and "us" when talking about the Mets. Not often, but I don't bother policing myself on it.

Tens of thousand of shameful, mockery-worthy people.

British soccer fans? Quite so.

I try to avoid the "we"/"us" crap in all instances, because it's ... well ... stupid & fanboyish. Occasionally I'll slip up & use it with regard to the Razorabacks, but since i didn't go to the school, that's not really any better.

"We/us" can be douchey in some contexts, such as fan of team A telling fan of team B "You suck! We're going to kill you guys tonight!", but in this instance Eso is completely in the clear.

The irony is that I wrote "our" by accident, really. But I really don't think it's a big deal.

The irony is that I wrote "our" by accident, really. But I really don't think it's a big deal.

I'm just happy you used "our" instead of "are".

Do Pirates fans say Arrrrgh?

I'm with Eso and Lassus.

Sports fandom is, definitionally, the act of identifying yourself with a sports team. It's useful to make distinctions when writing more formally, and it's healthy to be realistic and not be a total dick when your team is winning, but we all think "we" at times, and I don't see any reason to expunge that internal feeling from my external presentation to the world.

Sports fandom is, definitionally, the act of identifying yourself with a sports team. It's useful to make distinctions when writing more formally, and it's healthy to be realistic and not be a total dick when your team is winning, but we all think "we" at times, and I don't see any reason to expunge that internal feeling from my external presentation to the world.

Well put.

Regardless of if you think people using "we" is douchey, pulling out the "wow, I didn't know you were on the team!" schtick is infinitely more douchey.

One big reason I try to avoid we/us is that people tend to say we/us after victories and they/them after losses. It tends to be fair-weatherish. To me, that's a bigger crime than self-identifying with a sports team.