Author Topic: Fire Rizzo  (Read 206141 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline aspenbubba

  • Posts: 4414
Re: Fire Rizzo
« Reply #3775: August 21, 2018, 06:28:38 AM »
Before the Mets game melt down Kelley had allowed one run in his previous 13 games. Since the trade he has allowed zero runs and just one hit in four appearances. We could use a guy like that in our bullpen.


He didn't pitch in high leverage situations

Offline PowerBoater69

  • Posts: 13542
    • Twitter
Re: Fire Rizzo
« Reply #3776: August 25, 2018, 10:28:53 AM »
Nationals record with Mike Rizzo as GM: 827-759

Oakland over the same time: 797-790
Tampa Bay over the same time: 826-762

Yea, imma stick with Rizzo taking a bottom feeding, consecutive 100 loss team and turning them into perennial division champs.

(Swapped this over from Fire Martinez)

In those ten years the Nats spent $1,197 million in payroll (25 man roster per COTS), the Rays spent $667 million, and the As spent $703 million. I'm pretty sure that the Rays and As could have won more than 827 games had they been given an extra half billion in payroll to spend. This is the thing that is so laughable about Rizzo's reputation, he built this team by spending huge amounts of the Lerner's cash, not based on some mystical brilliance.

What's worse is all of the money Rizzo has tied up in the future, he has committed the Nats to $235 million for 2019 and beyond, most of that is Scherzer but a lot of it is Zimmerman and Strasburg. In contrast the Rays have $42 million and As $37 committed. Any GM taking over for Rizzo is going to be severely limited in what he can do based on so much money already tied up (not saying it will be this off season).

With all of the expiring contracts the Nats will be about $65 million under the cap for 2019, and with a 50% penalty they will almost certainly spend somewhere below that amount (in AAV). But in order to get top quality free agents to come here Rizzo is going to need to offer multiple year deals. So I would expect the Nats to add $200-250 million in payroll for 2019 and beyond. Which is great if it works out, great that our owners will spend that much and that there will be no rebuilding phase. But this is extremely high risk, a couple more bum contracts along with the often injured Zim and Stras could put the Nats into an MLB version of salary cap hell.

Offline Slateman

  • Posts: 51119
Re: Fire Rizzo
« Reply #3777: August 25, 2018, 01:05:34 PM »
(Swapped this over from Fire Martinez)

In those ten years the Nats spent $1,197 million in payroll (25 man roster per COTS), the Rays spent $667 million, and the As spent $703 million. I'm pretty sure that the Rays and As could have won more than 827 games had they been given an extra half billion in payroll to spend. This is the thing that is so laughable about Rizzo's reputation, he built this team by spending huge amounts of the Lerner's cash, not based on some mystical brilliance.

What's worse is all of the money Rizzo has tied up in the future, he has committed the Nats to $235 million for 2019 and beyond, most of that is Scherzer but a lot of it is Zimmerman and Strasburg. In contrast the Rays have $42 million and As $37 committed. Any GM taking over for Rizzo is going to be severely limited in what he can do based on so much money already tied up (not saying it will be this off season).

With all of the expiring contracts the Nats will be about $65 million under the cap for 2019, and with a 50% penalty they will almost certainly spend somewhere below that amount (in AAV). But in order to get top quality free agents to come here Rizzo is going to need to offer multiple year deals. So I would expect the Nats to add $200-250 million in payroll for 2019 and beyond. Which is great if it works out, great that our owners will spend that much and that there will be no rebuilding phase. But this is extremely high risk, a couple more bum contracts along with the often injured Zim and Stras could put the Nats into an MLB version of salary cap hell.

And? The Nats payroll only exploded in recent years. You start comparing 2011 to present and the Rays/A's arent even close.

Wanting to be like those teams is basically asking for a ton of bandwagon fans who show up once every 3-6 years, because they generally suck the others.

Rays and A's have three consecutive seasons of sub.500 ball. The Nats have not endured that. It is unlikely that the Rays will be competitive at any point in the next 3 seasons, and I would be surprised if the A's could maintain competitiveness for the stretch the Nats have. Those two teams basically suck for a few seasons, finally get good, take a shot, and then re-build.

The Washington Nationals have fielded a competitive team for 6 straight seasons. Only the Dodgers can claim that.

Offline dcpatti

  • Posts: 3051
Re: Fire Rizzo
« Reply #3778: August 25, 2018, 01:27:15 PM »


The Washington Nationals have fielded a competitive team for 6 straight seasons. Only the Dodgers can claim that.

In the 10-year span cited earlier, the Dodgers have spent ~1937 million (compared to the Nats 1197 million). In the most recent 6 years, it’s 1393 Dodgers - 906 Nats.  The Dodgers have had more playoff success than the Nats but haven’t won a ring and I’m gonna go out on a limb and say that that one World Series appearance wasn’t worth the extra 487 million.  The Nats have also not dumped any high dollar, toxic contracts, so they’ve gotten better value for their dollar than the Dodgers (and hopefully Strasburg will figure out how to stay healthy so we can still say that in 5 years).

The Dodgers are also seriously underperforming this season, partially due to injuries, partially due to nobody-knows-why. But they’re a very good team to compare the Nats to.

Offline PowerBoater69

  • Posts: 13542
    • Twitter
Re: Fire Rizzo
« Reply #3779: August 25, 2018, 03:10:03 PM »
And? The Nats payroll only exploded in recent years. You start comparing 2011 to present and the Rays/A's arent even close.

Wanting to be like those teams is basically asking for a ton of bandwagon fans who show up once every 3-6 years, because they generally suck the others.

Rays and A's have three consecutive seasons of sub.500 ball. The Nats have not endured that. It is unlikely that the Rays will be competitive at any point in the next 3 seasons, and I would be surprised if the A's could maintain competitiveness for the stretch the Nats have. Those two teams basically suck for a few seasons, finally get good, take a shot, and then re-build.

The Washington Nationals have fielded a competitive team for 6 straight seasons. Only the Dodgers can claim that.

One more win for a half billion dollars difference over ten years. That's really bad. The Nats have been competitive based on Lerner spending and a weak NL East. Rizzo is the most over rated executive in local sports.

Offline varoadking

  • Posts: 26179
  • King of Goodness
Re: Fire Rizzo
« Reply #3780: August 25, 2018, 03:15:53 PM »
In the 10-year span cited earlier, the Dodgers have spent ~1937 million (compared to the Nats 1197 million). In the most recent 6 years, it’s 1393 Dodgers - 906 Nats.  The Dodgers have had more playoff success than the Nats but haven’t won a ring and I’m gonna go out on a limb and say that that one World Series appearance wasn’t worth the extra 487 million.  The Nats have also not dumped any high dollar, toxic contracts, so they’ve gotten better value for their dollar than the Dodgers (and hopefully Strasburg will figure out how to stay healthy so we can still say that in 5 years).

The Dodgers are also seriously underperforming this season, partially due to injuries, partially due to nobody-knows-why. But they’re a very good team to compare the Nats to.

Dodgers ticket prices seem to run 2x+ that of the Nats...and they enjoy 50% greater attendance...

Offline HalfSmokes

  • Posts: 20168
Re: Fire Rizzo
« Reply #3781: August 25, 2018, 03:21:45 PM »
Dodgers ticket prices seem to run 2x+ that of the Nats...and they enjoy 50% greater attendance...

And a tv deal so good it’s bankrupting their rsn

Offline DCFan

  • Posts: 13109
  • What are you dense?
Re: Fire Rizzo
« Reply #3782: August 25, 2018, 03:23:37 PM »
And a tv deal so good it’s bankrupting their rsn

I thought there was no tv deal? Or was the issue with a specific cable company?

Offline HalfSmokes

  • Posts: 20168
Re: Fire Rizzo
« Reply #3783: August 25, 2018, 03:26:41 PM »
I thought there was no tv deal? Or was the issue with a specific cable company?

http://www.latimes.com/sports/mlb/la-sp-dodgers-tv-ktla-20180223-story.html

8.35 billion over 25 years, to make it work, the carriage fees have to be so high that providers declined to carry them

Offline varoadking

  • Posts: 26179
  • King of Goodness
Re: Fire Rizzo
« Reply #3784: August 25, 2018, 03:28:34 PM »
http://www.latimes.com/sports/mlb/la-sp-dodgers-tv-ktla-20180223-story.html

8.35 billion over 25 years, to make it work, the carriage fees have to be so high that providers declined to carry them

That's Harper money!

Offline Slateman

  • Posts: 51119
Re: Fire Rizzo
« Reply #3785: August 25, 2018, 03:45:08 PM »
One more win for a half billion dollars difference over ten years. That's really bad. The Nats have been competitive based on Lerner spending and a weak NL East. Rizzo is the most over rated executive in local sports.

Six years of a competitive team and above .500 records are worth it. The Nats have been competitive based on Rizzo's drafts and moves

Offline PowerBoater69

  • Posts: 13542
    • Twitter
Re: Fire Rizzo
« Reply #3786: August 25, 2018, 03:48:31 PM »
Six years of a competitive team and above .500 records are worth it. The Nats have been competitive based on Rizzo's drafts and moves

Four of six.

Rizzo does great at the draft when he has a top ten pick.

Offline Slateman

  • Posts: 51119
Re: Fire Rizzo
« Reply #3787: August 25, 2018, 03:53:33 PM »
Four of six.

Rizzo does great at the draft when he has a top ten pick.

We've been competitive all six. We've had records above .500 all six.

Offline Natsinpwc

  • Posts: 14953
Re: Fire Rizzo
« Reply #3788: August 25, 2018, 04:17:01 PM »
We've been competitive all six. We've had records above .500 all six.
Yep. And 2011 was one game below .500. I can’t believe anyone wants us to become the Rays.

Offline hotshot

  • Posts: 894
Re: Fire Rizzo
« Reply #3789: August 25, 2018, 05:01:45 PM »
Yep. And 2011 was one game below .500. I can’t believe anyone wants us to become the Rays.

Who said that? Point was that the Rays were getting so much more from their investment in their roster than we were this year.  With resources that don't come close to being comparable. Someone (or two) needs to be held accountable for that.

Offline Slateman

  • Posts: 51119
Re: Fire Rizzo
« Reply #3790: August 25, 2018, 05:04:51 PM »
Who said that? Point was that the Rays were getting so much more from their investment in their roster than we were this year.  With resources that don't come close to being comparable. Someone (or two) needs to be held accountable for that.

The point was that they're really not. They are a team that is good once every 3-6 seasons. The Nationals have been consistently good for six seasons now. That's what all that money has bought.

I chose 2009 because that's when Rizzo took over.  You start in 2012, when Rizzo makes his first major trade, and the Nationals have the second most wins in baseball.

So ... yes. Someone should be accountable for that

Offline Natsinpwc

  • Posts: 14953
Re: Fire Rizzo
« Reply #3791: August 25, 2018, 05:16:09 PM »
Who said that? Point was that the Rays were getting so much more from their investment in their roster than we were this year.  With resources that don't come close to being comparable. Someone (or two) needs to be held accountable for that.
That’s one year. They really have no hope of competing for years in that division. The Phillies are a better example because they have overachieved and are competing this year with low payroll. That comes after 5 or 6 awful years for them. And their payroll will have to go up if they want to continue to compete
Let’s see what the Nats do in the offseason before giving up on them. 

Offline PowerBoater69

  • Posts: 13542
    • Twitter
Re: Fire Rizzo
« Reply #3792: August 25, 2018, 05:31:08 PM »
Yep. And 2011 was one game below .500. I can’t believe anyone wants us to become the Rays.

Become the Rays? That's the Rizzo delusion, we are the Rays. One game different over ten years. If anything they are the better team because they are facing much tougher competition most years. Rizzo spent a half billion more for at best an even match.

Offline Slateman

  • Posts: 51119
Re: Fire Rizzo
« Reply #3793: August 25, 2018, 05:51:15 PM »
Become the Rays? That's the Rizzo delusion, we are the Rays. One game different over ten years. If anything they are the better team because they are facing much tougher competition most years. Rizzo spent a half billion more for at best an even match.

:lmao: We're the Rays :lmao:

God you're stupid.

Re: Fire Rizzo
« Reply #3794: August 25, 2018, 06:14:48 PM »
Rizzo's draft, trade and FA record over the years is really good. Some blemishes yes, but overall body of work is really good. Those of you making comparisons to the Rays and A's have to keep in mind that while they do well for themselves with the wins/$$$ ratio, neither of those teams has any real  chance of ever winning a World Series until their payrolls get much bigger. That's how it works in baseball. For all of the Yankees and Dodgers spending those 2 teams have won a combined 1 World Series and have only 5 WS appearances since 2000.

Offline varoadking

  • Posts: 26179
  • King of Goodness
Re: Fire Rizzo
« Reply #3795: August 25, 2018, 06:23:42 PM »
Rizzo's draft, trade and FA record over the years is really good. Some blemishes yes, but overall body of work is really good. Those of you making comparisons to the Rays and A's have to keep in mind that while they do well for themselves with the wins/$$$ ratio, neither of those teams has any real  chance of ever winning a World Series until their payrolls get much bigger. That's how it works in baseball. For all of the Yankees and Dodgers spending those 2 teams have won a combined 1 World Series and have only 5 WS appearances since 2000.

Get to the playoff's and you can win it all...or so I have been told since 2012...

Offline bluestreak

  • Posts: 8295
Re: Fire Rizzo
« Reply #3796: August 26, 2018, 11:17:04 AM »
Well I know for certain that you can’t win it all by not making it.

Offline imref

  • Posts: 29358
  • 1B: The New Hot Corner
Re: Fire Rizzo
« Reply #3797: August 31, 2018, 11:48:46 PM »
with Gio leaving, only Zimmerman, Strasburg, and Harper remain from our 2012 playoff team.

Offline varoadking

  • Posts: 26179
  • King of Goodness
Re: Fire Rizzo
« Reply #3798: September 01, 2018, 01:13:58 AM »
with Gio leaving, only Zimmerman, Strasburg, and Harper remain from our 2012 playoff team.

That's 3 too many...

Offline rileyn

  • Posts: 3452
Re: Fire Rizzo
« Reply #3799: September 01, 2018, 06:38:27 AM »
That's 3 too many...
There will only be 2 on the opening roster next season.  And if the camels are still around, there will probably be only one that will participate in spring training next year (since that plan was such a success this year).