Author Topic: Fire Rizzo  (Read 171046 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Ray D

  • Posts: 10068
Re: Fire Rizzo
« Reply #50: December 03, 2010, 03:29:02 PM »
We would lose our second round pick.


  Ok, still come out ahead though.

Offline Lintyfresh85

  • Posts: 35048
  • Champs!
Re: Fire Rizzo
« Reply #51: December 03, 2010, 05:06:23 PM »
After Rizzo was outed by Dunn to be full of crap... I'm kind of in the 'Fire Rizzo' camp.

What a piece of crap for lying to us about the fact that he was trying to work it out with Dunn. freaker never even contacted him once after the season was over.

Offline tomterp

  • Global Moderator
  • ****
  • Posts: 33162
  • Hell yes!
Re: Fire Rizzo
« Reply #52: December 03, 2010, 05:20:24 PM »
What a piece of crap for lying to us about the fact that he was trying to work it out with Dunn. freaker never even contacted him once after the season was over.

Maybe instead of contacting Dunn, he contacted Dunn's agent.

Offline Lintyfresh85

  • Posts: 35048
  • Champs!
Re: Fire Rizzo
« Reply #53: December 03, 2010, 05:21:19 PM »
Maybe instead of contacting Dunn, he contacted Dunn's agent.

I don't know why Dunn would say the whole 'as far as I know we had no contact' line if he didn't mean his entire camp.

Offline welch

  • Posts: 12458
  • 2018: The Fight for .500
Re: Fire Rizzo
« Reply #54: December 03, 2010, 05:27:04 PM »
I never assume that anyone in business is telling the whole truth. People say whatever is convenient without leaving themselves liable to be proven to have lied.

Rizzo leaked enough stories, through Ladson, for instance, to make it clear that he wanted to drop Dunn, and to explain that he wanted  a better fielder at 1B.

Looking back, that is just what Rizzo did. No real surprise. (Foolish move, yes, of course.)

Offline OldNatsFan

  • Posts: 328
Re: Fire Rizzo
« Reply #55: December 03, 2010, 05:27:37 PM »
I would give Rizzo 2 more years and if the team isn't over .500 by then, give him the axe.

Offline Ray D

  • Posts: 10068
Re: Fire Rizzo
« Reply #56: December 03, 2010, 05:28:35 PM »
Why would he say "as far as I know". Why wouldn't he know?  (Where did he say all this, anyway?)

Offline Lintyfresh85

  • Posts: 35048
  • Champs!
Re: Fire Rizzo
« Reply #57: December 03, 2010, 05:31:07 PM »
Why would he say "as far as I know". Why wouldn't he know?  (Where did he say all this, anyway?)

Quote
By the last week of the season, the Nationals had offered a three-year contract worth roughly $35 million. Dunn leaves negotiations to his agents, but he said as far he was aware, the Nationals never made a new offer. Asked how much contact he had with the Nationals between now and the end of the season, Dunn said, "I don't believe that there's been any."

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/nationalsjournal/2010/12/adam_dunn_on_nationals_fans_an.html

Offline Ray D

  • Posts: 10068
Re: Fire Rizzo
« Reply #58: December 03, 2010, 05:33:48 PM »

Rizzo leaked enough stories, through Ladson, for instance,


Leaked stories, hell, it's worse that that; Rizzo is now writing the pieces himself.

http://washington.nationals.mlb.com/news/article.jsp?ymd=20101202&content_id=16241798&vkey=news_was&c_id=was

"The Nats will spend their money wisely on the best and only the best."

Online MarquisDeSade

  • Posts: 14958
  • I am the liquor.
Re: Fire Rizzo
« Reply #59: December 03, 2010, 05:38:24 PM »
"Washington wants more than just offensive production and solid defense off the bench. The club wants reserves who will accept their roles."

Anyone care to explain this for me?  It makes no sense.

Offline Vega

  • Posts: 5330
  • On the Cutting Edge
Re: Fire Rizzo
« Reply #60: December 03, 2010, 05:40:10 PM »
"Washington wants more than just offensive production and solid defense off the bench. The club wants reserves who will accept their roles."

Anyone care to explain this for me?  It makes no sense.
Shot at Kennedy/Morse? Dunno.

Offline UMDNats

  • Posts: 14612
Re: Fire Rizzo
« Reply #61: December 03, 2010, 05:40:13 PM »
"Washington wants more than just offensive production and solid defense off the bench. The club wants reserves who will accept their roles."

Anyone care to explain this for me?  It makes no sense.

Sounds like they don't want players to push themselves to be better and want players who will meekly accept playing once a week instead of trying to get into the lineup more (Kennedy, Gonzalez, Harris, Morse).

Online MarquisDeSade

  • Posts: 14958
  • I am the liquor.
Re: Fire Rizzo
« Reply #62: December 03, 2010, 05:41:52 PM »
Sounds like they don't want players to push themselves to be better and want players who will meekly accept playing once a week instead of trying to get into the lineup more (Kennedy, Gonzalez, Harris, Morse).

So why did we release Kevin Mench again?

Offline Ray D

  • Posts: 10068
Re: Fire Rizzo
« Reply #63: December 03, 2010, 05:43:01 PM »
http://voices.washingtonpost.com/nationalsjournal/2010/12/adam_dunn_on_nationals_fans_an.html

Thanks.

 Ok then somehow the White Sox offer should have been taken back to the Nationals.  True, the 35m offer was too little, but I'll bet that Rizzo thought he had more time.  Shame on him for assuming that, but shame on Dunn's camp for not giving Rizzo a chance to counter.   Rizzo wasn't going to match the offer, but he may have offered $42m over three years, and who knows, Dunn may have taken it, there are alot of factors and we don't know them all, he may well have turned it down, but he should have given Rizzo the chance to make a counter offer.


Offline Lintyfresh85

  • Posts: 35048
  • Champs!
Re: Fire Rizzo
« Reply #64: December 03, 2010, 05:43:04 PM »
Shot at Kennedy/Morse? Dunno.

Ha.

Had to be a shot at Morse.

How dare he tries to play his way off the bench! You stay in your role, scrub!

Offline PC

  • Posts: 47236
Re: Fire Rizzo
« Reply #65: December 03, 2010, 05:49:33 PM »
Quote
According to Cot's Baseball Contracts, the Nationals' payroll in 2010 was $66.2 million. That may go up significantly...

No chance Ladson.   :roll:


Offline Minty Fresh

  • Posts: 19637
  • #DCU
Re: Fire Rizzo
« Reply #66: December 03, 2010, 05:55:55 PM »
As bad as it seems right now, I'll (TRY TO) wait until Opening Day to cast aspersions.  I will (albeit with a touch of cynicism) put my faith in Rizzo and see what moves he makes to offset the failure to re-sign Dunn.

Offline The Chief

  • Posts: 30667
  • it's a thumb
    • http://www.wnff.net
Re: Fire Rizzo
« Reply #67: December 03, 2010, 05:56:21 PM »
Thanks.

 Ok then somehow the White Sox offer should have been taken back to the Nationals.  True, the 35m offer was too little, but I'll bet that Rizzo thought he had more time.  Shame on him for assuming that, but shame on Dunn's camp for not giving Rizzo a chance to counter.   Rizzo wasn't going to match the offer, but he may have offered $42m over three years, and who knows, Dunn may have taken it, there are alot of factors and we don't know them all, he may well have turned it down, but he should have given Rizzo the chance to make a counter offer.



Sorry but Rizzo had all year to neogtiate, and Dunn was up front about wanting a fourth year all along.

Offline blue911

  • Posts: 17769
Re: Fire Rizzo
« Reply #68: December 03, 2010, 06:29:08 PM »
Sorry but Rizzo had all year to neogtiate, and Dunn was up front about wanting a fourth year all along.

And if he couldn't get additional revenues out of ownership, what's the point of revisiting the standing offer? Offer to mow Dunn's lawn?

Offline Ray D

  • Posts: 10068
Re: Fire Rizzo
« Reply #69: December 03, 2010, 06:59:13 PM »
Sorry but Rizzo had all year to neogtiate, and Dunn was up front about wanting a fourth year all along.
I never heard about four years until around two weeks ago. He wasn't that specific, he wanted more than two. It was never really established that we had a three-year offer on the table, it's just been some assumption originally cited by Ladson that everyone else has been quoting. 
I don't think it is at all completely clear that four years was non-negotiable.

Offline NatsDad14

  • Posts: 5240
Re: Fire Rizzo
« Reply #70: December 03, 2010, 07:01:52 PM »
I never heard about four years until around two weeks ago. He wasn't that specific, he wanted more than two. It was never really established that we had a three-year offer on the table, it's just been some assumption originally cited by Ladson that everyone else has been quoting. 
I don't think it is at all completely clear that four years was non-negotiable.
The 4 years was negotiable, but the Nats couldn't match the 3/57 offer that Dunn got from another team.

Offline Ray D

  • Posts: 10068
Re: Fire Rizzo
« Reply #71: December 03, 2010, 07:05:24 PM »
The 4 years was negotiable, but the Nats couldn't match the 3/57 offer that Dunn got from another team.
You're saying he got a 3/57 offer from some team, and he took a 4/57 deal?  That doesn't make sense.

Re: Fire Rizzo
« Reply #72: December 03, 2010, 07:39:15 PM »
Fire the owners not Rizzo.

Offline Nathan

  • Posts: 10723
  • Wow. Such warnings. Very baseball. Moderator Doge.
Re: Fire Rizzo
« Reply #73: December 03, 2010, 07:40:28 PM »

FIRE EVERYONE!!!!!

Offline PC

  • Posts: 47236
Re: Fire Rizzo
« Reply #74: December 03, 2010, 08:05:54 PM »
I don't think I've ever heard a FO say they expect backup players to be happy as backup players, particularly when the players ahead of them, generally aren't that good, in the first place.