Author Topic: Fire Rizzo  (Read 161971 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Terpfan76

  • Posts: 3920
  • ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ

Offline MarquisDeSade

  • Posts: 14955
  • I am Djour Djilios.
Re: Fire Rizzo
« Reply #176: August 01, 2011, 10:08:45 AM »
If you polled Nats fans right now, I bet the majority would want Rizzo fired.  I can't prove this, it's just my opinion.

If you polled Nats fans that show up to games 90% of them couldn't tell you who Mike Rizzo is hoss.  Fact.

:lmao: :lmao: :lmao:

Offline blue911

  • Posts: 17654
Re: Fire Rizzo
« Reply #177: August 01, 2011, 10:14:04 AM »
That a five ounce bird can carry a one pound coconut.

Are you suggesting coconuts migrate?


:lmao: :lmao: :lmao: :lmao:

Online UMDNats

  • Posts: 14393
Re: Fire Rizzo
« Reply #178: August 01, 2011, 10:14:29 AM »
If you polled Nats fans right now, I bet the majority would want Rizzo fired.  I can't prove this, it's just my opinion.



Done.

Offline spidernat

  • Posts: 69661
  • The Lerners are Cheap AND Crooked
Re: Fire Rizzo
« Reply #179: August 01, 2011, 10:39:55 AM »

Offline Evolution33

  • Posts: 5093
    • Blown Save, Win
Re: Fire Rizzo
« Reply #180: August 01, 2011, 10:40:08 AM »
Mike Rizzo helped to fund an upside down baseball academy in DC.

http://mlb.mlb.com/social/hitpix/index.jsp?blast=chadkurz.mlb&page_num=0&photoid=12247

Offline MarquisDeSade

  • Posts: 14955
  • I am Djour Djilios.
Re: Fire Rizzo
« Reply #181: August 01, 2011, 10:41:26 AM »
Mike Rizzo helped to fund an upside down baseball academy in DC.

http://mlb.mlb.com/social/hitpix/index.jsp?blast=chadkurz.mlb&page_num=0&photoid=12247

You could have included me there since I've probably blown two dimes on crap from the Dream Foundation...

Offline NatsSince05

  • Posts: 245
Re: Fire Rizzo
« Reply #182: August 01, 2011, 11:42:04 AM »
Rizzo's explanations (or excuses, depending on which side you're on) about the Nats' disappointing trading deadline:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/nationals-journal/post/mike-rizzo-on-the-nationals-trade-deadline/2011/07/31/gIQAXKDzlI_blog.html

Offline comish4lif

  • Posts: 2858
  • Too Stressed to care.
Re: Fire Rizzo
« Reply #183: August 01, 2011, 11:44:49 AM »
Rizzo has a bad repuation around the country.  Check out this SportsNation poll.  It's not scientific, but out of 7,264 voters, 41% blamed him entirely for the Riggleman episode, 41% blamed both Rizzo and Riggleman, and only 19% blamed Riggleman only.

http://espn.go.com/sportsnation/post/_/id/6699561/
I don't think that you can jump to the conclusion that he has a bad reputation from that survey.

Offline NatsSince05

  • Posts: 245
Re: Fire Rizzo
« Reply #184: August 01, 2011, 12:53:36 PM »
By the way, really tired of people giving Rizzo a pass on the LaRoche signing.  It has been an utter disaster from the decision to sign him through the way his injury was handled.  I'm willing to give Rizzo credit for good moves like the Ramos and Morse trades, but people who make excuses for the Werth and LaRoche signings simply aren't objective.

Offline MarquisDeSade

  • Posts: 14955
  • I am Djour Djilios.
Re: Fire Rizzo
« Reply #185: August 01, 2011, 12:56:15 PM »
By the way, really tired of people giving Rizzo a pass on the LaRoche signing.  It has been an utter disaster from the decision to sign him through the way his injury was handled. 

What controversy was there when we signed him?  The injury and not having him go under the knife sooner, sure, but the signing?

Offline KnorrForYourMoney

  • Posts: 15610
  • pissy DC sports fan
Re: Fire Rizzo
« Reply #186: August 01, 2011, 01:00:30 PM »
If you polled Nats fans that show up to games 90% of them couldn't tell you who Mike Rizzo is hoss.  Fact.

:rofl:

Online JCA-CrystalCity

  • Global Moderator
  • ****
  • Posts: 25262
  • Platoon - not just a movie, a baseball obsession
Re: Fire Rizzo
« Reply #187: August 01, 2011, 01:22:16 PM »
Rizzo has a bad repuation around the country.  Check out this SportsNation poll.  It's not scientific, but out of 7,264 voters, 41% blamed him entirely for the Riggleman episode, 41% blamed both Rizzo and Riggleman, and only 19% blamed Riggleman only.

http://espn.go.com/sportsnation/post/_/id/6699561/
Thanks.  At least you are trying to back up your statements with something you can point to objectively.  It's not a rant, which is good.  I don't think we should expect you to only post love for Rizzo. That's not fair.  This is the right thread to post your opinions and the basis for them.

As to the value of the sportsnation number, I'm sure there is a disclaimer on the site saying this is an unscientific poll.  To me, that's close to an oxymoron in terms of opinion research.  I don't place much value in the percentages, except as an indication of passion among ESPN readers who pay for insider access.  Maybe they are a knowledgeable crew.  The only outside opinions that are relevant would be how he is viewed among the folks he has to trade with and the agents with whom he negotiates.  I have not heard anything negative about that except perhaps he overvalues his players.  He may also be more of a pushover for agents, given his relationship with Boras and the contracts he has given out.

Offline comish4lif

  • Posts: 2858
  • Too Stressed to care.
Re: Fire Rizzo
« Reply #188: August 01, 2011, 01:41:34 PM »
By the way, really tired of people giving Rizzo a pass on the LaRoche signing.  It has been an utter disaster from the decision to sign him through the way his injury was handled.  I'm willing to give Rizzo credit for good moves like the Ramos and Morse trades, but people who make excuses for the Werth and LaRoche signings simply aren't objective.
Look who is trying to be objective.


Offline NatsSince05

  • Posts: 245
Re: Fire Rizzo
« Reply #189: August 01, 2011, 05:04:35 PM »
As to the value of the sportsnation number, I'm sure there is a disclaimer on the site saying this is an unscientific poll.
I actually noted that it was unscientific in my post.

Online UMDNats

  • Posts: 14393
Re: Fire Rizzo
« Reply #190: August 01, 2011, 05:06:39 PM »
Rizzo's explanations (or excuses, depending on which side you're on) about the Nats' disappointing trading deadline:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/nationals-journal/post/mike-rizzo-on-the-nationals-trade-deadline/2011/07/31/gIQAXKDzlI_blog.html

I'm only disappointed that it was a boring trading deadline overall (league-wide). I'm not disappointed in any of the moves or non-moves. I think we can address CF for much less of the cost than right now in of the offseason.

We weren't getting anything for Todd Coffey or Livan. We got some solid value for a utility player and a mediocre pitcher. Fine with me.

Offline NatsSince05

  • Posts: 245
Re: Fire Rizzo
« Reply #191: August 01, 2011, 05:25:52 PM »
We could and should have gotten more for Marquis.  Rizzo panicked and traded him too early.

Online UMDNats

  • Posts: 14393
Re: Fire Rizzo
« Reply #192: August 01, 2011, 06:22:57 PM »
We could and should have gotten more for Marquis.  Rizzo panicked and traded him too early.

Please provide specific evidence of how a player of Marquis' caliber (career 4.52 ERA) got a better return than a mediocre prospect.

Marquis is nothing special. There's a reason he's played on five teams during his careeer.

Offline PatsNats28

  • Posts: 8462
Re: Fire Rizzo
« Reply #193: August 01, 2011, 06:37:35 PM »
Please provide specific evidence of how a player of Marquis' caliber (career 4.52 ERA) got a better return than a mediocre prospect.

Marquis is nothing special. There's a reason he's played on five teams during his careeer.

Not to mention that we had no leverage with him, since he wouldn't receive any compensation. I've viewed the deal from other outlets as a win for us.

Offline houston-nat

  • Posts: 19029
Re: Fire Rizzo
« Reply #194: August 01, 2011, 06:37:49 PM »
Marquis is nothing special. There's a reason he's played on five teams during his careeer.

You might say he's a bit of a ... $45 couch.

Offline Slateman

  • Posts: 44262
  • thanosdidnothingwrong
Re: Fire Rizzo
« Reply #195: August 01, 2011, 06:40:03 PM »
I'm only disappointed that it was a boring trading deadline overall (league-wide). I'm not disappointed in any of the moves or non-moves. I think we can address CF for much less of the cost than right now in of the offseason.

We weren't getting anything for Todd Coffey or Livan. We got some solid value for a utility player and a mediocre pitcher. Fine with me.
Really? Boring? I didn't think so. Saturday and Sunday were nuts. I never would have thought Ubaldo Jimenez was going to be traded. And I really didn't think that the Yankees would have let him go.

Offline NatsSince05

  • Posts: 245
Re: Fire Rizzo
« Reply #196: August 01, 2011, 07:18:20 PM »
Hey guys, we needed "financial relief" this trading deadline, that's why we made these moves.  :|

The Chief reported that Rizzo just said that on MASN.  What a JOKE!

Online UMDNats

  • Posts: 14393
Re: Fire Rizzo
« Reply #197: August 01, 2011, 07:31:57 PM »
Really? Boring? I didn't think so. Saturday and Sunday were nuts. I never would have thought Ubaldo Jimenez was going to be traded. And I really didn't think that the Yankees would have let him go.

I was talking just about Sunday. Bourn was traded Sunday morning but 6 deals overall...meh. There was a lot of good movement before Sunday, though. I was surprised to see Ubaldo traded, too.

Offline blue911

  • Posts: 17654
Re: Fire Rizzo
« Reply #198: August 01, 2011, 10:45:18 PM »
Not to mention that we had no leverage with him, since he wouldn't receive any compensation. I've viewed the deal from other outlets as a win for us.

I have to disagree about it being a "Win". It was a fair return, nothing more nothing less

Offline PatsNats28

  • Posts: 8462
Re: Fire Rizzo
« Reply #199: August 01, 2011, 10:56:53 PM »
I have to disagree about it being a "Win". It was a fair return, nothing more nothing less

Actually, they viewed it more as a loss for the DBacks. I was fine with the deal, I liked the Hairston one more.