Author Topic: Vindication for Mike Rizzo (and the Lerners).  (Read 1358 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Online PowerBoater69

  • Posts: 9956
    • Twitter
Re: Vindication for Mike Rizzo (and the Lerners).
« Reply #25: August 13, 2012, 08:12:42 PM »
once we have an equal number of non-miserable years, I'll forget- we're at 1.5 now, so not there yet

I'd want to break .500 in the Lerner era.

Offline PANatsFan

  • Posts: 37061
  • dogs in uncensored, nudes in gameday
Re: Vindication for Mike Rizzo (and the Lerners).
« Reply #26: August 13, 2012, 08:18:05 PM »
Win the Series and it was all worth it

Offline Obed_Marsh

  • Posts: 7666
  • ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn
    • Photos
Re: Vindication for Mike Rizzo (and the Lerners).
« Reply #27: August 13, 2012, 09:00:54 PM »
OK, that's fair, I guess. Does a playoff appearance help with that equation?

Each playoff game offsets 5 losses on the doom and gloom fan index. :lol: j/k

Offline UMDNats

  • Posts: 11746
Re: Vindication for Mike Rizzo (and the Lerners).
« Reply #28: August 14, 2012, 12:04:57 AM »

Offline Smithian

  • Posts: 5497
  • Team America 2014
Re: Vindication for Mike Rizzo (and the Lerners).
« Reply #29: August 14, 2012, 12:46:04 AM »
Eye of the Tiger


Offline Lintyfresh85

  • Posts: 33802
  • Next year, maybe?
Re: Vindication for Mike Rizzo (and the Lerners).
« Reply #31: August 14, 2012, 01:11:07 AM »
ARE YOU NOT IMPRESSED?

Offline Smithian

  • Posts: 5497
  • Team America 2014
Re: Vindication for Mike Rizzo (and the Lerners).
« Reply #32: August 14, 2012, 01:39:26 AM »



Offline JMW IV

  • Posts: 11287
  • Name on the Front > Name on The Back
Re: Vindication for Mike Rizzo (and the Lerners).
« Reply #33: August 14, 2012, 01:41:31 AM »
Let's all be totally honest and truthful here and acknowledge the real facts of the matter:

There is and will ever be only ONE Vindicator.

Offline aussienatsfan

  • Posts: 2592
Re: Vindication for Mike Rizzo (and the Lerners).
« Reply #34: August 14, 2012, 07:58:45 AM »
There are some who will never forgive Rizzo and the Lerners for those miserable years. Me? Eh, they seem like a distant memory to me now.

I'm the same, I started following the nats at their lowest ebb, I know some die Garda who have been in it from the start are mad they put up with 100 loss seasons, but you'd be naive to think we could have had Harper and stras had we spent more for free agents to make the team hot .500

We are in this position because we stunk up the joint for years, and I for one have no problem with it.

In sport you're either contending or building towards contention. Those middling teams are a nightmare to follow

Offline comish4lif

  • Posts: 2590
  • Too Stressed to care.
Re: Vindication for Mike Rizzo (and the Lerners).
« Reply #35: August 14, 2012, 08:11:32 AM »
You'd also have to be naive to think that the Nats are anything but lucky to have had their 100 loss seasons coincide with the availability of Strasburg and Harper. Look at the standings in the year before we got Harper, the Mariners were close to passing us on the way to the bottom.

I don't think being as terrible as they were was the plan. I think Kasten and Bowden had the Lerners convinced that they could be respectable on a thin budget, they had their "manager of the future" in Manny Acta and were rebuilding. Being embarrassingly bad was a happy accident.

Sure, I'm happy that we ended up with Strasburg and Harper, but we could have just as easily had a handful more wins each season and ended up with the 2nd or 3rd pick and gotten Dustin Ackley, et al. So, no, the Lerners are not off the hook for my money. I sat through those seasons where the fans seemed to care more than the owners and the owners fielded teams on the cheap. I don't blame Rizzo as much as I put the burden of those missteps on Bowden, the Lerners and Kasten.

Offline Obed_Marsh

  • Posts: 7666
  • ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn
    • Photos
Re: Vindication for Mike Rizzo (and the Lerners).
« Reply #36: August 14, 2012, 08:15:35 AM »
You'd also have to be naive to think that the Nats are anything but lucky to have had their 100 loss seasons coincide with the availability of Strasburg and Harper.

This is where the crack team of psyhics and soothsayers comes into play.

There is and will ever be only ONE Vindicator.

We can hope so since his vindication was short lived before flaming out.

Offline aussienatsfan

  • Posts: 2592
Re: Vindication for Mike Rizzo (and the Lerners).
« Reply #37: August 14, 2012, 08:16:14 AM »
I totally agree, I've had the emotional commitment for the last 4-5 years, but I haven't had to pour my cash into the team because being in Australia all I do is buy an MLB tv subscription to watch the team play, I don't have to pay to go to the park, so for that reason I understand the disappointment

Offline hammondsnats

  • Posts: 37348
  • LAC 8)
Re: Vindication for Mike Rizzo (and the Lerners).
« Reply #38: August 14, 2012, 12:13:33 PM »
they deserve blame for the losing seasons and deserve credit for this season. 

pretty much the only acceptable answer.

Online blue911

  • Posts: 16471
Re: Vindication for Mike Rizzo (and the Lerners).
« Reply #39: August 14, 2012, 01:05:51 PM »
They have stated in words and deeds that they are building for long term success. It's too soon to judge. Nevertheless retaining Jim Bowden was a huge mistake that cost them valuable years. For that they can be judged.

Offline Mathguy

  • Posts: 3850
  • Whoa That Was A Good One ! Poke His Brain Here !
    • Outer Banks Beach House
Re: Vindication for Mike Rizzo (and the Lerners).
« Reply #40: August 14, 2012, 01:09:59 PM »
Sorry I disagree - the "firesale" after 2005 was needed, even if it meant having a much poorer team the next few years.  So i don't blame the Lerners at all

they deserve blame for the losing seasons and deserve credit for this season. 

pretty much the only acceptable answer.


Offline KnorrForYourMoney

  • Posts: 14314
  • Nats hitters = Maggie Lizer
Re: Vindication for Mike Rizzo (and the Lerners).
« Reply #41: August 14, 2012, 01:13:25 PM »
Sorry I disagree - the "firesale" after 2005 was needed

Why?

Offline hammondsnats

  • Posts: 37348
  • LAC 8)
Re: Vindication for Mike Rizzo (and the Lerners).
« Reply #42: August 14, 2012, 01:13:34 PM »
Sorry I disagree - the "firesale" after 2005 was needed, even if it meant having a much poorer team the next few years.  So i don't blame the Lerners at all

of course you don't 8)

Offline Mathguy

  • Posts: 3850
  • Whoa That Was A Good One ! Poke His Brain Here !
    • Outer Banks Beach House
Re: Vindication for Mike Rizzo (and the Lerners).
« Reply #43: August 14, 2012, 01:18:37 PM »
The Nationals were an aging team without a real chance of remaining a contender.  The 2nd half of 2005 season showed that.  So the Nationals went for draft picks to go along with Ryan Zimmerman

Why?


Offline hammondsnats

  • Posts: 37348
  • LAC 8)
Re: Vindication for Mike Rizzo (and the Lerners).
« Reply #44: August 14, 2012, 01:27:42 PM »
The Nationals were an aging team without a real chance of remaining a contender.  The 2nd half of 2005 season showed that.  So the Nationals went for draft picks to go along with Ryan Zimmerman

lol okay or they could've gone down the path and said look i know we have to build the farm system up, but the fact our '05 team was so close ... we could've added a few more pieces to help our MLB club.  instead of coming out and saying, "listen we care about winning, but we're going to suck on purpose and expect you to spend money on our club while we don't"

Offline HalfSmokes

  • Posts: 15054
Re: Vindication for Mike Rizzo (and the Lerners).
« Reply #45: August 14, 2012, 01:31:32 PM »
 
So the Nationals went for draft picks to go along with Ryan Zimmerman



yet they were still years away from chasing serious talent in later rounds

Offline welch

  • Posts: 8518
  • Myer and Travis and Rice, and Bucky to manage...
Re: Vindication for Mike Rizzo (and the Lerners).
« Reply #46: August 14, 2012, 01:32:16 PM »
I don't care about 2006 any more than I care about 1956...and you can look it up, as the Perfessor would say. Done and gone.

This team looks like the best in the NL. They might not win the pennant, but they are good.

Offline KnorrForYourMoney

  • Posts: 14314
  • Nats hitters = Maggie Lizer
Re: Vindication for Mike Rizzo (and the Lerners).
« Reply #47: August 14, 2012, 01:35:55 PM »
The Nationals were an aging team without a real chance of remaining a contender.  The 2nd half of 2005 season showed that.  So the Nationals went for draft picks to go along with Ryan Zimmerman

You're deluding yourself if you think they fixed any of that in 2006.  A rotation with Pedro Astacio and Ramon Ortiz didn't address that problem.

Bowden put together those awful teams from 06-09, and the Lerners didn't bother firing him.

Offline hammondsnats

  • Posts: 37348
  • LAC 8)
Re: Vindication for Mike Rizzo (and the Lerners).
« Reply #48: August 14, 2012, 01:37:16 PM »
I don't care about 2006 any more than I care about 1956...and you can look it up, as the Perfessor would say. Done and gone.

This team looks like the best in the NL. They might not win the pennant, but they are good.

nobody from LAC/LoD has brought it up, until someone from LANC/SSS brings up and says there should be vindication.  As I said, they deserve credit now ... but they deserved blame for putting the fans and team through what they did.

Offline JCA-CrystalCity

  • Global Moderator
  • ****
  • Posts: 17971
  • Platoon - not just a movie, a baseball obsession
Re: Vindication for Mike Rizzo (and the Lerners).
« Reply #49: August 14, 2012, 01:49:30 PM »
When did the Lerners take control?  I thought it was after the 2006 season started?  I'm not sure you can blame them for not re-signing Loaiza.  I don't know what went into the decision to trade Wilkerson, Sledge, and I think Galarraga for Soriano, but I would not call the move a cost-cutter or even that bad a call in terms of talent judgment.  2005 was a half a year of luck.  Especially after Patterson got hurt, we weren't going anywhere off of the talent we had left over from 2005.  You can even argue they may have been too timid in breaking up that team and should have moved more guys.