Author Topic: Fire Dave Martinez - Non Player Character  (Read 67081 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Online PowerBoater69

  • Posts: 12565
    • Twitter
No way. In fact I would bet that Rizzo suggested Werth sit and that is why they backed out of any deal they apparently had in place to extend him. Not knowing the rules didn't help either.

If you don't think that Rizzo has authority to override his manager's decisions and exercises it as he sees fit you haven't been paying attention.

Online Natsinpwc

  • Posts: 12853
If you don't think that Rizzo has authority to override his manager's decisions and exercises it as he sees fit you haven't been paying attention.
I think that's a different issue with the Lerners and roster decisions.

Why would Rizzo trade for these guys to have them sit on the bench. Makes no sense. I think it was Dusty's call. He is a stubborn old man (like me) and figured Werth would break out. He sort of did in game 5 but his defense had already cost them.

Anyway it's all speculation. We probably will never know.

Online varoadking

  • Posts: 23603
  • Monsters of da Midway
If you don't think that Rizzo has authority to override his manager's decisions and exercises it as he sees fit you haven't been paying attention.

He didn't have to...Rusty was all in on Werth...

Offline bluestreak

  • Posts: 6111
I think it’s funny that that everyone thinks Dusty was doing all this on his own. Like all those pitching changes didn’t have input from Maddux. Modern baseball teams have lots of input from the GM. And the fact that all reports are saying that Rizzo wanted to keep Dusty makes me think that Dusty wasn’t going Rogue.

Online varoadking

  • Posts: 23603
  • Monsters of da Midway
I think it’s funny that that everyone thinks Dusty was doing all this on his own. Like all those pitching changes didn’t have input from Maddux. Modern baseball teams have lots of input from the GM. And the fact that all reports are saying that Rizzo wanted to keep Dusty makes me think that Dusty wasn’t going Rogue.

I don't recall anyone using the term rogue...

...and if anyone thinks Rizzo makes any decisions...I think they are badly mistaken...

Offline shoeshineboy

  • Posts: 7885
  • Walks Kill!! Walks Kill! Walks Kill!!!!
Great hire.

Online PowerBoater69

  • Posts: 12565
    • Twitter
No one is better suited to manage the Nats. Guess that sells better than saying we had an opening and he was available at the right price.



Blah blah blah, vomit

Offline imref

  • Posts: 27061
  • 1B: The New Hot Corner
Grant Paulson:

“Mike Rizzo's statement on Dave Martinez: Said he's progressive and "someone who embraces the analytical side of the game." Interesting.”

Offline KnorrForYourMoney

  • Posts: 15718
  • pissy DC sports fan
If you don't think that Rizzo has authority to override his manager's decisions and exercises it as he sees fit you haven't been paying attention.
I don't recall anyone using the term rogue...

...and if anyone thinks Rizzo makes any decisions...I think they are badly mistaken...

I'll just leave this here.

Offline KnorrForYourMoney

  • Posts: 15718
  • pissy DC sports fan
I doubt DMart will be any more successful than Rusty Choker with this team of mental midgets, but I can't help but wonder what will happen if he magically ends up being the first manager to lead the Nats to a pennant or--more amazingly--a World Series Championship.

The best case scenario is self-immolation, but they'll probably go around claiming they were behind the guy all along like a bunch of Dallas Cowboys fans in January.

Online PowerBoater69

  • Posts: 12565
    • Twitter
Grant Paulson:

“Mike Rizzo's statement on Dave Martinez: Said he's progressive and "someone who embraces the analytical side of the game." Interesting.”

As always, taking shots at the last guy while building up the new guy. If I have time I'll collect some quotes of each manager being hyped up. They're always trying to find a new guy to correct their perceived flaws with the guy they just canned.

A new rider climbs aboard, the carousel continues to spin.

Offline Ray D

  • Posts: 10073
Wasn't Matt Williams describes as progressive? Wasn't Manny Acta?

Offline HalfSmokes

  • Posts: 19630
Wasn't Matt Williams describes as progressive? Wasn't Manny Acta?

yep any non-geriatric hire is described that way

Offline skippy1999

  • Posts: 16454
  • Keep him a Nat, Scott!
I doubt DMart will be any more successful than Rusty Choker with this team of mental midgets, but I can't help but wonder what will happen if he magically ends up being the first manager to lead the Nats to a pennant or--more amazingly--a World Series Championship.

The best case scenario is self-immolation, but they'll probably go around claiming they were behind the guy all along like a bunch of Dallas Cowboys fans in January.

:lmao:

Offline DPMOmaha

  • Posts: 22094
Wasn't Matt Williams describes as progressive? Wasn't Manny Acta?
Went back and read a couple of stories about Williams introduction as manager and never really got any sense that he was thought of as progressive. Some mentioned that he would use the information that was available, and they were good tools and that he used to be known as "old school" and that if he didn't use them he'd get left behind. There was more about him being passionate, and hard working than there was about him being progressive. Can't find much about Acta one way or the other, though the availability of such information hadn't taken off like it has in the decade since.

Offline whytev

  • Posts: 8768
Best possible hire. I'm just mad they let Maddux walk. Yeah, the new manager should pick his team or whatever, but literally every manager in MLB would pick either Maddux or the Pirates guy.

And Maddux was hired before Dusty anyway.

Offline imref

  • Posts: 27061
  • 1B: The New Hot Corner
When did Dave become Davey?

Offline Ray D

  • Posts: 10073
And Maddux was hired before Dusty anyway.
Jesus Christ for God sake, you (and others) keep saying this, and I keep pointing out, Dusty was hired November 3, and Maddux November 4.

Offline whytev

  • Posts: 8768
Jesus Christ for God sake, you (and others) keep saying this, and I keep pointing out, Dusty was hired November 3, and Maddux November 4.

The process started before Dusty was hired, per Janes.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/nationals-journal/wp/2017/10/30/the-nationals-have-their-manager-but-more-work-remains/?tid=a_inl&utm_term=.9d517724aa4f

Quote
The Nationals likely will not give him total free rein to do so. They hired Mike Maddux before the 2016 season, a process that began before the Nationals hired Baker.

Clearly they had Maddux in the bag when things fell apart with Black. But yeah, keep swearing and pointing at your calendar.

Online PowerBoater69

  • Posts: 12565
    • Twitter
When did Dave become Davey?

He's referred to as Dave by the team, but I saw a bunch of tweets calling him Davey. I get the impression that he introduces himself as Dave while people who know him call him Davey.

Offline KnorrForYourMoney

  • Posts: 15718
  • pissy DC sports fan
The process started before Dusty was hired, per Janes.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/nationals-journal/wp/2017/10/30/the-nationals-have-their-manager-but-more-work-remains/?tid=a_inl&utm_term=.9d517724aa4f

Clearly they had Maddux in the bag when things fell apart with Black. But yeah, keep swearing and pointing at your calendar.

 :hysterical: :clap: Sanity

Offline captkirk42

  • Posts: 1243
    • Curly W Cards
I'll wait to see how he does before demanding we FIRE him. Wait shouldn't the thread title be "Fire Davey Martinez NOW"?

However, with out first managerial experience club (Williams, Acta) we haven't done to well.  :?

Offline bluestreak

  • Posts: 6111
Fire Dave(y) Martinez!
« Reply #97: November 01, 2017, 12:25:20 PM »
Placeholder...

Offline aBaltoNat

  • Posts: 1523
Re: Fire Dave Martinez!
« Reply #98: November 01, 2017, 12:28:04 PM »
Davey, dude. It's Davey.

Offline Slateman

  • Posts: 45598
  • thanosdidnothingwrong
Re: Fire Dave Martinez!
« Reply #99: November 01, 2017, 12:30:54 PM »
Don't we already have this thread?