I think Linty's right here and you guys are trolling him because he's taking an anti-Rizzo stand. I'm softer on the point and concede that there's no way of knowing whether this is the right move in the long-term and that it may well be the key to a long, sustained run of playoff appearances, but it's not like it's a no-cost move..
That said, pretending like it doesn't hurt our 2012 chances or that there was no other possible way to plan for this or that the clubhouse will be fine with it is pure homerism.
In order, (1) it does hurt our 2012 chances and anybody who argues differently doesn't get baseball. Yes, Smithian, the other 24 guys are good too and they'll try their damndest and maybe they're good enough to get it done without him, but suggesting that bemoaning the loss of Strasburg is somehow disrespectful to the other 24 misses the point. In fact, the loss of Strasburg hurts precisely BECAUSE the other 24 are so good. If the Nats were 25-0 in Strasburg's starts, but 42-56 in the other 98 games, none of this would matter. Losing Strasburg is bad in the short-term BECAUSE the other 24 are so good. Sure, maybe ZNN, EJ, Gio and Det are good enough to carry the team through, but it'd be even better with Stras.
(2) Of course the decision is the decision and it's final. That's not the issue either - the issue is that Rizzo clearly presumed at the beginning of the season that we probably weren't going to be a real contender and then didn't really think through how they might adjust as the Nats started to contend. Maybe he did the right thing there - maybe he shouldn't reconsider, if you believe in the long-term goal, but to the extent he didn't reconsider, he took no steps to mitigate the impact on what's turning out to be a pretty incredible 2012 season. Again, this isn't a "Fire Rizzo! He sucks!" point - it's just a fact. Rizzo's strategy is pure sacrifice-now-for-later. Maybe he's right.
(3) The clubhouse is not fine and won't be fine. Of course, they're professionals so they're not going to go out in the media and complain - they also might grudgingly admit that he's a long-term asset, BUT I also believe they're going to ask in their quiet moments "What about me? What about my shot to win a championship? Why isn't the team putting us in the best position to win right now? I only have (2, 4, 6, 8, 10) years left in my career - how many more times will I have this chance?" Don't think that's not weighing on guys like LaRoche and Werth and Gonzalez.
And WPA - of course he might get lit up in the playoffs - life is a crapshoot. Who do you think is more likely to get lit up in a World Series start against the Yankees - Detwiler or Stras? You don't know and neither do I*, but it seems to me if you're trying to win now, you want your best pitcher in the biggest game.
Don't get me wrong - I'm on board with shutting Stras down, and if I'm in Rizzo's chair I think I make the same call. But pretending that it's done at no cost in the short-term or that our 2012 chances aren't impacted is silly. Nobody says we can't win without him. If you made Usain Bolt run 110 meters when everybody else runs 100, he might still win because he's just that fast, but nobody would argue that he wasn't at a disadvantage.
*edit: But the Flying Spaghetti Monster and Chuck Norris do!
