Author Topic: Fire Rizzo  (Read 210210 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline PowerBoater69

  • Posts: 13817
    • Twitter
Re: Fire Rizzo
« Reply #3700: August 16, 2018, 05:53:18 AM »
Rizzo has one more year imo. If the Nats don't go deep in the playoffs next year I say the Nats move on.

A GM switch isn't going to happen but now would be the best time. The Nats have 60-65 million in salary opening up, Rizzo will be making long term deals with that money that will for better or worse set the team up for the next few years. Bringing in a new GM next year with half that amount of funds to work with would limit what he could do.

Offline rileyn

  • Posts: 3624
Re: Fire Rizzo
« Reply #3701: August 16, 2018, 06:52:13 AM »
No, he looks really smart.

What trade fixed this? Legit, who were they going to trade for that was going to fix this crap?
Nobody was going to fix this year, but could have gotten some assets for Bryce, Murphy, Gio, Herrara, Madson, etc..,

Offline HalfSmokes

  • Posts: 20240
Re: Fire Rizzo
« Reply #3702: August 16, 2018, 06:54:56 AM »
Nobody was going to fix this year, but could have gotten some assets for Bryce, Murphy, Gio, Herrara, Madson, etc..,

Exactly this, if you have guys walking at the end of the season and you’re not making the playoffs, you should be maximizing their value to the team by flipping them

Offline Slateman

  • Posts: 53082
Re: Fire Rizzo
« Reply #3703: August 16, 2018, 07:19:48 AM »
Nobody was going to fix this year, but could have gotten some assets for Bryce, Murphy, Gio, Herrara, Madson, etc..,

Exactly this, if you have guys walking at the end of the season and you’re not making the playoffs, you should be maximizing their value to the team by flipping them
That was an ownership decision

Offline HalfSmokes

  • Posts: 20240
Re: Fire Rizzo
« Reply #3704: August 16, 2018, 07:23:32 AM »
That was an ownership decision

Source?

Offline Slateman

  • Posts: 53082
Re: Fire Rizzo
« Reply #3705: August 16, 2018, 07:40:11 AM »
Source?

Reports of Rizzo lining up deals + Ownership releasing public letter = Ownership decision. Just like firing Dusty, BTW.

Offline HalfSmokes

  • Posts: 20240
Re: Fire Rizzo
« Reply #3706: August 16, 2018, 07:49:06 AM »
So it’s a fact in your mind

Offline Slateman

  • Posts: 53082
Re: Fire Rizzo
« Reply #3707: August 16, 2018, 07:50:39 AM »
So it’s a fact in your mind
It's what the evidence can reasonably lead one to conclude.

Online Natsinpwc

  • Posts: 15683
Re: Fire Rizzo
« Reply #3708: August 16, 2018, 07:51:10 AM »
So it’s a fact in your mind
I believe there were reports that he was told to pull back some players from the trade market. Of course that could be Rizzo spin. Too lazy to look up.

Offline HalfSmokes

  • Posts: 20240
Re: Fire Rizzo
« Reply #3709: August 16, 2018, 07:55:39 AM »
It's what the evidence can reasonably lead one to conclude.



Offline bluestreak

  • Posts: 9494
Re: Fire Rizzo
« Reply #3710: August 16, 2018, 08:00:08 AM »
It's what the evidence can reasonably lead one to conclude.

Is there evidence other than unattributed quotes?

Offline Slateman

  • Posts: 53082
Re: Fire Rizzo
« Reply #3711: August 16, 2018, 08:01:14 AM »
I believe there were reports that he was told to pull back some players from the trade market. Of course that could be Rizzo spin. Too lazy to look up.
This.

Is there evidence other than unattributed quotes?
Plenty of stuff was posted at the deadline. Teams were interested. Rizzo had already done the work on the back end.

The bottom line is that ownership said no.

Offline dcpatti

  • Posts: 3051
Re: Fire Rizzo
« Reply #3712: August 16, 2018, 09:48:05 AM »
The most serious trade offer for Harper came from Cleveland and reportedly did not include any of their Top 10 prospects. After the Top 10, all they have is outfielders and lottery tickets, and that kinda sounds like what we already have in our farm, so I don't blame the Nats from pulling back from that one.  The deal wouldn't have made the farm better. Why lose the last real leverage you ahve over Harper in exchange for some random PNats?

The only other serious offer that was in the works was from the Red Sox, for Herrera, but it sounds like what the Sox wanted to offer wasn't all that awesome.

We weren't going to get anything for Kelley or Madson. Remember that guys like Stammen didn't get traded at the deadline either, and he's a solid reliever who can give you multiple innings, and he's on a super cheap contract through 2019.  If the Padres couldn't move Stammen, we really shouldn't be surprised that no one wanted Madson or Kelley, or that we only got a lottery ticket for Kintzler.

 

Plenty of stuff was posted at the deadline. Teams were interested. Rizzo had already done the work on the back end.

The bottom line is that ownership said no.

Doing the work on the back end is Rizzo's job. There is nothing wrong with pulling a deal back if the offer sucks, and it sounds like the offers we got did indeed suck.

Offline bluestreak

  • Posts: 9494
Re: Fire Rizzo
« Reply #3713: August 16, 2018, 10:44:39 AM »
Patti is saying, much more eloquently than I have tried to say at the time, that selling at the deadline would likely not have brought back significant return that would change the future of the franchise. I think everyone here had dreams of big prospect hauls for these guys, but it just wasn’t there.

I mean people on here literally hate Gio and want him gone, but somehow expected someone to give up significant assets for him? Same with Kelley.

Murphy might have made sense, but how many teams were going to be giving up a lot for a second baseman that can’t field well. Rental Bats don’t bring the return they used to.

I think Rizzo thought they were close enough at the deadline that the return that he would of gotten for selling was not worth giving up on the chance for a comeback. But maybe he thought that the chance of a comeback was not good enough to mortgage the future.

I’m not super upset with this strategy given the core left and the money coming off the books in the off-season

Offline HalfSmokes

  • Posts: 20240
Re: Fire Rizzo
« Reply #3714: August 16, 2018, 10:46:46 AM »
Patti is saying, much more eloquently than I have tried to say at the time, that selling at the deadline would likely not have brought back significant return that would change the future of the franchise. I think everyone here had dreams of big prospect hauls for these guys, but it just wasn’t there.

I mean people on here literally hate Gio and want him gone, but somehow expected someone to give up significant assets for him? Same with Kelley.

Murphy might have made sense, but how many teams were going to be giving up a lot for a second baseman that can’t field well. Rental Bats don’t bring the return they used to.

I think Rizzo thought they were close enough at the deadline that the return that he would of gotten for selling was not worth giving up on the chance for a comeback. But maybe he thought that the chance of a comeback was not good enough to mortgage the future.

I’m not super upset with this strategy given the core left and the money coming off the books in the off-season

anyone hoping for super star prospects in return is delusional, however, we could have gotten some prospects who may have eventually ended up on the major league roster and, more importantly if they want to compete next year, we could have ducked under the luxury tax threshold

Offline dcpatti

  • Posts: 3051
Re: Fire Rizzo
« Reply #3715: August 16, 2018, 10:59:43 AM »
anyone hoping for super star prospects in return is delusional, however, we could have gotten some prospects who may have eventually ended up on the major league roster and, more importantly if they want to compete next year, we could have ducked under the luxury tax threshold

We would have had to move multiple high-dollar players to get under the luxury tax, and if teams are taking on that much money (especially for rentals like Gio or Murphy), they're not going to give you decent prospects.  If you want a comparable for Murphy, look at Cabrera, who netted a 23-year-old AA pitcher with a history of control issues (56 walks in 120 innings this season, which is consistent with his minors career).  Lottery ticket. But even that would be a bit more than what was realistic for Murphy since Cabrera's salary is half of Murph's.

Moving Gio would have cleared some money off the books but we still kinda need someone to take the ball every 5th day.  We don't have the depth in the farm to absorb the losses we're already facing, and it seems like Stras coming off the DL might just be an exchange for Helly going onto it.  And we don't have the bullpen to go full Tampa and just throw a bunch of "openers" out there.

Offline HalfSmokes

  • Posts: 20240
Re: Fire Rizzo
« Reply #3716: August 16, 2018, 11:04:24 AM »
We would have had to move multiple high-dollar players to get under the luxury tax, and if teams are taking on that much money (especially for rentals like Gio or Murphy), they're not going to give you decent prospects.  If you want a comparable for Murphy, look at Cabrera, who netted a 23-year-old AA pitcher with a history of control issues (56 walks in 120 innings this season, which is consistent with his minors career).  Lottery ticket. But even that would be a bit more than what was realistic for Murphy since Cabrera's salary is half of Murph's.

Moving Gio would have cleared some money off the books but we still kinda need someone to take the ball every 5th day.

even if we unloaded high salary guys for nothing, it would still be worth it to avoid repeat offender status next year. The relievers may have gotten something in return. As far as every fifth game, what's the downside to a random journeyman, a loss?

Offline aspenbubba

  • Posts: 4534
Re: Fire Rizzo
« Reply #3717: August 16, 2018, 11:10:00 AM »
The returns were of little value trading Harper, Murph, Gio etc. As of late Sunday nite we could have been only 4 1/2 back rather than 9 like today. I agree with DC Patti and BS. In hindsight anything would have been better than nothing but we had a small window of hope until Madson and Solis blew it like Storen.

Offline spidernat

  • Posts: 75662
  • The Lerners are Cheap AND Crooked
Re: Fire Rizzo
« Reply #3718: August 16, 2018, 11:10:07 AM »


I mean people on here literally hate Gio and want him gone, but somehow expected someone to give up significant assets for him? Same with Kelley.





I didn't think that at all. I just want him gone. Same with Kelley.

Offline Slateman

  • Posts: 53082
Re: Fire Rizzo
« Reply #3719: August 16, 2018, 11:12:27 AM »
The most serious trade offer for Harper came from Cleveland and reportedly did not include any of their Top 10 prospects. After the Top 10, all they have is outfielders and lottery tickets, and that kinda sounds like what we already have in our farm, so I don't blame the Nats from pulling back from that one.  The deal wouldn't have made the farm better. Why lose the last real leverage you ahve over Harper in exchange for some random PNats?

What did you think you would get offered for a guy hitting like complete garbage?

anyone hoping for super star prospects in return is delusional, however, we could have gotten some prospects who may have eventually ended up on the major league roster and, more importantly if they want to compete next year, we could have ducked under the luxury tax threshold
This times a million

We would have had to move multiple high-dollar players to get under the luxury tax, and if teams are taking on that much money (especially for rentals like Gio or Murphy), they're not going to give you decent prospects.  If you want a comparable for Murphy, look at Cabrera, who netted a 23-year-old AA pitcher with a history of control issues (56 walks in 120 innings this season, which is consistent with his minors career).  Lottery ticket. But even that would be a bit more than what was realistic for Murphy since Cabrera's salary is half of Murph's.

Moving Gio would have cleared some money off the books but we still kinda need someone to take the ball every 5th day.

Then move them. The seasons was freaking over and everyone could see that but the Lerners. You move all of those contracts for whatever you can get, dip under the luxury tax threshold, and put yourself in the best position possible for next season.

Also, Rizzo has a habit of taking those "lottery tickets" and turning them into pieces we need. You remember Travis Ott? He was the throw in piece needed to get Trea Turner and Joe Ross. Ian Krol was that piece to get Doug Fister. Rizzo has actually depleted the farm system of a lot of those types of pieces to remain competitive, and it's not a bad idea to try and restock them. Between that and the development of the Dominican Academy and the farm system would be pretty damn strong.

Offline UMDNats

  • Posts: 16750
Re: Fire Rizzo
« Reply #3720: August 16, 2018, 11:14:48 AM »
I mean we traded Guzman for Tanner Roark, who was a turd! And look what he became! The more "lottery tickets" you have, the better your chances. It's preferable to watching a team of veterans go through the motions for 2 months.

Offline dcpatti

  • Posts: 3051
Re: Fire Rizzo
« Reply #3721: August 16, 2018, 11:29:52 AM »
even if we unloaded high salary guys for nothing, it would still be worth it to avoid repeat offender status next year. The relievers may have gotten something in return. As far as every fifth game, what's the downside to a random journeyman, a loss?

We don't even have any random journeymen though. Everyone capable of throwing a ball is already either on the roster or on the DL, save Jefry Rodriguez, and it's about to be his turn.

I think you're really underestimating just how many guys we would have needed to offload to get down under the luxury tax threshold.  The player salaries alone are right at the cap, maybe a hair under, but not a whole lot of breathing room, but the other stuff that go into the calculation take us a fair bit over. (the other stuff is "health and pension benefits; clubs medical costs; insurance; workman's compensation, payroll, unemployment and Social Security taxes; spring training allowances; meal and tip money; All-Star game expenses; travel and moving expenses; postseason pay; and college scholarships." according to an article on philly.com).  These are harder for us fans to calculate but I've seen 15% upcharge as a rule of thumb, so that's anywhere from $15-30 million we'd need to trim. IF that's accurate (a big IF), you'd need to move all of Murphy, Wieters, Gio and Bryce to clear $21 million in residual salary. 

I think you're also over-estimating the market for teams who'd take our high dollar players and their salaries even if they only had to give us token cash considerations or int'l slot money in return.  Letting go of Bryce for nothing more than salary relief would be a really bad move, and no one is going to pay the current contract balance for Murphy, Gio or Wieters.   

I get it, it's frustrating to watch the season go down in flames and not have even some luxury tax relief or a potential sleeper prospect to show for it, but the reality is, there simply wasn't a market for the guys that would have been the most practical to offload.

Offline HalfSmokes

  • Posts: 20240
Re: Fire Rizzo
« Reply #3722: August 16, 2018, 11:38:44 AM »
you could have unloaded them if you packaged them - Harper plus Wieters for nothing. I just wonder how many people are going to be pissed when the team has less salary flexability next year than they're hoping for 

Offline Slateman

  • Posts: 53082
Re: Fire Rizzo
« Reply #3723: August 16, 2018, 11:40:00 AM »
We don't even have any random journeymen though. Everyone capable of throwing a ball is already either on the roster or on the DL, save Jefry Rodriguez, and it's about to be his turn.

I think you're really underestimating just how many guys we would have needed to offload to get down under the luxury tax threshold.  The player salaries alone are right at the cap, maybe a hair under, but not a whole lot of breathing room, but the other stuff that go into the calculation take us a fair bit over. (the other stuff is "health and pension benefits; clubs medical costs; insurance; workman's compensation, payroll, unemployment and Social Security taxes; spring training allowances; meal and tip money; All-Star game expenses; travel and moving expenses; postseason pay; and college scholarships." according to an article on philly.com).  These are harder for us fans to calculate but I've seen 15% upcharge as a rule of thumb, so that's anywhere from $15-30 million we'd need to trim. IF that's accurate (a big IF), you'd need to move all of Murphy, Wieters, Gio and Bryce to clear $21 million in residual salary. 

I think you're also over-estimating the market for teams who'd take our high dollar players and their salaries even if they only had to give us token cash considerations or int'l slot money in return.  Letting go of Bryce for nothing more than salary relief would be a really bad move, and no one is going to pay the current contract balance for Murphy, Gio or Wieters.   

I get it, it's frustrating to watch the season go down in flames and not have even some luxury tax relief or a potential sleeper prospect to show for it, but the reality is, there simply wasn't a market for the guys that would have been the most practical to offload.

Who cares? We needed to replace one pitcher. Gio. Somewhere there has to be someone who can start, pitch for five innings, and not give up 10 earned runs.

You had teams show interest in Gio and Harper. The debate was over the return. They were willing to take the salary. At the end of the year, salary is reduced and GMs can justify increasing their payroll when they're close to the postseason.

Offline PowerBoater69

  • Posts: 13817
    • Twitter
Re: Fire Rizzo
« Reply #3724: August 16, 2018, 01:30:54 PM »
After trading Kinzler and Kelley the Nats are $12.5 million over the cap (expenses are a set amount not a percentage or based on actual cost, $14 million for this year). To get under they would have needed to move Harper and two of either Murphy, Gonzalez, and Wieters, but now that two weeks have gone by they probably would need to move all four to get under the cap.