Author Topic: Fire Rizzo  (Read 311032 times)

0 Members and 3 Guests are viewing this topic.

Offline MarquisDeSade

  • Posts: 15101
  • Captain Sadness
Re: Fire Rizzo
« Reply #425: October 14, 2011, 06:30:39 AM »
Mike Morse looks like a guido Nicolas Cage.

No, absolutely not.  Morse isn't an Iiiiiiiiiiiiiiitalian and certainly isn't greasy.

Online JCA-CrystalCity

  • Global Moderator
  • ****
  • Posts: 39393
  • Platoon - not just a movie, a baseball obsession
Re: Fire Rizzo
« Reply #426: October 14, 2011, 10:23:50 AM »
Quote
Right, but you completely ignored my point that other than Werth the Lerners have never signed a free agent to more than a two year deal.  So to point out that there are no free agents on the team from more than two years ago is not very surprising.
You have raised a red herring argument that is just an excuse for more "blame the Lerners" BS. Many teams initially signed FAs to one or two year deals, especially when they are not signing a superstar, and then re-sign the guy after that period when it works out. IIRC, this was what the Phillies did with Werth, and it worked out pretty well for them. Look at that Atlanta list.  Also, your point has nothing to do with the failiure to trade for any players who were keepers.  It was just an appalling series of miscalculations that led to players passing through this system like [grass] through a goose.

Sure there were budget restraints, but that is not an excuse for atrocious misjudgments on players during the Bowden tenure.  When there was money to be spent, it went to re-signing Dmitri, Belliard, Harris, and extending Kearns, instead of selling high on the first three when they were valuable. If Bowden were competent, then we would see some of the players (other than Clippard) that he acquired as prospects from timely trading of the D/B/H types that populated this roster during that period.  Rizzo has done a terrific job in just two offseasons (and 3 regular seasons) digging this team out of the ditch it was driven into by Lerner / Kasten / Bowden.


Online JCA-CrystalCity

  • Global Moderator
  • ****
  • Posts: 39393
  • Platoon - not just a movie, a baseball obsession
Re: Fire Rizzo
« Reply #427: October 14, 2011, 10:28:02 AM »
BTW- I'm sorry for talking baseball instead of scoring in this thread.

Offline Tyler Durden

  • Posts: 7970
  • Leprechaun
Re: Fire Rizzo
« Reply #428: October 14, 2011, 10:41:41 AM »
The 'Lerners are cheap' stuff is less tiresome than the 'Rizzo likes guys' stuff.

Offline Evolution33

  • Posts: 5093
    • Blown Save, Win
Re: Fire Rizzo
« Reply #429: October 14, 2011, 10:50:22 AM »
The Nationals should just send us all the budget so we know what they are going to spend and can talk more about how they should spend it instead of will they or won't they spend at all.

Offline Mathguy

  • Posts: 9162
  • Floyd - Truely Man's best Friend
    • Outer Banks Beach House
Re: Fire Rizzo
« Reply #430: October 14, 2011, 11:14:28 AM »
Why ?  Since when did any of us become experts in how the Nats should spend ?

The Nationals should just send us all the budget so we know what they are going to spend and can talk more about how they should spend it instead of will they or won't they spend at all.


Offline PowerBoater69

  • Posts: 14265
    • Twitter
Re: Fire Rizzo
« Reply #431: October 14, 2011, 12:50:56 PM »
You have raised a red herring argument that is just an excuse for more "blame the Lerners" BS. Many teams initially signed FAs to one or two year deals, especially when they are not signing a superstar, and then re-sign the guy after that period when it works out. IIRC, this was what the Phillies did with Werth, and it worked out pretty well for them. Look at that Atlanta list.  Also, your point has nothing to do with the failiure to trade for any players who were keepers.  It was just an appalling series of miscalculations that led to players passing through this system like [grass] through a goose.

Sure there were budget restraints, but that is not an excuse for atrocious misjudgments on players during the Bowden tenure.  When there was money to be spent, it went to re-signing Dmitri, Belliard, Harris, and extending Kearns, instead of selling high on the first three when they were valuable. If Bowden were competent, then we would see some of the players (other than Clippard) that he acquired as prospects from timely trading of the D/B/H types that populated this roster during that period.  Rizzo has done a terrific job in just two offseasons (and 3 regular seasons) digging this team out of the ditch it was driven into by Lerner / Kasten / Bowden.

Taking a look at the free agent and trade list brought in by Rizzo, I only see three guys who I'd expect to have in DC in 2014, Werth, Morse, and Ramos.  So the question is whether the two hits make up for the spectacular miss.  Blame Bowden for the high turn-over or blame the man who set the budget, you're the one dealing in absolutes.  Sure Bowden should have signed some better players but the Nats weren't exactly an attractive destination (and still aren't), players routinely took less money to play elsewhere. 

Offline Evolution33

  • Posts: 5093
    • Blown Save, Win
Re: Fire Rizzo
« Reply #432: October 14, 2011, 12:54:00 PM »
Why ?  Since when did any of us become experts in how the Nats should spend ?



Not saying we are, but it would make for a better discussion than constant debate on LAC/LANC.


Online JCA-CrystalCity

  • Global Moderator
  • ****
  • Posts: 39393
  • Platoon - not just a movie, a baseball obsession
Re: Fire Rizzo
« Reply #433: October 14, 2011, 02:06:04 PM »
Absolutes?  I said L/K/B were all causes.  It's just Zuckerman's initial point, that Rizzo really has not turned over the roster and reconstructed the team, was flat out wrong, and that it is somewhat remarkable the extent he did it.   

As for the Rizzo trade / FAs so far, I'd think any of the prospects traded for, possibly Wang, H-Rod while he's cost controlled -off the top of my head - have a very good chance of being on the 40 man 3 years from now.

Offline PowerBoater69

  • Posts: 14265
    • Twitter
Re: Fire Rizzo
« Reply #434: October 14, 2011, 02:16:49 PM »
Absolutes?  I said L/K/B were all causes.  It's just Zuckerman's initial point, that Rizzo really has not turned over the roster and reconstructed the team, was flat out wrong, and that it is somewhat remarkable the extent he did it.   

As for the Rizzo trade / FAs so far, I'd think any of the prospects traded for, possibly Wang, H-Rod while he's cost controlled -off the top of my head - have a very good chance of being on the 40 man 3 years from now.

Well it sure seemed like I was being criticized for being anti-Lerner while the Bowden was being represented as the root of all that is bad with the Nats, without rereading your posts, I'll back off of my statements.

As far as Wang and HRod being with the team in three years, sure it's possible, but it's just as likely that Morse and Ramos would have moved on for any of a dozen reasons, my point being that I don't expect the high turn-over to slow down until the policy against long term contracts is changed.

Offline Evolution33

  • Posts: 5093
    • Blown Save, Win
Re: Fire Rizzo
« Reply #435: October 14, 2011, 02:22:56 PM »
Well it sure seemed like I was being criticized for being anti-Lerner while the Bowden was being represented as the root of all that is bad with the Nats, without rereading your posts, I'll back off of my statements.

As far as Wang and HRod being with the team in three years, sure it's possible, but it's just as likely that Morse and Ramos would have moved on for any of a dozen reasons, my point being that I don't expect the high turn-over to slow down until the policy against long term contracts is changed.

How many contracts of 3 or more years exist around baseball? It seems most times are against this type of thing and would prefer to have young controlable players over overpriced free agents.

Offline PowerBoater69

  • Posts: 14265
    • Twitter
Re: Fire Rizzo
« Reply #436: October 14, 2011, 02:35:49 PM »
How many contracts of 3 or more years exist around baseball? It seems most times are against this type of thing and would prefer to have young controlable players over overpriced free agents.

It's been at least a couple years since I reviewed Cots to see how the Nats matched up with other teams, but last I checked the Nats had less money tied up in future contracts than any other team.  A good thing if you are saving up to make a run; a bad thing if you don't like constant turn-over.

Edit: Here are the numbers as of July 2008:


Offline Tyler Durden

  • Posts: 7970
  • Leprechaun
Re: Fire Rizzo
« Reply #437: October 14, 2011, 02:37:26 PM »
Looking at this year's crop of free agents, there aren't too many available that are worth giving 3 or more years.  There is the A+ talent like Pujols and Fielder and maybe CC, then everyone else.  Even teh best of the rest like CJ Wilson and Jose Reyes carry significant risk of becoming John Lackey type contracts.

It may not be policy to avoid giving second and third tier players long term contracts - it might just be the smart thing to do.

Offline Evolution33

  • Posts: 5093
    • Blown Save, Win
Re: Fire Rizzo
« Reply #438: October 14, 2011, 02:38:04 PM »
It's been at least a couple years since I reviewed Cots to see how the Nats matched up with other teams, but last I checked the Nats had less money tied up in future contracts than any other team.  A good thing if you are saving up to make a run; a bad thing if you don't like constant turn-over.

Well if you figure they have been in rebuilding mode since 2005 with the reset in 2009 then doesn't it make sense that now would be the time to start looking to add some longterm pieces?


Offline PowerBoater69

  • Posts: 14265
    • Twitter
Re: Fire Rizzo
« Reply #439: October 14, 2011, 02:43:12 PM »
Well if you figure they have been in rebuilding mode since 2005 with the reset in 2009 then doesn't it make sense that now would be the time to start looking to add some longterm pieces?

(I edited my previous post to add a spreadsheet I did a few years back.)

Sure, that was always the Plan as stated by Kasten.  The problems are 1) will they ever actually increase payroll to the point where they aren't fourth highest in the division and 2) even if they do, the idea that they had to stink for most of a decade in order to win later is seen by me as nothing more than a money grab.

Offline Evolution33

  • Posts: 5093
    • Blown Save, Win
Re: Fire Rizzo
« Reply #440: October 14, 2011, 02:48:31 PM »
(I edited my previous post to add a spreadsheet I did a few years back.)

Sure, that was always the Plan as stated by Kasten.  The problems are 1) will they ever actually increase payroll to the point where they aren't fourth highest in the division and 2) even if they do, the idea that they had to stink for most of a decade in order to win later is seen by me as nothing more than a money grab.

Most teams in any sport have to stink to win. Colts never stink never get Peyton Manning, Capitals never stink no Ovi, Tigers never stink no Verlander. I can go on and on most of the time in sports turn around comes from sucking really bad and then getting lucky. I know that is a bit of a cynical view but that is how most turnarounds happen. And as for your first point can I wait two years to answer it?

Offline PowerBoater69

  • Posts: 14265
    • Twitter
Re: Fire Rizzo
« Reply #441: October 14, 2011, 02:49:21 PM »
The interesting thing about the numbers listed in the spreadsheet is that they indicate just how much Bowden was constrained by the Lerner budget.  Not only did he have one of the league lowest payrolls for the current year, but he was even more limited in what he could allocate for future years.  As a GM you have to manage payroll many years into the future.  Rizzo may have only a marginally higher payroll for the upcoming season, but evidenced by the Werth signing he has been provided with a tremendously higher overall payroll than Bowden ever had to work with.  So to compare the two GMs they have to be seen as operating under vastly different budgets.

Offline PowerBoater69

  • Posts: 14265
    • Twitter
Re: Fire Rizzo
« Reply #442: October 14, 2011, 02:52:05 PM »
Most teams in any sport have to stink to win. Colts never stink never get Peyton Manning, Capitals never stink no Ovi, Tigers never stink no Verlander. I can go on and on most of the time in sports turn around comes from sucking really bad and then getting lucky. I know that is a bit of a cynical view but that is how most turnarounds happen. And as for your first point can I wait two years to answer it?

The lack of a salary cap in baseball is the counter to that argument; plenty of good teams have not had to bottom out to make a playoff run.

Offline Evolution33

  • Posts: 5093
    • Blown Save, Win
Re: Fire Rizzo
« Reply #443: October 14, 2011, 02:57:11 PM »
The lack of a salary cap in baseball is the counter to that argument; plenty of good teams have not had to bottom out to make a playoff run.


How many teams in this years playoffs became good by building through free agency? A high payroll is better to sustain success not get to it.

Online JCA-CrystalCity

  • Global Moderator
  • ****
  • Posts: 39393
  • Platoon - not just a movie, a baseball obsession
Re: Fire Rizzo
« Reply #444: October 14, 2011, 03:19:40 PM »
I don't think there are any teams, other than the mid-00 NYY, that try to get good by building through high ticket free agency. Not the current Phils, not Theo-era Red Sox, not any of the consistently good teams of the past decade.  Both of those teams used high-cost FA to fill in holes around a core acquired through trade, draft, international signings, and "dumpster dives" that turned into Werth and Ortiz.  Of those Red Sox teams, the only major position FAs were Manny, Damon/Drew (not together at any time), the SS mess, and one rotation spot, if you call Dice K an FA.  For the Phils, there is the current Lee (but not his previous incarnation acquired by trade), Ibanez, and Lidge.

Offline PowerBoater69

  • Posts: 14265
    • Twitter
Re: Fire Rizzo
« Reply #445: October 14, 2011, 03:32:25 PM »
Building through the draft is critical, but 200 losses in two years isn't.

Offline Tyler Durden

  • Posts: 7970
  • Leprechaun
Re: Fire Rizzo
« Reply #446: October 14, 2011, 03:59:10 PM »
Building through the draft is critical, but 200 losses in two years isn't.

I'm pretty sure everyone would agree with you on this.


Offline Bloo

  • Posts: 2415
Re: Fire Rizzo
« Reply #447: December 02, 2011, 12:31:49 AM »
Look how far we have come.

Offline UnkleWheez

  • Posts: 106
    • UnkleWheez DC Sports Fan
Re: Fire Rizzo
« Reply #448: December 02, 2011, 06:07:31 AM »
Building through the draft is critical, but 200 losses in two years isn't.

Stop crying over spilled milk. Get over it. Those years were tough, but it caused us too get better players in those drafts. Those days are over anyway.

Online Slateman

  • Posts: 63098
  • THE SUMMONER OF THE REVERSE JINX
Re: Fire Rizzo
« Reply #449: December 02, 2011, 09:35:46 AM »
Nats fans are upset at having the first pick in consecutive years draft, but Redskins fans want the them to tank the season ....