Author Topic: Fire Rizzo  (Read 263426 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Slateman

  • Posts: 61032
  • THE SUMMONER OF THE REVERSE JINX
Re: Fire Rizzo
« Reply #4425: December 05, 2022, 04:24:13 PM »
The 11 years starting at his age 30 season is too long, but if it had started 2 seasons ago I would have been fine with it.  This was the offer we needed to make going into 2021. A Soto deal would have been tough, but his free agency doesn't start until our remaining big contracts have a year or two left.

No, the killer for a team on a budget is Corbin / Stras turning into pumpkins.  And Corbin deserves a 2019 asterisk.   
Two years ago it would have been 13 years for 330. Like I said, this is an easy win for the Nats. They got 7 years of one of the best shortstops in basebalm for Steven Souza Jr

Offline HalfSmokes

  • Posts: 21234
Re: Fire Rizzo
« Reply #4426: December 05, 2022, 04:39:57 PM »
The 11 years starting at his age 30 season is too long, but if it had started 2 seasons ago I would have been fine with it.  This was the offer we needed to make going into 2021. A Soto deal would have been tough, but his free agency doesn't start until our remaining big contracts have a year or two left.

No, the killer for a team on a budget is Corbin / Stras turning into pumpkins.  And Corbin deserves a 2019 asterisk.   

They're doing the same thing they did in the last run and giving contracts with terrible out years in exchange for cheaper prime years. They'll be in a tough spot and bad for a few years once the run is over, but it will be worth it if they win

Offline Natsinpwc

  • Posts: 23061
Re: Fire Rizzo
« Reply #4427: December 05, 2022, 04:46:45 PM »
Two years ago it would have been 13 years for 330.
Thanks. You made me chuckle.


Offline Natsinpwc

  • Posts: 23061
Re: Fire Rizzo
« Reply #4428: December 05, 2022, 04:51:36 PM »
They're doing the same thing they did in the last run and giving contracts with terrible out years in exchange for cheaper prime years. They'll be in a tough spot and bad for a few years once the run is over, but it will be worth it if they win
They never had to give the big contract to Ryan Howard after he was injured or Utley. But sure they are banking on the best 3-5 years. Which is what they have needed to do since they have Harper that long contract. I think they are still about 30 million under the luxury tax for Thai year. Hoskins will be off the books next year. Look for them to try and lock up Nola soon.  It’s a juggling act. 

Offline Slateman

  • Posts: 61032
  • THE SUMMONER OF THE REVERSE JINX
Re: Fire Rizzo
« Reply #4429: December 05, 2022, 04:56:13 PM »
Rizzo spends money when he has it. I put a lot more of the player development issues on Rizzo than not spending a billion dollars for four players.

Offline HalfSmokes

  • Posts: 21234
Re: Fire Rizzo
« Reply #4430: December 05, 2022, 05:15:11 PM »
They never had to give the big contract to Ryan Howard after he was injured or Utley. But sure they are banking on the best 3-5 years. Which is what they have needed to do since they have Harper that long contract. I think they are still about 30 million under the luxury tax for Thai year. Hoskins will be off the books next year. Look for them to try and lock up Nola soon.  It’s a juggling act. 

I might be misremembering, but I thought Lee and Halliday were really bad contracts by the end

Offline Slateman

  • Posts: 61032
  • THE SUMMONER OF THE REVERSE JINX
Re: Fire Rizzo
« Reply #4431: December 05, 2022, 05:18:24 PM »
I might be misremembering, but I thought Lee and Halliday were really bad contracts by the end
Lee was good through the end. Halladay had injury issues.

Offline Natsinpwc

  • Posts: 23061
Re: Fire Rizzo
« Reply #4432: December 05, 2022, 05:27:23 PM »
Lee was good through the end. Halladay had injury issues.
Lee was injured also. He missed the end of 2014 and the entire 2015. And then they had to buy him out in 2016.  Risky contract that ended that way. I think Halladay was less of a risk as he had always been healthy. The bigger issue with Lee was letting him go because they allegedly did not have the money and then signing him back at a higher price.


Offline Kevrock

  • Posts: 13730
  • That’s gonna be a no from me, doge.
Re: Fire Rizzo
« Reply #4433: December 05, 2022, 05:44:51 PM »
Do people seriously think we were going to keep Max, Trea and Juan? Like all of them?

Has anyone said that? I expect a major market team to retain some of their homegrown talent. The Nats retained no one except a walking DL stint.

Offline UMDNats

  • Posts: 17887
Re: Fire Rizzo
« Reply #4434: December 05, 2022, 06:07:52 PM »
Has anyone said that? I expect a major market team to retain some of their homegrown talent. The Nats retained no one except a walking DL stint.

They retained no one because they failed so bad at player development that it didn't make sense to keep them. Maybe if we signed Max to these deals to pitch in front of our turd roster things would be different. Soto wouldn't have been traded if Mike Rizzo competently ran a player development program.

Offline UMDNats

  • Posts: 17887
Re: Fire Rizzo
« Reply #4435: December 05, 2022, 06:09:14 PM »
Rizzo spends money when he has it. I put a lot more of the player development issues on Rizzo than not spending a billion dollars for four players.

Right. We dealt Max and Trea and Juan because it didn't make sense to keep them with how talentless our organization was/is. Harper and Rendon I can get the argument but I understood why we didn't sign either.

Offline HondoKillebrew

  • Posts: 762
Re: Fire Rizzo
« Reply #4436: December 05, 2022, 06:37:08 PM »
They retained no one because they failed so bad at player development that it didn't make sense to keep them.

I think this sums it up.  Unfortunately.

Offline imref

  • Posts: 38786
  • Re-contending in 202...5?
Re: Fire Rizzo
« Reply #4437: December 05, 2022, 06:50:15 PM »
They retained no one because they failed so bad at player development that it didn't make sense to keep them. Maybe if we signed Max to these deals to pitch in front of our turd roster things would be different. Soto wouldn't have been traded if Mike Rizzo competently ran a player development program.

Everyone seems to be forgetting that in July of 2021, when we traded Max & Trea and everyone else, and still had Soto, we were 47-55.

But yeah, that team also featured Kieboom, Fedde, and Robles, none of whom came anywhere close to developing in what they were expected to become. And nobody expected Corbin to repeatedly post 6.000 ERAs

Offline Kevrock

  • Posts: 13730
  • That’s gonna be a no from me, doge.
Re: Fire Rizzo
« Reply #4438: December 05, 2022, 07:00:36 PM »
They retained no one because they failed so bad at player development that it didn't make sense to keep them. Maybe if we signed Max to these deals to pitch in front of our turd roster things would be different. Soto wouldn't have been traded if Mike Rizzo competently ran a player development program.

Of course, I’ve posted the same thing. It’s a failing of the Nats ownership and FO that we were ever in a situation where this is a logical franchise decision.

They can all get out. Thanks for 2019.

Offline Slateman

  • Posts: 61032
  • THE SUMMONER OF THE REVERSE JINX
Re: Fire Rizzo
« Reply #4439: December 06, 2022, 07:44:05 AM »
Right. We dealt Max and Trea and Juan because it didn't make sense to keep them with how talentless our organization was/is. Harper and Rendon I can get the argument but I understood why we didn't sign either.
I blame Harper on ownership and their insistence on deferred money

Offline HalfSmokes

  • Posts: 21234
Re: Fire Rizzo
« Reply #4440: December 06, 2022, 07:54:48 AM »
Everyone seems to be forgetting that in July of 2021, when we traded Max & Trea and everyone else, and still had Soto, we were 47-55.

But yeah, that team also featured Kieboom, Fedde, and Robles, none of whom came anywhere close to developing in what they were expected to become. And nobody expected Corbin to repeatedly post 6.000 ERAs

Player development was the problem. They could have kept everyone and stayed competitive with a payroll dwarfing the Dodgers or traded everyone and been terrible (the route they chose). If they had drafted and developed better, they could have tried to keep enough of them to stay competitive while backfilling, but they whiffed so badly across the board that there was no one to backfill with

Offline HondoKillebrew

  • Posts: 762
Re: Fire Rizzo
« Reply #4441: December 06, 2022, 02:03:32 PM »
they whiffed so badly across the board that there was no one to backfill with

I don't know how Rizzo can be retained if he couldn't build a solid foundation, even if he seems to be a bit of a trade wizard.  Can't sustain a winning franchise if holes constantly need to be patched via trades of better players because decent prospects haven't been developed internally. 

Offline UMDNats

  • Posts: 17887
Re: Fire Rizzo
« Reply #4442: December 06, 2022, 02:24:27 PM »
I blame Harper on ownership and their insistence on deferred money

Pretty much. A normal ownership group would have just done the deal.

Good riddance to the Lerners, honestly. See ya, thanks for the mems.

Offline imref

  • Posts: 38786
  • Re-contending in 202...5?
Re: Fire Rizzo
« Reply #4443: December 06, 2022, 02:26:13 PM »
Player development was the problem. They could have kept everyone and stayed competitive with a payroll dwarfing the Dodgers or traded everyone and been terrible (the route they chose). If they had drafted and developed better, they could have tried to keep enough of them to stay competitive while backfilling, but they whiffed so badly across the board that there was no one to backfill with

Yep. If Fedde, Robles and Kieboom had developed into at least ~2 WAR players things would be different right now. Robles was there in 2019.

Offline Mattionals

  • Posts: 5376
Re: Fire Rizzo
« Reply #4444: December 06, 2022, 02:35:58 PM »
Pretty much. A normal ownership group would have just done the deal.

Good riddance to the Lerners, honestly. See ya, thanks for the mems.


Unfortunately, they ain't gone yet. I'm optimistic the deal gets done, but the fear is pretty real that the Lerner family doesn't approve an offer because they overvalue the franchise (thanks to the MASN issues and all that deferred money) and us fans get to watch a crap product where the owners don't actually spend.

Offline HalfSmokes

  • Posts: 21234
Re: Fire Rizzo
« Reply #4445: December 06, 2022, 02:44:58 PM »

Unfortunately, they ain't gone yet. I'm optimistic the deal gets done, but the fear is pretty real that the Lerner family doesn't approve an offer because they overvalue the franchise (thanks to the MASN issues and all that deferred money) and us fans get to watch a crap product where the owners don't actually spend.

I think the sale will take years to play out because the MASN deal makes valuation impossible. Maybe if the Lerners stop caring enough MLB will force a resolution

Offline Mattionals

  • Posts: 5376
Re: Fire Rizzo
« Reply #4446: December 06, 2022, 03:17:03 PM »
I think the sale will take years to play out because the MASN deal makes valuation impossible. Maybe if the Lerners stop caring enough MLB will force a resolution


My take is that the closest to a sale we see is Uncle Teddy Leonsis. His deal will hinge on getting rid of MASN and incorporating the Nats into his Monumental Sports Network. I'm not sure this lines up well, hence why I'm optimistic but it could nearly turn the complete other way.

Offline Slateman

  • Posts: 61032
  • THE SUMMONER OF THE REVERSE JINX
Re: Fire Rizzo
« Reply #4447: December 06, 2022, 03:22:52 PM »
The 11 years starting at his age 30 season is too long, but if it had started 2 seasons ago I would have been fine with it.  This was the offer we needed to make going into 2021. A Soto deal would have been tough, but his free agency doesn't start until our remaining big contracts have a year or two left.

No, the killer for a team on a budget is Corbin / Stras turning into pumpkins.  And Corbin deserves a 2019 asterisk.   

In light of this: https://www.espn.com/mlb/story/_/id/35155817/2022-mlb-winter-meetings-updates-news-rumors-predictions

Im pretty sure the Nats could have signed Turner for somewhere around 260 million

Offline UMDNats

  • Posts: 17887
Re: Fire Rizzo
« Reply #4448: December 06, 2022, 03:33:05 PM »
I think the sale will take years to play out because the MASN deal makes valuation impossible. Maybe if the Lerners stop caring enough MLB will force a resolution

if a sale takes years to play out, then any potential buyers will accuse the lerners of poisoning the well by refusing to spend any money for multiple years as they look to sell the team. behooves everyone to make it happen. the masn situation will eventually get worked out, the nats are the beneficiaries of any resolution (they don't owe any money) and i bet RSNs continue to merge into conglomerates anyways. now, if the orioles go up for sale, all bets are off.

Offline HalfSmokes

  • Posts: 21234
Re: Fire Rizzo
« Reply #4449: December 06, 2022, 05:18:43 PM »

My take is that the closest to a sale we see is Uncle Teddy Leonsis. His deal will hinge on getting rid of MASN and incorporating the Nats into his Monumental Sports Network. I'm not sure this lines up well, hence why I'm optimistic but it could nearly turn the complete other way.

Ted can buy the team, but MASN can laugh in his face if he asks to broadcast games on monumental. I don’t see him closing a deal without resolution and I don’t see that happening any time soon