Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity
On Twitter: AdamKilgoreWP and PostSports  |  Facebook  |  E-mail alerts: Sports and Redskins  |  RSS

Mike Rizzo backs Jim Riggleman to manage the Nationals in 2011

It appears the Nationals will retain Manager Jim Riggleman for the 2011 season after General Manager Mike Rizzo gave Riggleman a powerful vote of confidence late Friday night. The decision is not finalized, but Rizzo's statement seemed to provide stability in the team's brain trust and gave Riggleman a significant measure of relief.

"He deserves to be the manager next year," Rizzo said. "I have all the faith in the world in him. He's a teriffic manager. I expect him to be here for a long time."

The Nationals offered no official statement because they made no official action. Basically, what Rizzo is saying is that the team is not going buy Riggleman out of his contract. Clearing up some details:

The Nationals chose Riggleman as their interim manager midway through last season and named him their manager - the only job in baseball he wanted - this offseason, but they promised little in terms of longevity. In a strict legal sense, the Nationals signed Riggleman to a two-year contract with a team option for 2012. In effect, sources told the Post this spring, they guaranteed only this season.

Riggleman is earning $600,000 this year, the sources said, and the Nationals have the option to buy him out for $100,000. If the Nationals chose, they could have paid Riggleman $700,000 for one season - less than what a typical major league manager makes - and then parted ways.

And so Rizzo's proclamation Friday night - without the Nationals taking any action - eliminated the chance for that to happen. The possibility had worn on Riggleman, who, entering Friday, is 75-96 overall as Nationals manager.

"Absolutely," said Burton Rocks, Riggleman's agent. "Whenever somebody's future is a little uncertain, there's pressure to win."

The team has not changed Riggleman's contract - as of game time Friday night, no one from the Nationals had informed Riggleman of the decision to bring him back. At the end of the season, Rocks said he hopes to "start a dialogue" with Nationals management regarding Riggleman's status. The talks won't necessarily include any negotiation, he said. Rocks simply wants to convey "the sincerity there is that Jim wants to be a part of their long-range plans."

Rizzo said the Nationals would not feel the need to restructure Riggleman's contract if they bring him back for 2011.

As Riggleman waited 39 days for the Nationals to name a permanent replacement for Manny Acta this offseason, he told Rocks he would either manage the Nationals or sit out. Riggleman, who grew up in Rockville rooting for the Senators, still has the same desire.

"Jim wants to be the Nationals manager," Rocks said. "He doesn't want to be a manager. There's a difference."

Said Riggleman: "This is what I want to do," Riggleman said. "For me, if I get the opportunity to manage the Nationals and if it's my last job in baseball, that'd be a real thrill for me, you know? But we've got a lot of season to play. Hopefully I'll be worthy of coming back. That's going to be depending a lot of things, a lot of people's thoughts. But I really have enjoyed it."

By Adam Kilgore  |  July 23, 2010; 8:45 PM ET
Categories:  Jim Riggleman  
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: Game 97 discussion thread: Nationals at Brewers
Next: Jason Marquis throws 65 pitches in rehab start


good for Riggs!

Posted by: twinbrook | July 23, 2010 9:48 PM | Report abuse

not a fan.
This is the move of a team that won't win.

Posted by: Sec3mysofa | July 23, 2010 10:28 PM | Report abuse

Big mistake. Riggleman has only been able to go 75-96 - with a team that has underachieved by every possible estimation - while he's been managing for his job. Now you hand the job to him on a silver platter, where's his incentive to win? He'll just keep on gettin' ABs for some guys, keep 'em fresh, and keep watching them lose. Sad, really.

Posted by: nunof1 | July 23, 2010 10:55 PM | Report abuse

Does double switching work with managers?

Posted by: LeeM9308 | July 23, 2010 11:03 PM | Report abuse


Did you mean to say an option for 2011 (which the Nats are now apparently exercising)? And if so, doesn't this mean they are essentially giving him another one-year contract for 2011? Which of course would be asinine.

This post raises more questions than it does answer questions.

Posted by: paulkp | July 23, 2010 11:06 PM | Report abuse

I've been a STH since day 1 and have spent nearly $200K (I don't want to add it up). Now I'm told we're already throwing in the towel for 2011 by keeping Riggs? So he can blow out SS's arm? The Slows have signalled they do not want to win, but only want to make money. How big a fool have I been?

Posted by: grclarkdc1 | July 23, 2010 11:17 PM | Report abuse

Brilliant. Mike Morse will sit on the bench. Inane double switches will be the norm. Nonsensical bunting will rule the day. Defensive moves will be made when the game is tied or when we have a one run lead in a bandbox.

Fire Riggleman; don't extend him.

Posted by: thom202 | July 23, 2010 11:28 PM | Report abuse

Frankly, I'm not thrilled by this announcement. I have not been impressed with Riggleman's ability to get the most out of his lineup. His constant attempts to give 11 or 12 guys a lot of at-bats has resulted in a bunch of guys not playing consistently -- thus 5 or 6 guys are having terrible offensive years. Adam Kennedy, Willie Harris, Michael Morse, and Alberto Gonzalez have especially been mishandled.

I think it is very reasonable to question Riggleman's decision to stick with Nyjer Morgan -- despite Morgan's inability to hit, bunt, field, or think on field this season -- while Michael Morse, and Willie Harris sit, and Roger Bernadina (a Center Fielder) plays out of position in Right Field.

Finally, Riggleman's poor -- and rather odd -- style of refusing to criticize the team no -- matter how poorly they play -- is making losing a lot more comfortable for this team than they have a right to be.

At this point, I find it very hard to compliment Riggleman on any aspect of his performance. The Nationals are not talented enough to contend for a post-season spot. That should not be the measure of his success this year.

The only standard I apply to any coach or manager is how many wins they get versus how many wins they should get based on their talent. If a team has 70-win talent and they win 80, then that's great. While if a team has 95-win talent, but only wins 85, that's a poor job.

Jim Riggleman is not getting any extra wins out of this ballclub. So what was the hurry in asking him back?

Kevin Olson
Manassas, VA

Posted by: noslok | July 23, 2010 11:29 PM | Report abuse

CHEAP/ LOSER organization from top to bottom....Riggle the a retread stiff...who will never sniff .500 as a manager in this town !!!!!!

Posted by: FletcherChristian1 | July 23, 2010 11:34 PM | Report abuse

Jim Riggleman is not getting any extra wins out of this ballclub. So what was the hurry in asking him back?

Kevin Olson
Manassas, VA

Obviously with Cox and Lou retiring and Torre and Girardi moving to different teams in 2011 the Nats were worried that Riggs would be courted and wooed away so renew him early.

Alice in Wonderland

Posted by: grclarkdc1 | July 23, 2010 11:38 PM | Report abuse

A firm commitment to mediocrity!

Posted by: lesatcsc | July 23, 2010 11:39 PM | Report abuse

Ugh. Big mistake. I guess the "brain trust" is comfortable with losing.

Posted by: egoodman8 | July 23, 2010 11:39 PM | Report abuse

"Absolutely," said Burton Rocks, Riggleman's agent. "Whenever somebody's future is a little uncertain, there's pressure to win." Huh???????????

Posted by: djorl | July 23, 2010 11:40 PM | Report abuse

You have CHEASP/LOSER owners....who hire a CHEAP/LOSER manager off the bench of the times worst team in baseball- YOU GET WHAT YOU PAY FOR

Problem areas are NOT going away any time soon....with this BUM in charge

-Keystone kops defense
-Bone head base running
-Impotent hitters with RISP
-Fundamentally unsound (bunting etc is a joke)
-Mostly AAA (at best) Starters...and except for SS, the rest in rehab are damaged goods Question Marks.
-Robot manager, obsessed with pitch counts, and going by the book for EVERY decision he makes to cover his Retread axx. He is so xxxxxxxx paranoid with SS being his 2nd Prior/Wood, he can't sleep at night and has nightmares if he does manage to doze off. As a result, losses come too easy for him .....just like his LOSER predecessor.

Posted by: FletcherChristian1 | July 23, 2010 11:41 PM | Report abuse

Gonzo and Morse's agents might as well throw away the Nats phone number. No future here for those two.
Meanwhile, Willie Harris, Guzman, and Kennedy are renewing their rental agreements. Plenty more of them to come!
And 2011 Nats fans are sensing a big case of deja vu. I mean, why bother buying 2011 tickets when you can watch the crap future today?

This announcement sux!

Posted by: 1stBaseCoach | July 24, 2010 12:22 AM | Report abuse

OK, I would not say I'm a big Rigg's fan (because i subscribe to the notion that a manager really doesn't make that much difference), but the comments here are just out of bounds.
First, the idea that the Nats have underachieved: With the starting staff Riggs has had so far? Please, Livo's resurgence is out of nowhere, and aside from the phenom, everybody else has been pretty weak. Lannan, who was supposed to be the no. 1, is in AA.

As for the defense, he went w/ Desmond over Guz -- the much reviled -- and what does he get: a league leading amount of errors. Everybody knows (and most here endorse) Dunn at 1B -- you gotta take his inability to pick throws.

Everybody clamored last year for infield practice. OK, the manager gave you infield practice. The fielding is still bad.

With all those things, given that the Nats will most likely have much better starting pitching in the second half with a new cast of characters, the team is a good bet to finish 15-20 games better than last season.

I don't expect any of the hard cases here to give Riggs credit for being a DC-area guy with a real desire to make DC a winner, even tho I do.

That aside, he deserves a chance to see if he can get the Nats to contend next year. If they don't, then you can complain (although in my book, it's unlikely to be the manager's fault.

Posted by: nats24 | July 24, 2010 12:37 AM | Report abuse

Hey, I'm a D.C. guy with a real desire to make D.C. a winner. That doesn't mean the Nats should hire me.

Posted by: noslok | July 24, 2010 1:12 AM | Report abuse

A lot of the Nats current problems stem from the period of time when MLB owned the Expos. The farm system was gutted, and we inherited a team without a lot of of talent. Riggleman didn't exactly inherit a winning team.

Regarding his habit of not publicly humiliating players, I can understand why he might be reluctant to verbally abuse a roster that is not the most talented or experienced roster in the league. Regarding giving Ian Desmond the opportunity to grow, the decision seems entirely within the plan of developing a winner over time. I really don't believe the Nationals are underachieving.

Provided the Nationals don't make the mistake of losing Dunn, I still have hope that the Nationals will become a good team within a few years.

Posted by: dannykurland1 | July 24, 2010 1:16 AM | Report abuse

I'm with dannykurland1 and nats24. Give Riggleman a chance with decent talent. If Rizzo does his job (starting with keeping our 3-4-5 guys and finding a better second baseman), the Nats have a chance to be a good team next year, assuming the starting rotation is anywhere close to the potential we all keep hearing about.

NOBODY could win with the Nats' starting rotation this year, and that has nothing to do with the manager. He hasn't built the roster and farm system over the last 5-6 years.

Riggs knows baseball. I'm happy for him.

Posted by: usmc53 | July 24, 2010 1:35 AM | Report abuse

Welcome back Skip

You need some more help on the field, we all know that! You've managed to operate as though - for the most part.

You have a tall order. You need to motivate a YOUNGER team ideally. This team is too old.

How can you not root for Riggleman? It's not possible.
He deserves at least one chance to manage a real pitching staff.

Posted by: Brue | July 24, 2010 2:04 AM | Report abuse

I'm with the last few posters -- managerial difference is being overrated at this point, and the franchise's recent history underrated as the main cause of their woes. I wasn't for Manny getting the ax like he did either (or Frank, for that matter), but the current situation is more tenable at at the moment. Not saying Riggs has worked any miracles, but another year seems reasonable to me in the scheme of things. Bottom line: manager is not this team's problem for the time being, and neither would a splashy 'susperstar' managerial hire (if one could even be made -- doubtful at this juncture) be guaranteed to change things any faster than time and lineup development will allow. The focus for the time being remains on upper management building the team and the farm system, we're probably another year or two away from the big league manager becoming more important to our prospects of contending. And if Riggleman, or anyone, should show they're not up the job before then, a change can always be made at that time. This is hardly a death sentence for next season.

Posted by: evanescent_panoply | July 24, 2010 3:30 AM | Report abuse

What a joke.

Yeah, the role of a manager in baseball is grossly overrated by many.
You only need someone who doesn't constantly increase the chances of his team losing because of his decisions. But Riggleman does just that.
His use of the DH in interleague play alone would be reason enough to fire him.

I would really like for someone from the media to ask him whether he knows if Burnett is better against lefties or righties or Morse and Kennedy hit better against lefties or righties. Based on the way he uses them, I'm pretty sure he doesn't know the answer, or doesn't care, or ignores it because lefties are supposed to hit righties and vice versa.
And if that's a manager some of you think is good enough to win, wow...

All I ever hear about him, "He's a good baseball man", "he knows the game". Other than the number of years he's been part of baseball, there is nothing whatsoever to back that up. So many small decisions he makes say the exact opposite.

By the way, the next time he runs out Burnett against a left-handed hitter in an important spot: Those hit .321 against him. Righties, .184.
(Kennedy hits .348 against lefties, yet usually plays against right-handed hitters. Adam, could you please ask Riggleman why he uses them in situations where they are less likely to succeed?)

Again, this is a joke.
And makes me wonder a lot about Rizzo.

Posted by: amo36 | July 24, 2010 5:36 AM | Report abuse

I would go with Riggs for now - with the hurt pitching we aren't going anywhere this year and, with the prospect of a decent pitching staff in 2011, we will see what he can do.

Can someone answer this for me - why is he not using Gonzo more? I would argue that he's the second best glove (after Zim)on a team with MLBs worst defense and he's batting about .300. Admittedly no power hitter - but defense has killed us. Sit Kennedy down and play Gonzo. Is Gonzo injured or something?


Posted by: jrlandolt | July 24, 2010 5:49 AM | Report abuse

A manager needs to 1) get the most out of his players and not just be their "friend", 2) make good decisions on player usage, and 3) get a team emotionally and physically ready to win.
So far, Riggleman has been a "nice guy" who is not doing the 3 things mentioned above. He needs to work the crud out of the players in areas they are failing (fielding, etc.), make smarter "usage" decisions, and get mad when they lose. The Caps changed form a Riggleman type to a motivator and when quickly from doormat to really good team. Hope this wasn't a "cheap" move by management or we are in for a long series of losing seasons.

Posted by: pjohn2 | July 24, 2010 7:16 AM | Report abuse

I turned off last night after this joke of a manager took a guy out in the 6th who had 2 HRs. Adam, is this a record early replacement for anyone who had hit 2?

The Lerners refuse to spend more than 700k on a manager, so they go dumpster diving and we get the statue Manny Acta and this joke Riggleman. If they're not going to pay for a major league manager, I'm not going to pay for a ticket.

Posted by: tgt111 | July 24, 2010 7:17 AM | Report abuse

While most of the Nationals' problems are attributable to poor players, Riggleman's performance this year has not been encouraging.

Sloppy defense and baserunning has to be charged to the manager.

And his insistence on playing lousy players (Willie Harris) just to give them time, while leaving a strong hitter (Mike Morse) on the bench even during a team scoring drought, indicates poor judgment.

The Nats are now mired in a multi-year pattern of losing. They need a clean break from that past. and a more forceful presence. I would not bring Riggleman back.

Posted by: Meridian1 | July 24, 2010 7:44 AM | Report abuse

AK wrote
"If the Nationals chose, they could have paid Riggleman $700,000 for one season - less than what a typical major league manager makes - and then parted ways.

And so Rizzo's proclamation Friday night - without the Nationals taking any action - eliminated the chance for that to happen."

In no way at all did Rizzo's statement "eliminate" the possibility of the Nats letting Riggleman go at the end of the season.

This is major league sports entertainment. They say today what they want and need to say today. There's tons of wiggle room in this.

Sure, it seems like Rizzo is saying that Riggleman is coming back.
But the possibility that his 2011 option will not be picked up still exists.
Nothing has been eliminated.

(For the record, I'll be deeply disappointed if he returns. Riggs has bungled this season badly, on many fronts. He's the wrong guy for this job.)

Posted by: Sunderland | July 24, 2010 7:44 AM | Report abuse

I think Riggleman is deserving of another year. We all pick apart the details of a game during the course of a season and I have done my share as well. The contrast to Acta's style is sharp and welcome. Give Riggleman credit for holding a team together. The Nats are building toward a future and a divisive manager would never set that stage, indeed it would be a full step backwards. We can all agree that the starting pitching for 2011 will be superior to this year, and our expectations will rise accordingly. Riggleman is playing this season with a shattered starting pitching staff and a rookie ss and two second base men far past their prime, catchers who have no power and a center fielder trying to find his way. I would bet that not many other managers would have done better. To be competitive in most games is an accomplishment.

Posted by: driley | July 24, 2010 7:46 AM | Report abuse

A few comments, I hope that this is the dreaded vote of confidence, where once it's granted, the guys is fired 2 weeks later.

As bad as this tram may be, it still has underachieved. Too many mental errors at bat and in the field, his team could have once a few more games.

As for Riggs, I'm really disappointed that he seems to shun advanced statistical analysis and even seems to thumb his nose at it. He keeps putting in Burnett against lefties despite that the splits show him to be more effective against righties.

Finally, I don't want a manager calling out players and blaming them in the press. But I think you can make players accountable without embarrassing them. Just once, I like to hear Riggs says that "the batter" needs to have a better at bat there, in thAt situation, it's important to get the ball in play, or get that bunt down. "The batter" is a pro, he knows he needs to do better in that situation. Same thing with fielding plays, getting picked off, overrunning a base, etc. Kennedy overruns a base to end the game and Riggs praises him for being a good, aggressive baserunner. Huh? Tell the truth, Kennedy made a mistake there and he knows he cannot get caught there. The Reds threw behind him and they caught him. Bad play. It happens, but I hate to see the manager making excuses for the players.

Posted by: comish4lif | July 24, 2010 8:15 AM | Report abuse

I think that the worst mistake that the Nats made this past offseason was in retaining Jim Riggleman instead of hiring Bobby Valentine for the manager's job.

Riggleman is very kindly and loyal, far too much so. It seems that his chief concern is making sure that his players all get enough playing time that their parents will be satisfied, sort of like little league. This keeps him from putting his best players on the field.

And he makes some genuinely bizarre decisions during games, like last night's when he sent Morse and his sizzling bat to the bench when we needed more runs all of a sudden.

And he doesn't learn from his mistakes, and this might be his biggest problem of all. I mean, if we've been following the Nats even sporadically this year, we all can answer the following simple question: What happens when you send Sean Burnett out for a second inning of work? Answer: He gets shelled, always has, always will. But Riggleman doesn't seem to see it, and last night the game was on the line.

Why does he use Peralta so sparingly? What was he saving Drew Storen for in the seventh inning? Why isn't he working on Clippard in practice rather than letting him try to find himself with the game on the line?

And why does Alberto Gonzalez ride the bench every single night while Desmond flounders?

These are all Riggleman problems, where he strives to keep everyone happy, or at least some subset of everyone. He sure isn't trying to keep Michael Morse happy -- that poor guy must be wondering what on earth more he has to do to earn a spot in the lineup.

Posted by: FergusonFoont | July 24, 2010 8:57 AM | Report abuse

The criticism is not about game details.
Of course, the manager looks bad when the bullpen blows a lead. And everyone here is smart afterwards. That's not the point.

The point is that Riggleman objectively (as in: you can go look at the numbers, which he doesn't seem to be doing) does some things that make it less likely for the team to win.
DH use, use of Morse, Kennedy, Burnett and so on.

Over the course of a season, stuff like that will amount to 3 to 5 losses.

Do we really want a manager to simply give away a few wins once and if the team does contend next year or in 2012???

Again, this has nothing to do with in-game decisions. I sometimes disagree with him on some moves, but that's going to be that way with every manager.

Posted by: amo36 | July 24, 2010 9:01 AM | Report abuse

Bad baseball teams are all alike. Each good team is good in its own way.

Posted by: Sec3mysofa | July 24, 2010 9:12 AM | Report abuse

One point here: When a baseball GM issues a public vote of confidence, historically it has meant that the manager's days with the team are numbered.

Jes' sayin'.

Posted by: FergusonFoont | July 24, 2010 9:16 AM | Report abuse

I don't think the Nats are unachievers at all. They're an average team playing average baseball. I won't pay more than $5 to see them, but I'll continue to root for my home team(s).

Posted by: Supporter51 | July 24, 2010 9:28 AM | Report abuse

I'm not a Riggs hater, and the starting pitching horror that is the 2010 Nats would prevent this team from a good season no matter who managed. However, the persistent mental errors and poor fielding have not been effectvely addressed by Riggs, and it seems to me that a manager has to fix such things. I don't think retaining him is a disaster, but I do worry that this is just another example of the owners throwing a medocre (actually, poor) product on the field because they do not want to pay for a better one.

Posted by: NatsFly | July 24, 2010 9:34 AM | Report abuse

I like the guy and wish him well, but last night's game against Milwaukee really shows that he's not the man for the job. Let's see the Lerners spend the money and get Bobby Valentine.

Posted by: InTheCheapSeats | July 24, 2010 9:40 AM | Report abuse

If this is all about money, I'll do it for $100k.

Oh, and a mitt signed by Strasburg.

Posted by: tslats | July 24, 2010 9:52 AM | Report abuse

Terrible, terrible news. Its amazing how cheap the LernerStank really are. This guy has been around for a year and he is 18 games under .500. Can't make a lineup card stick for more then a day and has made moronic double swithces all year long. I'm a fan of the team becuase its up to those 9 on the field to give it all they got, but I ain't no fan of the brain trust becuase they stink.

Posted by: TippyCanoe | July 24, 2010 10:06 AM | Report abuse

This is still a non-story until his contract is extended in writing and without a 80%+ buy-out clause. Riggleman could very well be gone this winter, and I think this is just Rizzo's attempt, absent of any real gesture from his superiors, to offer some respect to his manager.

Posted by: paulkp | July 24, 2010 10:21 AM | Report abuse

Their is no accountability no threat of "your ass will sit if you don't play well" I said this a few blog's ago they are comfortable with losing i can't even imagine what Rizzo is thinking,it will be more of the same. The coaching staff is a joke from top to bottom,Rizzo should have at least waited until the end of the season, what's the rush? wonder how many people will renew their season tickets based on this news?

Posted by: dargregmag | July 24, 2010 10:49 AM | Report abuse

"A lot of the Nats current problems stem from the period of time when MLB owned the Expos. The farm system was gutted, and we inherited a team without a lot of of talent. Riggleman didn't exactly inherit a winning team."

When does the statute of limitations end with this old, tired excuse? The LernerStanks have owned this team for nearly 5 seasons now. Let's put the blame where it should rest now, on the LernerStanks and there old, tired, cheap ways.

As for keeping Riggs color me not surprised. I don't think he is a horrible manager but, he works for cheap and that is right up the owners alley.

Posted by: Section505203 | July 24, 2010 10:54 AM | Report abuse

A nice job switching Morse out after two bombs last night, Riggles!

Riggleman is a okay manager, and a nice guy, but his performance has been going downhill of late in a hurry.

Posted by: CJArlington | July 24, 2010 11:14 AM | Report abuse

A firm commitment to mediocrity!

Posted by: lesatcsc


Uh, no, they are not even that good!

Posted by: Fred_and_Frieda | July 24, 2010 11:14 AM | Report abuse

AK: Please do not use the phrase "brain trust" again. It is embarrassing to hear that phrase applied to Papa Lerner & Co. with regard to their baseball operations.

We have a rookie owner, a rookie GM, and a grizzled veteran manager who signed for virtually nothing, and has accomplished ditto. Not to mention the players, whose attitudes (with very few exceptions) resemble the 2009 Redskins—pay me and be quiet.

This team is going to be historic, alright, and I feel another Broadway show in the offing. Something like "Damn Yankees 2".

Posted by: JohnRDC | July 24, 2010 11:19 AM | Report abuse

Okay, I like Riggleman, but WTF was going through his head when he took Morse out last night?

Morse's lack of playing time, and getting yanked after hitting two dingers only makes sense if Riggleman caught Morse in bed with his (Riggleman's) wife.

Posted by: gilbertbp | July 24, 2010 11:22 AM | Report abuse

Unbelieveably BAD news. Without a doubt the worst news of the entire season. Really really sad.

Posted by: skins_fan_22 | July 24, 2010 11:29 AM | Report abuse

I'm ill over the announcement of Riggleman continuing as the Nats manager. I think he has cost the Nats 10 loses with his decisions. I've done my best to block all memory of the horrific bottom of the 6th inning in which he made some of the worse manager mistakes ever. Sorry to rant and rave but I need help understanding one part of Riggleman's MO, that is the leftie - rightie thing. My confusion and disgust was escalated after Morse was removed after going 2 for 3 and hitting two homers. What does Morse have to do to become a regular? There are obviously starters who play every day regardless of who is pitching. Why is Riggleman so obsessed with just certain players being subjected to the leftie - rightie thing??

Posted by: nolimit4 | July 24, 2010 11:51 AM | Report abuse

BTW just wondering, isn't anyone besides me interested in the thoughts and reasoning of a manager who takes out the hottest hitter, who had already belted 2 homers in the game in the 6th inning for no apparent reason? Can't we get our reporter to ask the simple question why? Wasn't this one of the pertinent moves of the game?

Would someone please ask Riggleman why he pulled Morse and what was his thinking? Seems like an obvious question to me.
Just wondering.

Posted by: skins_fan_22 | July 24, 2010 11:55 AM | Report abuse

I've spent a ton of money on this team since 2005, but no more.

LernerStanK make one cheap/bad move after another, and then try to use defensive PR tactics, as well as people like Nats320, Phil Wood, and Ben Goessling to insult our intelligence by trumpeting the team's silly PR.

Eff this whole operation.

Posted by: tgt111 | July 24, 2010 12:03 PM | Report abuse

"Would someone please ask Riggleman why he pulled Morse and what was his thinking?"

StanK will pull access for anyone who dares to act such a thing. The bloggers and reporters who cover this team are a joke.

Posted by: tgt111 | July 24, 2010 12:05 PM | Report abuse

One point here: When a baseball GM issues a public vote of confidence, historically it has meant that the manager's days with the team are numbered.

Jes' sayin'.

Posted by: FergusonFoont

I believe this is a correct statement. It has happened over and over.
So there is hope!

Posted by: M20832 | July 24, 2010 12:20 PM | Report abuse

skins_fan_22: "Would someone please ask Riggleman why he pulled Morse and what was his thinking? Seems like an obvious question to me.

Just wondering."

You must have missed his answer during the post-game: "I caught him in bed with my wife. And my son. And my dog."

Posted by: gilbertbp | July 24, 2010 12:55 PM | Report abuse

I agree that a manager's effect is overrated. However, amo36 et al nail it by pointing out that the biggest potential effect a manager can have is harm. And many have pointed out the ways Riggleman harms this team. Use of the DH, playing Morgan, Kennedy, Harris and sitting Morse and Gonzo. Ignoring strong matchup issues like Burnett against lefties. Pulling a guy with 2 homers when the offense is struggling.

If Riggs really is the manager next year then that is a blow to me. I finally see real progress in this roster after 5 years of horror and now we have good players but the manager won't put their name on the card.

Comforted by ForgusonFoont et al that this does NOT mean they can't dump Riggs in the off season.

Finally, have to say I'm disappointed in Kilgore for not being tougher on the brass for the moves that are so often criticized here. It's not real advanced stuff, just basic baseball. It all comes down to - put the best players on the field. This team is not doing that this year and the beat writer is not challenging it. Hate to criticize Kilgore because he's had some great coverage and great writing but this is a legitimate gripe.

The frustration grows.

Posted by: Avar | July 24, 2010 12:55 PM | Report abuse

Mistake mistake mistake. Less than mediocrity continues with this team. Riggleman's a company man - he should be working for BP. This team has some good players and they need to play them. Guzman??? Are you kidding!!! Zero range, 2 homers??? Go away!!! Dib's right - play the young guys!!!

Posted by: Dog-1 | July 24, 2010 1:33 PM | Report abuse

You double switch a guy who just hit 2 home runs after only 3 at bats and six inning ostensibly for fielding ... but really in order to eventually double switch in his (and Bernadina's competition) Willie Harris hitting sub-Mendoza? Yet you leave a guy in who looked like he was really struggling at first base to handle his position?

Is there a way to pick someone else to handle the lineups ala Jim Zorn and the offensive play calling last year?

Posted by: periculum | July 24, 2010 1:50 PM | Report abuse

"Morse's lack of playing time, and getting yanked after hitting two dingers only makes sense if Riggleman caught Morse in bed with his (Riggleman's) wife."

Or, since he's not married, he has a thing for guys like Guzman, Harris, and Maxwell ... one begins to wonder ...

Posted by: periculum | July 24, 2010 1:53 PM | Report abuse

peric said
"Is there a way to pick someone else to handle the lineups ala Jim Zorn and the offensive play calling last year?"

This is the most amusing and brilliant idea of the day.

Let's get Sherm Lewis, or Jose Canseco, Jose Vidro, or someone not named Jim Riggleman to handle the lineup, and Riggleman can still call for pitch outs and hit and runs.

Posted by: Sunderland | July 24, 2010 3:00 PM | Report abuse

I hope StanK reads these comments. It is screamingly obvious the fan base is overwhelmingly against retaining Riggleman.
Stank, listen to your fan base!

Posted by: 1stBaseCoach | July 24, 2010 4:29 PM | Report abuse

I guess the next move is to trade Morse for a bag of balls, and then fail to trade or sign Dunn, so that all we get are draft picks.

Posted by: poncedeleroy | July 24, 2010 8:42 PM | Report abuse

The comments to this entry are closed.

RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2010 The Washington Post Company