Nov 10, 2009, 9:55 AM EDT
Ken Rosenthal reports that the Nats have narrowed their managerial choices down to two: current skipper Jim Riggleman and Bobby Valentine. However, the Nats are more likely to stay the course than make the sexier pick in Valentine, says Rosenthal, for the simple reason that Riggleman won’t demand as much money as Valentine is presumed to want.
One the one hand you can look at this as the Nats being cheap: Valentine is a better manager than Riggleman and the Nats need some identity, so why not pay for it?
But I can’t say it’s a bad move on their part. The Nats aren’t ready to win yet and whether Bobby Valentine plans to be in the game long enough to see the process through — as opposed to simply get back into the Majors in order to become a viable candidate for other, more attractive jobs – is an open question. In contrast, given how interminable the Nats’ managerial search has seemed to be, we know that Riggleman has patience.
If I’m the Nats, I probably stay the course with company-man Riggleman until the point when they truly look like they’re ready to take it to next level. He’ll abide by the pitch count restrictions the brass wants to place on Strasburg. He won’t rock the boat while the youngins mature. If the team surprises under his watch, great, but mostly he’s around until the team starts to look like a winner. Then Washington can court a marquee manager.
Maybe even Bobby Valentine.
- Albert Pujols was insulted when someone asked him if he can put up Mike Trout numbers (103)
- Manny Machado calls $519K salary for 2014 “disappointing” (88)
- Is Barry Bonds really getting a “fair hearing?” (88)
- Ryan Braun calls himself an “artist,” doesn’t care what fans on the road will shout at him (81)
- Giants players love having Barry Bonds at spring training (77)