Poor Jim Riggleman, hounded by the specter of Tony La Russa everywhere he goes.
Riggleman had to leave the St. Louis Cardinals organization to get a shot at managing again only to find La Russa still in his way. Yet Riggleman has apparently been successful in his attempt to have the “interim” tag removed from his job as the skipper of the Washington Nationals.
It wasn’t quick or easy as the Nats stretched and strained to reach high up to the top shelf in their exhaustive managerial search, approaching the long-time St. Louis manager to gauge his interest in taking on the woeful National League East club, according to MLB.com.
“La Russa was honored to be considered, but told the Nationals he would retire if he didn’t manage the Cardinals,” a source told the writer.
No offense, but if La Russa wasn’t ready to retire, having to try to instill winning baseball in the Nationals would be enough to drive any man into a rocking chair.
Then again, it didn’t hurt to ask, as the Washingtonians are most familiar with disappointment.
The club finished 59-103 last season, coming off a 102-loss 2008. That is the worst two-year stretch in franchise history that reaches back to the 1969 Montreal Expos, losers of 107 games. The organization has enjoyed exactly one playoff series in 41 years of aggregate .476 baseball.
You can’t blame the Nats for drooling all over themselves over the prospect of pitching guru Dave Duncan working with “draft pick of the decade” Steven Strasburg and the rest of the Nats’ litter. Yet if Duncan was still angry about his lot in life with St. Louis, that shot of Washington consideration may have been all he needed to snap back into reality over just how good he has it in his current situation.
I have nothing specific against the Nats other than their long period of futile efforts on and off the field, though I do find their elongated managerial search disrespectful to the incumbent Riggleman. The former Cardinals minor league player and coach had to endure the same “hanging in limbo” treatment in Seattle one year ago. In that case, the job was given to first-time skipper Don Wakamatsu instead.
It is probably nothing against Riggleman personally, but instead a reflection of the plodding Nationals organization.
Riggleman, who has prior MLB managerial experience with San Diego and Chicago, had returned to the Cardinals in December 2004 and served as their Minor League Field Coordinator until leaving to become Seattle’s bench coach in October 2007.
At the time, the now-57-year-old made it clear his desire was to again manage in the Major Leagues, something he could not accomplish in St. Louis as long as La Russa remained.
Riggleman had spent twelve years playing and coaching in the Cardinals minor league system before becoming the organization’s Director of Player Development in 1988. Whitey Herzog added the former Arkansas manager and to his coaching staff for the White Rat’s final two seasons on the bench, 1989 and 1990.
From there, Riggleman’s travels took him to San Diego and Chicago, where he managed at the major league level for almost seven years, followed by coaching stops with Cleveland and the Dodgers. Including his 33-42 interim stint with the Nats in 2009, Riggleman’s career MLB managerial record is 555-694 (.444).
Wasn’t LaRussa always under contract to the Cardinals? Is this tampering?
I believe the coaches’ contracts expire on November 1, so technically, you may be right. Or, perhaps like players, there is a period during which discussions can occur to gauge interest without figures supposedly being discussed.
It would be sad for Nationals fans if they hired LaRussa, got hit with a tampering violation, and had to send Strasburg along to the Cards, as a penalty.
But players can’t discuss with other teams until they declare as FA’s (no longer under contract). what was your source on this Brian? Very possible they talked through a 3rd party which is possibly legal but possibly unethical. College basketball coaches seem to favor this tactic.
Sorry Brian, you did list the source but I missed it. It is also possible the Cards gave permission for the Nats to talk to LaRussa or he might have an agreement that allows him to talk to other teams.
In the interest of fairness, most Nats fans aren’t exactly thrilled that Riggleman has been named manager. Why the front office chose him is still a mystery.
That said, having Dave Duncan as the pitching coach of a staff of young hurlers wouldn’t exactly be ideal either. At least they’ll have a chance to develop this way. If all goes well, Riggleman will quickly demonstrate why he is not major league caliber and the Nats will be looking for their next manager by this time next year, hopefully without too much more damage.
Riggleman is a good choice for a team that knows it is going to be losing in 2010. He is a good teacher and has a good temperment. Instead of just screaming when there are losses, Riggleman will try to focus younger players constructively on how to get better, so they can improve in the long run. That will help the Nats someday.
When teams lose, managers and coaches have to get “fired” so as to appease fan anger. This is as old as the game itself. Some good baseball men are always getting fired. Everybody in a management capacity within the game probably assumes they will be fired someday. Riggleman will try to teach young players for the Nats. The team will be lousy. Someday he will have to be fired. Riggleman has been booted before. He knows how things will turn out, but for now is glad to get a great paying job for 2010.
The Nats saying they contacted TLR is PR spin for Nats fans. There team has been lousy. Fans want hope. They dont want a manager of the hopeless (Riggleman). They want a manager whose teams win (TLR). So its important for the Nats to say they called up TLR and then leak this to the media to signal to their fans that the team wants to win.
TLR plays along, because for him to do so helps morale in DC and puts fannies in the seats. The Cards get a share of ticket sales when they play in Washington.
JS, if only that were true about Riggleman. They said the same thing about Acta and he turned out to be one of the worst managers ever. If he was such a good teacher for young players, he should have been finding out about them in September instead of playing his veterans in an effort to “preserve the sanctity of the season.”
Hiring Riggleman only perpetuates the cycle of losing for a franchise that has the resources to be a powerhouse. The only person this hire helps is Riggleman. There were plenty of candidates the Nats could have taken a chance on that would have helped the franchise immeasurably by comparison.
LG, can you name a few of the ‘plenty of candidates’ that would have ‘helped the franchise immeasurably by comparison’, along with the reasons why those persons would want to take the job. I’m not being facetious or disputing your position, just interested in you you think they could have gotten.
LG, you certainly follow the Nats more closely than I, but I know September callup Ian Desmond for one saw considerable time the last month, so Riggleman did not play all veterans. It is a two-edged sword as the Nats must have faced a number of contending teams in September. They would have also taken heat if they didn’t create the appearance they were trying to win while the pennant races and wild cards were still in doubt.
BB, I would put just about any warm body ahead of Riggleman, but the names I’ve heard publicly who interviewed were Bobby Valentine, Tim Foli and Bob Melvin. There’s some public push to give Gary Carter a chance, who has expressed an interest. Personally, I would have like to have seen Trent Jewett or Foli given the job; both deserve a major league shot.
BW, as for the whole “integrity of the season” thing, I fail to see why continuing to play players who pretty clearly established a sub-.400 winning percentage over 140 games is putting the best team on the field, especially in light of the youth movement that will surely be under way in 2010. In fact, with all that veteran presence against those contenting teams in September the Nats posted a robust 5-13 record. I hope you’ll forgive me but I’m having trouble understanding how that is “trying to win” or “keeping the sanctity of the pennant race”.
As for Desmond, he got most of September ABs after the 20th and none before the 10th and was getting most of his ABs at second until Guzman’s shoulder became too painful to play regularly. The fact is the Riggleman only played him because he had no one else to play short. Justin Maxwell got almost no playing time despite the fact that he will likely play prominently in next year’s outfield plans. Is Willie Harris really that much of an upgrade?
Valentine was supposedly said to have his choice of positions, and should end up somewhere better than Washington.
If not immediately, that is.