Nats News Network was asked to participate in a roundtable by HotStove.com, discussing whether the Nationals made the right move retaining Jim Riggleman and bypassing Bobby Valentine.
The question posed to the panel was farily narrow. They did not ask us whether we thought Riggleman was the BEST choice of manager of the Nationals, but rather concentrating on the Valentine aspect of it.
Here is the question they posed to us:
The Nats promoted Jim Riggleman to manager midway through the 2009 season, then decided to retain him for 2010, as well. Should the team have pressed instead to bring in Bobby Valentine as manager? He has a history of doing a lot with a little (for example, with the 2000 Mets), and could’ve been a real force in re-shaping the franchise.
So click through on the link to see what I said, and some of the other Nats bloggers as well, Ed from Federal Baseball, Will from The Nats Blog and Anthony from Bleacher Report.
You guys hit it dead on. I became a Mets fan in 1969, and have followed them my whole life. If Valentine would have taken over as the Nats skipper, it would have been all about him, not the players or management. He's actually got an excellent baseball mind, but he can't find work in America. That tells you right there that the Nats made the right decision. Besides, the team showed a lot of spark with Riggleman. He was certainly better than Acta. I'd give Rigs the benefit of the doubt until the Nats fix the pitching situation.