Jim Riggleman's resignation last week has been an interesting study in discourse. Typically, it's advanced metrics that fuel our debates about players, but the recurring talking points with respect to Riggleman's acrimonious departure from Washington have been professionalism and ethics more so than wins and losses.
Riggleman tendered his resignation moments after a galvanizing win for the Nats, when they moved one game over .500 (38-37) with a walk-off victory over the Mariners. Apparently, Riggleman had been angling for Washington to pick up his 2012 club option for a while, but the team was not especially interested in considering that at that juncture.
Jon Heyman of SI.com tweeted that it made no sense for the Nats not to pick up Riggleman's option. The team had played well under him, after all. The Nats, however, merely viewed Riggleman as a place-holder manager until the team was ready to win, wrote Scott Miller of CBSSports.com. After all, Riggleman has just a .445 winning percentage in parts of 12 seasons as a big league manager.
If you were the Nats, would you have exercised Riggleman's option, or would you have allowed him to resign?
