Discuss as:

Who was wrong about the plans to fire Manny Acta?

You may have noticed that, contrary to the reports that circulated last weekend, Manny Acta still has a job. Clearly, then, those who reported his imminent dismissal are eating crow today, right? Not on your life. Via D.C. Sports Bog, here's Ken Rosenthal on his report:

"If my story was wrong, then the Nationals should simply say Manny Acta is our manager for the rest of our season. If what I wrote was indeed something that had no basis, as Mike Rizzo suggested, well, make him your manager for the rest of the year. If the story is right, however, and of course I believe it was, then the Nationals should fire him today, tomorrow, whenever. Just leaving him dangling like this is not fair to Manny, not fair really to the team itself. So what I'm saying is, one way or the other, they need to make a decision."

Rosenthal is saying he was right and, though he says he really doesn't know, thinks that the Nats held off on doing what they had planned to do (i.e. fire Acta) because they didn't want to appear as through they were pressured by the media. Based on some of the Nats' previous moves and what people whisper about Nats' ownership, I'm totally willing to buy this. Except it wasn't media pressure that set this all off. It was someone in the Nats' front office leaking their plans about Acta. I'm not saying that the media hasn't forced this kind of thing in the past, but Ken Rosenthal breathes tips. He doesn't go after managers for a living, and I'm inclined to think that Rizzo's statement that there was "no basis" for this report is bunk.