http://www.portfolio.com/views/colum...ez-and-Red-Sox
...Quote:
Originally Posted by article
Printable View
http://www.portfolio.com/views/colum...ez-and-Red-Sox
...Quote:
Originally Posted by article
:eek:
sounds like **** to me (no pun intended) but the subject on whether to keep him or let him go is a HOT topic on WEEI. They have talked about it all day for over a week now. The verdict of the fans calling in is around 60-40 in favor of keeping him.
Ok LOL....
Really the decision should hinge on whether you can adequately replace him. Im not sure who out there would be available that can give you the kinda numebr Manny can he still good for 290 30HR a year. SO Im not sure there's somone out there to replace him.Quote:
Originally Posted by cartman00000001
I could see them letting Manny walk, and trying to sign Matt Holliday.Quote:
Originally Posted by gRYFYN1
No! put the Coors Field Kool-Aid down.Quote:
Originally Posted by koolzach1
Matt Holliday splits:
2008 Home. 376/452/677 (12HR)
2008 Away. 307/406/460 (5 HR)
2007 Home .376/435/722 (25HR)
2007 Away. 301/374/485 (11HR)
Career Home .365/429/664 (81HR)
Career Away. 278/342/449 (39HR)
Feel free to snicker at the team that gives him 18 mil a year.
first of all, Holiday is signed through '09 so he not available this year. Second, there is no one to replace him. Pat Burrell? Raul Ibanez? Nope. Remember an important aspect of him: Not only you have to replace him, but Papi's production would take a hit due to his presense. They could always walk Papi and take their chances on, let say, Milton Bradley? I don't like it. Sign him for the first option, then see what you get from him in '09, THEN see what you got, and what you can get.
Not sold on Holiday...we did a good job with him in the '07 series.
Exactly Cartman. I was listening last week when the boneheaded callers were bitchin' that "if you only excercise the option, he wont play." So, I guess that they want to hand him 4 years, at whatever he wants, and hope for the best?
Hel1 no! The Red Sox paid through the nose for the priviledge to have those last two options on his deal. What, he's gonna take the last two years off? What's he gonna do then? All he'll have left is waiting for the hall, and if he's a jackass for those two years, the writers WILL notice.
Isn't there any legal action the Red Sox can take if Manny boycotts his option years?
Yes, not pay him. He can come up with the usual Hammy Ramirez BS and get paid, but really, two seasons worth?
I suggested a couple of unusual options:Quote:
Originally Posted by robinhoodnik
Pay him his two options and then let him sit in the Dominican Republic for two years. Yes, pay him 40 million to do nothing. Good luck getting on another team when you're fat and 38 Manny..or into the HOF sitting on your present stats with all the baggage around your neck.
Or get the guy he knocked over to press charges. Not to mention all the stuff we have never heard about that's kept behind closed doors. It may be considerable since I've read even the Mets arn't interested in him.
Even if Manny agrees to a trade...his antics have reduced his value to about a dime per dollar. Not just because of the antics but because now the Sox will be desperate to move him.Quote:
Originally Posted by robinhoodnik
There's always going to be a market for a guy who can hit like Manny can. However, I agree with Pavel...the Sox would get more in the offseason for Ramirex than they would in trying to hurriedly throw something together for him now.
Whatever happens in a trade (which is going to be difficult to accomplish), this is Manny's last year as a Red Sox. The only question will be whether the owner's "collude" against him next year in the same way they did Bonds this year. I think the answer to that is no. Someone's gonna pick him up next year. Wouldn't surprise me if it were the Yankees.
As I've said elsewhere, the Yanks might pay him 20mill just for the psychological aspect...but I don't think any other team will pay him that much.Quote:
Originally Posted by OldFatGuy
I don't think it's collusion with Bonds or Clemens for that matter. If you don't have to deal with all of that negative cr@p, why bring it upon yourself? They're both old players, both @**holes, and both in potentially BIG trouble. You'd be a fool to set yourself up with one of those two right now.
While I agree that I don't believe its actual "collusion" in this case either (i.e., they've gotten together and agreed to not sign them), I also think the same case can be made for the negatives of Manny, so I'm still wondering whether the treatment will be same.Quote:
Originally Posted by robinhoodnik
You guys are nutz. Please don't lose this thread, remember it. He's approaching the upper 30's and wants to try to do a 3 or 4 year deal this offseason. They most likely will pick up the 20 mil option and trade him...which will be difficult to accomplish as the team he goes to will have to be approved by him and willing to sign him to 3 or 4 years. Difficult, but it is most certainly the most logical occurence and definetly possible. They may sign him to a 3 year extension themselves. Unlikely but it wouldn't shock me. I doubt it'll happen though.Quote:
Originally Posted by OldFatGuy
I think the Sox would love to sign the one year option and have him play next year at 20 mil but they know he'll be pissed. He's doing nothing no other player in his position and with his talent wouldn't do, its just being highlighted here because it is Manny.
Should he go to FA, or more likely after he's traded, with the year he's having and his talent unquestionably he will get a 2 or 3 year contract worth near 20 mil if not more than that.
You Yankees want Manny next year for a 4 year contract at 21 mill per year? You're welcome to him. Just what you need, another slow 1B/Dh type at 20 mill a year.Quote:
Originally Posted by dickay
Quote:
Originally Posted by dickay
If talent was all that mattered, Bonds would've had a contract by now.
According to ESPN, he would accept a trade (remember he's got a no trade clause) but doesn't think that is likely.
I'd love for him to come to the Mets!
my guess is that you would change your tune once he's out for 6 weeks with a "sore hammy" (2006)Quote:
Originally Posted by metsguy234
Or my guess is they'd be thrilled with what pretty much is consistently an approximate 500+ AB's per, 30HRs, 100+RBIsQuote:
Originally Posted by cartman00000001
Martinez was great in the first year of his contract too.Quote:
Originally Posted by dickay
True. A few important points;Quote:
Originally Posted by Pavelb1
1. The Mets, although hes not playing much now, do not regret the Martinez signing. This has been stated by their GM, as well as team execs. and their fan base as well in general.
2. Pedro, being an aging pitcher with a recent history of injury prior to the signing was definetly more suspect than Manny will be after this season.
3. Hitters typically have more longevity than pitchers, quality wise that is.
4. There are a handful of major leaguers who give the quality offense Manny does. These 'antics' are overblown. The market value has also substantially risen in the past few years (see Andruw Jones) and Manny will have no problem getting 3 years at, near, or maybe even over 20 mil per.
At one year, if the Sox could excersise the option and Manny was content with it, it would be an absolute steal. Manny however will not be happy, and that should be understandable. This happens all the time in every sport, he's aging and wants security of a long term deal. Its business.....but the Sox fan wants to make it personal. The guys earned that massive salary...I'd love to see them have him for 20 mil next year, but realize Manny's gotta play his cards too.
Ramirez doesn't come with a tenth of the media crush Bonds does.Quote:
Originally Posted by OldFatGuy
A very good post. You're missing one thing. If a player tanks an AB (especially against the Yanks!) or misses a game with a phantom injury (Against the Yanks!) to make a point...then it *is* personal. A sporting event is a contract between the fans and the players who in effect pay their salaries. The fans buy a ticket to see that player try as hard as he can to win. When a guy who makes 20 million a year breaks that contract with the fans he's disgracing the sport.Quote:
Originally Posted by dickay
Ring Lardner-"I'm forever blowing ballgames, pretty ballgames in the air. I come from Chi, I hardly try, just go to bat and fade and die. Fortune's coming my way, that's why I hardly care. I'm forever blowing ballgames..."
No, that's a good point. But I would argue he does come with the same or nearly the same amount of negatives.Quote:
Originally Posted by Arctic Blast
Please, don't get me wrong, I think he's one of, if not the best, hitters of all time, especially right hand hitters. But, like Bonds, he's a dick. Sorry, no other way to describe it, he is (and Barry is too).
My point was, both were "dicks" (IMO), so were they going to be treated the same (i.e. will Manny have a hard time landing a job next year too), or is Manny, because of his age (thus a better "risk" PR wise as well as talen wise) going to get lots of offers.
To me, if Manny gets lots of offers and mega bucks, then this would indicate maybe real "collusion" against Bonds. If Manny doesn't, this would indicate it's no real collusion, owners just don't want to take chances with "dicks." The "baggage" that comes with it is too much.
I guess time will tell.
I've never understood what owners stand to gain by colluding against Bonds.Quote:
Originally Posted by OldFatGuy
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pavelb1
$$$$$$$$$$$$$
Bonds is so hated in so many areas of the country, it would result in negative fan reaction to sign him. Yet, if you wanted to sign the "best available talent no matter anything else", its very difficult to argue against Bonds, even the last three years of Bonds, when he's old and washed up.
They get to make it seem like they're the reason the game is being cleaned up, and they get to act as if they played no role in the rise of steroids in the game.Quote:
Originally Posted by Pavelb1
I have not seen any evidence that Bonds would result in negative fan reaction to sign him. San Francisco routinely drew great crowds. Yes, part of that is due to the fact that he was chasing home run records.Quote:
Originally Posted by OldFatGuy
However, what does the average fan want to pay to see the most? Winning. If bringing in Barry Bonds results in extra wins, the fans are going to come no matter what. Yes, there's going to be some fans that'll refuse to pay to see Barry Bonds, but the media greatly exaggerates that. Most fans don't strongly care one way or the other. Most fans just want to see their team win.
Yep, you're right, most fans do want to just see wins. And I'm probably overestimating the "reluctance" of owners to sign him (or Manny, or anyone else with negatives.)Quote:
Originally Posted by HoustonGM
But, assuming I am over-estimating that effect, why hasn't Bonds been signed? Or, for that matter, why hasn't Clemens been signed????
Are they (or their agents) asking too much??
Manny, you are overstating it. Bonds, you're not.Quote:
Originally Posted by OldFatGuy
I'm pretty sure Clemens has chosen himself to not play anymore, and he's far behind Bonds in terms of value provided as he's no longer a very good pitcher (he's about average I'd guess). Bonds, though, is still a VERY above-average hitter that could provide many teams with much needed offense. As I said above, you're not over-estimating the reluctance of owners to sign him. They're not signing him. He's offered to play for the minimum, and teams won't sign him. Personally, I think there's at least a mild collusion going on. The owners want Bonds out of the game, even if he'd mean an on-field improvement to their team. They're also afraid of the outrage in the big bad media. And trust me, the outrage the media would make of a Bonds signing would greatly exaggerate whatever "outrage" the fans themselves have (which isn't likely to be all that much, save for a few diehard anti-Bonds people).Quote:
But, assuming I am over-estimating that effect, why hasn't Bonds been signed? Or, for that matter, why hasn't Clemens been signed????
Wouldn't that be defacto collusion??? I've not been as sold on this "collusion" as I was in the 80's (on that I was sure BEFORE the ruling), but wouldn't that be almost as near the same. I mean, you're NOT willing to sign an "on-field improvement to their team" because of (enter data here, fan backlash here, or "he's a liar, media backlash" here, etc. etc. etc). Isn't this the same????Quote:
Originally Posted by HoustonGM
I am still struggling with this question now, and I really don't think its near the slam dunk it was in the 80's.
It's not the same type of collusion that took place in the 1980's, where the owners all got together and made a concerted effort to control free agency by refusing to sign players, but I'd say that yeah, what's going on with Bonds is basically the same thing, albeit on a much smaller scale (one player instead of nearly the entire free agent pool).
See, again, I don't think it has so much to do with negative press reaction as the extreme volume of press that would suddenly descend on whatever team SIGNS Bonds. That team would become 'The Story' for every single sportscast everywhere, just with a stroke of the pen, ESPECIALLY right now, as baseball is currently the only game in town. Why do you think the Favre 'story' is getting blown up so big in football? There is nothing else to report on! Whatever team signed Bonds right now, in the dog days of summer, would siffer a media feeding frenzy. I would imagine most players would find the sort of press invasion that would result distracting, to say the least. As I hear Paul O'Neill say in an interview last week, when asked if the Yanks would maybe consider Bonds "The last thing this team is needs is another story, and more media."Quote:
Originally Posted by OldFatGuy
As for Clemens, frankly, he didn't look like he had nearly as much left in the tank as Bonds did last year.
Wow... so Paul O'Neill is in on this? He's part of the collusion ring?Quote:
Originally Posted by Arctic Blast
Or did he come to that conclusion independently? And if it's that, why must any owner who thinks the same way be guilty of collusion?
What? You too? Stop colluding!!Quote:
Originally Posted by Arctic Blast