Or around the seventh time he's thrown out solely because he's jogging to first.Quote:
Originally Posted by cartman00000001
Printable View
Or around the seventh time he's thrown out solely because he's jogging to first.Quote:
Originally Posted by cartman00000001
Guess that you didn't watch a lot of those games he was in outside of San Francisco? The ones after the steroids issue became front page news and not just back page supposition?Quote:
Originally Posted by HoustonGM
Quote:
Originally Posted by JayC
OK, so its not collusion. My question still stands. Will Manny get the same treatment next year that Bonds got this year?? If not then something's going on. Why would they treat one guy with negatives differently than another??
I'm not as sold on collusion in this case either, though it was very real indeed in the 80's, so it's not impossible.
No, Manny will be treated far better. He isn't convicted of anything other than being a goofball in the court of public opinion.Quote:
Originally Posted by OldFatGuy
Yes, Dave "Kong" Kingman being a guy who won a collusion case back then, would have been the first 500 hr guy NOT in the hall of fame. That's suspected of being one of the reasons he got blackballed
I didn't think Bonds had been convicted of anything. Could be wrong though.
But for sure he won't get a 20 a million deal from anyone (even the Yankees ;) )Quote:
Originally Posted by robinhoodnik
In the court of public opinion? He's been convicted, tarred, featherd, shunned, and fired over the horizon from a circus cannon in that court OFG.Quote:
Originally Posted by OldFatGuy
He sure didn't seem to have any leg problems when he blew through the stop sign last night. I thought he was going to be out easily cause the fielder got the ball just before Manny reached third.Quote:
Originally Posted by robinhoodnik
Absolutely not. There are a LOT of young power guys coming up now, who'd get less. Why on earth would anyone other than Boston give him that kind of money to be a hitter? More to the point, who that could afford it would pay him that money? The Dodgers? Probably not after the Jones fiasco, the Giants? Maybe. Mets or Yankees? No, probably not at this point in Manny's career, Cubs? No.Quote:
Originally Posted by FRENCHREDSOX
Angels...
I disagree. I think he'll have no problem getting the 20 mil or close to it for a 2 or 3 year deal. The Angels come first to mind. The Tigers, Orioles, possibly the Blue Jays, Mets, Yankees, maybe the Dodgers. I could even see Houston, Arizona, and CHW.Quote:
Originally Posted by robinhoodnik
Manny's having a rebound year....there's no reason to think he won't give at least two more Manny type 30+HR, 100+ RBI, .285+BA years. There aren't many 'young' guys who *will be available* you can say that with full confidence about. Sox fans (i'm one) apparently want something to gripe about, so this guy who gives a solid approximate 500 AB's per year lays down a couple games, most likely out of protest but possibly injured, and suddenly the Sox fan forgets about the 145 other games he plays in every year.
If this guy trys as little as these Sox fans try to portray, its amazing the stats he puts on the table with such little effort. He's in no way a villain and is generally liked by teammates, or those were always the reports up until a week ago.
Again, Manny is doing what every other professional would do....he's trying to get some security in his contract. Boston fans haven't seen this profile a star do this in awhile and take issue with it. At this point of his career, I think it makes perfect business sense for him to try and get to the FA market, or get a new deal with Boston. He's on record even as recently as this weekend as saying he'd like an extension with Boston (although the media only plays the part where he said he'll accept a trade). Boston is making a smart business decision to try and keep him year to year....but its all business on both sides. The fans need to get over themselves and just let it play out.
Fans are ridiculously fickle. It's extremely likely that many fans that booed Bonds and what not just did it for the fun of it, not because they actually despise the guy and hope he dies. I'd bet that a majority of people that have booed Bonds would be happy if their favorite team signed him and he helped that team make the playoffs. Winning is what matters most to most fans.Quote:
Originally Posted by robinhoodnik
I'm not bagging on Manny's hitting at all. He supposedly works harder than anyone at that aspect of his game. It's the rest of the package that's the problem, running until he's out like a little leaguer, not even bothering to run down the line other times, sub standard outfielder everywhere but Fenway. That sort of stuff grates on people over time.
I doubt the Sox will let him go anywhere in the division, they'd probably rather pay him than let him go to Toronto, Baltimore or the Yankees.
I disagree, Manny's having a contract year.
Nomar was "liked" by his teammates too. Right up until he was traded.
I think the Sox should pick up the option, as a hitter, he's probably worth the 20 in this market, unless a younger guy becomes available to them. If Manny doesn't like it, tough sh*t, let him sue his former agent over it.
I doubt that most people (except former friends and acquaintances) would like to see him die. I do think that most people don't like him at all. I think that the best any team that would sign him could hope for is fan indifference.Quote:
Originally Posted by HoustonGM
- Actually, I thought Nomar was unpopular in the clubhouse, seen as a loner who was somewhat arrogant. Maybe I'm wrong in that.....but I thought alot of the reason they moved him was he was becoming so unpopular in the clubhouse the word 'cancer' was being thrown about. He was 'very popular' with the fans however.Quote:
Nomar was "liked" by his teammates too. Right up until he was traded.
I think the Sox should pick up the option, as a hitter, he's probably worth the 20 in this market, unless a younger guy becomes available to them. If Manny doesn't like it, tough sh*t, let him sue his former agent over it.
- In a perfect world, yes Manny should live up to the contract. But its not a perfect world, every major talent does what Manny does in this situation..its right out of the textbook. Even if the Sox were willing to deal with the Manny headaches that would come with not giving him security the fans apparently are being twisted anti-Manny and it would be a PR nightmare. They need to lock him up long term, or do the option and trade him to someone who will.
The Sox should be thrilled with what they got from him production wise during his contract....and realize what everyone should have known at the time the contract was signed. No star in his situation would be happy on a year to year contract basis for the next two years at 36 years of age.
I doubt the Sox were that dumb when they made the contract, and probably put that option in there so they would be in the exact situation they are in today.....given the option to let him walk, or keep control and trade him which is what they most likely will do. Really, think about it.
Know what? That's exactly what I would do. Sign him, and trade him off. No need to be that way about it.Quote:
Originally Posted by dickay
The Nomar stuff didn't start coming out until the Sox were done with him. I remember Millar stating just before he was gone that he'd love to be getting throws where he could catch them from the best shortstop in baseball, that would have been A-Rod.
He also said afterwards, that Nomar's throws were tough because he was often throwing coming up, almost like a submarine pitcher, and he couldn't pick out the ball until it was on him.
So what? The Sox do have a signed contract. They should pick up the option, and nothing more. Manny don't like it, Manny can stay home.
Well, I'm sorry guys, but I'm still gonna bring it up because I am beginning to smell something funny.
I've seen several posts ridiculing/questioning collusion against Bonds. Fine, I can buy that there's no collusion, really I can :).
And I'm not suggesting Bonds and Manny are exactly alike, they aren't. But the fact is Bonds has a lot of negative baggage, and the fact is Manny has a lot of negative baggage. I mean, come on, maybe he does put up 30HR's and 100RBI's, but then in late July in a tight pennant race in the first game of three game series against one of the teams you're fighting (and your arch rival to boot) he decides not to play in a game the Sox lost 1-0, on their way to losing the series 2 games to 1??? This is not trivial.
So they both come with negative baggage. Where I start to smell something that stinks (collusion??) is where you have two players with the negatives, and one is going to get basically market rate ($20M) and one gets ZERO!
If you can't see something fishy in that then its because you don't want to, because SOMETHING IS GOING ON. I would think that both would recieve lukewarm interest at best, with interest in Manny probably a little higher. But when its expected one is going to get market rates and one gets nothing, something is beginning to smell, and this time it ain't the old fat guy in the room.
Because Manny doesn't have the whole steroid controversy and a federal investigation hanging over his head like the blade of a guilliotine.
Yeah, and Manny doesn't want to play in important games.Quote:
Originally Posted by robinhoodnik
Manny's been there time and time again. Over his career he's been one of the most durable and consistent players of alltime. If you want to think he tanked it last weekend here fine, If you want to say he tanked it late in 06 after they were out of it fine. You are entitled to your opinions. But to say he's done this in important games over his entire career and compare him as anything close to the kind of baggage Bonds brings is really kind of rediculous. They are two entirely different situations. Is there collusion against Bonds...who knows!?! In a way I think there is, but then again I can understand teams not wanting to sign him. However there are absolutely zero similarities between he and manny.....and trying to draw them is making something out of nothing.Quote:
Originally Posted by OldFatGuy
No similarities. That quote is about Barry Bonds isn't it???:confused:Quote:
Originally Posted by dickay
I see similarities - it's tough to fathom, being a Boston fan, since I'm used to the 'aww, Manny is just being Manny!' atmosphere. Maybe the Giants fans felt the same about Barry? I dunno. Somehow, something about Manny's acting out and poor choices and silly tantrums seems...just a tad childish. Like a spoiled star, a kid that never grew up - he loses focus on the field, makes some poor fielding choices, goofs around on his cell phone...there are legitimate issues with the pushing event, and his brushes with management are getting fierce, but we're used to this.
Nothing seems as serious or in the same vein as Bonds' steroid use. I guess for me, if you're the team that has Manny, it's like you have a whining kid - a dangerous, great hitter, but a whiny, unhappy-every-year, slight-trouble-causing player.
If you have Bonds, padding his all-time HR record which is already tainted in the eyes of an overwhelming majority of fans....I dunno. I just wouldn't want to be the owner that enabled that. Maybe it would be an improvement over, say, Greg Norton. But for the record books and the steroid era, I wouldn't want to be the one that gives in to the need for a bat and helps increase those asterisk'd numbers.
Quote:
Originally Posted by OldFatGuy
What *is* the market rate for 44 year old men that haven't played in 10 months, are in age/steroid decline, can't field and could go to trial at anytime?
Looking at the market...I'd say exactly 0.
:sigh:
Like I said, if you can't see somethings going on, its because you don't want to. Because SOMETHING is most definitely going on if one gets full market rate and the other gets zero.
When that "age/steroid decline" results in a .450 OBP and .500+ slugging, and the "can't field" is largely exaggerated as he's just a below-average left fielder and nothing abominable, and the likelihood of a trial happening anytime soon is basically zero, and the alternatives to that player aren't anything special, I'd say the market rate should be pretty good.Quote:
Originally Posted by Pavelb1
I just think that, like I already posted, it's not so much the owners colluding to not sign him, but it's owners who are universally scared of the results if they DO sign him. They're worried about the affect to their respective teams, and the amount of media pressure that would be exerted on their team as a result of the signing. That isn't collusion. It's only collusion if they are actively banding together and saying "Okay, none of us even talks to him, okay?"Quote:
Originally Posted by OldFatGuy
Manny's an idiot, no question. However, Manny won't come with a tenth of the attention and media crush.
The effect is basically the same, though.Quote:
Originally Posted by Arctic Blast
They're letting the media make decisions for them.
Well, to be fair, I didn't say "Collusion". I just said something smells fishy when one gets zero and the other gets full market rate (or at least its being argued on these boards he's going to get full market, I suppose we'll see next year if that's the case).Quote:
Originally Posted by Arctic Blast
I don't know if its owners, Bud Selig (who has a known hatred of the man), the media (as you describe it), or whatever. I just know when my nose smells something fishy, and I'm beginning to smell it now.
Yeah, because they don't want to be the team suddenly bringing an extrea 500 reporters to every single game, and subject everyone else on the team to that sort of crush. I can't say I blame them!Quote:
Originally Posted by HoustonGM
No, I know you didn't mention collusion, I just added that in. I truly do pretty much think it's worries about media. ESPECIALLY with the fact that the Justice Department case is still looming...NOBODY wants to be the team with Bonds on their roster when there is a very real possibility that he'll be nailed dead to rights on their watch (and, let's face it, the Feds don't tend to just flippantly throw charges around...typically, they wait until they can make the case).Quote:
Originally Posted by OldFatGuy)
Well, I guess I could buy the media thing. I've actually posted before how I believe the pitch count's universal use today in MLB is in part due to the media, so, yeah, I guess I could see they have this much influence in a decision like this too.
Like I said, I'm not claiming collusion, only that SOMETHING is going on, because on the face of it, Bonds should have at least some interest with his numbers, and while Manny's interest should most certainly be higher than Barry's, he too has negatives. It truly strikes me odd that in those cases one may get full market rate and one gets nothing.
I know what you mean. Just last night here in NYC there was a "fishy" smell in the air. I didn't know what it was exactly, but I knew that my nose was smelling it (reported in the papers today is that was centered in the South Street Seaport area, but that's all beside the point).Quote:
Originally Posted by OldFatGuy
In the case of Bonds, I know what I'm smelling: the premier face of the steroid controversy, the possibility of a federal indictment, and occasional discipline/clubhouse problems. Maybe some of it's media-driven but that's again beside the point: it still is there, and every team depends on goodwill of the fan base and of the media.
And some teams could have other specific reasons. When people toss around the possibility of the Yankees signing Bonds, I wonder if they remember that the team just signed A-Rod for a gazillion dollars for the rest of his natural life, in the hope that within a few years he'll be chasing Bonds for the home run title. Why would they want to give Bonds a chance to make that tougher?
Well, although we have agreed upon little in this thread, I DO agree with you that Bonds should be on a team. Going into FA I'd say he was worth in the 14-15 million range for one season at least being his age and talents...though he is in a market by himself with his baggage. The fact that nobody has touched him has greatly reduced his market price to the point where he's said he'll play for free (he'd donate league minimum to charity) and he still can't get a sniff. So yes.....I agree something is fishy here. No similarities to the Manny situation however IMO.Quote:
Originally Posted by OldFatGuy
Don't forget Clemens. He went from media darling to a zero in about 40 days. We should have been hearing about the annual "where will Clemens get his 3 months in this year?" bidding war already.
oh that's already been signed - ask the Feds they have the dates & ticket prices ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by robinhoodnik
Maybe if he's lucky he can have Martha Stewarts old cell, it'll be decorated nicelyQuote:
ask the Feds they have the dates & ticket prices
lol :DQuote:
Originally Posted by reade
How about Miguel Tejada? As somebody over at Baseball Think Factory summed up nicely, "A lying steroid user with the distraction of a federal investigation hanging over his head. But the good kind."
The fact of the matter is that there are many steroid users getting employed by major league teams. There are many people that have committed illegal acts being employed by major league teams. There's even some with the possibility of legal matters in the near or long term that are employed by major league teams. There are players that carry media baggage that are employed by major league teams.
Except the one player that is still able to get on base at a near 50% clip.
(Although, I'd admit that Bonds comes with significantly more media nonsense than others. But come on, sometimes, you have to say "**** you" to the reporters, and field the best possible team.)
I wish the Angels would suck it up and sign him.
Take on the old Raiders persona and sign Bonds and Clemens.:D
I think if they were pressed a little harder in the AL West, they might have considered. As is, they've got it locked up.Quote:
Originally Posted by ohms_law