Don't you do it bowden ! ! !

Ok, now it's another guy, and not just Peter Gammons (Gammons has been saying it since the first day of free agency).

Now it's Buster Olney saying Manny has a good shot at landing in DC with the Nationals.

Please Jim Bowden. Reconsider. Think about it. Have a drink, and think about some more. And if you're still tempted, drink the whole bottle and think about it. If you're still interested, drink a bottle of Clorox.

And while on the subject of Jim Bowden. The first year in DC, the Nats were in first place in NL East AT THE ALL STAR BREAK. Lots of folks don't remember that, but I do. FIRST PLACE AT THE ALL-STAR BREAK IN 2005.

Where has Jim Bowden taken this competitive team?

2005-Finished 81-81
2006-Finished 71-91
2007-Finished 73-89
2008-Finished 59-102

Hmm. Anyone other than me see a trend here???

WHY IN HOLY HELL IS JIM BOWDEN STILL EMPLOYED???????????????:mad:

After ten years of losing, the Nats will come back like the Rays did this year. Look for 2015 OFG.

Why not sign Manny? The Nats offense has been the worst offense in baseball over those 4 years .. finishing 16th, 10th, 16th, 14th in runs/game.

Even the 2005, when they posted a 77-85 pythag record, they did it with pitching, granted the top 3 pitchers were Livan Hernandez (whose posted ERA+ of 91, 95 and 67 since) Estaban Loiza (whose pitched 200 innings in the last 3 years) and Jon Patterson (whose gone 1-7 in 15 game the last 3 years)

So the team was never as good as the 81-81 record it posted in his 1st year, the Farm system that was in place when he got there has borne litte fruit for the majors so far.

Now obviously this will be tempered by what kind of contact he gets but a 3/60 contract would be good for the Nats -- espically now that ownership is settled and they can actually spend money.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gRYFYN1

Why not sign Manny? The Nats offense has been the worst offense in baseball over those 4 years .. finishing 16th, 10th, 16th, 14th in runs/game.

Even the 2005, when they posted a 77-85 pythag record, they did it with pitching, granted the top 3 pitchers were Livan Hernandez (whose posted ERA+ of 91, 95 and 67 since) Estaban Loiza (whose pitched 200 innings in the last 3 years) and Jon Patterson (whose gone 1-7 in 15 game the last 3 years)

So the team was never as good as the 81-81 record it posted in his 1st year, the Farm system that was in place when he got there has borne litte fruit for the majors so far.

Now obviously this will be tempered by what kind of contact he gets but a 3/60 contract would be good for the Nats -- espically now that ownership is settled and they can actually spend money.

---

Becase if they sign Manny, they can say bye bye to Lastings, Dukes, and Zimmerman

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OldFatGuy

WHY IN HOLY HELL IS JIM BOWDEN STILL EMPLOYED???????????????:mad:

---

I've been asking that for years, dude. If the Nats sign Manny, they better make sure they have a couple of shrinks on staff fulltime. Too many head cases on that team as it is.

That being said, I'll be surprised if Manny ends up anywhere other than back with the Dodgers.

I remember one article in SI that claimed Bowden was a genius, and was all over him. when he got Lastings and Dukes, I began to feel he might have something going. Now I feel the only thing going is Bowden, when he leaves Washington.

Milledge and Dukes are shaping up to be two mighty fine acquisitions...

Dukes is a powderkeg waiting for a lit fuse, and I ain't talking about his baseball talent. It's a question of when, not if, he explodes. It won't be pretty.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoustonGM

Milledge and Dukes are shaping up to be two mighty fine acquisitions...

---

Yes, they are, that is why I thought he was doing good. Then he got Lo Duca and Perez, and killed the rotation. He HAS made some smart moves, but he seems to like OF too much, and handles pitching badly. Not to mention outside of L-Millz, Zimm, and Dukes, his offense sucks.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by beerchaser

Dukes is a powderkeg waiting for a lit fuse, and I ain't talking about his baseball talent. It's a question of when, not if, he explodes. It won't be pretty.

---

He has exploded. He has more kids and ex-wives/Girl Friends then ohms does posts

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gRYFYN1

Why not sign Manny? The Nats offense has been the worst offense in baseball over those 4 years .. finishing 16th, 10th, 16th, 14th in runs/game.

Even the 2005, when they posted a 77-85 pythag record, they did it with pitching, granted the top 3 pitchers were Livan Hernandez (whose posted ERA+ of 91, 95 and 67 since) Estaban Loiza (whose pitched 200 innings in the last 3 years) and Jon Patterson (whose gone 1-7 in 15 game the last 3 years)

So the team was never as good as the 81-81 record it posted in his 1st year, the Farm system that was in place when he got there has borne litte fruit for the majors so far.

Now obviously this will be tempered by what kind of contact he gets but a 3/60 contract would be good for the Nats -- espically now that ownership is settled and they can actually spend money.

---

Gotta disagree. I could've easily gotton on board with signing Tex, he's young, and it was an 8 year offer. Manny is 36. You don't build up a team that lost 100 games by signing a guy at the end of his career.

Also, if he quit on the Red Sox, who's to say how motivated he'll be on a losing time like the Nats?? We saw what a motivated Manny could do (his second half in LA was nothing short of AWESOMELY GREAT, for lack of better words to use), and we saw what an unmotivated Manny can do (my knee hurts, so I can't play).

No way is it in the Nats best interests to spend that kind of money on that kind of player with that kind of risk. They would be better off going after a Penny or a Sheets (which would cost less), though both of those are risks for different reasons. If they want to sign a short term star at the end of his career, they could sign Jr. for much less and still leave them with dollars to fix other areas of the team.

You're entitled to your opinion; I'm entitled to mine. I stand by hoping Bowden doesn't do this stupid deal. He could spend that money in a way that would help the team much more and for much longer if he spent it differently. Let Manny and his attitude play somewhere else.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OldFatGuy

Also, if he quit on the Red Sox, who's to say how motivated he'll be on a losing time like the Nats?? We saw what a motivated Manny could do (his second half in LA was nothing short of AWESOMELY GREAT, for lack of better words to use), and we saw what an unmotivated Manny can do (my knee hurts, so I can't play).

---

Still not sure what it means that he "quit" on the Red Sox. Is it an "emotional" thing that we can't really quantify? He hit .347 in the month of July with a 1.060 OPS, so if anything, he was picking up his game. I think I understand what fans mean when they refer to him "quitting", but it doesn't quite fit with the type of season he was having when he was traded.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OldFatGuy

Also, if he quit on the Red Sox, who's to say how motivated he'll be on a losing time like the Nats?? We saw what a motivated Manny could do (his second half in LA was nothing short of AWESOMELY GREAT, for lack of better words to use), and we saw what an unmotivated Manny can do (my knee hurts, so I can't play).

---

Unmotivated Manny hit .347/.473/.587 (his July stat line). The allegations of Manny "quitting" on the Red Sox are unfounded. He may have sat out a game or three, but it's not like he just stopped playing. He still played in 95% of the games, and he was their best hitter in the month that he supposedly was "doggin' it."

This isn't to say that I disagree with your overall point, because I don't. The Nationals shouldn't sign Manny.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RedsoxRockies

He has exploded. He has more kids and ex-wives/Girl Friends then ohms does posts

---

Those were just popguns. There's a bigger explosion coming, and I would not want to be near him when it does.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BINGLEBOP

Still not sure what it means that he "quit" on the Red Sox. Is it an "emotional" thing that we can't really quantify? He hit .347 in the month of July with a 1.060 OPS, so if anything, he was picking up his game. I think I understand what fans mean when they refer to him "quitting", but it doesn't quite fit with the type of season he was having when he was traded.

---

Yes, it's an emotional thing. The guy could wake up from a coma and hit. One of the best pure hitters I've seen.

But he quit on the Red Sox. Make no mistake. The Red Sox knew it. Why do you think they made that trade AND paid his salary??? They knew he didn't want to be there, he refused to play in one of the biggest games of the season, and his "Manny being Manny" moments were legendary, while in LA he seemed to hustle out base hits, actually make an effort in the outfield, etc. I mean, I watched that second half last year and he was a different ballplayer.

So, which Manny would the Nats get?? The one in LA, or the one in Boston? It's too much of a risk IMO for that much money. And I'm not alone, either. Plenty of GM's saw that "quit" in Manny, and that's why his options are running out. He's in the position he's in right now because of his own doing. With a different attitude, he would have been THE free agent of this offseason. Just look at that second half he had last year. Any other player with those lifetime stats and that second half would've had 10 teams going after them. Not Manny. And it's for one reason, and one reason only. His attitude.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoustonGM

The allegations of Manny "quitting" on the Red Sox are unfounded.

---

Well, like I said in an earlier post. You'r entitled to your opinion, and I'm entitled to mine. And if he didn't "quit" on the Red Sox, why would the Red Sox trade him for a lesser player AND pay his salary? The Red Sox knew it too.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OldFatGuy

Well, like I said in an earlier post. You'r entitled to your opinion, and I'm entitled to mine. And if he didn't "quit" on the Red Sox, why would the Red Sox trade him for a lesser player AND pay his salary? The Red Sox knew it too.

---

To get rid of the headache, which is different than him quitting on them.

Also, to get something of value back for a player that was leaving for free agency after the year.

If Manny of July 2008 is a "quitter", I'd love my team full of quitters.

Quote:

---

Gotta disagree. I could've easily gotton on board with signing Tex, he's young, and it was an 8 year offer. Manny is 36. You don't build up a team that lost 100 games by signing a guy at the end of his career.

---

Why not, though? He's a marquee name who brings fans to the park and the television sets for a couple of seasons, gives the team time to develop someone else (either through the farm or through FA), adds a few wins...
What's the problem, exactly?
:confused:

I do have to question Manny's motivation on the Nats. Now, to be clear, I'm NOT someone who thinks he quite on the Sox last year (though he certainly seems to have been the cause of a LOT of headaches in the locker room). I just don't see him at this point in his career getting up to play for a bad baseball team that has no hope in Hell...how long is the money going to keep him happy and motivated (and money is the ONLY reason he'd choose the Nats)?

2 years? That's all it would take...
I don't know, I think that he would be likely to enjoy it there. I'd think that he would unquestionably be the veteran leader in the clubhouse.
(whether or not he would be good at that remains to be seen)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoustonGM

If Manny of July 2008 is a "quitter", I'd love my team full of quitters.

---

It's not Manny's July, it's Manny's possible August and September. People forget it isn't what he did, it was what he was GOING to do.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by cartman00000001

It's not Manny's July, it's Manny's possible August and September. People forget it isn't what he did, it was what he was GOING to do.

---

And we know what he was going to do?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoustonGM

And we know what he was going to do?

---

bingo!! you're making....my point!! (that's a WEEI thing) We don't know, the Sox didn't know...hell, MANNY DIDN'T know. Can't take the chance in a multi million dollar business. You know?

The reason trading him was the right move was because he was guaranteed to leave after the season, any way, and getting back 2008 AND future value for him was a sound decision, especially if it meant removing the headache. What he was "going to do", I suppose implying that he may have decided to sit out or whatever, is irrelevant. It was a good decision, regardless.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoustonGM

The reason trading him was the right move was because he was guaranteed to leave after the season, any way, and getting back 2008 AND future value for him was a sound decision, especially if it meant removing the headache. What he was "going to do", I suppose implying that he may have decided to sit out or whatever, is irrelevant. It was a good decision, regardless.

---

there is 1 tiny thing though. The 2 1-year options were TEAM options, not player options. If they wanted him back, all they had to do was pick them up.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by cartman00000001

there is 1 tiny thing though. The 2 1-year options were TEAM options, not player options. If they wanted him back, all they had to do was pick them up.

---

They didn't want him back at that price and knew they were going to decline in, therefore, they KNEW he'd depart as a free agent.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoustonGM

They didn't want him back at that price and knew they were going to decline in, therefore, they KNEW he'd depart as a free agent.

---

there were plenty of calls for them to pick up the options, but we knew the ownership weren't fans of this guy.
The most telling is when Francona said he was at his happiest in those 2 months.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Arctic Blast

I just don't see him at this point in his career getting up to play for a bad baseball team that has no hope in Hell...how long is the money going to keep him happy and motivated (and money is the ONLY reason he'd choose the Nats)?

---

Really, have you read anything about Manny? the actual money dosen't really mean much to him .. you will get Manny, there really no "getting up to play" with Manny, he comes and does his thing ... but you also get the oddities with that (they will crop up) and over a long period ... say eight years or so ... if really start to get tiresome. But if your talking 3 or so years there wont be a (major) problem.

While I agree the money may be better spent elsewhere .. say on pitching .. guys like Sheets are still looking for 4-5 year deals .. and with the 17m/year Burnett got he set the bar scary high for teams to spend 75m on a guys that can spend 30-50% of the time on the DL.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ohms_law

Why not, though? He's a marquee name who brings fans to the park and the television sets for a couple of seasons, gives the team time to develop someone else (either through the farm or through FA), adds a few wins...
What's the problem, exactly?
:confused:

---

Signing a player just to bring in fans is a bad strategy in the first place. And I'm not sure that Manny would bring in fans anyway. The best way to bring in fans is to win--though of course the Nats aren't going to bring in fans that way anytime soon either.

Absolutely... how does Manny not add wins, though? That's 3/4 of his appeal, ultimately. He's a big bat, if nothing else.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OldFatGuy

while in LA he seemed to hustle out base hits, actually make an effort in the outfield, etc.

---

Sorry to say it but that sounds exactly like most of the people on sportscenter who say players don't 'respect' the game when they don't run out every hit on every play.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ohms_law

Absolutely... how does Manny not add wins, though? That's 3/4 of his appeal, ultimately. He's a big bat, if nothing else.

---

He does give a good chunk of his value back on the other side of the ledger though (defense). Defense is an overlooked part of player evaluation. He's a much better deal for an AL team, where he doesn't have to field.

That's certainly true. It's not as though I'm saying that he's the best player possible for the Nationals to sign or otherwise acquire though. He does have the distinct advantage of being immediately available however, for nothing more then money really...
I guess that my only point is that I don't see any reason to say "Don't you do it bowden ! ! !", other then maybe due to some perception issue from a fan point of view. I think that's kind of a silly viewpoint when the discussion turns to actual business, but that's me.

From a fan perspective, they could not want him to sign Manny purely because they don't like Manny (which does seem to be at least somewhat the case here).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ohms_law

Absolutely... how does Manny not add wins, though? That's 3/4 of his appeal, ultimately. He's a big bat, if nothing else.

---

Well, let's be generous and say that Manny, all by himself will add 10 wins to the team in 2009. That gets them to 69 wins. Big deal--that's not going to put butts in the seats.

Now, for a team that was 20 games better than the Nats in '08, signing Manny might make sense. Adding 10 wins would get them to 89, which would win a division title in many cases. Even if he only added 5, it would get them to 83 wins, which might get the team to the postseason, but at least would definately put them in contention.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gRYFYN1

Really, have you read anything about Manny? the actual money dosen't really mean much to him .. you will get Manny, there really no "getting up to play" with Manny, he comes and does his thing ... but you also get the oddities with that (they will crop up) and over a long period ... say eight years or so ... if really start to get tiresome. But if your talking 3 or so years there wont be a (major) problem.

While I agree the money may be better spent elsewhere .. say on pitching .. guys like Sheets are still looking for 4-5 year deals .. and with the 17m/year Burnett got he set the bar scary high for teams to spend 75m on a guys that can spend 30-50% of the time on the DL.

---

My point was that the ONLY reason he's going to sign with the Nationals is money. There is NO OTHER REASON to sign with Washington! They stink...they're still going to stink even if they sign him, so it's not like he's signing to play for a competitive ballclub or a shot at the playoffs. That leaves money. And he's nearing the end of his career...that's why I find it hard to believe he's going to be a good little foot solider even next year playing for a team this bad.

Look, I LIKE Manny...I've always liked Manny...I just think this is a bad fit. Take a little less and sign with a better team, if the option is there.

Standing pat is certainly not going to put butts in the seats either...
I don't get it. it's not as though the Nats would be giving anything up really. Is there an obviously better place to spend the $50-$70 million over 2 years that I'm not seeing here?

This all sounds like some sort of sour grapes.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ohms_law

I don't get it. it's not as though the Nats would be giving anything up really. Is there an obviously better place to spend the $50-$70 million over 2 years that I'm not seeing here?

---

The draft.

If they don't pick Strasburg with the first pick, or if they do and don't give him the money he wants, it'd be a waste of a draft as far as I'm concerned (unless something changes between now and then, like Strasburg getting injured or something similar).

I think that it's a real stretch to say that signing Manny or anyone else means that they would be giving up on signing a draft pick, though. Big assumption.

This is a bit of an assumption on my part admittedly, but it appears to me that the organization has some money set aside to sign someone with a marquee name. That does carry value for the franchise brand, if nothing else.
Obviously their not going to sign Manny or any one other player (or even 9 or 10, for that matter) and suddenly turn into a Championship contender, but doing so at least gives them some improved respectability and marketing strength. Either of those are always something that is worth pursuing.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ohms_law

I think that it's a real stretch to say that signing Manny or anyone else means that they would be giving up on signing a draft pick, though. Big assumption.

---

Yes, true. We don't know their finances. I'm just saying, that money would probably be better off investing big in the draft and Latin America for prospects, so that it'd actually be spent on helping them win in the future, rather than a two-year stopgap that may or may not put butts into the seats.

Also to keep in mind is that the Nationals are really overflowing with major league quality outfielders. Lastings Milledge, Elijah Dukes, Austin Kearns, Wily Mo Pena, Josh Willingham, Willie Harris...