Printable View
I'm sure (barring evidence to the contrary) that their quite focused on building for the future. Montreal/Washington has always had a decent history with development.
Let's keep in mind that their not a new organization, either. It's not as though their farm system is completely barren... is it?
Ultimately, I'm just struck by the "sour grapes" feel of the negative opinions expressed in parts of this thread.
They're not a terrible organization, but they were ran terribly for quite some time....and a lot of the players they developed are succeeding elsewhere (see Grady Sizemore, Cliff Lee, and Brandon Phillips) because they were shipped out of town for "veteran talent" in last ditch efforts to compete before being moved out of Montreal.
In 2006, Baseball America ranked their farm system 24th. In 2007, they dropped all the way down to last. In 2008, BA had them ranked 9th, but Keith Law had them ranked 19th. They certainly don't have a good farm system.
Maybe look up "sour grapes"? I don't think that's the term your looking for, though could be wrong. "Sour grapes" would be more of a Milwaukee fan saying it because they couldn't keep Sabathia, therefore, waaa. waaa., I don't want nobody. I though that's what "sour grapes" were.Quote:
Originally Posted by ohms_law
I like the Nats. I want the Nats to succeed. And signing Manny is not in the long term interest of them succeeeding, IMO. They lost 100 games, they have lots of holes. Had they been successful in signing Tex to that 8 year deal, yeah. You would have a young guy you can build your lineup around and you have 8 years to do it. With Manny, and his at least $20M per year, you've bought a short term solution, a short term solution with a lot of risks, and a short term solution that may do more harm long term than good. I.E. spending that on Manny means NOT spending it on other areas the team needs.
These are my opinions. I stand by them whether I like Manny or I don't (I don't). Nothing sour grapes about it.
Now, why do I not like Manny?? Because he doesn't respect the game (something someone above mentioned). I said that BEFORE last year, when he loafs to first when he feels like, or jogs over to the line in left to retrieve a ball, or lolligags his way to a single, while the runner joyfully moves to second (I've seen ALL of those MULTIPLE times with Manny) And what he did to the Red Sox, is, to a player, nearly unforgivable. He quit on them. If you don't believe lots of folks feel that way, then explain why a career .300/30HR/100RBI guy, coming off one of the most spectacular second halfs ever, is having a hard time getting signed? And explain why the one offer he received from the Dodgers is likely to be CUT if they re-offer??
It's because those in the game know it. He quit on the Red Sox. The Red Sox could likely be the reigning two time World Series champs if it weren't for his fiascos last year. Why do some want to insist that didn't happen? It did happen. We all saw it happen, and it can't happen in a vacuum.
So there's not a general manager out there that can sign him and NOT ask, are we going to get the Manny from Boston, or the Manny from LA??? That's a legitimate question to ask, and it's a legitimate reason to NOT sign him, even though the guy could wake up from a coma and in traction and hit. And they're particular relevant questions to ask when your team is young and in rebuilding mode. If you're already a contender, it makes more sense to take that risk where it might put you over the top. IMO, it's just not worth it for a young team with a lot of rebuilding to do.
Here's my take.. Bowden is a very smart person. He's lead the Big Red Machine into the playoffs numerious time in the past under the notoriously cheap owner Marge Schott. I'm guessing that Nationals or should I say the Expos were rotting even before Bowden got the job. This is just a biggg longgg rebuilding plan. Snatching 1st overall picks every year and building another Rays. But where has that lead the Nats? No attendance and no one is watching them on TV. If they sign Manny Ramirez, people will come back to the stadium and the media will follow Manny around. Look at how Bowden pursued Teixeira? He bid the highest for Teixeira, there's no question he might do that same with Manny.
Or a Boston fan saying, "I'm glad Manny's gone. He really wasn't much good anyway." That might apply to some posters here (nudge-nudge, wink-wink) but it certainly doesn't apply to many of the posters (myself included) who have been arguing against Washington signing him. A veteren who's only going to be with a team for a couple years or so is so much a better fit with a club on the edge of contention than a young rebuilding club that needs to be giving chances to its young players. Oh, sure, you might want a veteren presence to provide stability and leadership to the young guys, but honestly, does that sound like Manny?Quote:
Originally Posted by OldFatGuy
My way of looking at free agency in sports, though, is this...you don't make a move for the big name, big gun type player if it isn't going to create a singificant improvement for your club. Is Manny's presence going to put the Nationals in the playoffs? No. Is he going to help elevate them by 15-20 wins next year? Not likely. Are they still looking like a 5th or 6th place team with him on the roster? Probably.Quote:
Originally Posted by ohms_law
So why get him? The only other reason I could come up with is ticket sales...however, IS Manny a guy who moves tickets?
Sure, of course he would be a better fit on a team on the edge. That doesn't mean that he would be useless to a team on the bottom, though.
I just find all of this to be curious is all. Obviously he isn't going to put the Nats solidly into contention this year, but if you wait to support a move that will do that then you'll be waiting for a long time. Those sorts of single moves happen once a decade...
Everything else revolves around speculation about his personality and speculation about the team's finances. Has anyone here actually scouted him? Is anyone here actually privy to team finances? Even if there are news reports about those items that you can point to, I'd be interested in seeing them.
The naysayers here apparently don't like Manny personally, which is fine. Is that really something to make a business decision on, though?
For what it's worth, I have no problem with Manny, personally. I just don't think he'd be a wise investment for the Nationals.
Exactly how I feel.Quote:
Originally Posted by HoustonGM
Based on what, though? That's all that I'm asking about.
does it need to be spelled out??? There are more to a player than his statistics!!! They can affect more than when they are up at the plate.
I've laid out plenty of reasons, but I'll go through them again quickly.
1) They're a poor (quality, not money) team. They should be focusing on the future. Spending a good chunk of money on a player that will not be around when they're competitive isn't a good investment. If this was a 30 year old Manny Ramirez, it's a different story. Bad teams shouldn't be looking to add on guys nearing the end of their careers unless the move will help put them in competition soon, unless said player comes with a cheap, short contract, which doesn't apply to Manny.
2) They should save the money and invest it in amateur talent, via the draft and international free agents.
3) They have a huge glut of major league quality outfielders as is.
I see Bowden as the anti-Beane, in that whatever move he makes, I assume it's going to end up being the wrong one
I don't see why they would end up signing Manny unless they already have a deal (or deals) in the works to trade some of their surplus outfielders. And if that's the case, it wouldn't make much sense to trade their younger outfielders for two years of Manny.
2 years, $50-$100 million total? For likely a ~.300/.350/.475, 37 - 38 year old hitter (if not better)?Quote:
unless said player comes with a cheap, short contract, which doesn't apply to Manny.
Seems reasonable to me...
Quote:
They're a poor (quality, not money) team. They should be focusing on the future.
Again though, what does it cost them? Some money?Quote:
2) They should save the money and invest it in amateur talent, via the draft and international free agents.
As I said above, based on their current behavior it appears to me that they have some money set aside for a marquee player. They pursued Tex, but lost out on him. CC is gone as well. Who else is left?
Do you know of any IFA's or draft picks that are unsigned that they could persue in place of a marquee player?
Most importantly though, it is vital to build of the future. However, there has to be some reason to come to the park this year as well. If there's no hope at all...
Trade bait. It never hurts to sign a player like Manny...Quote:
3) They have a huge glut of major league quality outfielders as is.
Thre seems to be a glut of outfield talent in general though. In my opinion this seems to be more of a perception issue then reality.
sorry ohms, 2 years/$100M doesn't sound reasonable to me
What does, then?!?
:confused:
I don't think any team was discussing Manny at that price (2 years at $50 million per season).
With terrible defense. That's not a reasonable contract.Quote:
Originally Posted by ohms_law
Tex and C.C. are both very different than Manny. Like I said, if Manny was 30, it's a different story. He's not, though. And just because the money is set aside for such a thing doesn't mean that, if the best options fail, they should settle for something less.Quote:
Again though, what does it cost them? Some money?
As I said above, based on their current behavior it appears to me that they have some money set aside for a marquee player. They pursued Tex, but lost out on him. CC is gone as well. Who else is left?
Stephen Strasburg, who they should take #1 in the June draft. As for IFA's, no, I don't know, but I'm not a scout. They should invest the money on launching scouting expeditions into Latin American countries, and setting up training camps there, like other teams have done.Quote:
Do you know of any IFA's or draft picks that are unsigned that they could persue in place of a marquee player?
There's no hope at all for 2009 with or without Manny. And is Manny really a guy that's going to attract fans to the park, moreso than they already go just because they like the team? I could see that, but I can also see them signing Manny and enraging the fan base (as a Nats fan here has shown) and staying AWAY from the park.Quote:
Most importantly though, it is vital to build of the future. However, there has to be some reason to come to the park this year as well. If there's no hope at all...
Yes, it certainly can hurt, because of the money. And the PR headache.Quote:
Trade bait. It never hurts to sign a player like Manny...
The Nationals have Lastings Milledge, Elijah Dukes, Austin Kearns, Wily Mo Pena, Josh Willingham, Willie Harris...This isn't an issue of perception. Milledge and Dukes are both supreme talents (although Dukes has off-field issues worse than any other player in the game). Kearns and Pena had terrible years but are certainly young enough and have the pedigree to bounce back. Willingham is an incredibly solid player worthy of a starting job. Harris had an excellent season in 2008, will likely regress some, and is probably better suited for the bench. That's still a huge amount of outfielders, and, outside of Milledge, none of them have much trade value...and Milledge is the one guy that they absolutely should not trade.Quote:
Thre seems to be a glut of outfield talent in general though. In my opinion this seems to be more of a perception issue then reality.
:eek:Quote:
Originally Posted by etothep
wow...OK time to remove my subscription to this thread. That's just craziness. Give that money to ANY 38 year old is nuts. Too much Sports Mogul playing, not enough reality.
Nope, their all talking lower (even half of that price). I intentionally increased the amount.
A .300/.400/.500 player certainly seems worth the money, to me, though.
According to this analysis, Ramirez has been overpaid since 2005. And he's not getting younger.Quote:
Originally Posted by ohms_law
This analysis shows Manny as worth $17.55 million per year on the open market as a left fielder, and $18.5 million as a designated hitter. But, of course, that worth is different dependent on the team situation. For a team in the Nationals situation, I think that's overpaying.
So, Milledge, Dukes, and Manny for two years. That gives the Nats a very solid outfield for a couple of seasons, allowing them to keep Kearns, Pena, Willingham, and Harris in the minors and/or as part time MLB players, lengthening their arbitration clocks... It may even allow them to trade off one or even two of them for a solid young middle infielder, pitcher, or catcher.
I don't see any cost there.
He's a vet. Par for the course.Quote:
According to this analysis, Ramirez has been overpaid since 2005. And he's not getting younger.
With marquee names (even the "infamous" ones), you pay for much more then their on field performance anyway.
Kearns and Pena have zero trade value right now. Those final 4 players are also all not going to go to the minor leagues easily, as they've got enough service time to deny assignment and become free agents.Quote:
Originally Posted by ohms_law
I'm just not seeing what spending this huge amount of money on Manny does for them. Sure, it makes them a couple wins better, but, a couple wins better than suck is still suck.
I think at least a couple of those players are out of options and/or would refuse an assignment to the minor leagues... Kearns and Pena especially (Pena signed that Major League contract when the Yankees drafted him).
True. And for a crappy team without any hope of contending in the near future, that extra payment isn't worth it!Quote:
Originally Posted by ohms_law
LOLOL, nice one.Quote:
Originally Posted by HoustonGM
ah... well. *shrug*Quote:
as they've got enough service time to deny assignment and become free agents.
Like I said, I don't generally follow NL teams.
LOLQuote:
a couple wins better than suck is still suck.
Certainly true, but baseball is a business. There is much more to it then simply winning on the field.
Even if he can bring in as much, if not more, then his contract value in residuals? Including indirect ones?Quote:
True. And for a crappy team without any hope of contending in the near future, that extra payment isn't worth it!
There seems to be way too narrow of a viewpoint being expressed here.
The question is, can he?Quote:
Originally Posted by ohms_law
Manny isn't a well-liked superstar that's going to bring in tons of fans just to see him, sell tons of jerseys, etc. He's not an Alex Rodriguez, Derek Jeter, or Greg Maddux, for example.
Like I said, I can definitely see him having such an effect, but I can also just as easily see him as having the same amount of an effect, just in the negative direction. I don't think the risk of finding out is worth it for a team in the Nationals situation.
Isn't he, though? He's known. On a team such as the Nats, who are very likely not going to have anyone else for at least the next couple of seasons, why wouldn't the fans be purchasing "Manny merchandise"? Don't forget about the advertising and everything else as well.Quote:
Manny isn't a well-liked superstar that's going to bring in tons of fans just to see him, sell tons of jerseys, etc. He's not an Alex Rodriguez, Derek Jeter, or Greg Maddux, for example.
Look, I'm not saying that he'll bring in 1.5 times his contract. I don't know. But no one else here knows that the opposite is true either, and barring any evidence to the contrary it's a safer assumption to make that the player will bring back more then his contract value then not.
From what I've read, it's very rare that a player brings back negative value. Diamond Dollars researched this, and they couldn't find any players that did over the (limited) time frame available for real study.
I can't remember which team ohm's roots for, but I'm begininning to think he wants the Nats to sign Manny just so that his team can't.
Angels. I'd love for them to sign him...
And I think it would be a GOOD signing for the Angels.
Really, Angels, Dodgers, Yankees, I wouldn't blame one little bit. I just don't think it's the right move for the Nats (or the Royals, Pirates, etc.). It just doesn't work in those kind of cases, IMO.
Plus, I'd bet in LA (with the Angels), Manny would be happy. He seemed to like LA (the city) last year (from what I heard). I dunno, I think it would be a good signing for the Angels. God knows, maybe an ex-Red Sox would help with their weird playoff exasperation with the Sox. I still say the Angels were the better team in that series last year, but I know I'll get arguments over that. As well I should. The Red Sox did win, after all.
The payoff would certainly be greater for the Angels, as well as for all of the other more competitive teams. That doesn't mean that it would be a mistake for a less competitive team to sign him, though...
The Angels need Manny more than any other team save the Dodgers, in my opinion.
I agree, Erik.Quote:
Originally Posted by HoustonGM
Angels GM has already said he won't go for MannyQuote:
Originally Posted by HoustonGM
I know thatQuote:
Originally Posted by flatcap