No similarities. That quote is about Barry Bonds isn't it???Originally Posted by dickay
Certifiable
No similarities. That quote is about Barry Bonds isn't it???
Hates Your Favorite Band
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.
Registered User
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.
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.
Certifiable
: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.
o
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.
Master of Ale!
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?"
Manny's an idiot, no question. However, Manny won't come with a tenth of the attention and media crush.
o
The effect is basically the same, though.
They're letting the media make decisions for them.
Certifiable
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).
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.
Master of Ale!
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!
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).
Certifiable
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.
Registered User
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).
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?
Registered User
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.
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
Registered User
Maybe if he's lucky he can have Martha Stewarts old cell, it'll be decorated nicelyask the Feds they have the dates & ticket prices
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
