Don't you do it bowden ! ! !

[OldFatGuy]

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.

[HoustonGM]

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.

[ohms_law]

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?

[Arctic Blast]

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)?

[ohms_law]

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)

[cartman00000001]

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.

[HoustonGM]

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?

[cartman00000001]

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?

[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.

[cartman00000001]

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.

[HoustonGM]

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.

[cartman00000001]

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.

[gRYFYN1]

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.

[dps]

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?

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.

[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.