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.Originally Posted by OldFatGuy
Hail to the king, baby.
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.
o
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.
E=I*R
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.
You insist that there is something a machine cannot do. If you will tell me precisely what it is that a machine cannot do, then I can always make a machine which will do just that! -J. von Neumann
o
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).
Registered User
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.
Master of Ale!
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.
E=I*R
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.
You insist that there is something a machine cannot do. If you will tell me precisely what it is that a machine cannot do, then I can always make a machine which will do just that! -J. von Neumann
o
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).
E=I*R
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.
You insist that there is something a machine cannot do. If you will tell me precisely what it is that a machine cannot do, then I can always make a machine which will do just that! -J. von Neumann
o
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...
E=I*R
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.
You insist that there is something a machine cannot do. If you will tell me precisely what it is that a machine cannot do, then I can always make a machine which will do just that! -J. von Neumann
o
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.
Certifiable
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.
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.
Registered User
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.
Registered User
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?
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote