683 replies to this topic

[possumbait]

I thought it would be worthwhile to have a dedicated Manny thread to capture thoughts on his future, trade rumors, etc.

To start, my sense is that the nearly $20M in salary going forward, with a very reasonable expectation of declining performance, suggests that it is timely to move him if there is a market.

He is certainly a most dangerous hitter still, and one of the best. However, I can't shake the notion that 2006 is one year further away from the 2004 team, and a number of wins worse than 2005 if the roster is constructed around the Ramirez contract.

The organization last year seemed to take an aggressive approach to staying competitive, signing Renteria and Varitek to contracts that I considered regretful when thinking about what the 2008 team would look like. It may be the organization sees the value of locking in players at market, and swallowing costs if need be down the line (presuming also, perhaps, that an inventive front office and farm system can generate talent on the cheap to offset the swallowed costs). It may be the organization may trade such players as their value lowers, covering salary partially.

But Manny is different because of the scale of his contract. His cost is not easily sunk, especially if the risk is taken on with other less expensive veterans. Further, there is little talent out there on the cheap that could replace the skills that Manny brings to the team now if his cost does get sunk.

So having the extra millions to spread around (perhaps locking in Damon if he is not considered a health risk at this point in his career) is very very appealing, whatever Manny may have done for the Sox this past year, and prior ones.

I don't know what sway Pedro has over Minaya, but I do know that Minaya came very very close to acquiring Ramirez already. My question is: Do the Sox consider placing Manny on waivers again, and are they talking with the Mets about a deal to prevent that? I am guessing 'yes' on both, but that is just a guess.

[derF]

Here's an article from about Manny being a Yank? from NorthJersey.com (10/12):


"Klap: Yankee doodle Manny?

Wednesday, October 12, 2005

By BOB KLAPISCH
SPORTS COLUMNIST

Can you envision Manny Ramirez, the American League's most dangerous, late-inning threat from the right side, wearing pinstripes in 2006? None other than Ramirez himself has. The Red Sox' left fielder told friends in the final weeks of the regular season he would accept, if not welcome, a trade to either New York team - an intriguing opening in the wake of Alex Rodriguez's collapse in the AL Division Series.

The Yankees have a long winter ahead, full of critical decisions about their general manager, center fielder and a new setup man for Mariano Rivera. Ramirez's name has never been seriously considered until now, but that may change after another early exit from the playoffs and Rodriguez's .133 average against the Angels."

Here's the link to the complete article:

http://www.northjers...2Y3dnFlZUVFeXk2

Edited by derF, 12 October 2005 - 12:24 PM.

[soxfan121]

1. derF, you should link articles and not "cut & paste" their full text into threads. Some dope will eventually tell you the same thing. No big deal, just keep it in mind going forward.

2. Manny is one of the top 5 RH hitters in baseball. He simply cannot be replaced at the plate. He's also one of the 5 worst LF in MLB, despite his assist totals from this season, and could be replaced in LF (and used as a DH) if not for the presence of the best DH in the world.

3. Whether Manny stays, IMO, should be dependent on whether Ortiz can play 1b more often (not everyday, just 80-or-so games). Manny needs to DH more, especially on the road. DH Ortiz at home, with Manny in LF and on the road, DH Manny and have Ortiz play 1b.

3a. The above scenario necessitates having a 1b/LF who could play everyday, not hurt the team with defense or offense, and be happy playing everyday in a different spot. The first name that jumps to my mind is Frank Catalanotto, who is cheap, can hit, can play OK defense (IIRC) and is available.

[ShaneTrot]

3a. The above scenario necessitates having a 1b/LF who could play everyday, not hurt the team with defense or offense, and be happy playing everyday in a different spot. The first name that jumps to my mind is Frank Catalanotto, who is cheap, can hit, can play OK defense (IIRC) and is available.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

It would be worth it to get the Cat just to stop him from killing us.

I seem to remember reading somwhere that Ortiz doesn't really want to play a lot of first base. Anyone else recall this?

[Angel Santos in Red]

Didn't see this posted, but it seems like as good a place as any (without starting a whole new thread):

Manny Wants a Meeting with Sox Brass re: Team's Future

[OCD SS]

I don't really see both Manny and Damon on the team next year. I think we can have one or the other (and possibly neither) but not both. I would rather have Manny's bat than the total Damon package (which I see as more likely to decline noticably during the time on the deal).

If we were to move Manny it seems like everyone would want "fair value", which isn't really available. A deal for Beltran would solve a few different problems (removing The Manny Contract and JD by getting us a CF), but puts us in a similar situation contract wise (only with a younger player).

If Manny is going out on irrevocable waivers can we replace him with just the freed up Money? And does trading him on waivers get around his 10-5 rights?

[Bowlerman9]

If Manny is going out on irrevocable waivers can we replace him with just the freed up Money?  And does trading him on waivers get around his 10-5 rights?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

You cant trade him off of waivers. If someone claims him, he belongs to them. We get absolutely nothing in return.

[yecul]

Players like Renteria and Trot bloat the payroll more than Manny, IMO. Overpaying for HOF talent is much less of a problem than overpaying for nothing-special players.

That said, if you can move Manny in a reasonable scenerio I think you do it.

He's a great hitter and will still be -- even with declines -- but there are other talented hitters out there and there are also other ways to win ballgames.

[satyadaimoku]

That Klapish article is really freaking annoying. He acts like Manny's desire to play in New York is ultimate significance when in fact it is of virtually no significance. Manny is under contract with the Boston Red Sox through the 2008 season. The Boston Red Sox are not going to trade Ramirez to the Yankees. We are also not going to trade Ramirez as part of a 3 team deal in which he ends up on the Yankees. Not only would we never trade such a critical piece to our hated rivals, but the Yankees have nothing to offer us. At best, the news content of the article can be summarized as: in an alternate universe in which the Red Sox would ever consider trading Ramirez to the Yankees, Ramirez may not use his 10/5 rights to prevent the trade. Big story, huh?

Some Yankee fans just don't seem to understand: just because the Yankees want a player doesn't mean that they can get him.

[behindthepen]

1- 3 months ago Manny wanted to be traded. 2 months ago he loved being here. I have little doubt he's interested in playing in NY, but I think he's probably interested in staying here, and if he's not, just wait a month.

2- I don't really care about the money or the flexibility. In the current free agent market, we are not going to be able to replicate Manny's offensive production, and are probably unlikely to make up for any offensive dropoff with a major pitching upgrade in the free agent market either. This franchise has enough revenue to pay Varitek and Renteria ~$10m/year each, they have enough to pay Manny $20m.

[Rudy Pemberton]

Hey, how about A-Rod for Manny?

[satyadaimoku]

Mazzone and the Braves hotly denied the Yankees ever made contact. Technically, that was true; there was never any one-on-one conversation between the legendary coach and any member of the Yankees' front office. But according to one person familiar with the Bombers' interest in Mazzone, they'd be willing to do "whatever it takes" if he decides he's ready to leave Atlanta.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

And by the way, is Klapish pulling a Bob Novak here? I don't know who in the Yankee organization leaked this information to Klapish, but it certainly appears that whoever did it is intentionately skirting MLB's anti-tampering rules.

[smnookin]

According to one American League source, the Red Sox are leaning toward one scenario where they'll sign all their free agents...

This should give you a sense of how seriously to regard anything written in this article.

[possumbait]

And by the way, is Klapish pulling a Bob Novak here?  I don't know who in the Yankee organization leaked this information to Klapish, but it certainly appears that whoever did it is intentionately skirting MLB's anti-tampering rules.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I don't think this is something to get too jerked by. Instead of pulling a 'Bob Novak,' maybe it is better to call it a 'Peter Gammons.'

Rumors are rumors. Manny may well be as overpaid in 2007 as Bernie was in 2005, so that particular angle doesn't bother me so much either.

Oh...and I liked the part about Damon offering 4 years at $30M, which the Sox turned down. That was pretty rich.

[Rudy Pemberton]

Oh...and I liked the part about Damon offering 4 years at $30M, which the Sox turned down. That was pretty rich.

That's not what it says...it says the Sox offered that, Damon was going to accept, and then the Sox changed thier mind. Who knows.

[Worst Trade Evah]

Hey, how about A-Rod for Manny?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I was kind of wondering this myself. Never going to happen, but I'd do it any time the Yankees decide ARod isn't a "true Yankee", a "New York kind of guy" or whatever else. Manny's probably about the last guy the Yankees need at this point.

Edited by Worst Trade Evah, 12 October 2005 - 12:27 PM.

[Bdanahy14]

Frank Catalanotto

I thought about this earlier during a toronto series. However, he will be 32 next year and after 9 seasons has an OPS of .815 and an adjusted OPS of 109. Those numbers would drop drastically if you removed his career year in 2001, when he was 27. That year he had a line of .330 /.391 / .490

He is in the decline of his career. I would personally stay away from him.

[reggiecleveland]

Frank C is also a weak OF he is usually removed for a defensive replacement.

Edited by reggiecleveland, 12 October 2005 - 01:58 PM.

[MattCrashDavis]

My subjective impression is that this season Manny lost just a little bat speed and had trouble getting around on good fastballs unless he was sitting dead red. I love the guy and think he is criticized too much, but he could reasonably turn into 2004-2005 Piazza in 2007 or 2008, and that contract is going to be ridiculously bad if that happens. He just doesn't strike me as the type of guy to decline gracefully. That said, he's not that old so if I were the Sox I would have to be blown away to deal him.

Edited by MattCrashDavis, 12 October 2005 - 03:16 PM.

[someoneanywhere]

I would explore the notion of Tiz at 1B on the road -- but I certainly wouldn't make my decision to bring back Manny contigent on Papi strapping on the leather. It seems to me that the Manny Decision has to be made this way: is he still stud enough to build the offense around? If the answer is yes, then you work from there. If it is no, then you move him. IMO, the answer is yes.

If you do explore the notion of Tiz as DH at home and 1B on the road, one guy who fits the profile of a moveable 1B/OF is Lance Berkman. He may be available, given the Stros payroll issues.

[SinCitySoxFan1973]

If Manny lost any bat speed it was very minimal. The guy was a monster after starting so slowly, as good as ever. We can not trade Manny. If we do Papi walks 150 times a year. How do we replace those nearly 300 rbi combined? If Manny does go it needs to involve the prospects needed to secure a young frontline pitcher and there are not many to be had, Im sure you know. 1 Vote for keeping Manny one more season

[satyadaimoku]

He just doesn't strike me as the type of guy to decline gracefully. 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Man, I gotta say I disagree with you 100%. Manny is exactly the kind of player I expect to decline gracefully. He has almost no injury history, he has tons of patience (which never goes away), speed isn't a part of his game so he can't possibly lose it, he doesn't - shall we say - overextend himself defensively, he isn't overly bulky given his power, he isn't a catcher, he is phenomenally consistant offensively. To me, those are all the big risk factors, and Manny doesn't have any of them. Manny's OPS has been in decline now for three years. If current rates continue, by the 2008 season his OPS will have plummeted from .982 in 2005 to .950 in 2008. Honestly, I think Manny already in his slow decline. It's just so gracefull its hard to even notice.

[Gene Conleys Plane Ticket]

Any talk of trading Manny is simply ridiculous at this point, unless the Red Sox are planning on entering a "rebuilding phase" that they expect to last several years. The Red Sox' offense is the only reason the team made the playoffs this year. It certainly wasn't the starting pitching, bullpen, fielding or "doing the little things." It was offense, run-scoring. And that's pretty much the whole story.

Manny was an enormous part of that run-scoring machine. except for Ortiz, there was no part of the machine anywhere near as important. Nor is there anyone on the market or realistically attainable who could replace that production. If Manny's gone next year, the Red Sox don't make the postseason. They probably don't even come close. In fact, it's probably a pretty dull and depressing season.

So why are we even talking about this?

[The Gray Eagle]

"Hey, how about A-Rod for Manny?"

I would not be tempted to do this. But I would bet ownership would be mighty tempted to do that deal.

I don't think the Yankees and Red Sox would ever look to trade under normal circumstances, but these are not normal circumstances. I could definitely see something happening with Henry negotiating with one of Furious George's head honchos, most of whom he probably knows pretty well from his days as a partial owner.

I wouldn't do it, but Henry and Lucky have previously shown a lot of disturbing man-love for Slappy. Lucchino would probably love this deal-- he would talk about how it "makes the rivalry even hotter" or some such nonsense.

It's highly unlikely that the teams would be able to work out a deal like that, but I wouldn't be surprised if some high up on either side would consider it.

[someoneanywhere]

I am not by any means trying to end the discussion of the hypothetical Manny for Alice deal; discussing the impossible IMO often sheds light on the possible. (Omitting in this case the throw-anything-that-sticks model of impossible.)

It is not going to happen for reasons apart from salary and production. In no order of importance --

The dislike of Arod in the Sox clubhouse is genuine, deep, and palpable. This is not the same, say, as the supposed Pedro-Piazza feud, since neither one of those guys (even if the dislike is genuine) are strong enough clubhouse presences to become polarizing figures. Piazza never assumed the mantle of leadership in NY, and everyone dressing there knew he was gone after this season anyway. With Arod, the possibility of destroying that thing called chemistry is real.

Secondly, Slappy now can't play anywhere else. He understands that his "legacy," such as it is, will be defined by what he achieves or fails to achieve as a MFY. We all know that Arod is consumed by that legacy -- a trade to him would be a failure.

Not incidentally, who's certain that Arod would agree to play 3B for anyone else? He's not the kind of guy, it seems to me, who'd be willing to step aside for Rent.

IF -- and that's a big one -- these issues didn't exist, sure: Arod is one of the few players for whom Manny could be traded at fair value; I'd go so far in fact to say the Sox would have to pony up something else in the deal to make it fair.

[possumbait]

If Manny's gone next year, the Red Sox don't make the postseason. They probably don't even come close. In fact, it's probably a pretty dull and depressing season.

So why are we even talking about this?

Because next year the same strong supporting cast may not be around for Manny and Papi, and they may not realistically score 900 runs a season any more even with the two horses.

Because Manny should realistically be expected to be a little (not a lot, a little) worse next year because of how ballplayers age.

Because solutions to CF, the bullpen, and starting pitching may turn on the reality of the remaining salary due to Ramirez.

Because nearly everyone here fully expects his salary to be a full-fledged liability when by the time his last year in the contract arrives, making 2008 seem awfully depressing with Manny, even as 2006 without him may seem so too.

Those are four reasons, anyway. Don't panic!

[Carlos Cowart]

The dislike of Arod in the Sox clubhouse is genuine, deep, and palpable.

I'd be interested to hear how you know what palps in the clubhouse.

[Paul M]

In the right scenario, dealing Manny makes baseball and economic sense. No matter how much it hurts, dealing an icon CAN still be profitable.

Figure out his contribution and go from there.

I wouldn't trade him unless it made the Red Sox better in 2006, 2007, and 2008. I don't care about his brain-farts, show-boating, or anything other than what he brings to the table.

A team with a budget has to make decisions. It's Econ 101 and some moves may push the Red Sox further along the efficient frontier. Not Manny for Cliff Floyd and Tom Glavine or some other nonsense.

I think it will be hard to find a team to make this work, but Manny is not nearly as valuable as some people think he is.

[Rudy Pemberton]

Oh sure- it can make baseball sense, but I'm not confident that it will. Letting Pedro go made some baseball and economic sense, but spending the money on Clement and Renteria didn't. In a perfect world, it's easy to see how you can reallocate money more efficiently. Actually doing it seems to be another story, doesn't it?

[XNOUGHT]

Manny, ER, Clement, and Shoppach

for

A-Rod, Wright, and Chacon


ER plays 3rd base for the Yanks, Manny steps in at left and Matsui plays Center full time. Clement takes Chacon's place in the rotation, and they unload Wright. Thy also get Posada's replacement.

Sox get A-Rod for SS, unload ER, and make another trade involving Wright or Chacon. The stats guys loved Wright when he was a FA, and Chacon had a 4 ERA in Colorado which means he might be pretty decent.



Won't happen though, as the Sox and Yankees would be too scared to make a deal anyways.

[redinchicago]

Can someone remind me what the proposed trade was between the Red Sox/Mets/DRays, right before the deadline? I really can't remember. I know Manny would go to the Mets. The other players included? Baez, Huff, Milledge(?), Cameron(?), Hanley(?). Just thinking, since Chuck LaMar is gone, would the DRays be open again for a trade? Not saying that I would really like to see Huff and Baez in Boston, but maybe a deal can be made without giving up the high level prospects that LaMar wanted.

[Worst Trade Evah]

The 2001 A's won 102 games and had HGHiambi putting up some humongous numbers: .342/.477/.660 with an OPS+ of 202. No one else on the team was within 60 OPS+ points of him. The closest was Jermaine Dye -- in 232 at bats. He meant far more to that team's offense than Manny does to ours. He left as a free agent that winter, leaving them with only a draft pick or two in compensation.

The 2002 A's won 103 games and finished first.

Even stars can be replaced, with a combination of skill and luck.

But it's true there are some trouble signs ahead for our offense, which is looking to decline. We need another good bat somewhere.

edit: fixed mispeeling of HGHiambi's name

Edited by Worst Trade Evah, 13 October 2005 - 09:26 AM.

[possumbait]

Oh sure- it can make baseball sense, but I'm not confident that it will. Letting Pedro go made some baseball and economic sense, but spending the money on Clement and Renteria didn't.  In a perfect world, it's easy to see how you can reallocate money more efficiently. Actually doing it seems to be another story, doesn't it?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

This is a great point. But you still have to consider the crushing burden that a 2008 Manny Ramirez may have on a roster even if you can't expect optimized re-allocation of resources.

I thought Clement was a good sign, and still do, btw: He was a key reason why the Sox won as many as 95, I think, despite his woes in September. I didn't like the Renteria sign much, but did not think it was horrible either: Nobody could have sensibly predicted he would be a liability in the field.

But you still make a great point.

[Rudy Pemberton]

I also tend to think there may be more risk in re-allocating Manny's money to lower salaried, "not great" players. I believe Philly's done some work relating to this, but it seems like HOF talents don't really drop off a cliff to the same extremes that lesser players do.

Then again, there's the defensive issues to worry about that are difficult to quantify. I kind of believe that defensive improvements are often more theoretical in nature, but I don't really know. There's a lot of park issues / pitching (noise, I guess) involved.

In other words, I'd trade Manny if I was sure I was getting Dunn. For Cameron and Huff- now I'm not very sure.

It's easy to say, in hindsight, that for the same price of Manny- we could get Jeff Kent, Kevin Milwood, and Paul Byrd! But what if you got Adrian Beltre and Jaret Wright? Maybe a bad example, but I think you get the point.

Edited by Rudy Pemberton, 13 October 2005 - 10:00 AM.

[biollante]

I honestly don't think it makes sense to break up the Ramirez/Ortiz combo. It would be similar to breaking up Ruth and gehrig.

[possumbait]

Really, it is a classic short term vs. long term analysis. Do you favor keeping Ramirez because he may really help the team in 2006, or do you favor ditching him because he really not help the team (at that salary) in 2008? The problem of course, is the window for that decision is NOW. His value is diminishing such that it won't be an option to ditch him after this year -- it may already not be an option, as teams like the Mets don't have a 2005 pennant race to justify his acquisition anymore.

EDIT: Just changed the title to something far less obscure

[Rudy Pemberton]

Do you favor keeping Ramirez because he may really help the team in 2006, or do you favor ditching him because he really not help the team (at that salary) in 2008?

I don't think it's that easy though. There's no guarantee that the players you replace him with are going to help the team in '08 either. It just seems like you end up creating an endless cycle. Ditch Pedro because of risk...Ditch Manny because of risk....yet you usually replace them with less talented players who may carry less risk theoretically, but also less upside. At the same time, you are stripping the team of it's identity, which may have long term ramifications (or not, depending on W's and L's).

Trading for Schilling, Signing Foulke, Signing Manny, Trading for Pedro...those moves were all very risky, and they paid off. I'm afraid that the strategy of minimizing risk could eventually blow up in the team's face. Maybe I'm overreacting...but if you replace Pedro and Manny with Renteria, Clement, Huff, and Cameron (or Wells, Clement, Huff, Cameron..whatever)...what have you done, both short term and long term?

Is it better to have a lot of risk in one really talented player or to spread that risk out in multiple players who individually (and collectively) have less talent? Is playing it safer always the way to go?

I'm not sure I know the answer....look at the Schilling deal. Had the Sox not won it all last year- would that have been a good deal? What would the team look like had they not done it?

[SoxFanSince57]

Bat speed--getting older--bla-bla-bla. Manny as DH--Manny sucks in the OF--bla-bla-bla. I am dumb, fat and happy. 40-130 Three years in a row 04-06. The greatest hitting tandem in baseball history. The most runs produced in the AL. Don't screw with success. "If it ain't broke, don't fix it."

Manny for Alice (I like that name). Once time was okay. Twice-never. JH may have had a hard-on for A-Rod two years ago, but he is a businessman first and he knows that A-Rod will never ever "be a true Red Sox." RSN would s*** all over that trade. It will never happen.

If the Sox want to get that 20M back, then IMO they will have to put him on waivers. I am pretty sure that there isn't one member of this board who is on record as believing that the Sox can get equal value in a trade for Manny. I am also pretty sure that everyone understands that whoever the trading partner would be would require the Sox to either eat part of his salary or take another bloated contract in return.

No trade and no waivers please!!!!!!!!!!

Edited by SoxFanSince57, 13 October 2005 - 10:59 AM.

[possumbait]

Well yeah, sure...you don't really know. You weigh the risks and make a decision, otherwise we would have a thread on Manny maybe or maybe not helping the team a whole bunch in 2006 or 2008, or maybe even 2007...I mean he could lose 200 AB's if he gets an age aggravated hammy problem as early as 2006, or maybe he will have one of those rennaissances of power that some hitters of his type get and drive the Sox to another WS...mutter mutter

<insert thumb in mouth>

[SoxJox]

"A-Rod for Manny."

"Beltran for Manny"

Oh boy. Here we go again. Didn't we drive the page count WAY up last year on just these two?

I love Manny and want to see him stay. I'm sure Ortiz does, too. But if we are going to trade him, I would at least consider A-Rod. Otherwise, it will be a trade involving many players...and quite possibly 3-4 teams.

No way on Beltran. His offensive numbers were down across the board this year. And his speed-related numbers were down significantly, as well. Damaged goods or a one-year hiccup? Don't know, but to me it's not worth the risk.

[Soxfan in Fla]

Trading Manny is stupid. Is he really declining? With his numbers of the last 3 seasons its pretty hard to see. How much is he really going to decline in the next 3 seasons? Some most likely by 2008 and he will most likely be overpaid for what he produces in 2008 but does anyone really think he is going to suddenly turn into a pumpkin and hit .230 with 10 HR's and 50 RBI's in 2008? C'mon. Even a 25 HR campaign makes the overpaidness minimal.

Hitters like Manny Ramirez do NOT grow on trees. The guy is easily one of the best 5 hitters in the game. I'm sorry, you don't trade one of the best 5 hitters in the game because you think the last year of his contract might end up being bloated.

[Steve Dillard]

Oh sure- it can make baseball sense, but I'm not confident that it will. Letting Pedro go made some baseball and economic sense, but spending the money on Clement and Renteria didn't.  In a perfect world, it's easy to see how you can reallocate money more efficiently. Actually doing it seems to be another story, doesn't it?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I think this is the critical fact. It will be interesting to see the FO philosophy on this issue. I think that the first three years the numbers crunching guys had a higher sense of being able to outsmart others using their models, and we saw the FO striving for flexibility in dealing Manny and being very stingy with offers to Nomar and Pedro. Personality played a part in that, no doubt, but I suspect the "we can spend it better" theory looked very attractive to Theo & Co. Getting Ortiz and Mueller for cheap in year one likely emboldened that notion.

Last season's issues of getting a fairly weak return on the money they gained hopefully dampens some of their hubris. Theo has shown flexibility to see when his models have "failed" (e.g. Closer by committee year 1, to Williamson, to Foulke). I'm hopeful that the reports of Theo trying to stiffle the Manny 7/31 trades shows a realization that the substitutes might well not provide an equal return.

[Rudy Pemberton]

I guess I'll put it this way....every deal involves risk; the more money and years then theoretically more risk. If we are going to be gambling, I'd like to put my money on the best players possible. If dealing Manny gets us better players back, I'm all for it. If involves payroll flexibility or gambling on lesser players, I'll pass. At this point, I expect Manny to remain a great hitter for several more years, and I don't see any real reason to think he has an increased chance of injury than most other players we would be able to acquire for him.

[hytem]

Trading Manny is stupid.  Is he really declining?  With his numbers of the last 3 seasons its pretty hard to see.  How much is he really going to decline in the next 3 seasons?  Some most likely by 2008 and he will most likely be overpaid for what he produces in 2008 but does anyone really think he is going to suddenly turn into a pumpkin and hit .230 with 10 HR's and 50 RBI's in 2008?  C'mon.  Even a 25 HR campaign makes the overpaidness minimal. 

Hitters like Manny Ramirez do NOT grow on trees.  The guy is easily one of the best 5 hitters in the game.  I'm sorry, you don't trade one of the best 5 hitters in the game because you think the last year of his contract might end up being bloated.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

His "bloated" contract is partly offset by making others in the lineup better hitters by his presence--namely, Ortiz. The productivity of these two guys is awesome
in the 3-4 spot, and is probably the difference between the Red Sox contending
and being a .500 team. He makes $20 mil, but his value to the team is probably greater. It's surprising some of their management don't see that. I guess they are looking more at the big mortgage they are probably still paying for buying the team. Without Manny, those "bloated" ticket prices might look harder to justify.

[PedroKsBambino]

The game that can be played with "risk" is pretending that all risks are equal. They are not.

The risk of Manny being injured is very likely equal to that of a player of similar age and style. But the risk of him being injured is almost certainly less than that of any starting pitcher being injured, because that's what the data shows about pitching injury rates.

The risk of various events is not equal, and so broad statements about the best players being better risks is at best too much of a shorthand. Different players have different physical situations, different performance records, and so forth. The total contract commitment is a major driver of "risk" from the perspective of the team, as is the performance variation the player is believed to possess. Risk is a function of each of these things, not a binary thing. Guys aren't "all equally risky"

[SoxFanSince57]

Just for the fun of it...does anyone think it is possible that the brain trust has decided to put Manny on waivers and not re-sign Damon and save 30M in payroll, collect the draft picks and only start spending in 2 years when the youngsters are ready for the bigs?

IMO, their revenue streams wouldn't be hurt for the next two years. They would stockpile some very nice cash and be in position to augment the talent in two years.

[Rudy Pemberton]

Risk is a function of each of these things, not a binary thing. Guys aren't "all equally risky"

I know that; but you have to weigh risk with performance. The risk involved with guys like Pedro and Manny is almost all based on potential injury. The risk involved with Matt Clement, Renteria, etc. is different; there's injury risk (maybe less than others) but also the performance risk since these guys are just not as good as the marquee players. Of course- that is reflected in commitment (both salaries and years).

[Smiling Joe Hesketh]

Just for the fun of it...does anyone think it is possible that the brain trust has decided to put Manny on waivers and not re-sign Damon and save 30M in payroll, collect the draft picks and only start spending in 2 years when the youngsters are ready for the bigs?

IMO, their revenue streams wouldn't be hurt for the next two years.  They would stockpile some very nice cash and be in position to augment the talent in two years.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I don't think it would be possible for the FO to cut payroll at this point without a huge backlash from the fans and the media.

They sell out every game. They're a big market team with tons of money coming in through NESN. Even if it made good baseball sense to cut payroll back to $100 million or so, the PR ramifications would be horrific.

Edited by Smiling Joe Hesketh, 13 October 2005 - 11:31 AM.

[Paul M]

I remember when we said they couldn't win without Nomar, and a few people wanted them to sign him for $16 million per year for 5 years after the Arod trade fell through.

We hear they can't win without Pedro.

They've won both years because they realize the only two numbers that matter are RS and RA.

Manny is one of the top 10-15 hitters in the game and provides excellent value, but he's not untouchable in that regard.

He's 8 wins above a replacement player. That's it; nothing more or less.

Looking at how bad the 8-11 pitchers were most of the year and the 10-13 hitters were, you can add 2-3 wins right there. I don't think finding a 5 WARP LF--ignoring the current negative LF defense we receive now--is that difficult.

[Rudy Pemberton]

We hear they can't win without Pedro.

They've won both years because they realize the only two numbers that matter are RS and RA.

Well, they would have won more with Pedro, at least this year. Can't really argue that. And it's hard seeing how the Pedro replacements really helped in regards to RS / RA, isn't it?

What was the difference between last year and this year, though? The performance of a few highly paid, marquee players I would say. The high risk high reward guys (Pedro, Schilling, Foulke).

Remove Manny from that mix, and add Cameron / Huff (for example), and what happens?

How long can you keep removing HOF level players for lesser talent?

I'm not opposed to the idea of moving Manny at all. But just moving him for flexibility and expecting that it's easy to replace him scares me. What if they had traded Manny and that Beltre deal had gone down this offseason?