Sports
28 Jul 08
31 Jul 08
2 edits
Originally posted by PhlabibitManny + 7 million to Dodgers
He's been traded, stay tuned for details.
P-
Dodgers are involved... More to come!
Manny to the Dodgers, Jason Bay to Boston... somehow involves Pirates.
Jason Bay to Bosox
Andy LaRoche, Bryan Morris, Brandon Moss & Craig Hansen to Pirates`
Edit: Wow, Manny is now Joe Torre's problem along with Andrew Jones. Poor guy!! Red Sox are light in the hip pocket but they don't fall off too far in power numbers and they improve the clubhouse tremendously. The Pirates are still the Pirates, but there are more of them now.
31 Jul 08
1 edit
Originally posted by shortcircuitJason Bay doesn't scare me like Manny does. Manny in the clubhouse was good enough to be a major factor in their winning two World Series after an 86 year, non-Manny drought.
Manny + 7 million to Dodgers
Jason Bay to Bosox
Andy LaRoche, Bryan Morris, Brandon Moss & Craig Hansen to Pirates`
Edit: Wow, Manny is now Joe Torre's problem along with Andrew Jones. Poor guy!! Red Sox are light in the hip pocket but they don't fall off too far in power numbers and they improve the clubhouse tremendously. The Pirates are still the Pirates, but there are more of them now.
The Sux are done.
31 Jul 08
1 edit
Originally posted by no1marauderI would not go so far as to say the Red Sox are done but I think for this season the Red Sox will miss Manny's bat more than they think. Next year they will try to spend some of that money (the $20M/ year they would be spending on Manny if they had picked up his '09 / '10 options) to pick up a replacement.
Jason Bay doesn't scare me like Manny does. Manny in the clubhouse was good enough to be a major factor in their winning two World Series after an 86 year, non-Manny drought.
The Sux are done.
31 Jul 08
1 edit
The more I hear about this trade, the more stunned I am. The Red Sox also gave up Brandon Moss, a fine young outfielder batting .295 in limited action, and Craig Hansen, a young pitcher with great stuff though he's been hit pretty hard so far. That's a lot to throw to give up a great player for a very good one.
EDIT: Plus Boston's paying all $7 million of Manny's salary for the rest fo 2008!😲
31 Jul 08
1 edit
Originally posted by no1marauderDon't forget, they also paid the remaining 7 million dollars of Manny's salary as well. They wanted him gone badly.
The more I hear about this trade, the more stunned I am. The Red Sox also gave up Brandon Moss, a fine young outfielder batting .295 in limited action, and Craig Hansen, a young pitcher with great stuff though he's been hit pretty hard so far. That's a lot to throw to give up a great player for a very good one.
While I am not in any way trying to say that Jason Bay will replace Manny's numbers, he is a solid player and I remember the thoughts about what Bobby Abreu and Johnny Damon would do in pinstripes. While they were not flops by any stretch of the imagination, they haven't had the monster success that everyone thought they would. Just like Andrew Jones. I admit, I thought the Dodgers got a steal when they got him, but he has absolutely gone straight into the tank. Go figure.
Edit: well you edited while I was typing.
01 Aug 08
Originally posted by myteamtrulystinksThey had to get rid of him, this would not have blown over. And thats what happens in last minute desperation.
I would not go so far as to say the Red Sox are done but I think for this season the Red Sox will miss Manny's bat more than they think. Next year they will try to spend some of that money (the $20M/ year they would be spending on Manny if they had picked up his '09 / '10 options) to pick up a replacement.
01 Aug 08
1 edit
Originally posted by no1marauderManny is gone.
Jason Bay doesn't scare me like Manny does. Manny in the clubhouse was good enough to be a major factor in their winning two World Series after an 86 year, non-Manny drought.
The Sux are done.
GOOD RIDDANCE! Copyright © 2001-2008
He didn't want to play anymore, it took him 5.7 seconds to get to first... if he even wanted to play at all. He was at his end trying to get out from under the option any way he could.
He succeeded, he's always got what he wanted or would just 'shut it down'. That is Boston's fault, more so the front office than Tito Francona.
P-
01 Aug 08
Originally posted by PhlabibitManny was the epitome of the Boston player. When things are going great, everyone loves them, but when things start to sour, everyone points fingers at someone else as the problem. Manny did the same thing. If you want to get rid of the BS that many of the "superstar" players pull, then you have to do two things. First, you have to get all of the owners educated. Many of them are merely corpoate beancounters who don't have a clue how to handle sports operation. They also want to play one up against Steinbrenner, who is one of the chief reasons that baseball is in the mess it is in now. Ever since Steinbrenner invoked the "I'll just buy a championship" mentality, everyone realized the opportunities and jumped onboard. The agents becames sharks ina feeding frenzy, players wanted long term contracts, up fornt bonuses, special treatment and perks. This has been a downward spiral ever since.
Manny is gone.
GOOD RIDDANCE! Copyright © 2001-2008
He didn't want to play anymore, it took him 5.7 seconds to get to first... if he even wanted to play at all. He was at his end trying to get out from under the option any way he could.
He succeeded, he's always got what he wanted or would just 'shut it down'. That is Boston's fault, more so the front office than Tito Francona.
P-
If you want to return the game to what it once was, you have to cut away the fat. You have to restore accountability. To do that, you have to get rid of the egos, and long term contracts. If everyone gets nothing more than a one year deal, no matter what, they are never overpaid (except for the upcoming season at most). Franchises will no longer be handcuffed to the idiotic deals they agree to. Agents will be far less powerful. Players will play when they have a hangnail or a hangover. They will need to send Don Fehr packing, get the union back into reality and that would not be that difficult to do, if they are willing to do it. If the players don't want to accept those conditions, then change the players. Plain and simple. There is a huge talent base to draw from. Granted, you may find yourself without the top 10-15% of the available talent, at first, but so be it. We would see a return to hard nosed play, and we would see players who gave a damn about the game and their job. Once the big boys saw that they were not marketable if they didn't play, then they would play, or change careers.
Sure, the plan is radical, but it is realistic. The players today are coddled. Most managers are powerless against their "superstars". I had a wonderful conversation about 5 years ago with Duke Snider who absolutely said it perfectly. His direct quote was "The players today are a bunch of pussies! They don't play with nicks or bruises or with hangovers. Hell, I broke my hand in spring training in '55 and played the entire season in pain, but you didn't sit unless you couldn't play. First of all, there was somone always waiting to take your job from you. Remember Wally Pipp?" He was, and still is absolutely correct.
There are downsides to the plan, of course. First, you would see a perpetual migration of the best players because there would be no long term contracts. But when you think about it, that really evens out the playing field. There are also a bunch of hungry players wanting to get to the show who would push even harding knowing that now, they had a much better chance of getting there without some 6 year contract blocking their path. Second, players would know, their performance mattered gretaly because their next year's contract will be predicated on it. I believe they should also make most contracts incentive laden to maximize the effort of the players. Now, if the owners want players that will want to play for them, they will have to treat the players decently, and not try to run a sweat shop operation. The owners will also have to defend themselves form their own stupidity which is what got the game to its present condition. With a neutralized union and no staggering salaries, the owners would be wise to share the wealth with the most important commodity in the game, the fans. They could reduce the lavish wastes that are thrown at luxury suites, high dollar digs, and glossy showmanship, and return the game to an affordable form of entertainment for the fans. They would find they would make just as much money with less effort.
Now, this will never happen because it makes too much sense and no one in the game today has much common sense. It is an "I, me mine" world in a "team" game. They two just don't mix.
01 Aug 08
Originally posted by shortcircuitYour answer is so simplistic and completely devoid of reality. (The fact that Duke Snyder was a great player does not make him a great thinker or above being jealous of today's players)
Manny was the epitome of the Boston player. When things are going great, everyone loves them, but when things start to sour, everyone points fingers at someone else as the problem. Manny did the same thing. If you want to get rid of the BS that many of the "superstar" players pull, then you have to do two things. First, you have to get all of the owners ...[text shortened]... se. It is an "I, me mine" world in a "team" game. They two just don't mix.
(1) MLB does not have a monopoly on players. Players will soon start going to Japan and other countries to play. They certainly will do this if their salary opportunities are better. It is far more likely for them to have better opportunities elsewhere if you cap their incomes.
In case this seems theoretic, see the NBA. Foreign players are going back to their country. Josh Childress (an american born Africa American) chose to go overseas. One of the top high school kids is going overseas. You lose players and lose product. Baseball continually set attendance records. They have billion dollar TV deals. It isn't so bad to share the money.
(2) You only see the negative side of long term contracts. Teams have more continuity. They can plan for when their prospects come up. Furthermore long term contract allow you to be a fan of team. I am a Yankee fan so I enjoyed watching the careers of Jeter, Pasada, Rivera, Pettitte (even if I think he's pretty much washed up). If every year they could switch teams I would not be rooting for the same people. I would have enjoyed baseball a lot less. Finally, long term contracts allow players to play for the team and not just the contract. Sometimes less extraneous pressure to peform makes you perform better; sometimes a long term contract allows you to take one for the team, to pitch in a mop up role or move a runner over when it hurts your numbers but helps the team. Sometimes a guy who is in a contract year does NOT play (or opts for surgery during the year instead of the offseason) because they are more interested in their health than their team. Multimillionaire owner made money by assessing talent and motivating/ incentivizaing workers. Why are you so conviinced they are failing now?
(3) Steinbrenner is one of the greatest things to happen to baseball. The top franachise in the sport became great again. He got big named players to come to the biggest city. He restored the best rivalry in the sport. He brought championships and marketable players to the biggest markets. He tries as hard as any owner to win. You do want owners to try to win? It is good for the sport of baseball that owners are learning from a successful owner like Steinbrenner.
01 Aug 08
Originally posted by myteamtrulystinksYou, my friend are the one who is not in touch with reality. Duke Snider (please note the correct spelling) is not jealous of today's players and his statement did not indicate it. It screamed out at the lack of heart and dedication to the game that many of today's players show. It is all I, me, mine...not about the team , the family. He is dead nuts on too.
Your answer is so simplistic and completely devoid of reality. (The fact that Duke Snyder was a great player does not make him a great thinker or above being jealous of today's players)
(1) MLB does not have a monopoly on players. Players will soon start going to Japan and other countries to play. They certainly will do this if their salary opp ...[text shortened]... for the sport of baseball that owners are learning from a successful owner like Steinbrenner.
I also can't understand your comment about longterm contracts being a necessity to having players stay with your team. If those teams treat their players well, the players will want to stay. If they don't they will move on. It is their "JOB". They aren't playing for fun. Put it in terms of your JOB. If you aren't happy, you move on. If you are happy, you stay. You want to be appreciated and compensated well for your JOB. This is no different. Do YOU have a longterm contract at your job? No you don't.
With regard to MLB not having a monopoly on players, sure, I agree with that statement. My next statement is big freaking deal!! What difference does that make? Again, if the money is better elsewhere, they will leave. Why are the prominent Japanese players flocking to the US to play?? Do you see a mass exodus of players heading to play in Japan? NO...only those fringe players who can be studs over there, for the most part. Do you see a mass exodus coming to Mexico or any Latin American country to play? NO, they are all trying to get here. So, where else are they going to go chief? Honestly, you should think about what you are writing first.
Regarding owners wanting to win....sure they do. That is what it is all about. Do you believe the owner's in KC want to fail? How about Pittsburgh or Washington? Hell yes they want to win, but do they have the resources that the Yankees do to compete...Hell no they don't. This is why they scuttle along and the Yankees are usually in the thick of it. George was a renegade of sorts who bent every rule he could to his favor. I don't begrudge him that. But, I do blame the current state of baseball on those very tactics he utilized becuase he upped the ante and the rest have tried to keep up, many foolishly throwing too much money at players and then getting bitten in the ass when they don't pan out. Many times moves are made in reaction to someone else making a move. Sometime they are wise moves, and other times it is just "keeping up with the Jones' " in the press.
You are a Yankee fan, so you view everything the Yankees do from their perspective. I am a baseball fan, and I don't view the happenings from any particular perspective. I have no allegiance to anyone in particular. I can love or hate all of them. That is why I am not wearing th eblinders that you are. But you don't have to agree with me, and you don't have to understand me. Many people will understand and do agree though. Maybe someday you will too.
01 Aug 08
Originally posted by shortcircuitI am a Yankee fan but I don't always agree with Yankees. I certainly did not in the Pettitte -- Zambrano debate. The idea that you see clearly and I am blinded is as arrogant as can be. You certainly don't have to agree with me, but it does not make you right.
You, my friend are the one who is not in touch with reality. Duke Snider (please note the correct spelling) is not jealous of today's players and his statement did not indicate it. It screamed out at the lack of heart and dedication to the game that many of today's players show. It is all I, me, mine...not about the team , the family. He is dead nuts on ...[text shortened]... Many people will understand and do agree though. Maybe someday you will too.
There are long term contracts because both sides want it.
Players who sign long term contracts want security. They can dive for a ball and know that if they are hurt they get paid for the rest of the contract, they can buy a house and live like a normal human being. Their families can make friends, they can go to one school. Players deserve a right to have stability, especially if the give up the freedom to leave in the future. Teams like stability so they can put pieces and not worry about every piece every year. The can market the players and the history.
Your argument that teams are forced to make deals that don't benefit them is just false. Steinbrenner baught the Yankees for 10M. Now they are worth over a billion and the YES network is work about 3 billion. The system makes everyone money. The owners are not being abused.
As for why the Royals and the Pirates stink. Who cares? The richest owner in baseball owns the Royals. He chosses not to spend his money. But there is more parity in baseball than ever. Many of the lowest payroll teams (Tampa, Florida, Oakland, Minnesota) are as good as everyone (and being paid by big market teams to be that good too). Only the Yankees have a current playoff streak of more than one year. Last year no one played above .600 or below .400. What other sport has this kind of parity?
The potential exodus that is happening in the NBA will not happen yet.
But you hurt yourself when you start allowing competiting leagues in your sport and other sports take your athletes.
Steinbrenner did not bend any rules. He had a belief that if he spent money and built a good and exciting team that people would come. A lot of signings worked some did not. But he invested in and talked about his team. He brought excitement to New York and New York responded by supporting a team. Baseball is the number one sport in New York. It isn't in Pittsburgh and it wasn't in 1971 or 1979 when the team was great.
01 Aug 08
Originally posted by myteamtrulystinksFirst of all, I could care less who you root for and You are nuts if you think that someone "blinded by that" would make them arrogant. Just for the record. You can be a Yankee fan and voice against any Yankee player. Unless you are totally blind, you will never be in love with an entire 25 man roster. There will always be somewhere you could improve a team.
I am a Yankee fan but I don't always agree with Yankees. I certainly did not in the Pettitte -- Zambrano debate. The idea that you see clearly and I am blinded is as arrogant as can be. You certainly don't have to agree with me, but it does not make you right.
There are long term contracts because both sides want it.
Players who sign long te ...[text shortened]... in New York. It isn't in Pittsburgh and it wasn't in 1971 or 1979 when the team was great.
I realize that both sides wanted long term contracts, but that fact is not germain to my point which is "long term contracts have ruined this game from what it once was and put it into the shape it is now. It is russian roulette many times with negotiations including no trade clauses, buyout options, performance incententives that are not based on solid performance as much as easily attainable numbers for AB's for hitters or # starts for pitchers. These can also be manipulated by management which generally leads to legal action. If you think that a team needs a solid core of players in order to market a team, then you are mistaken. Longterm familiarity with players by the fans makes it easier to market, but what if those longtermers are a bust? I remember just last season listening to Yankees fans muttering about getting rid of Mike Mussina. When Andy Petitte left, they didn't think it was a huge loss because they thought he was on a downhill slide. They wanted Clemens to stay though because of the number of butts he put in th estands everytime he pitched. This year, they are loving Moose and Petitte again.
Your arguement about how Steinbreener made the Yankees marketable is hogwash. They were the most storied franchise in baseball history long BEFORE Georgie boy set eyes on them. Steinbreener meddled with the team and probably cost them a couple more championships because of his enormous ego and desire to be in the spotlight. What kind of a business man hires and fires the same employee 5 times (Billy Martin) or three times (Gene Micheal and Bob Lemon). He single-handedly chased Yogi Berra away for many years until he finnaly sucked it up and apologized to one of the most storied players in the franchises' history. Go on and tell me more about George's wisdom.
Oh, and yes, George did bend/break some rules in his time. Go back and research why George was suspended from baseball by the Comissioner and forced to turn over control of the Yankees during that suspension.
I don't make this crap up and I know what I am talking about. NOw, you may not like what I am saying, and you might not agree with it, but that doesn't change the facts or my arguements. I really don't want to continue to debate because it wastes my time. Just think about what I have said, and if you can honestly say it has no plausibility, then you should get yourself a solid seeing-eye dog and a nice pair of sunglasses. Have a nice day!!
02 Aug 08
Originally posted by myteamtrulystinksLook, college football has to deal with changing teams every year. Granted, they may have a star that everyone knows for 2-4 years, but beyond that, there is no long term continuity, and yet teams are followed religiously.
If every year they could switch teams I would not be rooting for the same people. I would have enjoyed baseball a lot less.
Many ballplayers played all or the majority of their careers with one team with shorter term, less paying contracts. Fans were still loyal to their teams. I think this would help bring back days when players were more loyal to their teams.
np
02 Aug 08
Originally posted by neonpeon41I find your point interesting but not 100% analagous.
Look, college football has to deal with changing teams every year. Granted, they may have a star that everyone knows for 2-4 years, but beyond that, there is no long term continuity, and yet teams are followed religiously.
Many ballplayers played all or the majority of their careers with one team with shorter term, less paying contracts. Fans were st ...[text shortened]... ams. I think this would help bring back days when players were more loyal to their teams.
np
College football players play there whole career with one team and coaches and systems can stay decades. Some teams are spread and some teams are running teams. Coaches are important. There is system continuity. I do not think people would enjoy college football nearly as much if players had the opportunity to switch teams every year. You do sort of a build a team even if you lose them to graduation.