Over the Monster: An SB Nation Community

Navigation: Jump to content areas:



Sports blogs for fans, by fans.
Around SBN: Steve McNair Dead - Former NFL QB Shot and Killed


Why is manny not being suspended?

Is not what Manny did the same as the blacksox? Didn't he just throw a game or an at bat to get a bigger payday? I say that is gambling or at least severely usurping the integrity of the game. Pete Rose at least bet on his team, Manny bet on his lack of play (throwing games) would get him a contract or free agency. So he was just  basically rewarded for it.  Am I the only one that sees this as the same as fixing a game? I cannot believe the Commish has not slapped a fine and suspension on Manny.  And the press seems to be giving Manny adulation instead of scorn. What’s wrong with us?

0 recs | Comment 42 comments

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

Display:

Hard to prove, but

you see things correctly, IMHO!

by NG on Aug 4, 2008 7:30 PM EDT reply reply actions actions   0 recs

That is a logical stretch

Manny was just being Manny and plenty of other players have done the same or much worse. Its really not the commish’s issue if a player quits on his team, its the teams issue.

Baseball is God's sport! All Truth Goes Through Three Stages 1.It is ridiculed 2.It is violently opposed 3.Finally, it is accepted as self-evident. kinesiologist

by E5 on Aug 4, 2008 8:28 PM EDT reply reply actions actions   0 recs

It is not really the case that plenty of other players have done the same or “much worse.” You only hear about a player acting this way maybe once every four or five years, and it’s almost never someone who’s a good player. I’m sure some folks remember Operation Shutdown.

A player’s contract doesn’t guarantee the player much, only that he’ll get paid. It also doesn’t guarantee the team much, only that the player will make every effort to win every game he plays.

Manny defrauded the Red Sox. Difficult to prove, but just the same, it’s absolutely wrong and counter to everything in the culture of the game — in the majors, and at every level.

by Jay on Aug 5, 2008 10:22 PM EDT to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

becasue he is a "bad man"

really who is going to take on that challenge? Baseball has enough issues without now delving into presumed contract violations or supposed strong-arm tactics

"You know," Girardi said, shrugging his shoulders, "it didn't work."

( Joe Girardi on pitching to Manny Ramirez with first base open)

by MassGal on Aug 4, 2008 8:45 PM EDT reply reply actions actions   0 recs

How are you going to prove it?

Just because he said it? Manny says a lot of things, but if you really want to punish him for this, you have to be able to prove in front of a judge that Manny did something out of the norm. You have to prove it in court because if you try to punish him, you’d better believe he’s going to sue you.

Frankly, I don’t think Bud Selig is competent enough to shepherd MLB through a lawsuit like that.

by RSNexile on Aug 5, 2008 11:52 AM EDT reply reply actions actions   0 recs

probable cause

Manny is not being suspended because you don’t even have probable cause for your accusations, much less substantive proof beyond a reasonable doubt.

by RickD on Aug 5, 2008 5:40 PM EDT reply reply actions actions   0 recs

The Black Sox had reasonable doubt too.

They were acquitted and then given lifetime suspensions. Of course they had no union. But the burden of proof in a union setting is lower than the burden in criminal court.

I mean, I think it’s true that he tanked so they wouldn’t trigger his option(s), but as was said above, it’s a team-matter, not an MLB-matter. I’m pretty sure gambling is written in the MLB player’s manual (or its equivalent). I doubt being greedy prick is.

Manny ain't the only bad man.

by tommy.otm on Aug 5, 2008 6:43 PM EDT to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

the acquittal of the Black Sox

was rigged by a court friendly to Comiskey. There is no doubt that players actually took money. But the situations are quite different, as it was much easier to abuse the rights of a player in 1919 than it would be to abuse a multi-millionaire like Manny Ramirez.

Are you suggesting that the union should take action against Ramirez?

by RickD on Aug 5, 2008 7:30 PM EDT to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

No.

I’m saying that if MLB tried to suspend him on circumstantial evidence for something that might not even be against the rules, the union would would defend him.

Manny ain't the only bad man.

by tommy.otm on Aug 5, 2008 9:24 PM EDT to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

defend him...

... and win.

Manny ain't the only bad man.

by tommy.otm on Aug 5, 2008 9:24 PM EDT to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

I wouldn’t be so sure of that.

The Sox chose not to fight Manny, but not because they couldn’t win a hearing. They chose not to fight Manny because even if they did win, it wouldn’t help them achieve their real goal, which is another championship.

by Jay on Aug 5, 2008 10:24 PM EDT to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

Just cause

It’s the fundamental issue in employee discipline. Any union contract worth its salt has a just cause clause.

If the Sox disciplined Manny, the union would grieve. Then the Sox would have to show just cause at arbitration. Very difficult to show that someone is faking an injury. Extremely difficult. Most cases of employee discipline occurs where someone is caught red-handed violating a company policy. Say, smoking pot in the Green Monster during a pitching change.

Not to say that suspending him wouldn’t have been a nightmare for team chemistry. I totally agree that it wouldn’t have been worth it even if they could’ve gotten away with it – they were much better off just cutting their losses. But Manny would’ve won in arbitration, no doubt in my mind.

Manny ain't the only bad man.

by tommy.otm on Aug 5, 2008 10:41 PM EDT to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

Why is it exactly that you think he would have won?

Why do you think Boras got Manny to agree to a fine and other sanctions in the shoving incident? I have no doubt, a mountain of testimony about Manny’s past deeds would come to light in a situation like that, and from credible sources. Not knowing which knee is bothering you, and nada on the MRI, is pretty solid evidence of faking an injury, which is why the Red Sox wrote him that warning letter.

They had him dead to rights, but in a pennant race, being able to beat a player in a grievance just isn’t worth much.

by Jay on Aug 6, 2008 5:16 PM EDT to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

I'm a union lawyer

I would’ve gotten him off.

Manny ain't the only bad man.

by tommy.otm on Aug 6, 2008 6:22 PM EDT to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

about the knee

I’m still asking for a source for the story that Manny didn’t know which knee was supposedly injured. That would appear to be a key part of the current hostility against him. The story makes Manny look not only like a faker, but also an idiot. I’m wondering if the source of the story is another “anonymous Red Sox employee”.

by RickD on Aug 6, 2008 9:33 PM EDT to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

Lots of evidence that the team ordered MRIs on both knees, little proof that Manny had forgotten which knee hurt. The accusation might have come from Edes, who I always took for a relatively straight shooter. But I don’t think it’s too big a leap to realize that the team thought Manny was faking. He came out swinging in the press and came up with a sudden knee injury, took a couple games off (against Felix and Joba) and walked to first on a couple ground balls. And then he blew through the stop sign at third base, running as fast and hard as I’ve ever seen him. To me at least, there is a pretty strong circumstantial case that he was faking.

I root for the laundry, cash green ain’t my color.

Manny ain't the only bad man.

by tommy.otm on Aug 7, 2008 9:15 AM EDT to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

IIRC, Edes was the one who started the “Manny quit in 2006” meme. That started with this article, and many people picked up on the theme. Given that hit piece, I don’t consider Edes a reliable source on Manny.

by 0157H7 on Aug 7, 2008 1:17 PM EDT to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

Agreed

Edes has had it in for Manny for a while.

I gotta go 'cause I'm probably definitely gonna nod out again.

by Drugs Delaney on Aug 7, 2008 6:21 PM EDT to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

Problem is, it isn’t just Edes, it’s also Gammons and Shaughnessy.

You guys know these writers better than I do. If you want to think they are all fabricating the same story — rather than all hearing the same thing from their sources within the organization — then I guess that’s what you’re going to think. I think the standard for making an accusation like this is pretty high, and in particular I think Gammons would not make it purely out of spite or as a shill for the club. He may be a homer, but he’s a HOF homer.

by Jay on Aug 7, 2008 8:32 PM EDT to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

Shaughnessy is crap

He is one of the most hated men in New England.

I gotta go 'cause I'm probably definitely gonna nod out again.

by Drugs Delaney on Aug 7, 2008 10:53 PM EDT to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

Understatement.

Manny ain't the only bad man.

by tommy.otm on Aug 7, 2008 11:31 PM EDT to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

Doesn’t change the fact that Edes, Shaughnessy and Gammons all reported essentially the same story, and that other writers like Buster Olney have corroborated parts of it.

Frankly, some of you seem desperate to believe that what’s been reported isn’t true. Manny and Boras haven’t even really denied these stories. Boras denied making the post-deadline phone call, but he didn’t deny much of anything else.

by Jay on Aug 10, 2008 3:07 AM EDT to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

Just because everyone's reporting the same story

doesn’t mean it’s true. See Iraq, WMD. Many sports writers try to blur the line between speculation and fact-based journalism. Others allow anonymous sources to impugn members of the organization. When Lucchino badmouthed Epstein to Shaughnessy, it led to our GM leaving the team.

by 0157H7 on Aug 10, 2008 11:29 AM EDT to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

I still haven’t seen this particular report disputed or refuted in any way.

Nobody is claiming — not even as an anonymous source — that the reports haven’t been accurate. If any player or official were willing to say that on the record, anonymously, there are certainly reporters who would print it.

by Jay on Aug 14, 2008 7:30 PM EDT to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

also, fwiw

I think the notion that Manny was tanking to make sure the Red Sox didn’t want him is not one that makes much sense. Nobody deliberately plays poorly in a contract year. And indeed, if you look at his stats, you’ll see that Manny hit better in July than he did in either May or June.

The entire anti-Manny case appears to be based on
a) Mariano Rivera struck him out (stop the presses! Mariano Rivera made a batter look foolish!)
and
b) Manny sat out two games complaining of a sore knee, but nothing was found in the MRI.

It just seems to me that the ordinary thinking regarding “benefit of the doubt” has been aggressively discarded in the past two years with regard to Manny Ramirez. The same people who testify to the “character” of DL homebodies like Trot Nixon were quick to accuse Manny of faking a back injury in 2006. And now we have the same accusations in 2008. And yet Manny missed fewer games in the past 7 years for the Sox than anybody.

I don’t even think the Sox should have brought him back at the $20 mill/year price he was demanding. It just saddens me that he couldn’t simply be traded away without a concomitant smear campaign going on via the local press. Dan Shaughnessy and Gordon Edes have no idea whether Manny was hurt or not. But they sure were willing to say they did!

by RickD on Aug 5, 2008 7:37 PM EDT to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

That's not the whole case.

Threatening to not get on the bus heading to the airport for the Seattle series, shortly after meeting with Boras.

Complaining about his left knee, then saying it was his right knee, until finally the Sox sent him for MRIs on both knees. Both of which came up clean.

Offering through his agent to ditch the whole charade and simply play ball if the Sox would promise to waive his options.

“Manny missed fewer games in the past 7 years for the Sox than anybody.”
That’s sort of silly, considering that he and Tek are the only guys who’ve been here for seven years, and Tek plays catcher, has built in days off and has broken his elbow, etc. Over the last three years, Youk has played more games. Over the last five years, Papi (by one). Over the last two, Drew, Pedroia, and Lowell have played more. When he was here, Damon played more than Manny.

Manny is the best hitter I’ve ever had the pleasure of watching, and up to about three weeks ago was my favorite player. But you know that when even Big Papi doesn’t have his back, the situation has gotten pretty bad, regardless of what the CHB says.

Manny ain't the only bad man.

by tommy.otm on Aug 5, 2008 9:39 PM EDT to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

I’m not even a Red Sox fan, but I definitely noticed that moment when Ortiz wouldn’t speak up for Manny anymore.

by Jay on Aug 5, 2008 10:25 PM EDT to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

could you source these things?

I seem to recall the story about Boras saying that Manny would “ditch the whole charade” is a story related to Gordon Edes by an anonymous Sox employee, and which was later denied by Boras.

I’m also interested in a source for the stories about the knees. I can find stories saying he complained about his right knee, but nothing about his left.

I think it’s clear that by the end the Sox had no trust of Manny. I haven’t seen anything saying the distrust was justified.

I don’t think it’s reasonable to presume anything about Manny’s knees based on Papi’s refusal to get involved.

My point about missing games over a seven year span should be obvious. I am not making a precise mathematical point. Rather, I am pointing at his continued ability to play ~150 games/year. He missed small chunks of time in 2002, 2006 and 2007. (Incidentally, some of the time missed in 2007 was due to the back problems lingering from 2006 which every yahoo had been convinced were fake.)

I love Papi, but he’s already missed a quarter of the 2008 season. Nomar missed lots of time, Trot Nixon missed lots of time, the SS position has missed lots of time

I don’t see why it would be so hard to acknowledge that maybe a baseball player in his mid-30s would not be able to play 160 games/year any more. At a much younger age, Larry Bird’s back was done. (I know basketball is rougher than baseball, but the point remains.)

The point of my statement is that lots of players on the Sox have missed lots of time over the past few years, and noone else has been viewed as a malingerer. I still don’t understand what happened to the benefit of the doubt here. And when it comes to the knees, I see a lot of insinuations, but no facts. Surely anybody familiar with the MRI procedure would know that it doesn’t show every type of minor soreness. An MRI will show major problems like torn ligaments, major inflammation, etc., but I don’t think we are yet at the point where a negative MRI implies that a player is a liar.

by RickD on Aug 6, 2008 1:06 AM EDT to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

Your entire message basically drills home the point, how can you say he was malingering when he didn’t miss the most time? Missing time isn’t equivalent to malingering, that is the point you apparently are not getting. The MRI was confirming only the subjective evidence in Manny’s case. Fact is, the player believed he gave up on them in 2006 and was bailing out on the tough pitchers in 2008. They could be wrong, but they had no reason to want to think that, and every reason to give him the benefit of the doubt.

by Jay on Aug 6, 2008 5:19 PM EDT to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

missing time = malingering

That’s the definition of malinger.

And that was the accusation thrown at Manny in 2006, that he took the last month of the season off when he wasn’t really injured. Apparently Dr. Shaughnessy had inside info that he never shared with the public.

The MRI didn’t confirm anything. It failed to show an injury. That does not mean there was no injury, only that if there was an injury, it wasn’t very serious. A sore knee is not necessarily going to be anything more than sore muscles and/or joints, and that won’t show in an MRI.

by RickD on Aug 6, 2008 9:30 PM EDT to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

Malingering = faking an injury

Even if you don’t own a dictionary, just google the word.

Look, his teammates thought he was faking it, the medical staff thought he was faking it, and there’s no evidence that he was injured other than his own testimony, and he has a history of being unreliable and making contradictory statements.

The standard of proof in this situation isn’t beyond a reasonable doubt, it’s merely a preponderance of the evidence.

by Jay on Aug 7, 2008 8:30 PM EDT to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

I don't know if Manny was hurt or not

There is a chance he was faking. But I also remember how the local media treated Nomar in 2004. There was talk that he wasn’t hurt, etc. Nomar didn’t play too many games for the Cubs in ‘04 and ‘05, so I guess he wasn’t faking.

I gotta go 'cause I'm probably definitely gonna nod out again.

by Drugs Delaney on Aug 7, 2008 10:57 PM EDT to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

oh, come on

I know what malingering means.

To malinger means to fake an injury or plead illness to skip work. You say “missing time is not equivalent to malingering”. I thought you were arguing that he was malingering even though he wasn’t missing playing time. That just doesn’t work in the definition.

And please, don’t be a smart ass about definitions. I went to Webster, which is a much better resource than Google for definitions. Webster says:

“to pretend or exaggerate incapacity or illness (as to avoid duty or work)”

In our context, avoiding work is the issue. If you are accusing a baseball player of malingering, you are accusing him of faking an injury to skip games or are you really saying that he was malingering even though he was actually playing? Because that’s not the accusation I ever heard.

“The standard of proof in this situation isn’t beyond a reasonable doubt, it’s merely a preponderance of the evidence.”

Oh, really? Who made you the judge to decdide what the standard of proof is? If we are talking about the “court of public opinion”, then the standard of proof is even lower than that. Apparently, no evidence is required whatsoever.

I looked at the Gordon Edes article that was published a few weeks ago that started the latest hubbub. It consisted of anonymous allegations and Edes’ best argument was that nobody would stand up and defend Manny against the allegations he was making.

That’s a bs smear.
I still have yet to find anybody to back up the claim that Manny “couldn’t remember which knee was injured”, even though that meme has been flying around the Internet for two weeks.

Do you know if Manny was injured or not? No. So what kind of “preponderance of evidence” are you talking about? Or are you simply moving the goalposts because you know you don’t have any kind of real argument to make?

by RickD on Aug 8, 2008 2:06 PM EDT to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

and what will that prove?

Pretty much nothing. Manny will say he wasn’t faking an injury, Boras will say nothing, and Selig will look like an ass like he always does.

by RickD on Aug 8, 2008 2:07 PM EDT to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

Manny was not "just being Manny"

he didn’t put out the last month, he sat out games he could have played, he tanked a crucial AB against the Yankees, he caused problems off the field…....on and on and on…....

Just look at him now and tell me he was trying for the Red Sox. Tell me how bad his knee is, etc.

Please, don’t be naive.

The problems are (1) the Sox can’‘t prove this; (2) baseball, especilly under Bud Selig, are gutless.

Manny and his crooked, greedy agent will get away with all of it.

by ccthemovieman on Aug 8, 2008 6:20 PM EDT reply reply actions actions   0 recs

oh really?

Since you’re his doctor, you know whether he could have played those games, right?

He “tanked” a crucial AB against the Yankees? Did you watch that AB? I did. Mariano Rivera threw three low unhittable cutters on the black. All three pitches could have been called either balls or strikes. Are we now in the business of second-guessing every AB a hitter takes?

It would have made you happier if Manny had swung and missed?

Have you ever hit Mariano Rivera’s cutter?

“Don’t be naive”. Who’s naive here?

Ever have a knee injury that required a day off, but not three weeks off? Seriously, what the hell does his performance in a Dodgers uniform have to do with whether he had a bad knee three weeks ago?

The Red Sox cannot prove anything because they don’t actually know anything. You may be quite happy living in the land where insinuations alone are all that is needed, but frankly it repulses me.

I would be frightened to see you on a jury. If a guy looked at you wrong, you’d send him to the electric chair. Bravo.

by RickD on Aug 8, 2008 10:24 PM EDT to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

With your naive attitude

everyone is innocent, right O.J.?

Manny is running like a kid, hustling like a young kid down the first base line, etc., but, I guess you can make amazing transformations like that with just a couple of days off . Wow.

Get a reality check.

by ccthemovieman on Aug 9, 2008 1:11 PM EDT to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

Manny struck out twice tonight

looking!

I really think it’s too bad he’s already decided to sabotage the Dodgers. I read at ESPN that he really wants to play for the Yankees. That must explain why he struck out looking TWICE today!

Of course, he hit well the other three times at bat.

I hope you understand the difference between the OJ situation and Manny’s. With OJ, there was actual evidence. (And there was also tainted evidence planted by the LAPD, which kind of screwed up the criminal case. And a police detective who lied under oath. But I digress.)

With Manny, you just don’t have any evidence. I like how you keep using the word ‘naive’, as if an ad hominem attack is a decent substitute for an argument.

Manny will be loafing for the Dodgers soon enough. Manny loafed in the 2004 World Series, fer chrissakes! He also won the MVP for the 2004 World Series.

You want to accuse him of lying about sore knee when he took himself out of two games? Well, that’s your prerogative, but you do know that he’s had knee problems in the past, and that he’s 36 years old, and for some reason he’s the only player on the team who gets scrutinized when asking for a game off, a request that would be totally ordinary if made by any other player.

Also, Manny was the best hitter on the Sox in the month of July.

I swear, the people at SOSH seem to have a bit more intelligence about this issue. The noise/evidence ratio with regard to the Manny smears is incredibly high. Good job, guys! The Sox are paying Manny $7 million to get the Dodgers into the playoffs.

At some point, we need to look hard at the management skills of the Sox brass here. If all Manny wanted was to be out of his contract at the end of the year, and the Sox certainly didn’t want to pick up his option, why did the relationship between both parties degenerate to a point where the Sox traded him away for less than nothing?

Given that the Sox were paying $20 million/year to Manny, you think they could have paid somebody $50k/year just to make sure that communications with the man didn’t break down completely. Which is what appears to have happened.

Yes, Manny is also to blame. But we knew Manny was an emotional freak when the Sox signed him. (Go back and look at Simmons’ column at the time.) And yes, Boras is also to blame. But from my standpoint the biggest villains are Shaughnessy and Edes, who are paid to report information to Boston readers, but who have instead done their best to drive him out of town for the last several years, dating back to the time several years ago when Manny basically decided they were a couple idiots (perceptive on his part) and decided to stop talking to them.

Well, Boston sportswriters don’t let anybody get away with that!

One last thing about knees: when I was in high school, trying out for the basketball team, I twisted my knee badly. I couldn’t walk at all that night. And yet the next day it was better. Knees are like that. So are backs, and many parts of the body. You can have temporary soreness that doesn’t mean anything on an MRI. Anybody with even a passing familiarity with the human body should know that.

And you should know that I’m not even making a positive affirmation that Manny had a knee injury that night. I’m just saying we don’t know.

Why is it so hard to admit that we don’t know?

by RickD on Aug 10, 2008 12:40 AM EDT to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

Olney

ESPN. I’m probably breaking some sort of copyright rule, but screw em. I’m a pirate. (though feel free to delete me if need be)

“The inquiry into the circumstances surrounding the Manny Ramirez trade is essentially over, probably after a few phone calls. It’s going nowhere, because it has no chance to go anywhere.

I haven’t spoken to one person in the game who isn’t appalled by how Ramirez handled his last days with Boston, and just about all of them understand why the Red Sox felt compelled to trade a Hall of Fame-caliber hitter.

But really, if there were going to be any serious conversation in the commissioner’s office about dealing with a player who was seemingly sabotaging his team, it needed to take place as the conflict occurred—on the Friday night he sat out of the lineup against the Yankees and came back from the hospital with clean MRIs on both of his knees. If, at that point, the commissioner had either flown to Boston or summoned Manny to New York to speak directly to him about the integrity of his actions, with the implicit threat of official action thick in the air, then this would have had a chance to impact the course of events. “It would have given the Red Sox some leverage in the situation,” said a high-ranking baseball executive.

These are observations made only with the benefit of 20-20 hindsight, and not meant to be a criticism of Bud Selig. Nobody in baseball is conditioned to deal with the possibility that a player might willfully become a cancer on his team in pursuit of a contractual change. But privately, as the smoke has cleared, many folks within the game believe that what might have taken place with Ramirez represents a threat greater to the core tenet of baseball competition than any player ingesting steroids - “At least those guys were trying to get better for themselves and the team,” said one GM - and perhaps as great as the Pete Rose and Black Sox betting scandals.

The next time around, when a player conducts himself in a similar fashion, the reaction from central baseball will be more decisive, and it will come with more alacrity. But believing that Ramirez quit on his team with malicious intent and proving it to the point that you can convince an arbitrator are two different things (just as believing that there is collusion against Barry Bonds and proving it require two different standards). Ramirez’s agent, Scott Boras, has denied the Boston Globe report that an hour after the trade deadline, Boras called the Red Sox and asked to have the Ramirez trade killed. According to the Globe, Boras told that Red Sox that in return for contractual waivers, Ramirez would promise to not be a distraction, and this confirmed the suspicions of Red Sox officials that Ramirez had willfully quit on the team.

But unless a recording of that phone call exists, this information would be a complete non-starter in any formal investigation—and even if there were a recording, Ramirez is protected by a layer of deniability. He could just say he had no idea what Boras was talking about. He could just say he wanted peace. He could just say he was Manny being Manny.

Ramirez, too, was batting .299 at the time of his trade, and had six RBIs in his last five games with the Red Sox. No arbitrator in the world could see those numbers and determine definitively that Ramirez quit on the team.

No, chalk up the Ramirez Affair as a learning experience. As colleague Peter Gammons said Friday, all teams should consider the ramifications of giving Boras clients a contract option year. They should consider the possibility that if Ramirez isn’t happy about the contract he receives this winter - and Peter reported that he told teammates he wants four years and $100 million - he could lie down, perhaps determining that a $15 million annual salary is not worthy of his effort, as he seemed to feel about the $20 million salary he could have made with Boston in 2009 and 2010. Moving forward, the commissioner’s office will be in a better position to recognize the serious threat contained within a willful refusal to participate with basic integrity.”

Manny ain't the only bad man.

by tommy.otm on Aug 9, 2008 11:10 PM EDT reply reply actions actions   0 recs

Honestly, who cares?

The Red Sox LF is Jason Bay, and he’s pretty good. Let’s let Mannygones be Mannygones.

by 0157H7 on Aug 10, 2008 1:49 AM EDT reply reply actions actions   0 recs

Comments For This Post Are Closed


User Tools

Welcome to the SB Nation blog about the 2007 World Series Champions, the Boston Red Sox.
Start posting about the Red Sox »

Join SB Nation and dive into communities focused on all your favorite teams.

FanPosts

Community blog posts and discussion.

Recommended FanPosts

Rorscach_small
Bay NOT an All-Star

Recent FanPosts

Fenway_park_small
I'm new Just want to say hi
Lowrie__1234972975_0178-1_small
Why is Tito leaving the bullpen in too long?
Red_seat_small
Minor Lines 7/3 -- Ok, you can look again.
Small
Tito Does It Again
Capitalshug_opta_small
My first Fanpost: Nick Green's nickname
Red_seat_small
Minor Lines 7/2 -- Avert Your Eyes
Roberts_beats_jeter_2004_small
Going to the game tomorrow
Red_seat_small
Minor Lines 7/1 -- All Drama Aside
Img_1588_small
Gotta Love this game

Post_icon New FanPost All FanPosts Carrot-mini

SPONSORS


Managers

Red_sox_game_41206_026_small Randy Booth

Editors

Master_shake_small Allen Chace

Rorscach_small 0157H7

Authors

Zissou551_small SoxDevil

Pedroia_small ltrain2

Red_seat_small USG

Official Partner of Yahoo! Sports