READ THIS DOLAN
We've had too much fun at Hoynsie's expense of late, so let's shift for a moment to Dennis M. My two favorites:
1) Manny Ramirez is a "proven winner"
2) Dolan has to attempt to sign Ramirez to prove he was serious about spending enough money to compete.
And check out Terry Pluto's column today for evidence of a writer who has trouble distinguishing between "mad" and "angry."
over 3 years ago
tabler84
55 comments
0 recs |
Comments
I’ve never even heard of manoloff
The benefits of signing Manny are numerous (to be discussed shortly). But they are moot if the Indians cannot afford him
Then he gives no examples on how the Indians can afford him. Just that he “feels” like they could.
I enjoyed the Manny salary comparison to CC as if there is little difference between 17 million and 23 million.
And their respective ages, of course.
The best thing probably is to hit [Grady] 2nd -- Jay
by Buckeye Brad on Feb 10, 2009 4:42 PM EST up reply actions
He is a winner, as showed by Joe Poz a couple days ago. Ha.
What Pluto column were you talking about? The one about Van Gundy and Joe Tait??
That was a good article. For all the grief Manny takes, he certainly helps his team win like few other players. I love the one commentor who said Manny isn’t a proven winner because he doesn’t play hard all the time. First of all, how does he know how often Manny plays hard? Secondly, I’ll take Manny playing hard 90% of the time over most players playing hard 100% of the time.
The best thing probably is to hit [Grady] 2nd -- Jay
by Buckeye Brad on Feb 10, 2009 4:44 PM EST up reply actions
Remember the Indians of the mid-to-late 1990s.
This is th thrust of the article.
Though I have to say, it could have been much worse, given the topic.
Burn on, big river, burn on...
BRING BACK OMAR!!!!
The best thing probably is to hit [Grady] 2nd -- Jay
by Buckeye Brad on Feb 10, 2009 4:44 PM EST up reply actions
BRING BACK ERIC PLUNK!!!!
There is a significant lack of beards in this year's clubhouse...
by mixmasterasia on Feb 11, 2009 4:06 PM EST up reply actions
BRING BACK BUBBLE GUM CAPS!!!!!
Steel Nick
by nickjs21 on Feb 10, 2009 7:26 PM EST up reply actions 1 recs
Actually, yes. Do so.
Burn on, big river, burn on...
by Turkmenbashi on Feb 11, 2009 10:20 AM EST up reply actions
As Jay mentioned in a different fanshot, writers have some power over the understanding of their readers. I posted this because it’s a perfect example. How many more Tribe fans are now going to walk around grumbling, “See, we could have won a title this year if ONLY WE WOULD HAVE SIGNED MANNY. DOLAN SELL THE TEEM YOU CHAP BASTRAD”
“At the moment, Manny seemingly can be had for two guaranteed years at $40-45 million. As long as the perameters stay in that neighborhood — especially no more than two guaraneteed years — the Indians should strike. If not, at least they gave it an honest effort. The worst would be if another club snapped him up for such a price while the Indians sat in the dugout and did nothing.”
I put that in quotes b/c I have no idea how to post it in the blue block like the rest of you. That is the funniest part of all this: apparently, the Dodgers have no idea that Manny can be had for 2 years, $40-$45M. Like, that first offer for 2 years, $45M was really just a joke by the Dodgers, they didn’t really mean to make that offer.
Is Manoloff one of Hoynes’ interns? Did he write in that Jeff Kent question this weekend?
Just saw this on espn.com
http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/columns/story?columnist=smith_stephen&id=3896206
Apparently, Stephen A. Smith feels that Manny needs to get more than 2 years @ $25M per, because MLB broke attendance records 4 years in a row. Never mind that season ticket holders aren’t buying the tickets they’ve bought in the past. Never mind that Manny drove himself out of Boston and that other teams are unwilling to spend $25M (that they don’t have) on a player that could pack it in at the drop of a hat. Apparently, because Manny has hit 500+ home runs, he is worth more than a 2 year, $45M contract.
One of the few things that really gets on my nerves is blatantly ignorant people that have a forum to reach the masses.
I cringed when SAS was giving his views on A-Rod yesterday.
Also, to blockquote words just highlight them then hit the button above that looks like blue quotation marks.
The best thing probably is to hit [Grady] 2nd -- Jay
by Buckeye Brad on Feb 10, 2009 4:48 PM EST up reply actions
Really? I’ve been inserting a slash manually. Now can you tell me how to resize an image?
by Manhattan Tribe Fan on Feb 10, 2009 4:57 PM EST up reply actions
If you type “width=###” after the source argument in the img tag, it will resize the image proportionally to the value of ###.
e.g. [img src=“http://cdn0.sbnation.com/profile_images/93024/Lady_Liberty_small.jpg” width=50/], but with, y’know, the usual angle brackets, produces:

(Courtesy of (I think) Steel Nick, who made me aware of how to do this)
by Logodaedalus on Feb 10, 2009 5:37 PM EST up reply actions
Don’t ever bring up Stephen A. Smith in this forum again.
There are two people I would instantly change the channel for, regardless the topic of conversation. Him and Skip Bayless.
Steel Nick
I agree about both. However, when people have a view that’s completely opposite of mine, I will read them once in a while just to see what they say. And since it’s February, and there isn’t actual baseball to talk about, I gave him a shot.
BTW, when Jim Rome was in Cleveland for a tour stop a few years ago, the entire Wolstein Center was chanting “Skip Bayless sucks! Skip Bayless sucks!” THAT was freakin hilarious. Rome even appreciated it.
Not when they’re debating each other. It’s like watching a brutal cage match, you jjust can’t look away.
Burn on, big river, burn on...
by Turkmenbashi on Feb 11, 2009 10:21 AM EST up reply actions
How does Manoloff (who I have heard of, but is not in the Pluto-realm of Cleveland reports, nor as well-known as Hoynes) know for sure that the Indians haven’t attempted to sign Manny?
Granted, it’s likely they won’t succeed, but it’s not out of the question that the Indians at least called and asked if they’d be interested in such-and-such (i.e. “kick the tires” around on a deal, just to see if there is any interest). That does constitute “effort,” right?
It’s also likely that if that did occur, that wouldn’t be reported to the media until later, if ever. Therefore, Manoloff is speculating that the Indians have made no “effort” to sign Manny – how can he be sure? In my opinion, he can’t – he’s just speculating, which is probably part of the reason why we’re thinking he’s connected with Hoynes when it comes to reporting (i.e. not the quality of reporting we’d expect from Pluto or other sources, such as Lastoria and the LGT fanbase). He offers his opinion on why they should sign Manny, but gives no evidence that they haven’t at least considered it and gives no concrete reason on how to go about signing him, being that the Indians reportedly don’t have any money left for FAs.
Just my 2 cents.
The "cream of the crop" doesn't always rise to the top.
His article just reeks of shortsightedness. Total logic fail on his part in intimating that the Indians had an “extra” $18M from not having signed CC.
1) Paying CC wouldn’t have added an extra $18M to the budget. He made $11M in 2009, so it would have been a marginal increase of $7M from 2008 to 2009, and that’s assuming the contract was not at all back loaded.
2) The Indians wouldn’t have signed Carl Pavano for $1.5M if they signed CC, so there’s a $5.5M marginal difference left to cover if you use this year’s payroll as the max.
So the Indians could have still signed Kerry Wood to his exact contract and be at the same budget, without having added Mark DeRosa. It’s just a worthless article that is misleading and based on false logic.
Get ready for some armchair psychology.
If you’re Manny, don’t you have the following thoughts at some point: (1) I’m already rich; (2) I already have two rings; (3) I want to stick it to Boston; (4) I’m fond of Cleveland and have some unfinished business there; (5) if we win a World Series, I will likely get much of the credit and will become a folk hero; (6) maybe I should consider playing there for really, really cheap.
I would
Burn on, big river, burn on...
by Turkmenbashi on Feb 11, 2009 10:50 AM EST up reply actions
Manny doesn’t have ‘thoughts’.
Signature to be named later.
by emd2k3 on Feb 10, 2009 5:27 PM EST up reply actions 1 recs
It is possible that Manny (a) would rather have a one-year deal than a two-year deal, (b) can’t get a three-year deal, © would rather play for the Indians for $15 million than the Dodgers for $25 million.
by Jay on Feb 10, 2009 8:15 PM EST up reply actions 1 recs
I’m not sure who Manny is waiting on at this point. The Dodgers basically left their 2 year, $45 million on the table and started looking at the rest of the outfield market, so the odds of him seeing 3 years guaranteed appear pretty slim.
Is Manny easily influenced by his agents when it comes to negotiations? The way he turned down L.A. it almost seems like he never intended to return in the first place. It would be crazy to think no one is going to sign him before the season starts, but I can’t remember a time where the free agent market was this dead with so much talent still hanging around. Boras doesn’t seem like the compromising type though, so maybe he will hold Manny out until some team gets desperate after a 1-12 start.
Hello Pronk33,
If the reports were accurate when Boston signed Manny before the 2001 season, Moorad (his agent at the time) seemed to have great influence on getting Manny to take Boston’s deal over ours (which, admittedly, had more deferred money and fewer dollars), so I think the possibility of Manny being easily influenced by his agent is a realistic one. It wouldn’t surprise me if he follows Boras’ advice to the letter.
Just my 2 cents.
The "cream of the crop" doesn't always rise to the top.
Manoloff completely ignores the fact that the Yankees suddenly have $270 million laying around.
by SuddenSam on Feb 10, 2009 7:20 PM EST reply actions 4 recs
Stronger played last night. You better believe I got on the floor for it
So 2009.
by Gradyforpresident on Feb 11, 2009 11:12 AM EST reply actions
















