Who else can afford him?

Anyone can. For Vlad, it's not about the money. The money as a quantum of respect is important, but beyond that, Guerrero (like Manny, oddly enough) doesn't care. Vlad values loyalty above all else... I can't see how the Red Sox have helped themselves with Guerrero by doing this.

Who else can afford him?

Depending on what the new Angels owner is trying to do, perhaps Anaheim.

Baltimore is possible too.

However, I can't see someone taking on the entire contract when they can just go out and sign FAs. Boston obviously feels they can spend Ramirez's contract for player(s) better than Ramirez.

If I were interested in Ramirez I'd wait it out and then try and make a trade with the Sox with them picking up 40% of the contract if they really want to get rid of him.

What happens if they try to assign him to the minors and he refuses?

If I were interested in Ramirez I'd wait it out and then try and make a trade with the Sox with them picking up 40% of the contract if they really want to get rid of him.

I agree, Pistol, and so does Rob Neyer:

The reports I've seen mention a number of teams that might be interested in Ramirez, but unless the Red Sox are willing to send a significant sum of money with Ramirez, there's only one team, one owner, that might have serious interest.

Will Steinbrenner take the bait? Probably not. Sure is fun to think about, though. And you have to admire Theo Epstein for making the first move.

http://economics.about.com
I'd be shocked if anyone claimed him. I'm sure there are teams that are interested, but it's much better to wait until he clears, then try to work out a deal with the Bo Sox where the Sox pick up a chunk of his salary.

He'd make a good Detroit Tiger. Then again, so would Craig Burley.

Cripes. No one can say Theo and Company don't have cojones. What a startling, gutsy move, and it has numerous implications:

- It shows that the Red Sox front office understand the churlish nature their ballclub has developed, and demonstrates their belief that its focal point appears to be the guy in left field. We all pretty much thought that Boston was not a team you could root for this post-season, and apparently Epstein agrees.

- It sends two messages: one to the team, that no one's job is safe and there will be no free rides from this point on (except for Pedro, of course). And the other to the baseball establishment: (a) we think this guy is poisonous, and (b) we're not going to devote this much salary to one guy anymore.

- It completely shakes up the free-agent scene. The two most attractive commodities out there, Guerrero and Sheffield, are of course outfielders (count Sosa as a third if he voids his own contract), and there's been heavy speculation that the Yankees would sign one or the other. But this is a brand new ball in play: Vlad's and Gary's agents cannot be happy.

- It's a brilliant piece of psychology by the Red Sox. They know that only the Yankees can afford Ramirez, and they know George is fuming over his team's supposed lack of clout (this for a squad that bats Nick Johnson 7th most nights). It's like dangling a drink in front of a parched alcoholic.

- It will show exactly how far round the bend George has gone if he actually claims Ramirez. It will mean he has probably decided to ignore his baseball people, who are (or should be) telling him that they don't need another slugger, especially not this one. If so, that can only be good for the Blue Jays' long-term competitive prospects.

- If Ramirez is claimed, and the Red Sox take that new money to build an even better team than the 2003 version, then that dims the Jays' competitive prospects as well. There's nothing more troublesome than rich smart competitors.

Ramirez, signed by former general manager Dan Duquette in December of 2000, is due $20.5 million in 2004, $20 million in 2005, $19 million in 2006, $18 million in 2007, $20 million in 2008. He will also make $4 million a year in deferred, no-interest salary between this coming season and 2010, plus he has $10 million remaining from his $16 million signing bonus still coming.

It's like reading transcripts from the Tyco trial, or maybe something from pre-crash 1929 Wall Street: an echo of an age so extravagant and vain that money meant almost nothing. It seems so far away now as to be almost unreal. Say what you want about Delgado's contract, his character is such that the Jays would never have had to stoop to this. Baseball historians may look back at this move years from now as the real turning point in baseball's salary spending sprees. Will anyone, anywhere, ever again get a contract like Manny's or A'Rod's?

so that owner George Steinbrenner could help them absorb their six-game loss to the Marlins in the World Series

That's a very nice turn of phrase.

Manny for Nothing

Great title, Kent.

I'd be shocked if a team other than the Yankees picked up a tab worth 5 years @ 100M. I think this will all depend on how much Steinbrenner covets Manny. But honestly, I don't see this working.

I think Manny comes back to Boston next year, and I'm willing to bet that he'll be really, really pissy.

No one will claim him. Steinbrenner will no doubt be told by his baseball people that if he claims Manny, Vlad or Sheffield winds up in Fenway, and the Sox gain ground on their bitter rivals.

What happens if they try to assign him to the minors and he refuses?


I believe he walks away from his contract. The same question was asked earlier this year when Escobar had an ERA of 10.00.

However, it would be pretty cool having a 20 million dollar outfielder in Pawtucket...


Ramirez, signed by former general manager Dan Duquette in December of 2000, is due $20.5 million in 2004, $20 million in 2005, $19 million in 2006, $18 million in 2007, $20 million in 2008. He will also make $4 million a year in deferred, no-interest salary between this coming season and 2010, plus he has $10 million remaining from his $16 million signing bonus still coming.


This is a little deceptive, if not inaccurate.

Here are the contract details, as reported in USA Today.

- the deferred amounts are not payable until the contract is done
- the signing bonus was 16 MM over 5 years, not over 8 years, so I would assume that he's already received 9.6 MM of it

Which means he's owed:

2004: 16.5 + 3.2 = 19.7 (+ 4MM in 2012)
2005: 16.0 + 3.2 = 19.2 (+ 4MM in 2013)
2006: 15.0 (+ 4MM in 2014)
2007: 14.0 (+ 4MM in 2015)
2008: 16.0 (+ 4MM in 2016)
2009: 3MM (deferred from 2001)
2010: 4MM (deferred from 2002)
2011: 4MM (deferred from 2003)

A few questions:

Does the remainder of his signing bonus get picked up by Boston?

Are the deferred payments for the first 3 years of his contract payable by Boston or the team that inherits his contract?

Setting aside his immaturity and indifferent defense, Manny is still a beast of a hitter. I think he's going to be claimed, and my guess is it's going to be the Dodgers.

The problem is the price tag. I'm sure the Dodgers have designs on one of Sheffield or Vlad. Both of them are about as good as Manny overall, are in better shape, and should be had for a lower price.

What happens if they try to assign him to the minors and he refuses?

He'd become a free agent and the Red Sox would still be on the hook for the contract.

He'd become a free agent and the Red Sox would still be on the hook for the contract.


Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think that the Red Sox are off the hook if he refuses the assignment. He's not being released, like Damion Easley or Derek Bell. He's just being put on waivers. If he clears waivers, I believe the Red Sox are free to demote him to the minors if they want to.

I'm not sure what the CBA rules are about this, but I believe that while Manny is being paid by the Red Sox organization, he has to do what he's told, which includes accepting a demotion to the minors. The only thing that would stop them from doing that would be some sort of provision in the CBA forbiddig them from doing so -- I have some recollection of Carlos Beltran using the CBA clause to prevent the Royals from sending him to the instructional league for extended rehab.

You get your Manny for nothing, get Youklis for free.

Cross-posted from Primer:

Presumably if Theo wanted to get rid of Manny he would have at least made a preliminary phone call to find out who was interested. And if he was willing to get nothing for Manny, surely any interested team would have been willing to offer, say, a grade-C minor league reliever. So why put him on waivers? Why not just trade him to any interested team?

My guess is that he called all the other teams, found out none were interested, but wanted to get rid of Manny still. This is his last chance - he's hoping that while he knows that nobody's interested, the Yankees don't know that, nor do the Orioles nor the Braves nor the Giants nor the Padres. And maybe, just maybe, someone will pick him up to keep a key rival away.

My best guess.

Check out the nwe articles for more on Manny.

I'll take a cople of questions that have come up:

Does the remainder of his signing bonus get picked up by Boston?

Yes. They are responsible, and they also (I think - not sure, someone should feel free to ask it on "Ask Craig") have it count towards the cap.

Are the deferred payments for the first 3 years of his contract payable by Boston or the team that inherits his contract?

By Boston. The deferred amounts are previous salary so Boston pays it.

What happens if they try to assign him to the minors and he refuses?

He can just refuse. He doesn't have to break the contract, he can just refuse (if, like Manny, he has more than 5 years of service time). See Article XIX(2)(b) of the CBA.

So is this a good thing or a bad thing for Toronto? It'll be clearer after Manny and the big free agents land, but I'm wondering if superstar free agents just got a lot cheaper. Specifically, this can't hurt the Jays chances of re-signing Delgado.

The only scenario that doesn't hurt either Boston or New York is if Manny gets claimed by another team. I concur that this is highly unlikely, the contract is just too unreasonable. This is a good thing... it's unrealistic to think about a division title any sooner than 2006, but only one of Boston or New York has to tank in order for Toronto to have a shot at the wild card even next year. And once you're in the playoffs.... youneverknow!

At any rate, I'm not counting on any decline in on-field production from Manny. The Manny is a Machine when it comes to mashing a baseball.

Adds new meaning to "anything for Halloween"

I think that this was a childish move by Epstein, whom I otherwise have a lot of respect for.

The Red Sox, as can be seen from the above, have no bargaining power in this. Their only way out of this contract (partially) is to eat some of it in a trade. By this move, they decrease their own bargaining power in a trade, because it will be well known that if Manny stays in Boston, the likelihood of a decline in performance is higher because he will be even unhappier next year.

If Epstein is trying to convey a motivational message to Manny, he's the wrong person to be doing it. That's the manager's job. Your GM should be the dispassionate one, making fair and reasoned judgments about players, and maybe like Gillick in the 92 World Series taking the pitching mound to show general support for the club. Humiliation should be the last thing that a GM should do, even if the player deserves it.

I have some words of wisdom for GMs: "Grant me the forbearance to accept what I cannot change, the courage to change what I can, and the wisdom to know the difference" and "Take your medicine".

You get your Manny for nothing, get Youklis for free.

Now that's clever. It didn't have to be posted by "Theo," though. I'd like to know who to credit for improving my joke.

I think that this was a childish move by Epstein

What a ridiculous choice of words. It may have been ill-advised, or you may not agree, but childish? Also, you have no way of knowing whether this was Theo's idea, or came from higher up. I'm not arguing that it was a brilliant move; I already called it "risky" for some of the reasons you cite.

Have you ever considered starting your own blog? "Words of Wisdom for GMs" would be a great title, and I'm sure they would appreciate your help.

I'm a little less certain that Manny will go unclaimed, but I otherwise agree with Mike Green on this one.

Does the remainder of his signing bonus get picked up by Boston?

Yes. They are responsible, and they also (I think - not sure, someone should feel free to ask it on "Ask Craig") have it count towards the cap.

Are the deferred payments for the first 3 years of his contract payable by Boston or the team that inherits his contract?

By Boston. The deferred amounts are previous salary so Boston pays it.

Hey Craig, how long until you start the Sports Management division at Tory's?

So the signing bonus and deferred payments from the first three years are Boston's problem. Which leaves:

2004: 16.5 (+ 4MM in 2012)
2005: 16.0 (+ 4MM in 2013)
2006: 15.0 (+ 4MM in 2014)
2007: 14.0 (+ 4MM in 2015)
2008: 16.0 (+ 4MM in 2016)
--------------------------

77.5 MM + 20MM deferred.

If I'm the Dodgers or Mets, I'd honestly be tempted. Manny is a total space cadet, but he's still a beast of a hitter, and is not showing any signs of slowing down.

Generally, I agree with Mike Green on this one. I don't know if it was childish but I think it was a bad move.

I do not think anyone will jump to take Manny until they have a sense of where the market is going on Vlad and Sheffield. The numbers from Jacko may look enticing or terrible depending on where the market is. My sense is that those numbers are still too rich for the loser of the Vlad and Sheffield sweepstakes, but they may not be totally out of whack if the superstars continue to get their money in the new baseball economy.

I guess I'll admit to it now that I've been called out. It might be clever, but it doesn't make a whole lot of sense. Oh well. I just want my MTV.

Coach,

I assumed it was Theo, as that it is how it is being reported everywhere, and normally placing a player on irrevocable waivers is a GM's decision.

Thome's free-agent contract last year was "ill-advised". The GM who gave Manny the contract made an "ill-advised" decision. Not being able to accept that this is a done deal, and that the only remedies are painful is "childish".

Of course, if there still are GMs out there who'd be interested in Manny at his price, then I am completely wrong. I guess we'll find out.

Generally, I agree with Mike Green on this one. I don't know if it was childish but I think it was a bad move.
I do not think anyone will jump to take Manny until they have a sense of where the market is going on Vlad and Sheffield.

You're missing a major point. It's not childish, it's a bold maneuvre forcing the hands of the other teams in the market. The key is that any claims will have to be placed in the next 48 hours. What happens with Manny will not be a result of the market, it will be a leading indicator for the market.

Of course, if there still are GMs out there who'd be interested in Manny at his price, then I am completely wrong.

Perish the thought. Hypothetically, I do wonder if San Diego would be better off with Manny & Oliver Perez & Jason Bay, as opposed to Brian Giles. Manny will mash the ball wherever he is, and his personality would be less of a distraction in a less rabid, lower profile market.

It might be clever, but it doesn't make a whole lot of sense.

Well actually it could make a lot of sense... Boston may have to sweeten the pot in order to offload Manny.

Yes. They are responsible, and they also (I think - not sure, someone should feel free to ask it on "Ask Craig") have it count towards the cap.


According to the AP story I read on the Globe and Mail site, there is 104 million remaining on his contract.

77.5 + 20 (deferred) + 6.4 (pro-rated amount of signing bonus) = 103.9

So maybe the unpaid part of the signing bonues does get picked up by his new team.

Or maybe the AP got it wrong.

Which one is it? Not that an extra 6.4 million over 5 years makes all that much difference...

While checking out the Sons of Sam Horn board to gauge the reaction of Red Sox Nation to the Ramirez situation, I noticed this amazing post:

The first thing I want to say is how moved I am by this thread - by what I've read - and I've read all the posts. All of you have a reason to be upset this week, and to want to do something positive at this time in response to the season as a whole is extraordinary.

I am certainly a fan of yours. (There must be a little David Lynch in that.) Maybe the Sox can provide something for you akin to the ad so that the dollars can go to the Jimmy Fund. You could accomplish both things and neither would go unappreciated by our organization - from top to bottom.

It was owner John Henry, responding to the SoSH members' idea of taking out a newspaper ad to thank their team for a great season. Some wanted the money to go to charity, and Mr. Henry made this generous offer.

I also notice that the SoSH Ramirez thread was started as soon as the story broke by Art Martone of the Providence Journal -- it makes me wonder if Da Box would have more "celebrity" posters if we adopted a similar membership format.

Peter Gammons weighs in:

Ramirez talked to the club at the end of the season and expressed that while he likes the Red Sox and Boston, he wouldn't mind seeing what there was in a trade, with his home (New York) an enticing option...

...When Ramirez talked to Red Sox officials, they offered to let him out of his contract so he could become a free agent. Obviously he declined, as agent Jeff Moorad knows that the current market might bring four years, $50-60 million, in contrast to the five years, $100 million on his existing deal.

Jacko, I think it depends on how the individual contract parcels out the signing bonus. AP may be right, but I think there's no way of telling for sure.

I think this is a great move by Boston. I also think that I'd absolutely love to hate playing chess against Theo Epstein. What he just did was offer to sacrifice a major piece for positional superiority before the midgame has even begun. If the sacrifice is not accepted, the Red Sox are no worse off. If it is accepted, the opponents are up in pieces but are going to have to scramble desperately to get out of their own way while the Sox use the gained board territory to begin advancing a few pawns, any one of which is now a candidate to reach the eighth rank and be promoted to a major piece.

http://economics.about.com
If Epstein is trying to convey a motivational message to Manny, he's the wrong person to be doing it. That's the manager's job.

This doesn't make any sense to me. If you're a private in the army a corporal can tell you to smarten up, but so can a sergeant (or a commissioned officer like a major).

I mean, if my advisor tried to motivate me, I'd listen. If the Chair of the department tried to do the same thing, you'd be sure I'd be listening as well.

Mike

Why would the Dodgers want Sheffield again? This is the same guy who bitched and moaned about being "underpaid" when LA was giving him $12 million per. Do the Dodgers want Vlad? Yes. Do they want Sheffield back? No way.

As for the Red Sox waiving Mannny ... big deal. It's the latest scene in what is fast becoming a tiresome movie to watch. All this turmoil only helps the Blue Jays and the other contenders in the American League, because I don't expect Ramirez to be anywhere else but Boston next year, and as someone else mentioned earlier, he'll be rather pissy. Oh, what am I saying? Chemistry is irrelevant. Bah.

I also wonder how often this happens -- a player placed on irrevocible waivers -- and we simply don't hear about. I wonder if someone in the Sox organisation leaked it to the media to piss Manny off and, as others here have indicated, to motivate him to change his ways -- or turn into a right-handed Barry Bonds. Or maybe the leaker wanted to piss Theo Epstein and the Red Sox off. Who can say? People in more important positions of power in the U.S., for example, have released information in a vindictive manner.

A final note, then I'm done: where did Silverman get this information? There's not a single quote in the article Coach linked, just a bunch of comments by the writer about what the Red Sox were thinking. Was it the Red Sox or Silverman? This may be a true story, but it's sloppy reporting, at best. Even Gammons offers no quotes in his sidebar. The only quote I've seen is by the Red Sox PR guy, and it's talking about how waivers are a confidential issue, which strengthens the hunch I stated above: somebody leaked this to get back at somebody. Assuming I'm right (dangerous), who these people are -- both the leaker and the target -- remains a mystery.

I also wonder how often this happens -- a player placed on irrevocible waivers -- and we simply don't hear about.

We didn't hear about it when Tony Batista was put on irrevocable waivers. Oh, wait, yes we did, because Gord Ash lost him for nothing because HE IS A FREAKIN' MORON.

Mike M,

How about thinking about it another way? If I'm Gary Sheffield (whose attitude has been questioned from time to time), would I rather go to a place where I have to satisfy the manager (this covers most teams) or one where I have to satisfy the manager and the GM, who might have different expectations?

It's not exactly the same as the army or a university, for two reasons. One, many of the employees make multi-millions each year. Two, many of the employees have options.

If Theo wants the club to deal with Manny issues, he's got a perfect opportunity. He's hiring a manager, and one of the criteria might very well be "ability to motivate the ballplayers". If this means hiring a tough nut, that may be perfectly reasonable. But players should know that if the manager is happy with their work, they won't then be humiliated by the GM.

Finally, if Manny's behaviour is indeed perceived to be a cancer on the team, the GM always has the option of trading him for below value. You may recall Whitey Herzog's trade of Keith Hernandez for Neil Allen, which fell into that category.

Jonny, I don't understand the brilliance of the "forcing everyone's hand issue" line of thinking. If this were done after Vlad and Sheffield were snapped up then maybe it makes some sense. We know that there is an extremely small pool of teams willing to cough up this kind of money, so small in fact that a team that is in the this market knows that if they pass on Manny and he gets taken by someone else, that in fact they're leverage with Vlad and Sheffield actually goes up. I think there is zero pressure on the teams in this market to jump at Manny.

http://us.i1.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/i/spo/mlbpa/mlbpa_cba.pdf
I'm not sure what the CBA rules are about this, but I believe that while Manny is being paid by the Red Sox organization, he has to do what he's told, which includes accepting a demotion to the minors.

No, he can refuse an assignment because he has more than 5 years of ML service. COMN to see the Collective Agreement. It's in PDF format. The key paragraph here is Article XIX(A)(2)(a), which is on page 69 of the Adobe file.

Manny can't be declared a true free agent, with the old contact ripped up and the right to sign with whomever for whatever, unless both he and the Sox agree to terminate the old contract. No way would Manny do this...it wouldn't be financially intelligent for him to ditch his old contract to sign with a new team for a lower salary thanks to the depressed market.

Assuming he doesn't get picked up on waivers or traded, the Sox could choose to try to assign him to the minors. My understanding is that if he refuses an assignment to the minors, it's simply that: a refusal. He doesn't go anywhere. He's not immediately a free agent. He could choose to be but he won't because we've already established that it wouldn't be financially intelligent. He has to stay on the Sox' 40-man roster and gets paid UNLESS the Sox choose to release him, at which time he can choose to sign anywhere with the Sox still ultimately responsible for his contract.

This is where it gets a little sketchy for me. I'm not sure if Manny could negotiate with other clubs or what his incentive to do so would be since he'll never get paid more than what the Sox signed him to. In every case I can think of where a player has been released in the middle of a big contract, he signs for the major league minimum and the old team pays the rest.

I assumed it was Theo, as that it is how it is being reported everywhere, and normally placing a player on irrevocable waivers is a GM's decision.

Most waiver decisions are the GM's decision. However when the player is making $20 mil per, it is no longer the GM's decision. Larry Luccino and John Henry had to be very heavily involved in this. So as a corollary:

if theo epstein = childish
therefore Larry L and John H = childish too.

Do I hear a childish triumvirate! I am waiting for the first 3 stooges shot from the peanut gallery.

If it is as Gammons reported then the Sox are giving Manny the chance to be picked up as he wanted. Moorad is working the phones today and he will go back to Manny and say "sorry ManRam, no takers". Manny returns to Boston appreciative of the Sox giving him a chance to go elsewhere.

I know its fun to think that GM's are stupid and we could do better, and it might be true in some cases, but I would not put the Boston brain trust in the stupid camp.

I think an equally good headline for this would have been "It's A Trap!"

Gerry,

I am sure that I know less than 1/100 of what the Boston brain trust does. They're not stupid. It's just a childish decision, whether it was made by Epstein as widely reported or by Lucchino and Henry.

I cannot recall a legitimate MVP candidate ever having been placed on irrevocable waivers. Maybe that's because my memory fails me or because it was not publicized, but if I'm right, surely it would make you wonder. Baseball has seen some brilliant general managers stuck underneath contracts for motivationally-challenged superstars before, and inevitably they have been traded with the brilliant GM eating some of the contract. There must be a reason for this.

We didn't hear about it when Tony Batista was put on irrevocable waivers. Oh, wait, yes we did, because Gord Ash lost him for nothing because HE IS A FREAKIN' MORON.


That was sarcasm, right?

Losing Batista to Baltimore on waivers was a bit of a blessing. He was barely hitting .200 at the time, and was completely unresponsive to coaches who were trying to help him make adjustments. By exposing and losing him, the Jays saved a pro-rated 1.5 MM in 2001, 4.5 MM in 2002 and a staggering 6MM in 2003.

It's just a childish decision

Using 'childish' as a descriptor in this case infers immaturity. How is this decision immature in any way?

It's immature because it's a pouty ineffectual way of dealing with a problem. In other words, if you are acting like an adult and don't like the contract and you don't want the player (can you say Raul Mondesi?), you eat as little of the contract as you can in a trade.

I've got two teenagers, so believe me I've seen this kind of behaviour before. Heck, sometimes parents have been known to sink down to the level of their children, and Ramirez was described in the header as a man-child.

http://economics.about.com
It's immature because it's a pouty ineffectual way of dealing with a problem. In other words, if you are acting like an adult and don't like the contract and you don't want the player (can you say Raul Mondesi?), you eat as little of the contract as you can in a trade.

Teams have been waving players for years and years because they didn't want to pay their contracts. Were all those moves immature?

The difference between Mondesi and Ramirez is that there's atleast a possibility that someone will pick up Ramirez. There was no possibility that anyone would pick up Mondesi. How do you know Mondesi wasn't put on waivers before he was traded to the Yankees? Oh wait, you don't.

I am sure that I know less than 1/100 of what the Boston brain trust does. They're not stupid. It's just a childish decision, whether it was made by Epstein as widely reported or by Lucchino and Henry.

We disagree then.

Mike M,

Yes, teams have been waiving players for years and years. But not this kind of player with this kind of contract. Tony Batista hitting .200 with a big contract, sure. The bottom line being that the team just didn't want to play him period. That's not Ramirez's situation, unless the Bosox are willing to pay Ramirez $20 million per year to do nothing.

If you or somebody else knows of a similar situation in which an MVP candidate was placed on irrevocable waivers, I'd like to know.

Here's my take on the motivation. They want to get rid of Manny, but they're not so naive as to think someone will pick him up for the full amount of the remainder of his contract. Rather, they're sending the message to all of the teams that are interested in adding a big bat that Manny is available. So don't go and jump on any of the other big names (Vlad, Sheffield, Sosa) without making us an offer. Of course that offer will include the Sox picking up a percentage of the contract, which will put him in the same ballpark (no pun intended) as the market value of these other big names. It's a great move, IMHO.

It's a great move, IMHO.

Boston Red Neck better duck. Mike's gonna get ya.

http://economics.about.com
Yes, teams have been waiving players for years and years. But not this kind of player with this kind of contract. Tony Batista hitting .200 with a big contract, sure. The bottom line being that the team just didn't want to play him period.

So now you're a mind reader, and you know the intent of every GM who has ever put a player on waivers?

If you or somebody else knows of a similar situation in which an MVP candidate was placed on irrevocable waivers, I'd like to know.

This is a silly thing to ask, because no two situations are exactly the same. So if someone names a name, you'll just retort, "Those two weren't similar because of X". It's an impossible criteria to satisfy and you know it.

Besides the fact most of the time we don't *know* if a player was put on waivers. It's not normally announced. Last time I checked, this one wasn't hasn't been officially announced either.

But if you want a name, how about Jose Canseco?

Mike

I don't understand the argument that this is a great move because it "announces that he's available". It's that hard to pick up the phone to the 4 or 5 possible destinations and say that they can have Manny for free? Sorry, this only makes sense as a good move right now if Manny asked for this (and I mean that literally not figuratively).

http://economics.about.com
I don't understand the argument that this is a great move because it "announces that he's available". It's that hard to pick up the phone to the 4 or 5 possible destinations and say that they can have Manny for free?

If you believe Theo's words to be completely credible, then yeah, he might have well just phoned.

If you don't entirely believe Theo (and who should completely believe an officer in a competing firm?), then this action confirms indeed that Manny is available to whoever will take him.

Mike

Boston Red Neck,

If that's what the Sox want to do, why don't they just do a private auction on Manny? The Yankees will pay $10 million of his salary; the Dodgers twelve, the Braves will pay $12.5 etc. Just like selling an overpriced house. They could get Sotheby's or a country auctioneer in if they want some fun.

Seriously, don't good GMs make a reputation with their peers by being up-front about this kind of stuff?

If that's what the Sox want to do, why don't they just do a private auction on Manny?

Because MLB transaction rules dictate that you can only trade so much cash to another team without approval (I think any amount in excess of $2MM gets scrutinized and $40M for 4 years or something similar just wouldn't fly). Because the MLB Player's Association would complain that these sorts of auctions have adverse affects on the marketplace. Because no one will pay that much for Manny when cheaper options exist on the open market. Because the Sox don't want to pay that much to not play Manny and hope someone will take him off their hands scott free. Because. Because. Because.

Spicol,

It was a joke. I don't know how much MLB would let fly, but if it is not enough, then the Sox will have to take part of the compensation for Manny in players rather than cash. And they may indeed not get much back.

If no one claims him, will you agree that the "gambit" backfired?

Nigel, sorry I didn't reply to your earlier post. Company arrived as I was about to.

"Forcing opponents' hands" and "announces that he's available" are only part of why I think this is a very good move and very far from "childish" as Mike Green calls it.

As has been pointed out by Craig B. and others, Boston loses very little, if anything, by this move. And could stand to gain a lot. Manny is a productive player, but not worth the size of his contract in today's market. Players can be found who will produce at a more than acceptable level for less money, leaving some of the money which would have gone to Manny now available to strengthen the rotation.

If another team claims Manny, that team becomes responsible for his contract and the Sox have freed up a substantial chunk of money for use elsewhere.

If another team claims Manny, that takes at least one player out of the Sheffield/Vladdy etc market, thus reducing the number of competitors the Sox would have to deal with if they decided they have an interest in that market; in one stroke, it simplifies matters for the Sox and complicates matters for others.

If it's the NYY who claim him, that either takes them completely out of the aforementioned market or, if it doesn't, it has them stumbling over themselves trying to figure out how to field a team so that the offensive gain isn't negated by the weakening of an already weak defence.

If teams let Manny slide through waivers, they know he is available for trade. And it's reasonable to assume that Boston would be willing to eat some of the contract to make that trade. Again, they're clear of Manny and a good portion of his contract, but now they have some prospects and possibly a good MLB-ready player, or two. This angle, too, complicates the "market" for others as teams are then looking at least two ways at once while they try to negotiate the best deal for themselves.

I said earlier that this simplifies matters for the Sox. Strictly speaking, that's not 100 percent true. But, at worst, it doesn't complicate matters for them -- because from their POV the worstcase scenario is that Manny stays and plays. And I think that he will play if stays, he will hit, because he has a damn big ego and would not be able to stop himself from racking up shiny numbers in which to admire himself.

I don't think this is "childish" move at all by Boston. I think it may have been the most mature move made by any team that I can recall. It rejects preconceptions and attempts to address a problem in a strategically innovative way without putting the whole household at risk.

Oh yeah, forgot to say that while that biggest risk in all this is that Manny will sulk,it shouldn't really weigh negatively in the decision because he's gonna sulk about something anyway.

If no one claims him, will you agree that the "gambit" backfired?

I can't really see this backfiring. Really, what's the worst that can happen? Manny's attitude toward Boston goes in the crapper. Guess what? Manny's attitude toward Boston was already in the crapper. Johnny Mack has explained it well.

Apologies if this has been said in the thread already, but apparently Manny and agent asked to be traded/released and knew that this was coming.

Where did you hear that Pistol?

I agree 100% with the idea that Manny will be sulking about something either way. And if even if he hadn't asked for it, I can't see how this is 'childish' - you can argue about whether it was a good move or not, but calling the collective maturity of the Boston front office into question is rather absurd.

Where did you hear that Pistol?

I heard it from a Boston journalist who was on the radio on my drive home last night, and then later last night from the host of one of those 'Sports Reporters' like shows after the Bruins game. (sorry, can't remember the name of either).

Manny wants to leave Boston and the Sox are ready to oblige.

Manny asked to leave, and the Red Sox are showing that they'll try to accommodate his request. If he's not claimed, he's entitled under the irrevocable-waiver rule to ask for free agency. He won't choose the option, but the Red Sox have done everything they could be asked to do on his behalf. I don't see how this would make Manny any more bitter than he already is.

It's past 1:00 and surprise! Manny hasn't been claimed. The waivers have expired and he'll stay a Red Sock.

All this hoopla over nuttin.

Now the trade talks begin.

To answer Jordan's early question, will anyone, ever, get a contract as rich as Manny's or A-Rod's? Sure, someone will. As long as ballplayers are playing for money and as long as greed is an essential part of the human psyche, there will be ups and downs in salaries, and someone will better $25 million/year for 10 years. It might take a while, but it will happen.