These days, it's all Manny, all the time

UPDATE: Be sure to check in for Wednesday's edition of Purple, Gold, and Blue. We'll kick around the hot stove (not literally, since it burns), and get an update from LAT Dodgers beat writer Dylan Hernandez. Also, we mention in the video below that Manny's deal, with the option, could be worth around $70 mil. Hernandez reports the value at $60 mil... which isn't likely to make the deal any more appealing to Camp Manny. BK

Thus, BK and I talking in video form about one Manuel Aristides Ramirez makes perfect sense.

Our first segment is about the contract reportedly offered by the Dodgers that left Team Manny (along with Team AK/BK) underwhelmed. If it's just a starting point, OK, just prepare to make another in the near future. If that's more or less "the" offer, it's understandable why folks question the front office's sincerity in bringing #99 back to the Ravine. Considering they're also often skeptical (whether deservedly or not) about Frank McCourt's dedication to the franchise, do you see where I'm running with this?

The second item centers on how Manny, whether the team admits it publicly or not, is the elephant in the room that affects every other offseason decision. One could make an argument this team has a lot of holes to fill, unless you don't consider shortstop, third and/or second, a big bat, another starting pitcher, perhaps a closer, plus a fair amount of bench players much of a chore. Thus, the Dodgers claiming they can't put the world on hold until they figure out the Manny situation makes sense. Unfortunately, he's a big enough piece of the puzzle that it's basically unavoidable, whether they like it or not.

The videos are below the jump.

Posted by kambrothers on November 10, 2008 in Dodgers Video | Permalink

Comments

Anything other then the Man roaming the ravine is unacceptable. I have been a dodger fan for 28 years and I swear if he is not back I will curse everything blue. I am very nervous about this deal getting done. I have no faith in what Frank says. He has yet,in my opinion,to prove himself to us fans. I mean if you have a shot at Manny you HAVE to make it work. That two year deal even insulted me. I hope it didn't turn Manny off of the dodgers completly. He's got pride man. I have said in a previous post that I think i's gonna take 4 years to even be in the negotiations. I think Boras is Satan himself but in this case he is truly holding the cards. Bite the bullet and sign him now. Like you guys say, he is such a big piece of the puzzle we need to get it done so we can fill out the rest of the team.With Manny we have a shot, without him we will be pathetic. Does the last 20 years mean anything to management?
Just look at the 1st 4 months of the last season. We were a joke. Manny arives and we win the division. Manny will bring in money. You have to spend for a player like this. Coletti has wasted so much of Franks money on bad signings I'm surprised he doesn't have him washing his cars on weekends. And now they squabble over money?
Give him his 4 years at 110 - 120 mill and start the Party!!!!

Posted by: dodgerdog | November 11, 2008 at 09:39 AM

I'd like Manny stay but the Dodgers should really sign CC and go after Holliday in 2010 with the money they were paying FAJ and Schmidt

Oakland can't afford to keep him

Posted by: CA | November 11, 2008 at 10:50 AM

Do they have any idea what a huge mistake they'll be making if they let him get away?

"Sorry kids, no Christmas this year--the toy store was closed by the time we got there. But here's a nice new set of encyclopedias for you to play with, and Aunt Gertrude got you an awesome box of monogrammed hankies."

Posted by: K2 | November 11, 2008 at 11:25 AM

Is Frank McCourt broke? Since MLB is an equity business (valuation based on value rather than revenue...in other words, you only really make money when you sell) and McCourt financed his $430 million purchase from Fox with debt I wonder how well his other businesses are doing. As we all know, real estate stinks.

Posted by: A Scanner Darkly | November 11, 2008 at 12:09 PM

It's not that I don't want Manny back next year, I really do. But I think Colletti would be an idiot to go much further than what he has already offered.

How is the second highest average salary in baseball an insult to anybody? Especially an aging outfielder who plays terrible defense and has no shot at duplicating the numbers he put up here the last 2 1/2 months. It would be a mistake to offer Manny more than 2 years.

You think you saw a team that sucked until Manny got here, I saw a team that played fairly well until Furcal got hurt, then struggled, then started to come together after Blake and Manny were acquired and some of their other players stepped it up.

Manny did not get them into the playoffs all by himself. How quickly we forget that even with Manny the Dodgers had an 8-game losing streak. Manny will not make or break the Dodgers in 2009, I hope Colletti does not raise his bid much more.

Manny, if you don't like the offer, don't let the door hit you on the way out...

Posted by: HardHittin25 | November 11, 2008 at 01:02 PM

"How is the second highest average salary in baseball an insult to anybody?"

Well said, HardHittin25. That is exactly the point. Boras is so good at his job that the Dodgers make a huge offer and all of LA balks at the idea of NOT making a 37-year-old the highest paid player in the league. $23 million per is HUGE money!

The other thing that no one seems to acknowledge is that McCourt has established $119 million (just below the luxury tax threshold) as his salary cap. You can argue until you're blue in the face that he should spend more, but we don't see the books and we don't know what kind of profit margin he is making... or expects to make. And frankly, until we are billionaires running a ballclub, we don't get to. That's McCourt's privilege and decision.

So all of our quibbling about spending has to be predicated on the fact that we are talking about $119 million to spend next year. Dodgerdog, as I said to you several posts ago, I think it is highly unrealistic to expect McCourt to commit more to one player (over whatever length of time) than he does an entire team for one year.

Also, if you to $30 mill per on Manny, you are now spending 25% of your payroll on one player. No player in the history of the game has singlehandedly accounted for 25% of a team's Win Shares (a Jamesian statistic), and I personally can't think of any player on any team who would truly justify that kind of percentage of total payroll, regardless of how many jerseys (or wigs, in this case) that he sells.

So I just think that we need to consider how well we're spending this percentage of the payroll. Statistically, it doesn't bear out.

That being said, I do understand everyone's excitement over this player. When I lived in Boston (I moved there the same year that Manny did), I think I actually had a man-crush on him (which, I should add, put my girlfriend at the time in an awkward position). He is something else, no doubt.

I try to play fantasy baseball with my head, not my heart, and I think that McCourt should apply the same prudence to his contract offers in the actual game of baseball.

Posted by: VA Blueblood | November 11, 2008 at 02:36 PM

Shakespeare and Spinal Tap... it's like a Robert Altman movie subtext with less characters.

Posted by: Benzo Jones | November 11, 2008 at 05:27 PM

3 yrs 90 m, done deal.

Posted by: Benzo Jones | November 11, 2008 at 05:29 PM

The pro-Manny camp continues to overlook two major points.

1) Manny's arrival meant that the team's most accomplished player was no longer sourpuss Jeff Kent. Was the transformation in the clubhouse a result of Manny's addition, or Kent's subtraction? The team certainly played infinitely better when Kent when down to injury. I believe the chemistry improved not so much because of Manny but because of the lack of Kent.

2) Manny didn't win a World Series for the Dodgers. With Manny, they won a playoff series for the first time in forever, but he wasn't the only reason. Good starting pitching was one reason. Excellent hitting by Ethier, Loney, Martin, and Blake Dewitt was another.

Manny hit well against Philadelphia, but those guys didn't, and the Dodgers lost. So much as Scott Boras would like you to believe, Manny CANNOT carry an entire team. Not even if he hits .533. He could hit .1000 and the Dodgers still would have lost to the Phillies because the rest of the team didn't hit.

The starting pitching has gone downhill with the subtraction of Derek Lowe. He needs to be replaced, perhaps with a Peavy or Sabathia upgrade. If there's money left over, then you sign an outfielder. But if you blow it all on Manny, there won't be anything left.

Posted by: SaMo | November 11, 2008 at 05:47 PM

Honestly, the offer, especially the fun part where Manny gets paid 15 mil for the 1st year, made me think of "Burn Without Reading", literally.

What collection of bumbling characters would think like that, much less talk like that? Duh, Think Blue.. It would be Dark Comedy, but there's no humor, no substance, nor anyone as skilled at managing the plotline as the Coen brothers involved with this goopy mess.

The D management needs to shut up, let Bora$$ run around putting his foot in his mouth, let the numbers settle out, then make a reasonable offer--like Benzo decrees 3 @ 90 or I'd go 4 @ 100.

Posted by: lizzieinsb | November 11, 2008 at 06:41 PM

C'mon Va Blueblood,
It isn't about the salary per year, its about the total amount of the contract. Manny only has 3 to 4 years he can negotiate. He is not going to sign for only 2 years and then try to get another big contract at 39 years old!! He has to cash in now to to achieve his potential. With just 2 years, A-rods 10 year, 270m contract dwarfs what Manny was offered. You keep talking about what Frank's cap is and you have no idea what it is. Also why should you care what Frank spends as long as the Dodgers win. Maybe he will go over the 120m you think is his limit. The bottom line is that the Dodgers should try to win, not just attempt to make the playoffs and keep telling the fans that your trying. If Frank can't pay, maybe he shouldn't play. He definitely should not try and BS the good folks of Southern California. This isn't fantasy baseball, its the real deal. The Dodger fans have waited long enough for a winner. Sign Manny and whoever else is needed and win.

Package

Dodgerdog
You are spot on!

Posted by: Package | November 11, 2008 at 07:04 PM

Doesn't it always seem like the Hot Stove league takes forever to get started but once a few players are picked up it then seems like there is a fire sale and everyone's rushing to get their man...

I can't wait for the first few initial trades / free agent pickups have been made

Posted by: K T | November 11, 2008 at 07:32 PM

The Dodgers need a power bat in the outfield (it doesn't have to be Manny), a quality starting pitcher, and they need to work out what their infield will look like (which could involve another cost or two).

Some of you are under the impression that since the Dodgers are a large market team, they therefore have unlimited funds to spend. If you think so, you are, quite simply, WRONG.

The Dodgers may be a major market team, but their revenue in no way compares to the Mets, Yankees and Red Sox. And the reason is spelled R-E-G-I-O-N-A-L N-E-T-W-O-R-K. The Mets have SNY, the Yankees have YES, and the Red Sox have NESN. Those teams lose money on their baseball operations, but make oodles of dough via their regional networks.

Why, you ask, don't the Dodgers have a regional network? It's really very simple. When Frank McCourt bought the Dodgers he acquired them for half of their value at the time. Of course, News Corp. wasn't being generous (it's not a trait that Rupert Murdoch knows anything about). The reason McCourt was able to acquire the Dodgers at a discount was due to an agreement that kept the Dodgers tied to FOX until, I believe, 2012 or 2013. It wouldn't surprise me in the least if the Dodgers were contemplating their own regional network to commence about that time. Might even tie into the completion of the renovation of Dodger Stadium, which I believe is scheduled to be completed in 2012. So whatever you may think about Frank McCourt, he probably is somewhat limited in what he can do.

Manny is a great player, but he's not likely to hit .396 over a full season and drive in an average of a run per game. So while Manny would likely be good next year, he is not likely to be as good as the player we saw the last 2.5 months. And as has been pointed out by others, even with Manny the Dodgers did not advance beyond the NLCS.

This team needs to depend on the continued development of its young players, who should benefit greatly from the experience of 2008 and added maturity. Also, Torre will enter spring training this year with a team and organization with which he is now intimately familiar (unlike last year). Spring training will also be less disruptive w/o any trips to China and the splitting of the squad. Add to that a power bat in the outfleld, a resolution to their infield questions, and the addition of a quality starting pitcher, and this team will contend, and likely have as good a chance as any team of advancing deep into the postseason, and even winning a championship.

Manny will turn 37 next year. If he's signed to a lucrative long term deal, and suddenly begins to show his age (keep in mind Jeff Kent's decline--he also was 37 his first year with the Dodgers), his contract will make the signings of Kevin Brown, Darren Dreifort, Andruw Jones and Jason Schmidt seem like mild inconveniences. If there is anything that could set this team back, it would be a long term, lucrative and unproductive contract. Any long term lucrative deal is a risk, but signing one with an aging star only increases that risk.

The Dodgers need to plug multiple holes, not just a power bat in the outfield. Spending wildly to fill that one position at the expense of confronting their other multiple needs is not a wise allocation of resources.

A lot of the clamor to bring Manny back at any cost is purely emotional, and has absolutely nothing to do with a cold, calculated appraisal of the real short and long term needs of this team. Sober heads need to prevail.

Posted by: Brooklyn Dodger | November 11, 2008 at 08:56 PM

Brooklyn-

I actually disagree with the last part of your post. I don't consider the push to bring Manny back as emotional. Back at any cost, yes. But back at a substantial cost? No. From a competitive standpoint, the Dodgers were a profoundly different team with Manny in the lineup. If the Dodgers are going to be a competitive team next year, they need his bat (or something comparable... and there aren't a lot of comparable...). Unfortunately, free agency is probably the only way they can get an impact bat without trading bats from the Major League roster.

While he'll be 37, there's no reason to believe the bottom will fall out of his productivity. If he was in town for three years, I'd be fully confident that two would be very solid seasons, and the third has a good chance, too. Not .400, RBI per game good, but relatively in line with his career norms, and better than anyone else they'd be able to get.

They have other holes that need to be filled, yes, but if they don't bring Manny back, one of those will be "impact bat." Adam Dunn isn't a bad consolation prize, but he's not the dynamic hitter that Manny is. And he'll cost a bunch, too.

There should be genuine concern for next season, and how competitive the Dodgers will be. At the same time, they have to be careful not to crush the next five years just to field a good team in '09. It is, as they say, a tricky proposition, and the FA market doesn't have a whole lot to offer.

Posted by: Brian Kamenetzky | November 11, 2008 at 09:38 PM

Brooklyn Dodger
Whether or not the Dodgers have any money has nothing to do with them being a large market team as you said, THEY ARE!! I know that you probably think they can fill a few holes without Manny and they will be right back in the playoffs in 09. You also probably have the utmost confidence in the current young Dodgers and you will give them the utmost faith. (Kemp, Loney, Martin, DeWitt might hit 25HRs, 100 RBIs 300 BA. Or Bills, Karoda, Kershaw, win 20 and have ERAs below 3.00). But the fact is that will never happen! You have no faith in proven stars. I could understand that if it warrants, but Manny has proved what he can do his whole career. He has a proven track record. He has a good history. I personally would never have signed a player like Andruw Jones and said so, because the previous year he had hit only .220. A bad history. That was a stupid signing. I also do not understand your commitment to Frank's money. I personally don't care how much money Frank has, I am just a fan who expects the Dodgers to win because they are a major market team with a huge national following. I cannot concern myself with whether or not they made good business decisions. If Frank makes bad decisions, that is not the fans fault. We do not want excuses, we want results and Manny has proved what his results can be. If Frank doesn't have the money to run the team properly, he should sell it. Although he probably loves fans like you, so when Frank doens't get the job done, ya'all will say " Well, it was just too much money", put in Repko. You are continuely trying to warrant why the Dodgers will not win with vets, as opposed to spending what it takes to win and then doing it. You bet what you think the youngsters could develop in their potentials, but rarely happens. How many years will you continue to say that, and how many years will you worry about Frank's money?? I truly believe that you would love to fill the entire team with youngsters and just keep hoping they will get lucky some day and win. If you think that another rookie or vet would serve the purpose just as well, please tell us who that is?? This is definitely a clear situation where Frank needs to PAY THE MAN HIS MONEY!!!!!!

Posted by: Package | November 12, 2008 at 08:01 AM

AK/BK
Are you guys on Purple, Gold and Blue today??
Package

Posted by: Package | November 12, 2008 at 08:06 AM

2 Years. 60 Million w/ a team option for a 3rd year. Manny is the man, but by NL Baseball standards he will soon be an OLD MAN.

-OR-

Dodgers and Angels team up and sign Manny to a 5 or 6 year deal. Dodgers get him for the first 2 or 3 years and then send him over to the AL for the remainder of the contract. The Dodgers compensation from the Angels will be based on Manny's productivity and attitude. Perfect. Glad I could help! I am kidding obviously. Enjoy your Hot Stove Wednesday!

Geaux Dodgers!

Posted by: gus2327 | November 12, 2008 at 08:12 AM

Package....

Thanks.

To everyone else....

Manny IS a difference maker. Everybody plays better with him in the linup. Not to mention the excitement he generates throughout the game. Lets not forget we all spend so many hours watching this team to be Entertained. Thats what this is after all ENTERTAINMENT.I'm not worried about McCourts money. If you buy a team that belongs to, in my opinion,the best city in America then you better be able to Put up. Otherwise buy the Pirates.Frank can sell a couple of houses or something and if real estate is more important to him then My Dodgers, get the hell out.
If you have to, work out some kind of deferred payment plan for a few years. We have a lot of young guys making very little money. As it stands now our two top pitchers are just kids that have a ways to go before any kind of money starts rolling in.Chances are when some of the kids achieve free agent status they will sign somewhere else anyway. My gut feeling is that Martin would rather probably end up close to his Dad back east. Who knows what will happen. Live for the moment. Sign Manny.

One more thought.. If Coletti hadn't wasted so much money on smilin' FAJ and that Ex-Giant dead arm we wouldn't even have to worry about Manny money. Those guys were not 100% when we signed them. Whoever cleared them screwed up big time. Hey, Maybe we should search for some weapons of mass destruction too. Great intelligence reports guys.

Posted by: dodgerdog | November 12, 2008 at 08:48 AM

Package-

Indeed we are, and will have some Dodger time in there, probably later in the show.

Posted by: Brian Kamenetzky | November 12, 2008 at 10:02 AM

I've had enough of this Manny makes everyone better line of reasoning.

How much better did Manny make Andre Ethier and James Loney against Philadelphia?

How much better did he make Chad Billingsley?

How much better did he make Jeff Kent, who sucked all year?

The guy in front of Manny gets better pitches to hit, whether it's David Ortiz or Andre Ethier or Jeff Kent or Buddy Biancalana. Whether he makes hay out of those good pitches is up to him. Ethier did, Kent did, Russell Martin didn't. But that's the only effect on the rest of the lineup.

You could argue that he makes the guy behind him a better run-producer because it's more likely there's a guy on base, but on at least 37 occasions, the guy behind him was hitting with nobody on base because Manny had just cleared the bases.

The Dodgers will not stand or fall with Manny. He's definitely the best guy out there for the next two years. But if the Dodgers learned anything from Juan Pierre, it's that five-year deals are a huge mistake for guys no longer in their prime.

I want the Dodgers to win as much as anyone. But I don't want a one-and-done Houston Astros/Florida Marlins type of club. With the Pads and Rockies pretty much giving up on the 2009 season already, winning the west shouldn't be much of a problem next year.

But I want a team that's competitive every year, that makes the playoffs more often than not. Signing Manny would make the team good for two years, but signing Sabathia would make them dominant for a decade.

Posted by: SaMo | November 12, 2008 at 10:32 AM

"Manny IS a difference maker"

What difference was Manny making when the team was losing 8 in a row after trading for him? Also, you might recall the Red Sox playing better after trading for Jason Bay. The fact is the whole team has to produce in order for a team to have a successful season.

Yes, I do care how much money McCourt spends to bring back an aging left fielder, because I know that will have an impact on how much is available to fulfill the team's other needs. Let's face it, I don't care if McCourt or Bill Gates owns the team, they are not running a charitable organization to provide Los Angeles with a team they will love but that is going to lose money. It's a business and management must exercise restraint.

I don't care how much money the Dodgers wasted on Jones and Schmidt, even if they had never made those mistakes I would still have a problem with them spending the amount of money you guys are wanting them to throw at Manny. No player is worth that kind of money and certainly Manny is not worth more money on an annual basis than A-Rod. Are you kidding me? A-Rod is a complete player.

The Dodgers can't make the same mistake the Giants made by allocating such a large percentage of their payroll to one player, Bonds. You see how well that turned out. By the way, Manny is not going to put up anywhere near the numbers Bonds was putting up.

Posted by: HardHittin25 | November 12, 2008 at 11:19 AM

Package, you said: "You keep talking about what Frank's cap is and you have no idea what it is."

Every year that McCourt has owned the team, he has established payroll right below the Luxury Tax threshold (next year it will be $120 million). This last season he made a big point of mandating that Flanders not go over $118 million (Luxury Tax started at $119). Why would you assume that next year McCourt would do anything differently? I suppose you are right that he COULD suddenly spend more, but the evidence to date suggests he will not. Believing otherwise is wishful thinking.

Package: "He has a proven track record. He has a good history."

So does Ken Griffey Jr. He's available. How about Barry Bonds? You know who also put up great numbers? Ty Cobb. I wonder if he's available.

Package: "I personally don't care how much money Frank has, I am just a fan who expects the Dodgers to win because they are a major market team with a huge national following."

Yup, you said it. Not your problem. Just cheer them on. But if you're going to make statements about who should pay what to whom, then you are by definition stepping into the GM's and owners' heads, and therefore have to also consider the business side in order to make sensible statements about salaries. I think the superintendent of my public school division should pay every teacher $200,000 this year. I don't care what tax revenue she's pulling in, I want my $200K!!! But if I had her job and got to make those decisions, well... I guess I'd have to consider the tax revenue, now wouldn't I?

BK, you said, "There should be genuine concern for next season, and how competitive the Dodgers will be. At the same time, they have to be careful not to crush the next five years just to field a good team in '09."

That is exactly it. So far, tying up huge percentages of payroll in one or two players has not proven to be a productive move for Colletti. This is why I am worried about placing 25% of payroll in Manny.

dodgerdog: "Manny IS a difference maker. Everybody plays better with him in the linup. Not to mention the excitement he generates throughout the game. Lets not forget we all spend so many hours watching this team to be Entertained. Thats what this is after all ENTERTAINMENT.I'm not worried about McCourts money."

You summed up the Sign-Manny position very well. For entertainment factor, there's no better. The Spend-Wisely position ignores those sentiments in favor of cold, hard statistical fact. One of those facts is payroll. And bringing it full-circle, we can make an informed guess as to what payroll will be next year.

Spend Wisely.

Posted by: VA Blueblood | November 12, 2008 at 11:54 AM

Dodgers have a huge national following???????

The Brooklyn guys (like me and BD) are all in their late 50's or early sixties. They just left Vero for the left side of the country and are vying to be the most popular team in California or LA. Those East Coast fans are fading fast through attritiion and hometown loyalties.

I love the Dodgers but they don't have a huge national following. The teams with a huge national following are the Red Sox, Yankees and Cubbies.

I attend about 20-25 games a year in DC and Baltimore (including the three Dodger games at National Park. During the summer I attended a game with my daughter (a Boston Fan) at Camden Yards , The game was sold out and the Sox fans actually outnumbered the O's fans about 2-1 in their own Stadium. There were also about 10K Yankee fans there just to cheer for the O's and heckle/fight with the Boston fans. The same was true when the Cubs came to DC. They outnumbered the National's fans every game. That is national appeal.

In consolation, they are probably the most popular American team in China, Japan and Korea which give them a huge INTERnational following.

Jack in DC.

Posted by: Jack in DC | November 12, 2008 at 12:10 PM

3/75 is the highest I would go. If someone is willing to give Manny 4 years, they can have him. It's too bad, but that's how it has to be.

Posted by: Harold | November 12, 2008 at 01:16 PM