Proceeds from the ads below will be donated to the
Bob Wuesthoff scholarship fund.
Thursday, December 01, 2005 |
Manny Talk Heats Up
Brian Clevinger forwards this Boston Herald story saying the Angels are stepping up their pursuit of Manny Ramirez.
After Konerko signed a five-year, $60 million deal to return to the White Sox yesterday, there were strong indications from Yawkey Way that the Red Sox were focusing on what package of players to seek from the prospect-rich Angels in return for Ramirez. That does not mean that a deal is close or even certain, but it could rapidly gain momentum with the winter meetings set to begin in less than a week.I'm none too pleased with the idea of this trade, simply because Boston will have to ask for too much in return -- some trio of Kotchman, Wood, and Santana, say. It's all talk for now, but please, don't let it be so.The Red Sox still maintain publicly that they would prefer to keep their gifted slugger, but there are few who believe that they can convince Ramirez, who is owed $57 million over the next three seasons, to change his negative opinion of Boston and his demand to leave.
The Angels are believed to be the No. 1 choice for Ramirez, although the Mariners and Mets meet his approval as well. The Angels, meanwhile, have plenty of reasons to pursue Ramirez. Providing protection for Vladimir Guerrero in the heart of the lineup is why the Angels were in search of a big bat.
Comments:
I'm not so sure they can get much for him. The players don't want him to come back, Ramirez thinks he's gone. The Sox are not dealing from a position of strength. Then throw in the $$$ situation the teams would have to sort out.... I'd trade a prospect and throw in GA (over the hill IMHO)
# posted by 
: 12/01/2005 09:04:00 AM
: 12/01/2005 09:04:00 AM
GA at this point is a 10/5 player who can reject a trade. So is oft-mentioned Darin Erstad, who really isn't much of a hitter anymore.
If he (GA) wants to play he wouldn't reject. Make it abundantly clear that LF is Manny's and he'd be riding pine.
If Arte is looking to spend more money I say they go for Damon too. Solves the leadoff and CF issue in one swoop.
If Arte is looking to spend more money I say they go for Damon too. Solves the leadoff and CF issue in one swoop.
# posted by : 12/01/2005 09:10:00 AM
: 12/01/2005 09:10:00 AM
I don't think the Angels would trade GA or Erstad (partially for the 10/5 reasons). Finley, they certainly would and he is scheduled to make about as much as Erstad next year, so it wouldn't really matter which one is sent packing (except that Finley is a worse hitter, has less positional flexibility, and is a less popular Angel).
But there's no way the Red Sox take a deal like that. Really, the key for this deal hinges on whether Ramirez has the right to demand a trade. I'm not sure he does.
it's a matter of us outbidding the Mets. Manny is gone.i could give up 3 of these: Callaspo, Erstad, Finley, Saunders, Bootcheck, Kennedy, Gorneault - maybe one of our younger 1B.
Figgins is a superior CF, but Damon is clearly the better offensive force. The question is, will he continue to be into the fifth year of whatever contract he gets? I don't think so, and frankly would leave him alone.
no one in their right mind, would sign any player to a 7-year deal. that's ridiculous, especially for someone turning 33 years old next year.
# posted by : 12/01/2005 10:23:00 AM
: 12/01/2005 10:23:00 AM
God god, do not sign Damon. Also, Stoneman already has ruled out Santana as part of any package.
I see possibly a 3 way deal involving the Reds and Dunn to Red Sox. I do not think Ersty is 10/5 yet. (http://mlbcontracts.blogspot.com/2005_01_14_mlbcontracts_archive.html)
I would love to see Dmac/Finley/Rivera/ & either Bootcheck/saunders/callaspo/ak/jake woods. Yet I do not know if that is enough.
I see possibly a 3 way deal involving the Reds and Dunn to Red Sox. I do not think Ersty is 10/5 yet. (http://mlbcontracts.blogspot.com/2005_01_14_mlbcontracts_archive.html)
I would love to see Dmac/Finley/Rivera/ & either Bootcheck/saunders/callaspo/ak/jake woods. Yet I do not know if that is enough.
# posted by : 12/01/2005 10:45:00 AM
: 12/01/2005 10:45:00 AM
Well, there have been reports that the Mets would offer Aaron Heilman, Lastings Milledge and Cliff Floyd. The Angels could offer a package of Rivera; Erstad or Finley (accepting one of these two contracts being a requirement for any deal); one of Saunders, Shell or Bootcheck; and one of Adam Kennedy, Erick Aybar or Alberto Callaspo. The Angels could easily give up a package like that without blinking.
This deal would save Boston a ton of money - not only the difference in contracts, but also the luxury tax. I believe the luxury tax is dollar-for-dollar, so that every dollar saved in salary really saves two.
This deal would save Boston a ton of money - not only the difference in contracts, but also the luxury tax. I believe the luxury tax is dollar-for-dollar, so that every dollar saved in salary really saves two.
# posted by : 12/01/2005 11:08:00 AM
: 12/01/2005 11:08:00 AM
erstad has ten seasons, but 1996 was a mid-season callup and he played less than 81 games - I am not sure of the technicalities.
# posted by : 12/01/2005 11:44:00 AM
: 12/01/2005 11:44:00 AM
Luxury tax is not dollar-for-dollar. As a second time offender Boston would pay ~40% I think. (luxury tax is dollar-for-dollar in basketball.)
Also, Manny cannot demand a trade. A player traded in the middle of a multi-year contract can do that (Vazquez). Manny has requested a trade, and said he would hold out of training camp. If the Red Sox do not trade Manny, he holds out from camp and the Sox can refuse to pay him (I guess). If the D'backs don't trade Vazquez, he becomes a free agent.
Also, Manny cannot demand a trade. A player traded in the middle of a multi-year contract can do that (Vazquez). Manny has requested a trade, and said he would hold out of training camp. If the Red Sox do not trade Manny, he holds out from camp and the Sox can refuse to pay him (I guess). If the D'backs don't trade Vazquez, he becomes a free agent.
# posted by : 12/01/2005 12:13:00 PM
: 12/01/2005 12:13:00 PM
Did Boston pay luxury tax this year, though? I seem to remember that they didn't, and this gave them a permanent exemption going forward.
I'm pretty sure Boston was over the threshold this year, along with the Yanks. The Mets were not, which is one of the reasons they can spend willy-nilly this year.
# posted by : 12/01/2005 01:31:00 PM
: 12/01/2005 01:31:00 PM
I guess I had the basketball and baseball luxury taxes confused. Regardless of the percentage, though, the point is the same: every dollar the Red Sox save on payroll also saves the tax on that dollar. Let's say it's 40%. If the Sox effectively cut $10 million from payroll in 2006, they realize a savings of $14 million, if I've got the math correct.
# posted by : 12/01/2005 02:22:00 PM
: 12/01/2005 02:22:00 PM
Yeah, I suppose that could happen. Watching Man-Ram trying to play the outfield at Dodger Stadium would be well worth the price of admission.
Of course, with the Dodgers' new-found need for players with the right "chemistry" and "character," I'm not sure sure how well Planet Man-Ram fits in.
Of course, with the Dodgers' new-found need for players with the right "chemistry" and "character," I'm not sure sure how well Planet Man-Ram fits in.
# posted by : 12/01/2005 06:11:00 PM
: 12/01/2005 06:11:00 PMNewer› ‹Older
 |
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.