The OUTRAGE! of the day - Manny's rehab

I didn't spend much time listening to the radio yesterday, but I heard enough to know that the latest occasion for high moral dudgeon on the part of sports fans, writers and broadcasters is the Manny Ramirez "rehab" assignment in Albuquerque. People are OUTRAGED! mainly, I think, because they enjoy being OUTRAGED! and so will grasp for any possible reason. And for many, the fact that Manny Ramirez is getting some at-bats for a Dodgers minor league affiliate before the end of his 50-game Major League Baseball suspension qualifies as an OUTRAGE!

Rob Neyer, with whom I agree on many topics, thinks that "allowing suspended major leaguers to play in the minors is a farce, plain and simple." He echoes Tracy Ringolsby, who asked "why should Ramirez be given the privilege of getting to play in minor league games before he has served his full suspension?" He feels so strongly about it that he calls it a "farce" twice.

But why is it a farce? I've heard a couple of different arguments, and none of them is self-evident. Nor is any one of them indisputable. I don't even think that any of them are particularly strong.

• "The minor leagues had a drug policy long before the big leagues." (Ringolsby) So what? He isn't a minor leaguer, and he wasn't suspended under the minor league drug policy. The minor league drug policy is aimed at minor league players, and is irrelevant to this discussion.



• "It isn't like Ramirez was injured. He was suspended for his own actions. So he should have to pay the full price." (Ringolsby). Right. And what is the full price? As determined by Major League Baseball, and collectively bargained with the players' association, the "full price" is that he has to miss, and forfeit his paycheck for, 50 of his team's games. His team is the LA Dodgers. When he returns next week, he will, in fact, have missed 50 Dodgers games, and 50/162s of his salary. That sounds an awful lot like "full price" to me.



• "Teams should be held accountable for the transgressions of their players. If teams suffer enough they might be more vigilant in dealing with potential violations." (Ringolsby) I'm sorry, but this is just silly. The Dodgers will have played 50 games, 30.8% of the schedule, without their highest paid and most valuable player. If that's not enough to make them "vigilant," would 58 games be enough? 67 games? Would they have been less vigilant if the suspension were only 40 games? Where's the line?



• (This is a paraphrase, not a direct quote, but it accurately represents what was said:) "It's not fair to some AAA player, who has to go down to make room on the Albuquerque roster for Manny to rehab." There may have been stupider comments made yesterday - in fact, I'd bet on it - but I didn't hear them. This gem was from WEEI midday host Dale Arnold, who apparently didn't realize that that would also have been the case if he'd had to wait ten more days.

Major League Baseball has rules for drug use. Manny Ramirez violated them, which brought on a pre-determined punishment. Manny has served, and is continuing to serve, that punishment, as pre-agreed upon by all interested parties. This outcry would have been a lot more effective the first time it actually happened, when JC Romero pitched in minor league game(s) while still suspended from the Phillies earlier this year, because "Major League Baseball rules allow him to pitch in the minors for 16 days before the suspension ends." Where were Tracy Ringolsby and Rob Neyer and Dale Arnold and all of the outraged WEEI callers then? I heard them, and it sounded a lot like ... [crickets] ...

Here's the bottom line: if people are offended by the current policy, then what they are actually saying is that the 50 game suspension is not enough - it should be longer. It's fine to take that position, but be intellectually honest and take it. Admit that that's your position. Say, "50 games without pay isn't long enough - it should be 60. Or 80. Or public flogging." Or whatever, but say it. Don't try to argue that Manny is or the Dodgers are somehow getting away with something because he's going to try to be ready to play at the end of his 50 game suspension. This isn't something that was done to accommodate Manny and it isn't a prize or reward or bonus (ask the typical Major League player how much he'd enjoy forfeiting 6% of his salary for the privilege of going back to the minors). It is part of the established policy, which recognizes that with that much time off, a Major League player needs to see some game action to get ready to return. The policy is 50 games, and is designed to be, in fact, 50 games. Not 50 official and 8 unofficial.

Again, if you think that it is an insufficient penalty for either the player or the team, then make the case that it's an insufficient penalty. But don't pretend that somehow Manny and/or the Dodgers aren't paying the full price for his actions, because he is and they are. The rules were agreed upon beforehand, and they're being followed.


UPDATE: David Pinto disagrees. He thinks that there's no problem with being outraged over a rule (with which I agree) or with this rule in particular (with which I strongly disagree).

...we should have been outraged when the rule was first written. That doesn’t mean, however, that now that we are aware of the rule that we shouldn’t be outraged. A suspension to me means you don’t play ball for 50 days. Major League players can afford to hire batting practice pitchers or batting practice batter to help keep them sharp while they’re not on the team.

Wouldn't taking batting practice qualify as "play[ing] ball?" Manny (and JC Romero before him, and whoever comes next) weren't suspended from "play[ing] ball" - they were suspended from playing Major League Baseball. I can understand being outraged about a rule, I just don't understand the source of the outrage over this one. Unless, as I said, you think that the 50 games isn't long enough.

But the fact that he's getting minor league at-bats, and Romero got minor league inning(s) before the Major League suspension was officially over, well, I don't see any "farce" or cause for outrage there. Maybe I'm just thick, but I don't just disagree with the outrage - I cannot even understand the reason for it. As near as I can tell, people seem to think that the rehab makes the punishment only a nominal 50 games as opposed to a real 50 games, that this makes the MLB claim of a 50 game suspension a lie. I just don't see it.

Bigger, stronger and scarier?

Well, we've got a masterpiece of hyperbole, ignorance, misinformation, fear-mongering and strawmen from Tony Massarotti in his blog for the Globe this morning. Did this run in the paper? I assume so, but I haven't seen one, so I cannot say for sure. In any event, there are numerous tidbits that fall somewhat short of intellectually satisfying.

In the final days of July 2008, the baseball landscape was decisively altered. That was when Mark Teixeira went to Los Angeles. That was when Manny Ramirez left Boston. That was when the Angels and Red Sox all but swapped identities and philosophies.

What were those identities before? What are they now? How did those trades "all but swap" them? There are, of course, no answers to these questions. The Angels added a great hitter, the Red Sox traded a great hitter for a very good one. I don't see how this indicates, in any way, that they have "swapped identities and philosophies," and I don't see Tony clarifying.

So now here we are, on the eve of October, and let there be no doubt: The Los Angeles Angels are the team to beat in the American League.

For the Red Sox, they certainly are. For Minnesota or Chicago, Tampa is the team to beat. For Los Angeles, Boston is the team to beat. At least right now.

They won 100 games this season while finishing with a winning percentage of .585 or better against the AL East, Central, and West; during the second half of the season, the Angels hit more home runs and scored more runs (albeit in two more games) than the Red Sox did.

Did they? Really?

Let's see...

Well, look at that. They did, in fact, outscore the Red Sox after the All Star break. But, as he acknowledged, the Red Sox played fewer games. And did, on a per game basis, outscore the Angels.

And that's not even relevant to his thesis. His thesis was that the two teams "swapped identities" after the trade. So what happened after the Angels acquired Texeira?

Red Sox vs. Angels - stats after July 29

	W	L	%	R	RA	R/G	RA/G	AVG	OBP	SLG	OPS
Boston	34	19	0.642	307	238	5.792	4.491	.283	.367	.460	.826
LAA	34	22	0.607	285	260	5.089	4.643	.281	.344	.438	.782

Hmmm...

Along the way, the delicate balance of power shifted from the east to the west.

And again I say, "Hmmm..."

If you're anything like me, you'll search long and hard in that data for evidence of this shift in the "delicate balance of power." Since the Texeira and Ramirez trades, the Red Sox have scored more runs than the Angels in fewer games, with fewer runs allowed per game, and posted a better record. They've hit for a better average, and done a better job reaching base and hitting for power.

And again I say, "Hmmm..."

"They're the best team we've faced," one Red Sox official said of the Angels.

Oh, well that settles that. I mean, you never, ever, ever hear a team official say that about an upcoming playoff opponent, so it must be true.

Those words were uttered months ago, before the Angels added a slugger and the Red Sox lost one, a proverbial two-game swing that resulted in a familiar Hollywood script. From "Freaky Friday'' to ""Trading Places" to ""Like Father, Like Son,'' the storyline is generally the same. The principals swap bodies and/or identities, and each gets to experience life on the other side.

This would read a lot less idiotic if there were any evidence that anything of the sort had actually happened. If we go back and (I know, it's not really fair to Tony, because it ruins his whole story) look at the numbers, we'll see that LAA was six games ahead of Boston when Texeira arrived, seven games ahead of Boston when Manny left, and five games ahead of Boston when the season ended.

Really, Tony, a little bit of simple research would have suggested that you might be able to find an angle on this story that isn't, you know, diametrically opposed to the facts.

In this case, the principals might as well have switched uniforms.

Because, well, you know that, um...

I'm sorry, I can't even figure out what this is supposed to mean.

As most every Red Sox follower is certain to point out in the next 24-36 hours, there are more than just five months difference between April and October; the games now are entirely different.

Read "most every Red Sox follower" as "convenient media strawman." And to the extent that anyone is going to be using that whole "entirely different" thing, it's because the media has hammered sports fans with it from time immemorial.

The Angels had home field advantage against the Red Sox in 2004 only to be unceremoniously swept from the first round of the playoffs in three lopsided games.

The last of which was so lopsided that Boston was able to win in only 10 innings.

Last year, the series opened in Boston and the Angels similarly were blown off the field.

Honestly, Tony, there's no sin in reporting facts. Yes, the series were both sweeps. That doesn't mean that some of the games weren't close (tied in the bottom of the 9th qualifies, I think, as a close game) and it doesn't hurt any honest argument to acknowledge that.

In such cases, history is a convenient crutch,

For who? This seems to be suggesting that vast sections of Red Sox nation expect Boston to sweep the Angels again. I haven't followed the media closely, or talked to a large percentage of Red Sox nation, but I haven't heard or seen anyone express such a thought. Is this a real point, or just a strawman to pummel? I suspect (strongly) the latter.

though we all know the truth: Those games mean nothing now.

If we all know that then, who, exactly, are you writing this for?

The Los Angeles lineups encountered by the Sox in 2004 and 2007 were quite different from the one the Sox will encounter now,

The 2007 Angels were 4th in the AL in runs/game. The 2008 Angels were 10th, though if they'd scored at the post-Texeira rate all year, they'd have been...4th.

and not solely because of Teixeira's arrival. Torii Hunter has since joined these Angels, arriving as a free agent in the offseason. Garret Anderson is healthy this year (unlike last) and someone like Jose Guillen has not been suspended (as he was in 2004), which means that Red Sox pitchers are going to have a far more difficult time pitching to the Angels in 2008 than they did in either '04 or '07.

Please, don't rely on history as a factor in this series. Of all people, Boston fans should know better. If the Red Sox win Game 1 and doubts start creeping into the heads of Angels players, it has a great deal more to do with mental toughness (or lack thereof) than it does with anything that took place on the field last year or in '04.

I'd love to see all of this analysis he's referring to that has the Red Sox winning this because they won in 2004 and 2007. There must be a ton of it to justify this tone of benign condescension.

Relative to '04 and '07, Red Sox pitchers are going to have their hands full in this series because the Angels can score in more ways now.

I love that. They can "score in more ways now!" I'm dying to know what those are. I assume he's not talking about home runs, because they could score with home runs before. Sacrifice flies, runners scoring from third on wild pitches, runners scoring from first on triples, runners scoring from second on wild throws into the dugout - they could score in all of those ways before. What are the new ones? Running backward from first to home after balks? Ground rule home runs on Baltimore chops foul balls that bounce into the third base ball girls uniform top? The mind boggles. I'm dying to find out, but Tony doesn't bother to mention it. What do we have beat writers for if they're going to tease us with this stuff and fail to deliver the goods?

Since joining the Angels, Teixeira has batted .358 with 13 home runs, 43 RBIs, 39 runs scored and 32 walks (against just 23 strikeouts) in 54 games; he has slugged .632 and has an OPS of 1.081.

Great hitter hits Great! Film at 11!

During that same period of time, Garret Anderson has been all but reborn, batting .335. (He went 8 for 10 in his first two games with Teixeira in the lineup.)

And what has he done since those two games? .309/.335/.442/.777
And for the season as a whole? .293/.325/.433/.760
Quite a "rebirth."

Meanwhile, Vladimir Guerrero went from batting .284 and slugging .478 (before Teixeira) to hitting .345 and slugging .614 (after Teixeira).

Sigh...

(Before we continue, Tony, I want you to go over to google and search for "post hoc, ergo propter hoc"...

Quick quiz: How many times in has Vladimir Guerrero had a better 45 game stretch (measured by Runs Created) than this current stretch with Mark Texeira "protecting" him?

a. 0 (Tony says we can credit Texeira for Guerrero's performance, and he would lie)
b. 1 (OK, maybe he had a fluke somewhere without protection - he is a great hitter)
c. 10 (Well, that sounds farfetched)
d. 352 (Gotta give one whacko off-the-chart answer, right?)

Now, close your eyes and imagine the Jeopardy music playing...

Ready?

d. 352

That's right. Now, obviously, there's a ton of overlap in those 352 previous stretches. But there's room for almost 8 45 games stretches in 352. So maybe, just maybe possibly, we cannot attribute Guerrero's performance to Texeira. Maybe, just maybe possibly, Guerrero had a better second half than first half and Texeira's addition to the lineup had nothing to do with it.

But then, given where we live, we should hardly be surprised. By now, we should understand the impact a great hitter can have on a lineup.

Some of us do. Yet the media persists in feeding us the protection myth anyway.

In this case, as far as the Red Sox are concerned, the departure of Manny Ramirez now looms larger amid the uncertainty surrounding Mike Lowell and J.D. Drew, each of whom is injured. In last year's division series, as if flipping a switch, Ramirez morphed from a deteriorating Hall of Famer into a force again, going 3 for 8 with two homers (one a game-winner against Francisco Rodriguez that is now somewhere over Canada) and five walks; the ripple effect on the Boston lineup was tremendous. No less an authority than Theo Epstein admitted the Sox were a "different team" when Ramirez (in particular) and David Ortiz were firing on all cylinders, and that explosiveness is something the Sox no longer possess.

Let me get this straight. When you have inner circle hall-of-famers "firing on all cylinders," that makes for "explosiveness?" Who knew? Thank God we have Tony to bring us these insights.

Said Cleveland manager Eric Wedge during the Indians' visit to Fenway Park last week: "For a while there, when you thought about Boston, you though about those two guys in the middle, who were probably one of the great combinations of all-time."

Yes. They were. They aren't here together anymore. Shall we try to muddle through, or are you trying to gently let us know that the Red Sox have no chance?

If all of this is interpreted as some suggestion that the Sox erred in dealing away Ramirez, that is not the point;

This is rather a heartening sentence at this point - it implies that there actually is a point coming.

rather, it just means that the Red Sox are now facing an opponent with more firepower, something that would be true even if Drew and Lowell were fully healthy.

And that, presumably, is it.

So let's look at it. It seems to me that there are two possible meanings.

1) "The Red Sox are now facing an opponent with more firepower" [than that opponent previously had.]
or
2) "The Red Sox are now facing an opponent with more firepower" [than the Red Sox have.]

I find the evidence in support of either proposition somewhat less than compelling. In terms of proposition 1, the Angels with Texeira were on a pace to finish 4th in the AL in runs/game, the same position (4th) in which they finished last year. In terms of proposition 2, the Red Sox scored more runs in fewer games following the trades than the Angels did, with a higher team batting average, OBP and SLG.

In other words, whatever he meant there, he's wrong.

Earlier this month, when the Sox were in Tampa, one player said he was convinced that the Red Sox would not have been preparing for the postseason had Ramirez remained with the club. As is the case with any trade, the Red Sox had to give something to get something.

Whatever. Water under bridge, over dam, spilt milk, etc. Not relevant to a discussion of the relative merits of the Red Sox and Angels.

The Red Sox need to beat the Angels differently now -- with pitching, defense and speed as much as with power.

Words of wisdom: They need pitching to beat them this year. Unlike last year when they allowed 4 runs in the three game series.

They need to avoid big mistakes against the middle of the Los Angeles lineup. They need to keep Angels' tablesetters off the bases. And they need to maximize their scoring opportunities because they don't have the kind of lineup that can be counted on to land the big blow.

I don't get to talk to Theo, but I held a seance with Connie Mack. It turns out that they also need to give 110%, come to play ball, give it all they've got and put a good swing on the ball.

The other guys are bigger, stronger, and scarier now.

Bigger, stronger and scarier than what?

More than anyone, the Red Sox should understand what they are up against.

Because Tony says so.




Please. Piffle. Utter drivel, the bleatings of the media sheeple. And I expect to read essentially the same thing tomorrow at all of the national websites, in the Herald, in the LA Times, etc. There's the media storyline for the week.

Now, will the Red Sox sweep the Angels again? I wouldn't bet on it. Will the Angels sweep the Red Sox? After all, they took 8 of 9 during the regular season. I wouldn't bet on that, either. I wouldn't bet on baseball, period. There's no way of knowing, and I said this last year, and the year before, and I'll say it now, and I'll say it again tomorrow in my playoff preview, a five-game series tells you nothing about the relative merits of the two teams involved. It just doesn't. That's the way that baseball works. There's too much variation in performance on any given day for the results of any given game to mean anything in the broader scope. I don't have any idea who'll win the series, and I'm not going to pretend that I do. But this kind of nonsense is just irritating. I avoid the vast majority of it, but Tony sucked me in and ticked me off today.

Another datapoint in the "protection" discussion

One of the pieces of baseball conventional wisdom that sabermetricians have questioned is the idea of "protection." Protection says that a hitter gets a lot better pitches to hit, and will produce better numbers, with a great hitter behind him. We've got another situation to look at, now, for more evidence on the subject.

The speculation started quickly as people once again ponder whether David Ortiz can hit without Manny "protecting" him. The conventional wisdom says that Ortiz' numbers will drop, and there are already articles tying Ortiz' weak performance the past few days with the loss of that "protection."

From Nick Cafardo in yesterday's Globe:

There's David Ortiz indicating - and he acknowledges it's very early - that he's already feeling the effect of Manny Ramírez not being in the lineup to protect him.

This morning on ESPN.com, from Rick Sutcliffe, we read that:

Ortiz benefited from having Ramirez behind him in the lineup; however, he also changed as a hitter when he came to Boston in 2003 and stopped swinging at the fastball off the inside half of the plate. And with Ramirez hitting behind him, he saw a lot more strikes. Ortiz isn't close to 100 percent right now, but once he's completely healthy, teams aren't going to let Ortiz beat them. He's 2-for-20 with two RBIs in the five games since Ramirez was dealt.

Here's the thing - sometimes, we can actually objectively evaluate situations. These last four days are not the first four days that Ortiz has been in the Red Sox lineup without Manny. We actually have a track record, a history that we can examine. And thanks to David Pinto's invaluable Day by Day database, it's fairly easy to do.

So, here are the records for David Ortiz in a Boston uniform (including the five since the trade.) One set of numbers shows Ortiz' stats for games in which Manny started. The other set shows Ortiz' stats for games in which Manny did not start. (This is not a perfect set - there was a time early in their careers together when Ortiz hit behind Manny, but most of the games without Manny are from '06 and '07, when Manny was the cleanup hitter. There are some Ortiz at-bats in the "with Manny" category where Manny had left the game due to injury or score, and there are probably a couple of Ortiz at-bats in the "without Manny" where Manny was in the on-deck circle as a pinch hitter. But it should be representative.) And this is what the data shows:

David Ortiz in Boston

	G	AVG	OBP	SLG	OPS	AB/HR	IBB %	AB/BB
With Manny	677	.296	.390	.598	.988	13.544	12.44%	6.441
Without Manny	101	.306	.453	.611	1.065	12.963	15.96%	3.723

As expected, Manny's absence has led to more walks for Ortiz, some increase in intentional walks, and probably a fairly large increase in "unintentional intentional" walks. But his batting average and isolated slugging are higher without Manny, too. On the whole, he's put up a much better statistical performance without Manny in the lineup. Some of that is obviously a result of the additional walks, and some, if not most, of the additional walks are almost certainly a result of not having a Hall-of-Fame slugger in the on deck circle. But even without the walks, his performance on at-bats when not walking is better - higher average, more power, HR more frequently - without Manny in the lineup. The evidence is pretty overwhelming that, despite the early concerns in the press, David Ortiz' performance is not dependent upon having Manny Ramirez hitting behind him.

the Manny trade

"They won't trade Manny"

- Me, just three days ago

I was wrong.

In the end, the Boston Red Sox were so eager to end the Manny Ramirez era that they added prospects to the deal in order to have the privilege of paying him to play for the Los Angeles Dodgers for the remainder of the season. Manny was unhappy with his contract situation and effectively "shot his way out of town."

The Record

The Boston Red Sox, over the course of 7 1/2 season, compiled a 615-468 record with Manny Ramirez in the lineup. That's a .568 winning percentage, a 92-win season pace. Manny was a big part of that.

Manny Ramirez in a Red Sox Uniform

GS	AB	Runs	Hits	2B	3B	HR	RBI	BB	IBB	HBP	K	BA	OBA	Slug%	OPS	SB%	AB/HR
1067	3953	743	1232	256	7	274	868	636	128	56	849	0.312	0.411	0.588	0.999	50	14.43

He has the 4th most HR in MLB over that time span. I don't like RBI as a statistic, but a lot of people do, and Manny's 868 are the 3rd highest.

When we look at the "slash stats," AVG/OBP/SLG, it's the mark of a great player to have a line that is at least .300/.400/.500. There are 8 Major League players who have managed it with at least 2000 plate appearances over the last 7 1/2 years. Manny Ramirez is one of them. His OPS+ (on-base plus slugging, adjusted for league and park) is 3rd, behind Bonds and Pujols.

The team has gone to the post-season four times in the Manny Ramirez era. They're 7-2 in post-season series, with two World Series championships. During those post-season games, Manny has hit .321/.422/.558/.990, with 11 HR. He was the MVP of the 2004 World Series.

In short, Manny has done exactly what the Red Sox have paid him to do. They've paid him an enormous amount of money, and he's performed like the future Hall-of-Famer that he is.


The Divorce

I'm sure that Manny has been, in many ways, a frustrating employee. He has gone through a period, in almost every season, of apparent disinterest. He's a mediocre defender at best. He has a tendency to jog to first on balls hit at infielders, and to jog out of the box on balls that end up staying in the park. Certainly, there is reason to be skeptical of his claim of knee soreness that kept him out of the lineup twice last week, and his words and actions for the past couple of weeks support the theory that this trade happened because he forced their hand. The little snippets that I've seen and heard suggest that the local sports media is going to be 100% behind the management team on this one, blaming Manny, and only Manny, for what has happened.

I'm going to politely disagree.

I'm not going to let Manny off the hook for his share of it. As I say, there doesn't appear to be any question that he really did force their hands this time. And, as noted, Manny is not a perfect player, or a perfect person. But many of the shortcomings have been, in my opinion, vastly overblown. By my estimation, Manny has missed out on somewhere in the neighborhood of 15 bases because of "failure to hustle" in the course of his Red Sox career, infield singles turned into outs, doubles turned into singles. At this point, I stop and point at the numbers above. Would everyone be happier if Manny busted it on every play, if he were a "dirt dog" like Trot Nixon or Dustin Pedroia? Of course. But what's more valuable, someone who sprints out of the box on every hit and hits .274/.364/.464, or someone who jogs on obvious outs and hits .312/.411/.588? You'd love to have someone capable of the latter who played like the former, but sometimes that's not realistic.

Here's the problem - everyone who ever played the game can watch it and say, "man, I could run out of the box! For what they're paying him, I could sprint to first on every ground ball to the short-stop!" And for many people, that's true. It apparently isn't for Manny. While you'd love to have him be the same Manny, only better, this is the only Manny you've got. You need to either live with him, or get rid of him. If you're going to live with him, then you live with him. You don't drop anonymous tips to the media every time your suspicious of his knee problems. You don't, as a front office, go out of your way to make it clear that you don't like his contract. There have been stories since this ownership first took over about how displeased they are with Manny's contract and Manny's behavior. They've tried repeatedly to trade him - they've made no secret about it.

Someone wondered the other day whether Manny and Varitek were the last two players on the team who were acquired before the current ownership group took over. They were not - Wakefield and Youkilis were Duquette acquisitions. But this is true - Manny's was the last contract that the current owners inherited with the team. Other than the approximately $7 million that they still owe Manny for this year, there are no player contract obligations for which this management team is not responsible.

And they have undermined him in the press. Constantly. Little anonymous jabs. Did they have to "beg" or "cajole" or "threaten" him to get him onto the field last Saturday? Steve Buckley says they did. How does he know? Well, he knows because someone in the front office told him that (unless you think it was Manny, but I doubt it.) How many times over the past five years have we heard about the front office being upset, displeased, offended, what have you with Manny's behavior? They've been greasing the skids since they got here, so that when they finally were able to get rid of his contract, he'd be the bad guy. Period.

And, from the looks of garbage like this, they managed.

Again, none of this excuses Manny for his misbehaviors. Walking off the field in Tampa in 2003 instead of running to first was unacceptable. Shoving Jack McCormick was unacceptable. Some of the absences (though not as many as were fulminated about) were unacceptable. He was a high maintenance superstar. But he was a superstar, and the maintenance was worth it. They did some of it well, and they did some of it poorly, and they spent the last five years spinning the inevitable departure.

As for why Manny would "shoot his way out of town" now, well, that's rational behavior. (Obviously, "rational" is not a synonym for "right" or "proper.") Right now, he's looking at the possibility of having the team exercise a $20 million option for next year. And possibly again the following year. But if he tears up his knee in spring training next year, if he hits a Jim Rice type cliff, that's it. If he goes out into the market this fall, he probably gets four years at $18-22 million per. The team had no motivation to either exercise the option now or guarantee not to exercise it. But Manny has significant motivation to remove that from play and go into free agency again. So he did, in that sense, instigate the break up.

The Trade

There's been some commentary that they had to make a trade, that the team needed a resolution to the Manny situation. I agree with the latter point (with some minor reservations) but disagree with the former. The situation that needed to be resolved was not, in my opinion, the presence of Manny in the lockerroom, but the presence of a Manny trying to get traded in the lockerroom. I think it likely that 4:00 yesterday would have seen a resolution to the situation whether Manny went or didn't. Indeed, we saw much the same thing three years ago, when everyone said that they needed to trade Manny to get him out of the lockerroom. They didn't, and played .621 (36-22) ball after not trading him, on the way to making the playoffs again. Manny, after that non-trade, hit .323/.417/.632/1.049 with 17 HR while starting 54 of the final 58 games.

So I don't think that they needed to make a trade yesterday. But they did. So, how did they do?

Pretty well, I think.

They traded Manny Ramirez, Craig Hansen and Brandon Moss, plus the rest of Manny's salary (~$7 million) for Jason Bay. Hansen is still young and talented, and I'd bet that he has a fantastic year for someone at some point, but it's hard to see it as a huge loss for the Red Sox. Moss is going to be a competent fourth outfielder, maybe play some as a starter for someone, but again, if not quite fungible talent, he's not a critical piece for this team. It seems odd that they had to throw in talent and money to have someone take a Hall-of-Fame hitter, but they felt like they needed to make the deal, and the big concern is how does it affect this year's team. In that regard, it's Manny for Jason Bay and it may not hurt them on the field at all.

Manny's having a better year offensively than Bay, but it isn't a big difference. Ramirez is hitting .299/.398/.529/.927, Bay is hitting .282/.375/.519/.894. Defensively, Bay clearly represents an upgrade. And this isn't Bay's first good year. By Baseball Prospectus WARP (Wins Against Replacement Player), Bay was actually better than Manny in both 2005 and 2006, and is comparable this year. He's just been playing in anonymity in Pittsburgh, so no one knows it. Bay's not on a Hall of Fame trajectory, he's not going to have Manny's career. But he's a decent bet to provide close to the same value over the next two months as Manny.

Financially, they increase their payroll for the year, as they add Bay's contract while still paying Manny. But it isn't a large increase, and they actually acquire some cost certainty for next year. Bay's signed for $7.5 million next year, while they would have had the options of Manny at $20 million or having to find someone else.

So, they probably have not hurt the team for this year, they may have helped it for next year, and they've removed a distraction. They gave up more than they got from a talent point-of-view, but for a trade they felt forced into making, they actually made a pretty good one.

One concern that I generally deprecate, but warrants mention, is this - Bay's going to be playing in an environment that is significantly different than Pittsburgh. It doesn't worry me much, but many of the people who wanted Manny run out of town are the same ones who thought that JD Drew couldn't play in Boston. For those people, I ask the following - we know that Manny can handle Boston, we know that Manny can perform in the post-season - how do we know whether Bay will? If they make it to the post-season and Bay goes 1-22 as they lose in the first round, can we expect some retroactive front-office castigation for this move?


Bottom Line

I don't think that they needed to make the trade. I was a Manny fan, and I'm sorry to see him go. On the plus side, hopefully the incessant Manny-bashing will soon cease, but I'm not at all happy with the way that the sliming continues on his way out of town. But I don't think that the trade hurts the team, certainly not badly enough to prevent them making the playoffs, and it's possible that it helps. I'm not thrilled with the front office performance that led to the situation as it stood 48 hours ago, but given that situation, I think that they did as well as could be hoped for.

Quote of the day

"When you don't feel good and you still get hits, that's when you know you are a bad man."

Manny Ramirez, 10/5/2007

Manny being Manny...

Manny back in the lineup

Manny Ramirez is batting 2nd and playing left field tonight. He ended missing exactly the same number of days with his oblique strain as noted tough guy, dirt dog, gamer Trot Nixon did with his oblique strain two years ago.

Tonight's lineup:

2B - Pedroia
LF - Ramirez
DH - Ortiz
3B - Lowell
RF - Drew
C - Varitek
CF - Crisp
1B - Hinske
SS - Lugo