Manny Being Manny in Philly?

by chewy wellington on Jul 28, 2008 4:20 PM EDT Comment 15 comments

Monday 7/28, 4:20pm--Promoted to the front page in a shameless bid for more traffic. I don't think it's happening, but if you want to indulge in speculation, Ken Rosenthal posits Geoff Jenkins and Lou Marson for Manny Ramirez here.

NY Post is reporting that Philly is a possible destination for Manny given his strong relationship with Cholly. link

I'm not that big a fan and would be totally fearful of what they would have to give up to get Manny. Plus his defense is beyond a total liability. The last thing this team needs is another guy who plays defense poorly and can become completely unfocused at the plate.

And if they get him, they better make sure the toilets are reinforced. Manny only uses regular towels, not toilet paper.

0 recs | Comment 15 comments

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

I’d take him. Hell, with Burrell likely out the door after this season, we need a right handed power hitter to replace him. Plus, the 50 games they would have to play with eachother would be fun. True every flyball to right or left field would be an adventure, but adding Manny’s bat would have to compensate for that wouldn’t it?

by FuquaManuel on Jul 27, 2008 10:58 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs

any indication on what burrell will be asking for?

by char6587 on Jul 27, 2008 12:28 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

Lots of money, probably more than the Phillies are willing to pay. I’m not sure that this ownership is willing to pay so many “superstars”. In the coming years they will need to pay Chase, JRoll, Howard (although I think he’s likely to be traded), and Hamels. No money left with this cheapo bunch for Pat. Regardless, I’d rather see them spend the money at 3B.

And is anyone surprised that Pat seems to be turning it on in a contract year?

by chewy wellington on Jul 27, 2008 12:41 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

I don’t think the FO is “radical” enough to play Burrell and Ramirez in the corners, even though both seem to have improved their defenses this year (besides for that ridiculous triple against the Angels). Plus, it’s not like the Red Sox have someone to step in and give them production there, and the Phillies wouldn’t be willing to take on the salary.

The only trade that’d make sense for both sides would be to swap Burrell for Ramirez in some fashion….the Sox would get rid of the distraction and replace Manny, the Phillies would get a BIG name player and good hitter with only a slightly bigger contract. Boston would have to throw in a prospect and some money, especially if Ramirez forced the issue of his option.

I wish they’d just bite the freaking bullet and resign Burrell instead.

by bugbear on Jul 27, 2008 12:53 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

Agree completely, bugbear. If Manny was a legit right fielder, you’d give some thought to making a deal for him, but it’s the same problem with the suggestion to sign Bonds: you can’t play both Burrell and Manny in the same outfield.

And the way Burrell’s played this year, I’m not convinced that Manny’s really that much better than him (at this point, anyway). Agree that the Phils should be talking extension with Burrell right now—maybe something like 3 years, $36 million as a starting point?

by PhillyFriar on Jul 27, 2008 1:16 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Burrell vs ManRam

Burrell turned it on after the ASB last year. I don’t think this is a contract year fluke.

I try to keep Burrell. While he can be a frustrating player sometimes, he never gets in trouble outside the ballpark, doens’t whine to the media, hasn’t seemed to be asking for a boatload of money for his next contract, say he wants to stay in Philly…

Imagine Manny the first time he gets booed for watching strike 3 with RISP. That’s it -game over. He’s not playing anymore.

Manny is a hall of famer. Burrell isn’t.

Manny’s a head-case. Burrell isn’t.

Most importantly, Burrell is a phillie, Manny isn’t.

by Bilzo on Jul 28, 2008 9:38 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs

Agreed on all counts. I think the odds of the team re-signing Burrell might be a little bit better than everyone assumes. Any alternative on the FA market will also be expensive, and the Phillies don’t have a credible alternative internally.

by taco pal on Jul 28, 2008 12:38 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Manny is also a first ballot hall of famer… Burrell is not.

And this is not to say I’m not a Burrell fan. But, I think we can’t ignore the fact that on his game Manny is arguably the best pure hitter in the game and one of the great clutch hitters there is.

Bleeding Green Nation - Philadelphia Eagles Blog

by JasonB on Jul 28, 2008 2:42 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

I already conceded he’s a hall-of-famer. That whole first ballot BS irritates me, but that’s another discussion…

If Ramirez is unhappy in Boston, he’s not going to do any better in Philly. This is the downslope Manny you’re getting also, as a rental.

No thanks.

by Bilzo on Jul 28, 2008 4:24 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

I believe you meant:

Most importantly, Burrell is a better hitter than Ramirez, and probably will be for the rest of both their respective careers.

Burrell is putting up an OPS+ of 151. Ramirez is at 142, and it’s largely helped by his highest BABIP of .351, highest in the last 5 years.

Ramirez is 36 years old and indisputably on the downslope of his career. His peaks were so high that he’ll still be a productive player for years to come, but I think the years of .300/.400/.600 from him are over. Burrell is 31, but if anything, he’s getting better. It doesn’t seem fluky either: his IsoP, BB/K, and HR/F have basically been trending positively.

If the BoSox offered Ramirez straight up for Burrell and they cost the same, I still wouldn’t do it.

by christonabike on Jul 28, 2008 7:41 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Who cares about Manny's defense?

The last thing this team needs is another guy who plays defense poorly…

This is a sentiment I see frequently and I’ll never understand it. Players can basically contribute in two ways: runs saved on defense, runs created on offense. If Manny Ramirez generates 40 more runs (he probably doesn’t) than Geoff Jenkins in right field, but costs them 10 more runs defensively, why wouldn’t that be a good thing?

Shouldn’t offense value v. defensive value be the only thing considered?

by christonabike on Jul 28, 2008 7:45 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

Agreed, though with the vagaries of defense, it’s really hard to get the exact equation correct. For example, in an OF with Burrell, Vic, and Werth, Vic can cover Burrell to an extent, as Werth is a very capable fielder (when he doesn’t make boneheaded dives). With Ramirez and Burrell both in the corners, Vic’s ability to cover for one or the other is diminished. Plus, while defense is alternately over and under valued by traditional baseball GMs like Gillick, there are definitely “rules”—for example, defense in catchers trumps offense always, and I’d say playing a left fielder in both corners constitutes breaking one of those “rules.”

by bugbear on Jul 28, 2008 10:24 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Werth Diving

I’ll stick up for Werth here, as I’m assuming you’re talking about the recent play in the Atlanta series.
It was bases loaded with 2 outs. If Werth lets it drop in, he’s giving a run, likely two. If he dives, it’s inning over, no runs. If he dives and misses, he lets 3 in.

Calculated risk, didn’t work out. If there’s one out and he makes that play it’s a mistake, because one run still scores on a sac fly, so he’d be better to just let it drop, and try to gun a runner at home.

by Bilzo on Jul 29, 2008 12:01 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

That’s fair. With the runners going, two would have almost definitely scored, and with a lead that size, the risk was worth it to try for the final out.

by bugbear on Jul 29, 2008 4:12 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs