Jump to content

Jim Bowden Believes The Orioles Will Need To Pay Manny Close To $400 Million To Lock Him Up Long-Term

TINSTAAPP

By TINSTAAPP
in Orioles Talk

Recommended Posts

Moondoggie Major Leaguer Cup of Coffee

Moondoggie

Posted
Posted
36 minutes ago, spiritof66 said:

Small point, but I'm tired of reading stuff that says or implies that Manny is a better third baseman than Brooks was based on Brooks' comment (made a few times, I think) that Manny makes plays he couldn't have made,

I sure don't know whether Manny makes plays that Brooks couldn't have made in his prime. I doubt anyone else does either, including Brooks. Maybe you could reach such a conclusion after a detailed study of both players on film; even if that could be done, I'm pretty sure nobody has done it. I'm confident that Brooks has made these remarks not because he knows what plays he couldn't have made 50 years ago (!), but rather because, like the rest of us, he is extremely impressed by Manny's fielding ability and is a loyal fan of the Orioles (and therefore of Manny) and, unlike many of us, he is a generous, kind gentleman who is modest about his own accomplishments.

Bowden takes this one step further by saying Brooks "admits" that Manny makes plays he couldn't have made, as if someone had to drag that out of him. Comparisons of Manny's 3B play to that of Arenado, Beltre and other contemporaries are meaningful. Comparisons to Brooks, IMO, are not -- especially where what's being compared is not their overall defensive play but their ability to make specific spectacular plays. That's true, again IMO, even (or maybe especially) when Mr. Third Baseman is making the comparison.

 

I think you're reading too much into this. There are many things I lament are different from the game I grew up with in the 60s and 70s, but the fact is that today's athletes are simply superior -- they're bigger, faster and stronger than players were in those days. So of course Manny can make plays that Brooks could not have made. Kevin Kiermaier makes plays that Paul Blair could not have made. Today's players may lack a bit in certain fundamentals that were important in those days. I may get irritated with all the strikeouts and the inability of players to hit to all parts of the field (which would eliminate most of the god-awful shifts). But as athletes, there is simply no comparison. And that athleticism allows them to do things that players of the 1960s simply could not do.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
  • Replies 43
  • Created
  • Last Reply
TradeAngelos All-Star

TradeAngelos

Posted
Posted

The only way Manny gets this much (and even then it is a reach), is if the team he plays for currently completely botches negotiations, doesn't even start them, and lets him get to free agency where other teams can bid, pretty much sealing his fate for said current team. 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Frobby Hangout Grand Counsel

Frobby

Posted
Posted
7 minutes ago, Moondoggie said:

I think you're reading too much into this. There are many things I lament are different from the game I grew up with in the 60s and 70s, but the fact is that today's athletes are simply superior -- they're bigger, faster and stronger than players were in those days. So of course Manny can make plays that Brooks could not have made. Kevin Kiermaier makes plays that Paul Blair could not have made. Today's players may lack a bit in certain fundamentals that were important in those days. I may get irritated with all the strikeouts and the inability of players to hit to all parts of the field (which would eliminate most of the god-awful shifts). But as athletes, there is simply no comparison. And that athleticism allows them to do things that players of the 1960s simply could not do.

While I don't necessarily agree with everything you wrote here, there is no question that athletes get better and the game evolves.    Just as one example, I never saw a shortstop flip a ball with his glove to the 2B in the first 20 years or so that I was a fan.   Then, after someone did it successfully, others started trying it, and at first they were woefully inaccurate most of the time.    Nowadays, it's a play you see someone pull off a couple of times a week.    And most of the time, the flip is used appropriately, i.e., when there's no other way to make the play.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Dark Helmet Hangout Grand Counsel

Dark Helmet

Posted
Posted

As Manny gets physically bigger, his skills seem to be deteriorating at 3B. He's still very good, but it seems hes a little slower reacting to the balls to his glove side. In the future, I think your paying for his offense. And no way is he a $400m bat.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
webbrick2010 Hangout Veteran Council

webbrick2010

Posted
Posted

Manny is a great player, but I'm still waiting for that dominant MVP type year before I would believe he is worth a 10 year contract at over 300 million.

Manny's career line so far is

That's very good, but not spectacular, not MVP worthy

Everyone expects him to breakout and have a Trout/Harper/Pujols type season or two, but are we sure it will every happen?

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Frobby Hangout Grand Counsel

Frobby

Posted
Posted
2 minutes ago, El Gordo said:

I think he'll want an opt out with whomever he signs. Few teams stay competitive for more than 5 years. He may want to move just to keep winning.

I have no problem at all with giving Manny an opt out, so long as it's at least 3 years into the FA period and the contract is structured so that the bigger salaries are in the back half of the deal.   Stanton's deal is a good example.   He'll have 7/$208 mm (plus a $10 mm buyout on another year at $25 mm) remaining when his opt-out kicks in after the 2020 season.   

Link to comment
Share on other sites
El Gordo Hangout Grand Counsel

El Gordo

Posted
Posted
23 minutes ago, Frobby said:

I have no problem at all with giving Manny an opt out, so long as it's at least 3 years into the FA period and the contract is structured so that the bigger salaries are in the back half of the deal.   Stanton's deal is a good example.   He'll have 7/$208 mm (plus a $10 mm buyout on another year at $25 mm) remaining when his opt-out kicks in after the 2020 season.   

Neither do  I Apparently PA does.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Frobby Hangout Grand Counsel

Frobby

Posted
Posted
4 minutes ago, El Gordo said:

Neither do  I Apparently PA does.

Just because he's been reluctant to do them in the past (at least, DD has said DD doesn't like them) doesn't mean he'll apply the same rules to Manny, who is as special a case as you can have.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
SteveA Hangout Grand Counsel

SteveA

Posted
Posted
49 minutes ago, El Gordo said:

I think he'll want an opt out with whomever he signs. Few teams stay competitive for more than 5 years. He may want to move just to keep winning.

Yeah, that's why players ask for contracts with opt-outs.   To give them an option to "keep winning".

Nothing all to do with the abillity to get a much bigger contract (see:  Grienke, Zach) if the market has changed in the player's favor.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Go to topic listing


  • Posts

    • Can_of_corn
      Hurricane Milton is looking scarier by the minute

      By Can_of_corn · Posted

      Just did a bit of a walk. Some decently large braches down, one segment of privacy fence missing and standing water on the property in a low spot.  
    • Can_of_corn
      Hurricane Milton is looking scarier by the minute

      By Can_of_corn · Posted

      Just woke up and I don't hear any wind or rain.
    • EddeeEddee
      Do the Orioles need someone like Machado?

      By EddeeEddee · Posted

      Not that I am in any way full agreement, but this is a classic post.  Doesn't Machado play chess?  Maybe we could get some chess boards in the clubhouse and junk all the legos.  Not all great baseball men are John McGraw bad asses.  Some can be Christy Mathewsons as well, I suppose.  Not that I imagine today's young players much resembling McGraw or Mathewson, but they are the first two contrasting old school types that come to mind.  I will say just based on his postseason alone I'd much rather have Tatis over Machado.
    • NashLumber
      Hurricane Milton has apparently ripped the roof of the Tropicana Dome to shreds

      By NashLumber · Posted

      Wow, that was so strange to see.  Eerie. 
    • OriolesMagic83
      What's Your Top Priority

      By OriolesMagic83 · Posted

      Well I refuse to believe that only the O's have no players that want extensions.
    • NashLumber
      Any updates on the renovations to OPACY?

      By NashLumber · Posted

      Great points. Definitely agree. 
    • EddeeEddee
      Will MASN be among these soon ? MLB taking over TV broadcasts of 3 teams

      By EddeeEddee · Posted

      Customer advocate groups have tried for decades to force the cable companies to allow channel by channel (a la carte) subscriptions, but the cable companies fought this because it would result in far less revenue (than forcing us to pay for a hundred channels we don't watch).  The government refused to intervene, so we've been stuck with the existing business model for all this time.  Streaming is forcing the change because streaming -- for now -- is an a la carte model.   MLB's fear must be this: if the regional sports network cable channel model goes away, will most users pay anywhere close to what these channels made as part of a cable bundle for just one streaming channel where all you watch are Orioles games (or maybe Orioles and Nats games -- whatever the case may be)?  So if you pay $100/month for cable with MASN, you are probably watching at least a few other channels too.  But will you pay $15/month (or whatever the price may be) just to watch the Orioles -- even during the months when there is no baseball?  The existing basic cable model has been quite stable because people tend to watch at least 5 or 6 channels.  They're reluctant to cancel their whole cable package just because baseball season is over -- or they've been too busy to watch many games this season.  But with a single streaming channel of just baseball there is bound to be a far more unstable revenue base.  All the streaming channels are already dealing with this problem.  I think MLB is maybe reluctant to go all in on streaming for this reason.  Perhaps they're looking for new different model that could allow them to bundle individual team channels with Netflix, or Prime, or maybe with your cell phone plan or something else.  This could give them some stability, but it could also be a turn off for the more hardcore fans who just want the Orioles and little else.  It will be interesting to see how this all shakes out and if MLB, and the Orioles, will prosper or suffer as a result.

  • Popular Contributors

×
×
  • Create New...