Events Calendar
In This Section
Browns lose game they never should have lost
Michigan's legacy crumbles around humbling seasons
Zips' Porter creates culture of success
Patrick McManamon: Bad news Browns a hopeless cause
Lerner’s thinking was not illogical
Dear coach Mangini: This is not New England
Patrick McManamon: Here's what the Browns should try the rest of the season
Warriors give coach perfect birthday gift: regional title
Most Read Stories
2 men shot during party in Fairlawn
Cancellation of Christmas not an option
Akron man killed in crash on his street
Akron Children's Hospital CEO, wife announce $1 million gift to support research
Victim of beating in Kent last week is declared dead at Akron hospital
Police: Pennsylvania man killed misbehaving puppy before Steelers game
Akron Circle K store robbed for second time this month
Several people hurt in Akron crash
KSU suspends basketball player
Police accuse bank robbery suspect of gobbling up note (with dashcam video)
Blogs:
Pets:
A Dog Named Christmas – Pet for the Holidays
The Heldenfiles:
Viewing Notes
Patrick McManamon:
Of pass interference and alleged "fake" injuries
Akron Zips:
No. 1 Akron to play Stanford next
Tribe Matters:
Seven players added to Tribe’s 40-man roster
Cleveland Browns:
Audio: Mangini disputes Poteat call, accuses Lions of faking injuries
Kent State Sports:
Flashes travel to Florida Atlantic
Cleveland Cavaliers:
Gameblog: Cavs vs. Philadelphia 76ers
Buckeye Blogging:
Buckeye Football – Present and Future
Varsity Letters:
Gulley to visit Central Michigan in December
All Da King's Men:
The Onion, By Any Other Name…
Blog of Mass Destruction:
Glaring Contradictions
Akron Law Café:
Don't Try to Have Fun if you are Depressed
See Jane Style:
Vintage Chic
Car Chase:
What Automotive Thing Are You Thankful For?
Let's Talk Real Estate:
Faye Dunaway to be Evicted?
Ohio Travels with Betty:
Monique asks how to get tickets for the Polar Express.
Sound Check:
Steely Dan Plays "The Royal Scam" at E.J. Thomas Hall
HRLite House:
Personal Rant – Why I am Glad I live in NEO
Akron Gamer:
Nintendo's Mario endures even as games come and go
Integrity of game threatened when Ramirez gets his way with Dodgers by quitting on Red Sox
By Patrick McManamon
Beacon Journal sports columnist
POSTED: 01:24 p.m. EDT, Aug 12, 2008
Manny Ramirez has become all the rage in Los Angeles.
He's the hero of the media, the star of the team and the object of many new marketing ploys.
Like selling Dodgers hats with Manny-type hair coming out of the back.
Put that one on the Christmas list.
Isn't anyone a little bothered how all this come to be?
If a commissioner's office ever existed for anything, shouldn't it be to protect the integrity of the game and not allow a guy to hurt one team and then help another because he didn't like a clause in his contract?
Isn't the idea each and every day that a guy tries to help his team win, and isn't it a problem — a rather large problem — if he intentionally does not?
Yes, Bud Selig's office asked the Boston Red Sox a few questions about the trade that sent Manny to Los Angeles. Maybe Selig, i.e. the Grand Inquisitor, should have asked more.
Before the trade, Ramirez let the Red Sox know he wanted two $20 million team options for 2009 and 2010 dropped from his contract. Seems he didn't like those clauses because he wanted to be a free agent and make more than $20 million per year.
Strange things started to happen when the Red Sox did not drop the options.
Ramirez took three strikes from New York Yankees closer Mariano Rivera without swinging, an at-bat that was, at best, lackadaisical.
He started saying he was hurt, with injuries that appeared out of nowhere.
He did not run to first.
He then started ripping the team to the media.
In major ways.
On an individual basis, the incidents were incidents. Put them together, though, and they add up to a calculated scheme to be traded to a team that would drop those contract options.
The at-bat might have been intentional; the injuries might have been concocted.
The Red Sox believe Manny quit on them, and the circumstantial evidence sure is strong
So they traded him.
And what was the first thing that happened when Manny got to the Dodgers? The options were dropped from his contract.
Some are wondering about the role Manny's agent, Scott Boras, played.
Manny hired Boras after this contract was signed. If the Red Sox merely had picked up those options — and why wouldn't they for perhaps the greatest right-handed hitter of this generation? — Boras would make nothing. If the options were dropped and Boras negotiated a new deal, he would get a hefty commission.
Red Sox pitcher Curt Schilling pointed this out on Boston radio.
''Manny's not one years from retirement, he's maybe four, obviously, that's where he's at,'' Schilling told WEEI. ''So does Scott Boras want to get a two-year deal for Manny or a four-year deal for Manny?''
After the trade, the Boston Globe reported that Boras had called the Red Sox and said Manny would play hard and stop being a problem if the options were dropped.
Pretty clear implication is that Manny intentionally was not playing hard and was being a problem.
So now Manny is being feted as a hero in Los Angeles, even though the first thing he will do when the season ends is find the team that will pay him the most money.
Perhaps it's a tad high and mighty, but doesn't what Manny did get right to the heart of the integrity of the game?
If a guy intentionally refuses to try because he's unhappy with his contract, isn't that a problem?
What is the appropriate punishment for this kind of thing?
And if it's true, is it any worse than what Pete Rose did?
One problem is this would be difficult to prove.
Another is that Manny did this before in Boston. Folks there said he quit in 2006. What did the Red Sox do? They brought him back and let him help win a World Series for their nation in 2007.
It's called enabling.
Which is what the Dodgers are doing. Enabling a guy who, while an unbelievable talent, might have tried to help his previous team lose — or at least did not try to help it win.
Patrick McManamon can be reached at pmcmanamon@thebeaconjournal.com. Read his blog at http://www.ohiomm.com/blogs/mcmanamon/.
Manny Ramirez has become all the rage in Los Angeles.
He's the hero of the media, the star of the team and the object of many new marketing ploys.
Like selling Dodgers hats with Manny-type hair coming out of the back.
Put that one on the Christmas list.
Isn't anyone a little bothered how all this come to be?
If a commissioner's office ever existed for anything, shouldn't it be to protect the integrity of the game and not allow a guy to hurt one team and then help another because he didn't like a clause in his contract?
Isn't the idea each and every day that a guy tries to help his team win, and isn't it a problem — a rather large problem — if he intentionally does not?
Yes, Bud Selig's office asked the Boston Red Sox a few questions about the trade that sent Manny to Los Angeles. Maybe Selig, i.e. the Grand Inquisitor, should have asked more.
Before the trade, Ramirez let the Red Sox know he wanted two $20 million team options for 2009 and 2010 dropped from his contract. Seems he didn't like those clauses because he wanted to be a free agent and make more than $20 million per year.
Strange things started to happen when the Red Sox did not drop the options.
Ramirez took three strikes from New York Yankees closer Mariano Rivera without swinging, an at-bat that was, at best, lackadaisical.
He started saying he was hurt, with injuries that appeared out of nowhere.
He did not run to first.
He then started ripping the team to the media.
In major ways.
On an individual basis, the incidents were incidents. Put them together, though, and they add up to a calculated scheme to be traded to a team that would drop those contract options.
The at-bat might have been intentional; the injuries might have been concocted.
The Red Sox believe Manny quit on them, and the circumstantial evidence sure is strong
So they traded him.
And what was the first thing that happened when Manny got to the Dodgers? The options were dropped from his contract.
Some are wondering about the role Manny's agent, Scott Boras, played.
Manny hired Boras after this contract was signed. If the Red Sox merely had picked up those options — and why wouldn't they for perhaps the greatest right-handed hitter of this generation? — Boras would make nothing. If the options were dropped and Boras negotiated a new deal, he would get a hefty commission.
Red Sox pitcher Curt Schilling pointed this out on Boston radio.
''Manny's not one years from retirement, he's maybe four, obviously, that's where he's at,'' Schilling told WEEI. ''So does Scott Boras want to get a two-year deal for Manny or a four-year deal for Manny?''
After the trade, the Boston Globe reported that Boras had called the Red Sox and said Manny would play hard and stop being a problem if the options were dropped.
Pretty clear implication is that Manny intentionally was not playing hard and was being a problem.
So now Manny is being feted as a hero in Los Angeles, even though the first thing he will do when the season ends is find the team that will pay him the most money.
Perhaps it's a tad high and mighty, but doesn't what Manny did get right to the heart of the integrity of the game?
If a guy intentionally refuses to try because he's unhappy with his contract, isn't that a problem?
What is the appropriate punishment for this kind of thing?
And if it's true, is it any worse than what Pete Rose did?
One problem is this would be difficult to prove.
Another is that Manny did this before in Boston. Folks there said he quit in 2006. What did the Red Sox do? They brought him back and let him help win a World Series for their nation in 2007.
It's called enabling.
Which is what the Dodgers are doing. Enabling a guy who, while an unbelievable talent, might have tried to help his previous team lose — or at least did not try to help it win.
Patrick McManamon can be reached at pmcmanamon@thebeaconjournal.com. Read his blog at http://www.ohiomm.com/blogs/mcmanamon/.
Comments
Click here to post your comments
