Unless you actually have some first hand knowledge of what kind of teammate Manny is. Which you don't. So either stop talking out of your ass, or admit that you're talking out of your ass.

Cal Ripken was on the local LA ESPN (710 ESPN for those interested) promoting some State Farm thing yesterday and the conversation inevitably got around to what kind of teammate Manny was. Ripken said he didn't have first hand knowledge of the situation, but the way that Manny has left each city kind of reminded him of Eddie Murray. The narrative in each city about Murray was that he was a crappy teammate according to the writers, but as far as Cal knew know one ever felt that what about him* and that he thought he was actually a pretty good guy in the clubhouse. He said he has heard the same things about Manny.

* To borrow a Pozterik, it should be noted that Cal thinks the world of Eddie so it might not be the most unbiased report. At the same time, even if Cal knows 5 active guys that are playing right now, it's 5 more than most of us.

Ripken said he didn't have first hand knowledge of the situation, but the way that Manny has left each city kind of reminded him of Eddie Murray.

I would love for someone to explain what was wrong with "the way that Manny has left" L.A.

100 Not according to the account in the book. Had to be pulled off by the manager.

"Tabor, in the clubhouse, grabbed Ted Williams and commenced to beat him severely about the head and shoulders. Donnie Bush, the manager, told Tabor to leave him alone, he was just a kid."

It's an account consistent with what's known about Tabor's general personality (in particular his lack of impulse control) and young Williams' unpopularity with many people in the organization.

I would love for someone to explain what was wrong with "the way that Manny has left" L.A.

he didn't become babe ruth and cut his dreadlocks and stop pushing down 61-yr-old traveling secretaries and he didn't lay down a bunt for a base hit now and then and he sometimes pretended he didn't speak english so well especially when a columnist wanted to file a story and didn't have time to do any real reporting work and oh yeah he's a steroid cheat. and a cancer and a distraction.

at least ripken had the good sense to qualify his remarks, something some people just don't seem to be able to do.

it's not that i particularly worship manny. what bothers me is that he really did play well in los angeles, and now he won't be doing that in los angeles and that doesn't seem to occur to anyone. the team needed a good hitter, and he's a good hitter. if someone wants to say he wasn't worth his contract, i think the best you can say is that that is debatable. its not this slam dunk that the haters and the writers seem to think it is. add in the steroid suspension, and it is impossible to have a reasoned opinion on the man anymore.

for instance, casual commenters keep talking about how he 'gave up' and 'didn't want to play', especially at the end. hello? torre was benching him. he wasn't refusing to play. he was just off the disabled list. the team didn't want to risk him getting hurt while they were working out the waiver deal.

and why were the dodgers doing a waiver deal? the only downside to manny these days is his fragility. he missed too much time this year and the dodgers are out of it. so now its time for plan b. they figured out that waiving him and getting him to another team would be a neat little salary dump. so play him? now? and really, the team doesn't care what the LA times thinks about anything. let them say what they want about manny, it provides cover for them.

what remains to be seen is if doing the salary dump will translate into signing someone who can provide some of what will be sorely missing without manny in the lineup.

it might sound simplistic to say this but it needs to be said: if he had not gotten injured so much this year, this conversation would not be happening, no matter what shenanigans he got up to, no matter how many fly balls he mishandled, no matter how long his dreadlocks dragged on the ground. because he would be hitting.

apparently that's just not good enough for some. well, now you've got a bunch of hustling scrappy guys out there in podsednik and jamey carroll and whoever. let's just see what happens with all this good chemistry.

Pozrerisk? I thought that was a David Foster Wallace thing. I didn't like it at first, but I'm starting to appreciate it.

For that matter, did Ramirez leave Cleveland badly? I'm not saying he didn't; I don't recall.

For that matter, did Ramirez leave Cleveland badly? I'm not saying he didn't; I don't recall.

Not at all. Cleveland wanted him to stay, but Duke went higher than the Tribe was willing to go. And Manny seemed perfectly willing to re-sign if Cleveland came up with the cash (recall the close bond he had with the clubhouse attendant).

He had a bad exit from Boston. Denying that would be kind of silly. So would any claims there's been some kind of pattern.

Didn't ESPN have a documentary on the courting of Manny Ramirez back in '01?

Didn't ESPN have a documentary on the courting of Manny Ramirez back in '01?

Yeah, his agent who became the Diamondbacks exec who became the Padres owner allowed virtually unlimited access to his end of the negotiations, which seems like nothing now but was pretty unconventional then.

He had a bad exit from Boston. Denying that would be kind of silly. So would any claims there's been some kind of pattern.

He certainly didn't exit Boston gracefully, but at the same time there was a lot of crap attributed to him that people couldn't have known unless they were mind readers. Such as:

* Him purposely not swinging in striking out on three pitches against Rivera;

* Him purposely clowning around on that play in the field where he ended up flopping onto the ball.

* Him slacking off in Boston at the end. IIRC he hit for like a 1.000 OPS in his final month there and was among the team leaders in games played for the season. Accusing him of faking an injury is all well and good, but, again, absent persuasive evidence that he did that (which I grant is next to impossible to obtain if one is not a mind reader), I can't conclude that he did it. (I recall a Gammons piece that accused him of forgetting which knee was hurt; as I also recall, Gammons offered utterly no evidence save an anonymous quote from a team official.)

He certainly didn't exit Boston gracefully, but at the same time there was a lot of crap attributed to him that people couldn't have known unless they were mind readers. Such as:

* Him purposely not swinging in striking out on three pitches against Rivera;

* Him purposely clowning around on that play in the field where he ended up flopping onto the ball.

* Him slacking off in Boston at the end. IIRC he hit for like a 1.000 OPS in his final month there and was among the team leaders in games played for the season. Accusing him of faking an injury is all well and good, but, again, absent persuasive evidence that he did that (which I grant is next to impossible to obtain if one is not a mind reader), I can't conclude that he did it. (I recall a Gammons piece that accused him of forgetting which knee was hurt; as I also recall, Gammons offered utterly no evidence save an anonymous quote from a team official.)

Certainly. There was more than enough blame to go around, but Manny's hands weren't clean (insert towel joke).

The point is that was the only time Manny's had that kind of exit. I don't see where he's done anything in LA to justify all the grief he's gotten. And his Cleveland exit was pretty calm from all sides.

Unless you actually have some first hand knowledge of what kind of teammate Manny is.

Not to get into the larger argument, but didn't Manny's teammates in Boston take a vote on keeping him (or something similar?) And didn't he fair rather poorly in that vote? Given that his teammates in Boston were probably familiar with how well Manny could hit, it would seem that such a thing would be some evidence that one set of teammates had issues with him. All of that assumes the vote thing actually happened- which no one should do.

Not to get into the larger argument, but didn't Manny's teammates in Boston take a vote on keeping him (or something similar?) And didn't he fair rather poorly in that vote? Given that his teammates in Boston were probably familiar with how well Manny could hit, it would seem that such a thing would be some evidence that one set of teammates had issues with him. All of that assumes the vote thing actually happened- which no one should do.

Yes, it was overwhelmingly against Manny (24-1, I believe). Moreover, at least two players were critical of Manny on the record (Varitek and Pedroia), while even longtime pal David Ortiz admitted after the season that it had become time for Manny to go. I don't think Manny was generally considered a bad teammate during his time in Boston, by and large, just that at the end a change was necessary for all involved.

It has been my experience that the people in the trenches are generally horrible about making decisions like that. They tend to weigh things that are petty and inconsequential more heavily than the important things. I do not ask my employees who should stay or go when there is a problem. Instead I try to get them to understand all of the benefits that the person brings to the job and how nobody is perfect and if we start down this road it is going to get a lot more uncomfortable for everybody.

It has been my experience that the people in the trenches are generally horrible about making decisions like that. They tend to weigh things that are petty and inconsequential more heavily than the important things. I do not ask my employees who should stay or go when there is a problem. Instead I try to get them to understand all of the benefits that the person brings to the job and how nobody is perfect and if we start down this road it is going to get a lot more uncomfortable for everybody.

I'm pretty sure the Red Sox players didn't actually make the decision to trade Manny.

I'm not saying they did. What I am saying is that as a manager you should never do anything like that (have a vote) or allow it to get to that point. The coach at ASU did that as well with Barry Bonds and his team wanted him gone. If you think a employee should be gone then make him gone. If you think an employee should stay in employed then it is your job to get your employees to work together. Taking a vote is a horrible way to solve this problem.

I'm not saying they did. What I am saying is that as a manager you should never do anything like that (have a vote) or allow it to get to that point. The coach at ASU did that as well with Barry Bonds and his team wanted him gone. If you think a employee should be gone then make him gone. If you think an employee should stay in employed then it is your job to get your employees to work together. Taking a vote is a horrible way to solve this problem.

I don't know when the vote was conducted, nor do I know who organized it. I don't know that it was intended to solve anything.

I suspect the world of guaranteed contracts and a constant media presence might make for a slightly different workplace dynamic than the joints you've managed. Tito couldn't just make Manny gone. Neither could Theo. And all of it was going on in the presence of a voracious press.

I also suspect that if you're considering dumping one of your best hitters in a pennant race in part because you think he's a clubhouse cancer, then it's probably not a bad idea to see if he's actually carcinogenic by testing some of the cells. A random sample of opinions is probably better than a straight vote, but I'd certainly get the opinions of his teammates in some way.

Once again, Manny didn't even play today. This doesn't make a whole lot of sense to me, when you consider how few games there are left.

I also suspect that if you're considering dumping one of your best hitters in a pennant race in part because you think he's a clubhouse cancer, then it's probably not a bad idea to see if he's actually carcinogenic by testing some of the cells.

You don't even need to go to cells. you simply ask the team leader or whomever is the team liason in the clubhouse. basically whoever has the trust of the players and the ear of management.


I suspect the world of guaranteed contracts and a constant media presence might make for a slightly different workplace dynamic than the joints you've managed. Tito couldn't just make Manny gone. Neither could Theo. And all of it was going on in the presence of a voracious press.

Which makes team votes even dumber.

Once again, Manny didn't even play today. This doesn't make a whole lot of sense to me, when you consider how few games there are left.

The White Sox are fed up with his antics, and are looking to dump him.