Nice, he threatened to sic Marv Albert on him.

I don't know. Ramirez comes off as a jackass with all this, but I'm willing to give him a pass, as he has to be frustrated; I'm sure he wants the hell out of Florida at this point. (The Marlins are in contention once again and Miami has nice weather, so I don't know; playing in an empty park all the time probably gets old, right?)

The most impressive thing here is Dawson's proper use of the word "literally."

Can someone explain to me exactly what Pujols' point is here?

Dawson said he reminded Ramirez about his episode from March 2009, when he demanded a trade because he was told to follow team rules by getting a haircut and no longer wearing jewelry on the field.

A week after that incident, Dawson heard Ramirez talking in Jupiter to his friend, St. Louis Cardinals slugger Albert Pujols.

"Albert said, 'Don't change,' ' Dawson recalled. "And Hanley looked at him and smiled. And Albert said again, 'All I ask is that you don't change. You're changing.' '

dawson should keep his mouth shut to the reporters. This should come out 20 years from now in some book on hanley.

Hanley's response was reportedly, "Hey, Perez, you're one of the HOF's biggest mistakes. Call me when you get into the HOM. And Dawson, well, you're borderline. You guys can't tell me what to do."

I'm confused by the question. Pujols is implying that Hanley is changing as a person and it's reflected by the trade demand episode. I'd imagine he was being critical of Hanley there, or am I missing something?

The most impressive thing here is Dawson's proper use of the word "literally."

His use of the word "gravitate" is a bit perplexing, though...

This isn't an Onion article?

It's too bad that Ray DiPerna wasn't in the room to defend Hanley.

“I’m not going to say a lot, because if you say the wrong the thing to me, then you might wind up on the floor on your rear end,’ Dawson said

You don't want to piss Dawson off. Just ask Eric Show. Actually, you can't ask Show.

Here's what Dawson should have said:

"Look, Hanley, you're our best player. You know that. I know that. You're our best player whether you hustle after every single ball or not. You know that. I know that. Now, as Hall of Fame player, I'm duty bound to speak to you about the play in question. Please try to do better next time; it makes my job a whole lot easier. There. I've spoken to you. Let's hit the field."

dawson should keep his mouth shut to the reporters. This should come out 20 years from now in some book on hanley.

That was my immediate reaction. Potentially, any good that came from Dawson's "intervention" could be undone by revealing the details of the conversation.

Noogies!

I wonder if Jeff Loria is regretting that diamond necklace he gave Hanley in the offseason?

dawson should keep his mouth shut to the reporters. This should come out 20 years from now in some book on hanley.

Why do you assume that Dawson wasn't "made available" for the article? Seems like this story got so big -- on all the plasma screens and 4-5 active threads on BTF, player carping in attributed quotes -- that the fish thought they had to act publicly.

The Pujols anecdote is interesting. Makes me like him.

Hanley Ramirez gets stern advice

What advice did Howard give? Something involving hustlers I suppose.

Dawson (looming over the seated Ramirez): "You wanna lesson in respect? Huh? HUH? I'll show you respect. . . (reaches for the baseball bat in the corner of the room)

Perez (holding him back): "Andre! Woah! Why don't you step out and get an iced coffee?"

Perez (to Ramirez): "Sorry about that. My partner can get a little wild when he feels like someone is disrespecting the game. Now, about that public apology . . .

dawson should keep his mouth shut to the reporters. This should come out 20 years from now in some book on hanley.

That was my immediate reaction. Potentially, any good that came from Dawson's "intervention" could be undone by revealing the details of the conversation.

Ditto, you already know that Hanley is immature and upset over being PUBLICLY called out by his manager, and you are going to sit him down in private and talk to him, and then run to the press and tell them that you just "privately" sat down Hanley and talked to him- and then reveal what it was you told him?

Did anyone ever watch the show "Coach"? Ever see the episode where he benches his star player for the last game of the year for rules infractions? (The game they needed to clear .500). His QB had bluntly admitted that he felt he was bigger than the team, and suggested that coach make up some excuse to tell the other players why Mr. Star QB didn't workout with them if coach was worried about team morale. Coach gave a rah rah speech to the team about how the team rules were just there to maximize their chance of winning and he had made a promise to the School and to each and every player to do all he could to have a winning season. So this was the day they were aiming for and they were going to go out there, knock off a bowl bound team and have their winning season. The team runs out of the tunnel onto the field, Mr. Prima Donna QB following slowly after them- clearly intending to exit the tunnel solo- when coach stops him, "where you going?

The QB stops, looks confused "I'm going out to play?"
No your not.
But you just told them I was playing
No I didn't

The coach then tells Mr. Star QB that he was the most talented player he had ever coached, but he just wasn't worth it, not only was he not playing, he wasn't even going to be suited up and sitting on the sidelines.

It is quite possible that many on the Marlins have decided that Hanley is just not worth it, no matter what his OPS+ is.
What now? I suspect that does not end well insofar as Hanley being a Marlin is concerned. Obviously he's not going to sign an extension I don't think.

For one, you’re not bigger than the game. You don’t show a manager up. The way you’re going about this is literally the wrong way.

Of course, Fredi Gonzalez is not bigger than the game, either, and could have disciplined Ramirez without making such a public display of doing so in the first place. But I guess it's OK to show a star player up.

Why do you assume that Dawson wasn't "made available" for the article? Seems like this story got so big -- on all the plasma screens and 4-5 active threads on BTF, player carping in attributed quotes -- that the fish thought they had to act publicly.

The only way this story can go away is if everybody stops talking about it all the time. The whole problem is that there's already been way too much in the way of acting publicly.

I suspect that does not end well insofar as Hanley being a Marlin is concerned. Obviously he's not going to sign an extension I don't think.

You might be right, but that'll be several years down the road. Also, keep in mind that the Fish like to spend money to resign non-players even less than players, so Fredi will likely be GMing the Braves by that point and Hanley will still be the big bopper on the Marlins.

re 16

then dawson says they had a conversation. Period.

I don't know who these guys are to think they can talk to Hanley like that. Neither one ever had a 7.5 WAR season.

It is quite possible that many on the Marlins have decided that Hanley is just not worth it, no matter what his OPS+ is.

I argued against Ray in the other thread, but this is exactly the kind of silliness that he was arguing against. If people in the organization believe this, the manager ought to tell them they are crazy.

Hanley is a shortstop who can win a batting title, hit for power and steal bases. He's gotta be one of the top 10 players in the game, and there's no way the Marlins are better off without him.

You discipline him because you want him to perform better and get along with his teammates. But if you let it get to the point where you have to get rid of him, then you've failed at your job as manager.

I suspect that does not end well insofar as Hanley being a Marlin is concerned. Obviously he's not going to sign an extension I don't think.

He already did, 2 years ago. The Marlins control him until the 2014 season. The deal bought out 3 years of free agency at around 15 million each. I'm sure he wishes he hadn't signed that, because attitude or not he'd be looking at a 200 million dollar deal after 2011.

I wonder what the Marlins could get for him.

re 24

a team is only as good as their star players. If you have a loafer for a star player then your team is going to loaf. If your star player is willing to bean their own mother to get a win then you are going to have a cutthroat team. If your star player works hard before, after, and during the game then you are going to have a hard working team.

And if your star player isn't worthy of the name, you're going to have a bad team.

Maybe the kid will never change, but Whitey's point is that you should at least want him to change rather than just wanting him gone. It doesn't seem that you disagree with that.

Never heard a word of their induction speeches.

if the team thinks he won't change they are better off getting rid of him. Whitey's point seems to be don't anger your star player and I disagree with that for the reason I stated.

If you have a loafer for a star player then your team is going to loaf.

Is this really true? Are the Marlins a team of loafers right now? I don't know, but it doesn't seem that way to me.

It's not like Hanley is the only good player on the Marlins, and you can have team leaders who aren't star players. I think it's important to disclipline the star if he slacks off to show the rest of the guys that it's not acceptable. If you do that, I don't think they'll all imitate his behavior.

if the team thinks he won't change they are better off getting rid of him. Whitey's point seems to be don't anger your star player and I disagree with that for the reason I stated.

No, it's ok to anger your star player. But you shouldn't let it get to the point where you have to trade him. Clearly that's not what the Marlins want, and they're right not to want it, because they're not better off getting rid of him.

I wonder what the Marlins could get for him.

David Wright and Jose Reyes

No, it's ok to anger your star player. But you shouldn't let it get to the point where you have to trade him. Clearly that's not what the Marlins want, and they're right not to want it, because they're not better off getting rid of him.

This IS the Marlins we're talking about. Hanley's contract jumps from 7M to 11M next year, which I believe will be around 20% or more of what their likely payroll is to be in 2011. It then jumps to 15M in 2012. And Ramirez doesn't have a no-trade clause.

If the Marlins are sitting in 4th place, 12 games back, you don't think Loria won't be entertaining offers anyway?

For some reason, all I can think of is Dawson bursting into song during this closed-door meeting ala Tim Curry about how he'll fix Hanley Ramirez.

Are the Marlins a team of loafers right now?

Ramirez seemed to imply that they were during his post-benching comments.

Ramirez seemed to imply that they were during his post-benching comments.

He also stated he was running his hardest after kicking the ball. I'm not sure his assessment of things in this affair is entirely sound.

re 30

these things don't happen overnight. If hanley gets away with this and his fellow players see it it is more and more likely that they won't go all out as often and eventually you know what you have? Larry!

Lollygaggers?

that's right, lollygaggers!

these things don't happen overnight. If hanley gets away with this and his fellow players see it it is more and more likely that they won't go all out as often and eventually you know what you have? Larry!

I don't know how anyone could concolude that Hanley has "gotten away" with this. He was pulled from the game, benched the subsequent game, given a talking to by Dawson/Perez, and apologized to the team before returning the lineup.

It's too bad that Ray DiPerna wasn't in the room to defend Hanley.

I wish Ray was my dad. I wouldn't have turned out as well, but boy would my teens been fun.

"making such a public display of doing so in the first place"

that's not what happened

Here's what Dawson should have said:

"Look, Hanley, you're our best player. You know that. I know that. You're our best player whether you hustle after every single ball or not. You know that. I know that. Now, as Hall of Fame player, I'm duty bound to speak to you about the play in question. Please try to do better next time; it makes my job a whole lot easier. There. I've spoken to you. Let's hit the field."

That's exactly what Dawson should have said. Then after that he should have said something in the order of, "in fact since you are our best player you should try and show up your teammates more, sleep with their wives and poke the manager in the eye with a stick because your our best player and with out you nothing else matters. You did nothing wrong it's everyone else that has to change."

re 39
and where did I say I concluded that?

I wish Ray was my dad. I wouldn't have turned out as well, but boy would my teens been fun.

Only if you were a 4 WAR teenager. Otherwise Ray would have DFA'd your ass when you acted up and you'd have ended up with the Royals.

Only if you were a 4 WAR teenager.

I think you are in the wrong discussion with that comment. The talk about people being 4 war is in the IMMIGRATION AND THE BUSINESS OF BASEBALL discussion.

WAR for a teenager? Weed above replacement?

Lollygaggers.
What a wonderfully descriptive word that is seldom heard in the mainstream media anymore.

“I’m not going to say a lot, because if you say the wrong the thing to me, then you might wind up on the floor on your rear end,’

"Sure, old man," Ramirez replied. "A 55-year-old man is going to knock a pissed-off professional athlete, who's thirty years younger, on his ass. Right. And if, by some f@#$ing miracle you do hurt me, how is the owner of the team going to like the fact you just busted up his franchise player? Especially since he'll have to pay me millions of dollars to sit on the bench? Hmmmmm?"

and where did I say I concluded that?

You didn't, but you wrote "if he gets away with this and his fellow players see it". My point was that he already hasn't gotten away with it, and there's no way his teammates will be able to conclude he did.

Don't mollycoddle the lollygaggers, I do say.

Weed above replacement?

How did Lincecum enter into this conversation?

According to Baseball Reference, Hanley has 50 pounds on playing-era Dawson. I assume Dawson has put on weight since then, but probably not in a good way. Hanley would kick the ever-loving sh!t out of him.

most people don't act like spock when somebody gets in their face. Physical intimidation goes a long way ven if in knock down drag out fight the guy doing the intimidating would lose.

re 49

and where did I write that I was talking about his actual punishment? That is what the "if" is for.

McCoy, I don't understand what your original point was then.

According to Baseball Reference, Hanley has 50 pounds on playing-era Dawson. I assume Dawson has put on weight since then, but probably not in a good way. Hanley would kick the ever-loving sh!t out of him.

You are forgetting about the presence of 68-year-old Tony Perez by his side! Also, Dawson being 55 makes me feel old.

post 26 is my point.

Maybe not Dawson and Perez themselves, but if they brought Nolan Ryan along. And how could anyone bet against Bob Feller?

OK, well I addressed #26 with #30, and I don't understand your responses after that, so I guess we can let the point drop.

Dawson being 55 makes me feel old.

geez, dawson and i are the same age. i thought he was way older than me.

and I addressed 30 with 36.

Their advice:
Never jog and rarely walk.

most people don't act like spock when somebody gets in their face.

That is quite illogical, doctor.

Don't mollycoddle the lollygaggers, I do say.

To do so would be absolute codswallop.

Don't mollycoddle the lollygaggers, I do say.

To do so would be absolute codswallop.
Page 1 of 1 pages

Now that's a load of poppycock

IT'S THE X-PRESIDENTS!!!!!

I remain pleased that McCoy does not run my ball club of choice.

and I addressed 30 with 36.

Right, and I responded in 39/49 that 36 doesn't make sense. It is based on a hypothetical (that other players perceive Hanley "getting away with it") which we already know is impossible (because he didn't get away with it).

I do not understand your reply, "and where did I write that I was talking about his actual punishment? That is what the 'if' is for". How is that a response to my posts? Could you please clarify? Or we can let the point drop.

Don't mollycoddle the lollygaggers, I do say.

To do so would be absolute codswallop.

Now that's a load of poppycock

But is it piffle?

geez this isn't tough IF they don't punish hanley THEN x. You stated somethings and then I said it doesn't happen overnight so IF they had done nothing THEN could wel be going down the road towards lollygaggers.

Fiddlesticks.

“I’m not going to say a lot, because if you say the wrong the thing to me, then you might wind up on the floor on your rear end,’ Dawson said

What an #######.

Can I say \"#######\" here? Or will the nanny bleep it out? Just in case, to be clear: I am likening Andre Dawson to the bodily opening through which feces are expelled.

According to Jorge Arangure at ESPN, Ramirez respects Dawson, so he might have been just the right person to talk to him.

I see someone's taken it to the next level and responded with 69.