Sounds a bargain to me. Red Sox should seize the opportunity to rectify their appalling July blunder and trade Ortiz.

$17M per for age 37-41 sounds pretty steep to me, though of course there's nothing wrong with Boras saying it.

I think he might get the annual salary or the duration, but I don't think he'll get both.

Would you do 3/50?

I'm surprised that he's looking for so low an AAV. Previous numbers being thrown around were for $100M over 4 years, which seemed like a typical Boras starting point.

I'm inclined to agree with Vlad. I can't really see any team being all that interested in signing Manny through his age 41 season. It just seems like a long time at that age, even for an elite hitter.

I can see him getting an average salary of $17M for however many years.

I'm surprised that he's looking for so low an AAV. Previous numbers being thrown around were for $100M over 4 years, which seemed like a typical Boras starting point.

Any possibility that Boras is considering the current savage beating that the stock market is taking, and the possible (probable) effects on the ability of teams to pony up for his demands this offseason?

And a soul

Don't be silly. Boras already has a soul. He keeps it in a jar in his basement, so that it doesn't bother him during delicate negotiations.

Don't be silly. Boras already has a soul. He keeps it in a jar in his basement, so that it doesn't bother him during delicate negotiations.

I thought that was his heart?

Theo, get out the checkbook.

Manny seems like he'd fit best on an A.L. team that's a piece away from contending, and with room at DH. Actually, if the Angels don't sign Manny, he seems like he might do well in Anaheim.

Yankees
Toronto
Minnesota
Cleveland?

Seems like Toronto could use Manny the most - they need hitting bad and don't have anyone that great at DH. I don't know that Manny would be too excited about Toronto, but if they paid enough I'm sure he'd be cool with it. I don't see Cashman signing an aging Manny, and Minnesota won't shell out. Cleveland has Hafner, and probably wouldn't shell out for Manny, too. So Toronto it is! I'm glad I could figure this out for them!

Would you do 3/50?

I can't see Manny accepting 3/$50. If he was willing to take that, then he would have also probably been willing to take the 2/$40 remaining with the Red Sox, and roll the dice on getting a 1/$10 afterward.

I just wouldn't sign him, period. His OPS+ will probably go something like 140-130-120-110 (pulling that off the top of my head), he already needs to DH, and he's brittle. That makes him something like a 3.5-win player for '09, and going downhill from there. That's worth what, $10M for year 1, substantially less thereafter? Not that Burrell or Dunn are much more appealing; they're weaker offensively and just as bad with the glove. Just more Carlos Lees if you ask me. Abreu is slightly better with the glove but still below average; his skill set might age a little better. How much will Milton Bradley get? Can he play the OF still? None of these supposedly marquee outfielders would make the impact on a team that a legit superstar like Teixeira would.

Seems like Toronto could use Manny the most - they need hitting bad and don't have anyone that great at DH. I don't know that Manny would be too excited about Toronto, but if they paid enough I'm sure he'd be cool with it. I don't see Cashman signing an aging Manny, and Minnesota won't shell out. Cleveland has Hafner, and probably wouldn't shell out for Manny, too. So Toronto it is!

Toronto doesn't have the money for Manny, especially since they need to pick up another starting pitcher or two after the injuries to McGowan and Marcum, and the possible (likely) departure of Burnett. Keep in mind that the big money years on Wells' deal also kick in in 2010, which further increases the Jays shortness of cash.

They've also got Lind and Snider available for a LF/DH platoon, and both Wells and Rios signed to long term deals, so there's not a lot of room for Manny - even if he would be a better option in the short term.

"Not that Burrell or Dunn are much more appealing; they're weaker offensively and just as bad with the glove."

Would Dunn do less damage as a 1B? I know he didn't do it much in Cincy, since they had Casey locked in at first for a long time and then Votto this year, but he seems like he might be less bad at that spot.

17 million a year is a bargain for him. But 5 years? I don't think so. Something like 3/60 might work for a team.

Manny on the Angels? If I was confident that Vlad could play a full season in right I'd be OK with it, but I'm not. I'd rather see the team resign Teixiera and try and find a pair of corner outfielders who can catch the baseball.

Oh right, I forgot about all of Toronto's pitcher injuries and that crazy Wells contract. They cannot catch a break.

I guess the Mets will finally get their Manny, then.

Well, at 1B, Dunn has less positional value. But yes, I think moving him to first would be a net positive--you'd save more runs on defense than you'd give up on offense (by replacing an average or replacement 1B with an average or replacement LF).

AROM, why do you say $17M would be a bargain, even on year 1? What OPS+, fielding, games played, and $/win rate gets you to $17M-plus for him? Tex I can see: He's a true talent 5.5-6 win superstar, which is worth $20M a year or more. But Manny? I just don't see how it adds up to that...

Can Boras guarantee that Manny is going to be pissed at the Red Sox for the duration of the contract? Before Manny went batshit insane with the Dodgers, it appeared that he had slipped a bit. A 130 OPS+ player with his defense isn't worth that kind of money over any period, especially in the National league.

I can't picture anyone wanting to pay a 40-year old Manny Ramirez $17M/year.

Manny has shown with the Dodgers that his best fit is on a young team, where the kids learn from him and there aren't other sour oldies who don't buy his schtick (well, Jeff Kent, but the Dodgers were already fed up with him.) The Yankees and Mets thus seem a poor fit.

The best bet of all is probably the Nationals, who can perfectly well afford him if they want to, and for whom he could be marketed over a 5-year period to draw fans. As the Nats improved, Manny would mentor their new young players, and perform an "elder statesman" function for a winning Nats team in 2012-13.

You might be right that a young team might suit Manny better. However, most teams like that aren't going to be handing out megabuck contracts to over-the-hill sluggers, particularly NL clubs (with his defense). Also, Manny will likely be all but useless by 2013 even if he's still drawing a paycheck.

I could see, in the absence of a high bidder, the Nats signing him to a short-term deal to put fannies in the seats.

Bonds went on until 45; Manny is in good physical condition, doesn't get injured much and is not overweight. With modern conditioning I see no reason why he should not be perfectly productive at 41 -- maybe not $17mm worth, but still a useful contributor, like Thomas with the As in 2006, Thome with the White Sox currently or Bonds in 2003-07.

a useful contributor, like...Bonds in 2003-07

Karlmagnus has made a new art out of understatement.

I could see, in the absence of a high bidder, the Nats signing him to a short-term deal to put fannies in the seats.

The Nats show very little interest in A. Putting butts in seats, or B. Winning baseball games, so I very much doubt this happens (though, as a Washington resident and Red Sox fan, I'd love to see Manny regularly again).

Also, anyone giving him more than Andruw Jones' contract is flat out crazy.

Bonds went on until 45; Manny is in good physical condition, doesn't get injured much and is not overweight. With modern conditioning I see no reason why he should not be perfectly productive at 41 -- maybe not $17mm worth, but still a useful contributor, like Thomas with the As in 2006, Thome with the White Sox currently or Bonds in 2003-07.

Thome is still only 37 - Manny's only a year younger. Thomas was 38 in that great year in Oakland, and has been worth nowhere near $17M a season since then. There's a huge amount of room for a decline between the ages of 37 and 41.

There's also no way that I'm going to try to discuss the factors which may have led to Bonds being exceptionally productive from the ages of 41 to 45.

Ringolsby doesn't give his source for Boras letting " it be known through his media outlets that the expectation is for at least five years and $85 million" and I cannot find it anywhere else on the internet except for references back to Ringolsby. Take it for what it is worth.

Bonds was born in 1964. He hasn't turned 45 yet. He was 43 when he played his last game.

AROM, why do you say $17M would be a bargain, even on year 1? What OPS+, fielding, games played, and $/win rate gets you to $17M-plus for him?

I haven't worked out the math. The $ per win rate should be about 5.5 this year, so Manny needs 3 to be worth it. His runs above average for the last 4 years - 55, 21, 49, 44. A guess for 2009, considering age might be +35. A replacement level DH being a league average hitter, he's worth the money, though I shouldn't imply he'd be a huge bargain.

As for fielding, part of my assumption is he plays zero games in the OF. If you don't have an available DH spot, or Manny tells you he doesn't want to DH, then don't sign him.

Manny was pretty obviously a different player after he joined the Dodgers than he was the last year and a half with the Sox. Its not out of the question to think that a healthy and happy Manny will exceed normal expectations, thus making it worth it to give him a fair amount of cash in the short term. I wouldn't be on him being a productive player at 41, though - sooner or later he's going off the cliff. I don't think it will happen next year, but I'd guess it will happen before age 41.

Manny seems like he'd fit best on an A.L. team that's a piece away from contending, and with room at DH. Actually, if the Angels don't sign Manny, he seems like he might do well in Anaheim.

Manny has shown with the Dodgers that his best fit is on a young team, where the kids learn from him and there aren't other sour oldies who don't buy his schtick (well, Jeff Kent, but the Dodgers were already fed up with him.) The Yankees and Mets thus seem a poor fit.

No one's mentioning the very young team that could really be pushed over the top by a good DH, that will be getting its hands on some unforeseen playoff revenue in the present and (possibly) near future, that maybe could use a big star to jumpstart its attendance anyway, and that has a great deal of cost certainty among its young stars over the next 4 years. Tampa, anyone?

the very young team that could really be pushed over the top

How much more "over the top" does any team need to be pushed than going to the World Series, which the Rays are quite likely to do?

It still seems to me that Boras gave Manny some very bad advice in getting him to basically force the Red Sox and Dodgers not to pick up his options. 5 yrs/$85M is probably a little better than he would have gotten with 2 yrs/$40M + 3 yrs at whatever, but that sounds like a starting position in a negotiation, not what he'll get in the end. If he winds up at 4yrs/$60M, that is going to look a lot worse than the option years would have been.

I always say that paying fair market value to a superstar is never a mistake--as long as you can properly identify who the superstars are. Mark Teixeira, thanks to his durability, fielding, and age, definitely counts; Manny Ramírez, for the same three reasons, does not. Here's what I think is fair market value for some of the major names (based on my guess of what the overall market will pay; what matters are the relative rankings even if my judgment of the market as a whole is off):

Giambi: $9/2
Delgado: $12/2
Teixeira: $105/6
Ellis: $21/3
Hudson: $30/4
Furcal: $48/4
Bradley: $20/3
Burrell: $30/4 if he can play an average 1B; $25/4 otherwise
Dunn: $50/5 if he can play an average 1B; $42/5 otherwise
Manny: $27/3 or $32/4
Cameron (if available): $16/2 or $20/3
Abreu: $12/2 or $16/3
B. Giles (if available): $18/2 or $22/3
Vlad (if available): $48/5
Burnett: $32/4
Lowe: $30/3
O. Pérez: $22/4
Sabathia: $120/6
Sheets: $38/4
Fuentes: $15/3
K-Rod: $35/4

NOTE: I calculated these based on an average of something near $3M/win, with a curve to reward stars and punish mediocrities; if AROM is right that the average will be $5.5M/win, then all these would need to be multiplied by 1.8.

You're really undershooting the market, imo. I'd take the over on every contract, except for maybe Sheets depending on health.

NOTE: I calculated these based on an average of something near $3M/win, with a curve to reward stars and punish mediocrities; if AROM is right that the average will be $5.5M/win, then all these would need to be multiplied by 1.8.

Thanks for the clarification. With a multiplier of 1.8, it seems to come out with reasonable numbers. Otherwise, I would have agreed that your estimate of the market seemed really low - especially when considering Lohse recently signing his 4/$40M deal.

Then again, I don't think Sabathia will get anything like $36M a year--Santana got low 20's just seven months ago. There are two separate issues here: first, the overall market rate, and second, whether the curve is linear or exponential. Nate Silver's research finds it is exponential, and these estimates are based on his research; I believe Tango insists it is linear. It seems to me that in recent years, it's just basically had three segments: one for average-to-below players (0-2 WARP), who get like $2-$3M per win; a second for above-average but not star players (2-4 WARP), who get about $5-$6M/win (Carlos Lee, Torii Hunter etc.); and a third for legit superstars like Santana and A-Rod (over 4 WARP) who get $3-$4M per win. Clearly, the incentive is to go stars-and-scrubs (pay up for Johan and A-Rod, fill out the roster with Milton Bradley and Kyle Lohse), and let your rivals blow their wads on the merely Good. This is ignoring acts of criminal negligence like the Gary Matthews Jr. or Juan Pierre signings.

I would be very happy with Bradley at 36/3. We'd slowly be adding the Texas Ranger offense, which combined with our pitching makes for a formidable team.

When able to play the field, Bradley has been a pretty good defender. Let him and Vlad split the DH/RF duties. I like that better than signing obvious defensive liabilities like Manny, Dunn, Burrell, and Abreu.

Actually, if the Angels don't sign Manny, he seems like he might do well in Anaheim.

But if they do sign him, he won't do well in Anaheim?

When able to play the field, Bradley has been a pretty good defender. Let him and Vlad split the DH/RF duties. I like that better than signing obvious defensive liabilities like Manny, Dunn, Burrell, and Abreu.

Do you really feel like gambling on Bradley's ability to stay healthy?

"How much more "over the top" does any team need to be pushed than going to the World Series, which the Rays are quite likely to do?"

Maybe they want to keep on rolling right through Poland before the energy from their blitz dissipates.

How much more "over the top" does any team need to be pushed than going to the World Series, which the Rays are quite likely to do?

Going to the World Series perennially? Complacency won't help them playing with the big boys in the AL East. Especially since their going to the World Series would turn the big boys into big angry boys.