Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity
On Twitter: AdamKilgoreWP and PostSports  |  Facebook  |  E-mail alerts: Sports and Redskins  |  RSS

Olney: Nats Will Land Manny

Well, that's pretty close to what ESPN's Buster Olney says. He has Sabathia and Burnett to the Yankees, Teixeira to the Angels and Manny being Manny right here.

Boz, sitting next to me in his stylin' sweater vest, says "no way."

What do you think?

By Tracee Hamilton  |  November 14, 2008; 11:45 AM ET
 
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   Del.icio.us   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: More Thoughts on Teixeira
Next: Orr Signs Minor League Deal

Comments

"Buster Olney - you get no Baloney..."

Can Manny play First? I mean, how many outfielders can a team have?

Posted by: CajunD | November 14, 2008 11:58 AM | Report abuse

Well, I'm sure they'll end up with someone named Manny...

Posted by: mike8 | November 14, 2008 12:06 PM | Report abuse

How does this move make any sense? The Nats need to ditch the Plan and increase payroll, but Manny is a finishing touch for a playoff team not a building block. The Willingham and Olsen trade is exactly the type of move this team should be making, grabbing mid-level guys from teams shedding salaries.

Short term, Manny and Tex are going to cost about the same, the biggest difference is the length of the contract. If we have the budget for Manny over the next couple of years, we should extend that out over 10 years and get Tex. I don't think any team in the league has less money committed beyond 2009 than the Nats, it's time to identify guys who can be long term solid core players and lock them up.

Posted by: PowerBoater69 | November 14, 2008 12:30 PM | Report abuse

LOL

Posted by: Zornado | November 14, 2008 12:38 PM | Report abuse

Manny to the Nats makes no sense whatsoever. It doesn't fit the Plan; it's not the kind of deal that Trader Jim is known for, and it's not a Kasten-type deal either. This is a Peter Angelos move. Any chance they've got it mixed up, and Manny's headed to B'more?

Posted by: TomServo | November 14, 2008 12:40 PM | Report abuse

1: This doesn't make any sense, and would be a mistake.

2: I would totally buy a Manny jersey.

Posted by: Tank2 | November 14, 2008 12:44 PM | Report abuse

Haha, I'm totally with you on that one, Tank.

Manny wouldn't be a good signing for a simple reason-he won't be around for the first "Great Nationals Team" or whatever they're calling it. Sign Tex and hope that sometime in the next 10 years we have a season that doesn't suck. Sign Manny and hope that happens within 3-4 years? I hope it can happen but I seriously doubt that.

-Sean from DCSportsPlus

Posted by: iishoagie07 | November 14, 2008 12:47 PM | Report abuse

I am loving the multiple updates in a single day!

Posted by: johnny_blaze | November 14, 2008 12:54 PM | Report abuse

Jim Bowden e-mailed Bill Ladson of mlb.com the other day to unequivocally state that the Nats would not be going after Manny Ramirez. Does a statement like that not count unless legions of clueless bloggers immediately rise up as one in their parents' basements to type TEH LEARNERS ARE CHEAP! TEH LEARNERS ARE CHEAP!1!1!?

Besides, the Nationals already have their GM and their loser mascot sporting Manny Ramirez dreads and skullcaps. Why would they need the real Manny too?

Posted by: nunof1 | November 14, 2008 12:55 PM | Report abuse

I dunno man...these Manny mumblings just seem to kinda come out of nowhere. the Tex rumors seem to have a little bit more to them (or perhaps this is just wishful thinking?).

besides, while Manny is a ridiculous hitting talent, I dunno if he's a great fit here other than to put butts in seats(for which I can understand the interest). just how much does Manny have left in the tank? enough to bridge the gap between now and Burgess?

and also we need to take into consideration how this affects the rest of our team, position-wise. it means that Willingham will definitely play 1st, it potentially leaves Milledge without a position (as CF isn't not a desirable position for Milledge at this point), and it all but necessitates at least one more major deal from that outfield.

I won't complain if we do sign Manny, and infact I'll be happy.

but I don't believe it for a second.

Posted by: MrMadison | November 14, 2008 12:58 PM | Report abuse

@Tank2: I'm with you 100% on both...

Posted by: andreekless | November 14, 2008 12:59 PM | Report abuse

Doesn't getting Manny require that you make an offer to Manny?

I can't believe that the Nats would even make a credible offer for him. Manny doesn't fit into The Plan at all.

I think the Teixeira bidding will get out of hand quickly, and the Nats will get left behind... but I think Sheinin had the argument exactly right - and, by the way, the same argument doesn't hold for the Orioles, because the Orioles have a long line of former stars that are regularly trotted out as a part of the Orioles persona... Teixeira can become the premier Nat (along with Zim... and you gotta admit, the two make quite a pair). The question the Nats have to ask is how much of a premium is the intangible worth?

Posted by: wigi | November 14, 2008 1:02 PM | Report abuse

In, ummmm, less interesting news, it's being reported that we have re-signed Pete Orr and are interested in re-signing Aaron Boone and Odalis Perez.

Posted by: BobLHead | November 14, 2008 1:04 PM | Report abuse

I am skeptical about Manny but I don't think its totally out of the realm of possibility. The day before Wilkerson was traded for Soriano, Ladson quoted Bowden as stating there was no way he was going to trade Wilkerson.

I think Manny makes sense here actually. He puts fannies in the seats and the team on the map and in the national conversation, something that hasn't been accomplished since Soriano left. His value is in his marketing as well as in his ability to hit. But do I really think the Lerners would see it this way? Probably not.

Posted by: raymitten | November 14, 2008 1:16 PM | Report abuse

Actually, BobLHead, the Orr/Boone/Odalis news is pretty interesting, because it is something that could realistically happen - the Manny business seems to be pure fantasy, and I hope hope hope that the Teixeira stuff is real.

Posted by: Traveler8 | November 14, 2008 1:16 PM | Report abuse

Just looked at the Olney blog -- he provides no rationale, and maybe 25 percent of the comments ask him for it. Lets hope he provides some details behind his 'guesstimate'.

Posted by: raymitten | November 14, 2008 1:21 PM | Report abuse

"I think Manny makes sense here actually. He puts fannies in the seats"

No he doesn't. Or at least he sure didn't when he was here with the Dodgers last August, despite a couple of weeks of "Come see Manny!" ads from the Nats. That Dodgers series was very poorly attended actually. The Rockies drew better here in the same timeframe.

Posted by: nunof1 | November 14, 2008 1:24 PM | Report abuse

Yeah, and all the whiners will be doing somersaults if he brings his 130 rbis to the table in Washington lol. He had 121 last year, and it looks like he took a month off before he got traded. Get real - he's got the sharpest eye since Ted Williams. It would be an extreme privilege to watch him every night. FOR THE NEXT THREE YEARS -- FOR ME TO POOP ON!!!!!

Come on Man-ny you record-book re-writin space capsule bad boy. GET IN THERE. GET. IN. THERE. MAN-NY MAN-NY MAN-NY

Posted by: Brue | November 14, 2008 1:26 PM | Report abuse

I will renew MY PLAN if they sign Manny. I might even move over to LF.

But I won't renew over rumors of possibly making an offer. Last year was way too painful to commit to another 41 games without serious upgrades. Willingham and Oslen are nice, but not good enough in themselves.

My officemate was just offered to move closer within her cost-region. I assume the returns are not looking good.

Posted by: jctichen | November 14, 2008 1:28 PM | Report abuse

I can best sum up all my suspicions, puzzlements, and emotions considering the Manny coming to the Nats rumor in one word:

Huh?

Posted by: driley | November 14, 2008 1:28 PM | Report abuse

like I said earlier. the Manny talk seems unfounded to me. I see a lot of people just randomly saying we'll sign him, with no rhyme or reason to it.

so I'll believe it when I see it. and if it happens I'll be one of the first people cheering about it. but I'm skeptical.

I still think that we'll make a run at Teixiera, but end up settling for Dunn.

Posted by: MrMadison | November 14, 2008 1:30 PM | Report abuse

To further expand on driley's summation - AFLAC?

Posted by: natsfan1a1 | November 14, 2008 1:35 PM | Report abuse

>"I think Manny makes sense here actually. He puts fannies in the seats"

No he doesn't.<

Dream on, junior. He'd put my fanny in a seat. Along with a host of others.

Posted by: Brue | November 14, 2008 1:39 PM | Report abuse

>Can Manny play First? I mean, how many outfielders can a team have?<

Three. We only have two now - Dukes and Willingham.

Posted by: Brue | November 14, 2008 1:40 PM | Report abuse

Willingham would likely move to First if by some miracle Manny decides to come here.

but then what to do about Milledge? we dont't really want him in CF fulltime, i don't think, and he doesn't have the arm for RF.

Posted by: MrMadison | November 14, 2008 1:43 PM | Report abuse

Over-spending for 3-4 years of an aging slugger who plays a lazy left field: perfect fit! I love his bat now, but I don't know that I will love it in a couple of years, especially when he will command $20+mil/year. Not to mention that we would lose a draft pick for signing him. He would bring some exposure to the franchise, but he doesn't fit "the Plan" at all. The Nats are not close to contending, and probably won't contend for the duration of Manny's usefulness.

Posted by: Offense-offensive | November 14, 2008 1:43 PM | Report abuse

We have two unlosable top-10 draft picks.

losing a 2nd rounder should not be a major concern here.

Posted by: MrMadison | November 14, 2008 1:45 PM | Report abuse

besides, signing Teixiera, or any other major free agent that would give noticeable help to this team, we'd lose a draft pick as well. not just for Manny.

Posted by: MrMadison | November 14, 2008 1:47 PM | Report abuse

In other news, I heard that the Nationals will start playing some "home" games back in Montreal to generate interest and help raise revenue.

Hahahaha.

Posted by: thisismydcsportsopinion | November 14, 2008 1:50 PM | Report abuse

"besides, signing Teixiera, or any other major free agent that would give noticeable help to this team, we'd lose a draft pick as well. not just for Manny."

Put us on the map. You can always trade him at a deadline this year or next. Do you really think he'd be clutching that no-trade clause as he watches 10 other teams competing for the playoffs?

Posted by: jctichen | November 14, 2008 1:52 PM | Report abuse

Talk about Manny = leverage on Teixeira.

Posted by: Section506 | November 14, 2008 1:52 PM | Report abuse

jctichen - you've got me on the wrong side here.

I'm not against signing Manny. I just think all the talk about it is unfounded and random, and I don't believe it'll happen.

read the post before the one you quoted, both of those were supposed to go together.

Posted by: MrMadison | November 14, 2008 1:54 PM | Report abuse

Not "no", but "HECK NO!" We have enough head cases on this team without him.
If they bring any old outfielder, make it Griffey, Jr. He still has the smoothest swing in all of baseball.

Posted by: Batboy05 | November 14, 2008 1:59 PM | Report abuse

>but then what to do about Milledge? we dont't really want him in CF fulltime, i don't think, and he doesn't have the arm for RF.<

I'm tellin ya - make Milledge a second baseman. Rumors are the Nats are looking for one, and the same old Orlando Hudson rumors keep going around. I'm not comparing him to Utley, but Utley's value goes up because he's not playing a power position, i.e., he frees one up for a slugger with more potential. You know, if you put Utley in LF, where would Burrell play? And on an NL team it's important to maximize every position without the DH.

MAN-NY MAN-NY MAN-NY

Posted by: Brue | November 14, 2008 2:18 PM | Report abuse

We sign Manny then deal Lannan, Milledge, and one more dummy for Prince Fielder.

Posted by: Imjustlikemusiq | November 14, 2008 2:31 PM | Report abuse

"jctichen - you've got me on the wrong side here."

No, I completely agree with you.

Posted by: jctichen | November 14, 2008 3:02 PM | Report abuse

We have two unlosable top-10 draft picks.

losing a 2nd rounder should not be a major concern here.

Posted by: MrMadison | November 14, 2008 1:45 PM

Except for the whole following the "Plan" thing, yeah, you're right...Because draft picks are so dicey, the idea is to stockpile as many as possible, not waste them on aging free agent acquisitions.

Posted by: Offense-offensive | November 14, 2008 3:25 PM | Report abuse

If Manny leaves via FA at the end of his contract, then the Nats get their pick back. MAN-NY MAN-NY MAN-NY

Posted by: Brue | November 14, 2008 3:39 PM | Report abuse

Methinks Ms. Hamilton missed the lecture where the professor explained what sarcasm is.

Posted by: Wooden_U_Lykteneau | November 14, 2008 4:15 PM | Report abuse

Except for the whole following the "Plan" thing, yeah, you're right...Because draft picks are so dicey, the idea is to stockpile as many as possible, not waste them on aging free agent acquisitions.

-------

oh, well then in that case, we shouldn't sign anyone at all. because signing anyone that is even remotely worthy of being signed will require giving up a draft pick.

heaven forbid we give up a 2nd round pick, when we have 2 of the first 10 picks in the draft that we can't lose for any reason at all. losing that 2nd Round pick would COMPLETELY RUIN "the Plan". regardless of how many other picks we will have before and after that 2nd Rounder.

Posted by: MrMadison | November 14, 2008 4:51 PM | Report abuse

NNNNNNNOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!! Worst idea ever! How many more OF's do we need. Does Bowden think he can field a team of only OFs and 1B? If he signs Manny, he should be fired before the ink dry's. I think Bowden's firing is long overdue already.

Posted by: ThatGuy2 | November 14, 2008 5:00 PM | Report abuse

No Griffey! Attitude will ruin the team. Can't really play and doesn't try.

Honestly, if they sign Griffey I will consider asking for my '09 money back. You'll be wishing for the days of Wily Mo Pena.

Posted by: raymitten | November 14, 2008 5:14 PM | Report abuse

Is Manny going to be a player-manager?

Posted by: fischy | November 14, 2008 5:24 PM | Report abuse

It makes sense if Manny can't a long-term deal for the dollars he wants. He signs with the Nationals for one year at $23 million.

The Nationals have a drawing card and Manny works on another long-term payday somewhere else.

???

Posted by: rushfari | November 14, 2008 8:38 PM | Report abuse

I see no problem signing Manny, using him for 3 or 4 months and trading him to contender at the deadline for 2 or 3 prospects. This may be one of the fastest ways to stockpile good young players. What's the worst thing that could happen?? They already lost 102 games via The Plan.

Posted by: SwiftIT | November 15, 2008 12:11 AM | Report abuse

If the Nats play their cards the way the want to, they can get close on Tex and Manny, and just miss. This way they demonstrate to the fan base they are trying! They should be able to stay close enough to the numbers floating out there to accomplish this.

I can't see it. The Nats have focussed on saving a few hundred thousand dollars by not signing above-slot draftees and not signing the more costly international players. So now they turn around and spring for many tens of millions on a free agent star?

Posted by: EdDC | November 15, 2008 7:48 AM | Report abuse

I thank that Buster doesn't understand the intricacies and the strategic vision that is "The Plan".....

Posted by: fischy | November 15, 2008 5:27 PM | Report abuse

This is just crazy talk - pure and simple. However, I think I would have less problems filling out my season ticket group this year if it were to be true!

NatsFaninKC

Posted by: mastroj | November 16, 2008 1:04 AM | Report abuse

If they do this its' a HUGE MISTAKE not to mention a waste of good money. He wouldn't play for a contender like the Red Sox, why would he even show up for the Nats?

Posted by: bundy44 | November 17, 2008 10:16 AM | Report abuse

That's why you give him free agency after every season. Give him 3 years guaranteed, as long as he accepts it at the end of the year, otherwise he's a free agent after every season. That way we show loyalty, and give Manny control. Because let's face it, he has enough money, he just wants to control his own destiny.

Posted by: Brue | November 17, 2008 8:31 PM | Report abuse

I have three things to say: Manny! Manny! Manny!

Hate the guy all you want, maybe his distraction qualitites are not worth it all, maybe, but all he has ever really done that matters is to not land on the DL and to RAKE. The Red Sox, who seem to be without blame in the big Manny mess for some reason, had similar problems with Greenwell, Fisk, Clemens and Nomar. But whatever, Ramirez may be some complete jackass, he may be the biggest baby in the game, but I could care less. He is one hell of a player, he works hard at his craft and his resume is chock full o' performance -- with him at clean-up for the Nats and presuming no other changes, add (at least) 15 wins (3 per month).

Posted by: dfh1234 | November 18, 2008 10:02 AM | Report abuse

>Hate the guy all you want, maybe his distraction qualitites are not worth it all, maybe, but all he has ever really done that matters is to not land on the DL and to RAKE. The Red Sox, who seem to be without blame in the big Manny mess for some reason<

You know as well as everyone else that they would have walked to the World Series title if Man-ny had played it straight. They paid mightily. That's some massive egg on the face, especially in Beantown. They didn't even make the series.

Posted by: Brue | November 19, 2008 7:00 PM | Report abuse

The comments to this entry are closed.

 
 
RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2010 The Washington Post Company