BREAKING NEWS: Manny Ramirez retires
Posted by Andy on April 8, 2011
MLB has just announced the retirement of Manny Ramirez, effective immediately.
Reading between the lines, it would seem that perhaps Manny had another positive test for a banned substance, which I believe would result in a 1-year suspension as a repeat offender.
I think there's no doubt that he has Hall of Fame numbers--but does this affect his chances of getting elected?
April 10th, 2011 at 4:27 pm
Sean, I appreciate the followups.
My impression of Manny being "untradeable" and/or not worth a waiver claim is that no one else wanted to pay him that much money. When the Red Sox agreed to pay the $7 million left on his contract, they found a pretty good deal for themselves, picking up Jason Bay with a full year left on his reasonable contract while giving up (besides Manny) 2 prospects who have done very little so far.
I do concede that Manny forced his way out of Boston in 2008 with intolerably bad behavior that finally alienated even his teammates. I still don't know how much his bad behavior in previous years hurt the team. There was an awful lot of "that's just Manny being Manny" heard from his teammates through the years, before the final episode.
April 10th, 2011 at 8:32 pm
A larger question. If those who would keep actual steroids users out of the Hall, much less probable or merely suspected users without proven evidence, succeed, what is the meaning of the Hall of Fame in 20 years? Who would want to go to a Hall of Fame or pay attention if it excluded the best performing players of a generation? I can't imagine why I'd take my kids.
It's like listing the presidents and excluding Nixon, or worst excluding all those who probably failed in moral and legal lapses (e.g. various founding father, Jackson, Lincoln, Wilson, FDR, Reagan, Clinton and the Bushes and a plethora of others) as worthy of commemoration for their contribution to the history of our country. Maybe we should drop the Hall, and just make it a history museum of the game.. Anson, Cobb, Speaker, Ruth, Paul Waner, the more recent spitballers, seem to have comparable "negatives" to me, but I can't imagine celebrating the game without them. And if you add drunks and womanizers, it gets worst - but I think we can agree that those deficiences shouldn't disqualify Presidents or ballplayers from celebration as greats.
In terms of the Blog "focus", Ramirez is an obvious Hall of Famer based on performance. It's not even a question - if performance is the measure.
April 10th, 2011 at 8:42 pm
Wow, this forum has legs!!
April 11th, 2011 at 5:01 am
The means of commemoration: if there was a presidential HOF, & it contained a morals clause, we COULD leave out induction due to conduct. Though we could honor what they did other ways. The ethical question is two fold: is the conduct severe & or relevant enough to bar them? I would argue the bad conduct should not have just been bad PR, but tangibly damaging to MLB's basic principles. Cobb's racism & violence was very bad, but it did not destroy the integrity of the game-he was an extreme example of what was common then. Breaking the rules-when it is significant-is I feel a better test of whether the offenses are relevant for admission.
And besides damaging the very confidence in the sport, like throwing games, what could be more relevant than cheating & lying that ALSO gives some a big performance advantage? Steroids were both banned (though not tested for) from the start of the '90's, AND conferred a large advantage to many. Denying other, honest players similar money, fame, even roster spots.
Damaging deeply the public's confidence in the fairness & decency of the game, & warping team records. I have heard the patronizing excuse that most folk's are brainwashed by the media? really? Folks cannot think for themselves & form a mature moral opinion? People are not rational when they disdain cheating that knocks out the balance & credibility of baseball?
Many would PREFER to see a game that has the backbone not to kowtow to principle free notoriety & stolen glory. I would rather have those excluded who drugged up, AT LEAST if THERE WERE 1) NO REASON TO BELIEVE THEY COULD GET THERE CLEAN, & 2) They were unrepentant. Or still lying.
I submit that many, maybe the vast majority, would prefer a HOF where the best players who got there fraudulently were excluded.
April 11th, 2011 at 9:13 am
@ #104...
Mike, I'd honor 'moments'--- in the history of baseball--- within the HOF that could include a cheater... but I would NOT induct a cheating player.
This way the fan isn't denied the accounting of events he saw whe he goes.
E.g., Bonds' exploits all get representation-------but he doesn't get inducted as a player. And information is provided about Barry Bonds' situation. The public craves information and they can decide fior themselves what THEY think---------but the HOF doesn't have to induct anybody. JMO.
April 11th, 2011 at 10:04 am
To me, the cheating that went on during the steroid era was a systemic issue. That's not to absolve the cheaters of their wrongdoings, but the fact that this was allowed to go on unchecked while everyone knew it was going on unchecked is the biggest black mark to me.
The players get the black mark in the end because they injected or ingested the stuff, but the people who encouraged it, helped to protect against it being revealed, and generally worked to keep it going committed a far greater offense to the sport than any single cheating player did. From the players union to the GMs who did nothing to the trainers who did the injecting, these are the biggest culprits.
The players were cheating, but they were working within a system where if they didn't, they were at a disadvantage. You can't have a set of rules without a method of enforcement. If I'm playing a game of cards and it's against the rules for people to look at each other's cards, but if you do there's no penalty and you can keep playing - and everyone else is doing it - I'm going to do it too, if I want to win. It's a problem with the system, and those who made the system are primarily at fault.
April 11th, 2011 at 8:23 pm
Duke said:
Manny also quit on himself. He sat out two games when he was one point off the batting crown lead, the year Bill Mueller won it.
I'm not saying that excuses him from playing, but he truly played by his own rules.>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
He did Duke. Manny with the Bill Mueller thing even said (I believe) that he didn't care about the batting title, that he already had one and that he was happy for Mueller...
The same Manny then basically flipped the bird to his entire team on multiple occasions----just because he 'didn't feel like' doing something a TEAM player would automatically do, without hesitation.
I think it was 2005, Manny was supposed to get a Wednesday off followed by a TEAM off day on Thursday.
However, on Tuesday right before this, Trot Nixon got hurt and Boston was down an OFer for Wednesday's game--------so Francona approached him and asked him if he could play Wednesday and get a different extra off day when they could better afford it-----------Ramirez refused. Nixon had to play hurt the next night.
Schilling was on 1050 AM today being asked about that.
April 11th, 2011 at 8:34 pm
The players were cheating, but they were working within a system where if they didn't, they were at a disadvantage. You can't have a set of rules without a method of enforcement. If I'm playing a game of cards and it's against the rules for people to look at each other's cards, but if you do there's no penalty and you can keep playing - and everyone else is doing it - I'm going to do it too, if I want to win. It's a problem with the system, and those who made the system are primarily at fault.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
Those who didn't police and enforce the system are to blame, yes... but if there were a lot of clean players back then, they needed to stand up and demand action against cheaters. The CLEAN players, instead of JOINING the dirty players, needed to OUT THEM.
Ronald Reagan made the sale of steroids--------when not for medical reasons------illegal in 1988.
Fay Vincent sent a memo to all of MLB in 1991 that all illegal drugs were not to be tolerated in MLB. This included steroids.
The idea that 'steroids weren't really against the rules in MLB in the 90s' is ludicrous.
Fay Vincent's memo said you could be banned from the game.
There was no collectively bargained system, but it was against the rules and being banned from the game was in play.
Bud Selig frequently lead the owners' charge to limit the Commish's power to what was in the best interests of the league---------Selig is responsible for keeping open the door on PED use--------and now that creep takes credit for the testing system in place.
But had players who were clean NOT acted like they had to 'join em', but rather did the responsible thing and banded together and OUTED them, the problems could have been halted.
April 12th, 2011 at 1:35 am
@108(Sean) players were supposed to snitch?? Yeah, right.............let's get real, here.
On a different tack, Fay Vincent, was much maligned, during his time as commissioner, but, it seems as though, the further away, that we get, from his "reign", he is looking better every day......
Bud Selig won't go on forever......Bud Selig II, anyone???? (sarcasm)
April 12th, 2011 at 9:33 am
@ #109...
If players who were CLEAN were resentful or intimidated by what dirty players were accomplishing, rather than act like they had NO choice but to JOIN them & be dirty cheaters----------they could have stood up.
It's something grown ups do.
If a grown up act is something that was beyond the 'clean' ballplayers (who then cheated because they thought there was nothing else they could do in light of all the cheating), then shame on them. Man up.
You've got guys who claim they 'joined the cheaters' because they had no other option and you have guys who claim that they were always clean-------and resent it being called the steroid ERA because they were clean....
...well, you should have acted. You should have said something. Formed a coalition the the clean....
Sounds unrealistic? Well, that's a shame, then..... because it would have been the right thing to do.
ADULTS, and perhaps a large group of them----if you take them at their word that they were clean---------- not doing the right thing in this country in this day and age----------because they didn't want to be snitches? How pathetic.
April 12th, 2011 at 9:39 am
I just stopped having any sympathy for 'clean players' during the steroid era. They were silent sheep. Everyone who was present is partly to blame.
April 13th, 2011 at 8:17 pm
I still remember the thrill I got when I walked through the HOF the first time, i was 10 years old in the summero f1963. For three weeks my dad and I had a guys only baseball only vacation. We did nothing but talk about baseball. and go to baseball games. Sitll one of the highlights of my life. We went to a bunch of games in New York and drove to Cooperstown. And I saw the plaques of Rugh and Gehrig and Cobb and Johnson and Di Maggio fopr the first of many times. ..
They certainly werent saints.....Since that first starry eyed look at their plaques I learned that Cobb was a psychopath, DiMaggio banged a lot of showgirls and the Babe....well in all ways bigger then life.
But they gave everything they had ot the game...and so did Roberto Clemente and Doggie Perez and Juan Marichal
I NEVER got the feeling that Manny Ramirez cared about baseball or anyone but himself. And he cheated.
Read Ryne Sandberg speech of thanks when he was inducted and the gist of it is why I think it ll take a LONG time if ever before Manny Ramirez gets in....
.
April 13th, 2011 at 11:04 pm
@ # 112...
Delightful recollection of your youth, Dennis. Thank you.
April 14th, 2011 at 4:44 pm
re 102
With respect your analogy is off.
The Presidents of the US are part of the public trust...and that trust includes the history of the United States. They are elected by the Electoral college acting as a resul tof the deciisons of the registered voters of the US,
In the last electionof Obama vs..McCain, I blieve that more then 85,000,000 ballots were cast. You cannot ignore anyone who goes before the Americna people and wins a mandate and that includes Nixon or Harding or anyone seen as a weaker president.
The HOf does not elect players, the BBWA of America does so, maybe 450 men and women. Its a PRIVATE association, it is not part of the PUBIC trust and major league baseball (as much as Ken Burns would want you to think otherwise ) is a collection of PRIVATE businesses, administered loosely by the Office of the Commisisoner. and in the case of Bud Selig. VERY loosely
The BBWA can vote for whoever they damn please and when they want. within those 15 years and after that the VC can jack a player around endlessly...As in the case of Joe Medwick who had personality issues but was a hell of a hitter and a Triple Crown winner and he finally got in.....20 years after he retired...and on a VC vote.
It is a shame that Bonds and Clemens and Ramirez and mcGwire and Sosa and Palmeiro made their deals with the devil and took PEds when they were banned...Certainly Bonds and Clemens were undisputable legit HOF ers well before they took PEDS.
Bonds was convicted.....and after years of bieng nasty to almost everyone, I hoe he gets some time and his cellmate is six nine and 350 pounds and says to Barry....... .....now you be my b....H ..
รง
.And maybe Clemes will be convicted and as great as they were.....I cant see putitng their plaques up. maybe a permanent exhibition that describes the PED era and the players who posted their numbers in that era. .