Pete, the Dodgers declined to renew Brad Penny making him a free agent. Soes this make him a free agent that does not need to be compensated with draft picks like an A or B free agent? That might make him more attractive than Burnett (A) or Jon Garland (B). Also, who ya got in the Jones/Calzaghe fight this weekend?

..............................................................................................
Pete's reply: Calzaghe. Have to get back to you on the compensation question.

Excellent post. Especially Boras' brain.

I think he has a point, but I don't begrudge the players the money they make because lack of money to the players, hence all money to the owners, was the root of the 1919 Black Sox scandal (needless to say Peter Angelos and George Steinbrenner don't need any more money). I respect Ryan Braun a lot more than I did before (me being indifferent to him before) because he said: "There's not a lot I can't buy with 48 million dollars." Are we capitalists, socialists or what? Do the players deserve all of the money they make to play a game? Probably not, but do I deserve 8.60 per hour to stock shelves at Wal Mart? Who's to say?

So I guess this guy agrees with Biden that it you patriotic duty to pay more taxes. Listen, it's the players' money not Obama's until he extorts it through threat of prosecution by the IRS. Anything anyone can legally do to keep it out of the federal waste machine is fine with me.

B ought to stop worrying about other people's money. B also ought to stop worrying about GMs overpaying for talent on the decline, with one exception. I'm all for a GM burdening his organization with a dubious contract, unless that GM is Andy MacPhail.

Huh,

These stats are predominantly pre-steroid era. Barry Bonds numbers actually were better in his late 30's so what's your point? No one is worth these sums but if your generalizing todays atheletes have chemical assistance to go along with work outs that make their productivity go longer. I wouldn't sign anyone over 34 years of age unless they had been with my organization for a long time already and you knew what you were getting.

Either way, point taken, just not well taken as many GMs will offer to layout big bucks for Manny, the Dodgers already offered $25M a year for 2-3 years.

I agree with much of this, but Bonds would have hit 35-40 HRs in each of his last two seasons (aged 41, 42) had he not struggled with injuries. Let me stress--he would have EASILY hit that many.

The whole question comes down to whether Manny can stay healthy. If he signs with the Dodgers or any other NL team, his chances are greatly reduced. L.A., who offered him a huge two-year contract, wisely don't want to run the risk.

However, should Ramirez return to the AL as a DL it's conceivable that he could have a few productive years in after 40. Even then, though, the question is: how productive?

$25M productive? I seriously doubt it. If Manny can stay healthy and last that long, he has a decent chance to be the fourth player to reach rarified 700 HR peak.

I somewhat disagree with 'B' about Boras. Boras is just being Boras, artificially inflating both the length and dollar amount of the proposed contract as high as he can go, even though he knows it's unrealistic. It's a matter of being able to come down some in his demands and still make a killing.

Peter, SI is reporting that the Orioles have moved ahead of the Dodgers in the pursuit of Manny Ramirez. You can read about it here:

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2008/writers/jon_heyman/11/06/dodgers.ramirez/index.html

Wouldn't that $25 million be better spent on Texeira? If you are going to spend that much money, how does Ramirez make sense?

..............................................................................................
Pete's reply: I'm not in Baltimore right now, but I find that hard to believe.

Pete,
Maybe you can help me out. For some reason I can't figure out what is taking so long to name the "player to be named" in the Bradford trade. To me it would be kinda simple, they should already have the players names they want. I think MacPhail is doing an ok job but it just seems like he beats around the bush to much, for example look how he waiteds to the last possible minute to sign the last two draft picks.

Well I have nowhere else to vent so far but here so here it goes: Markakis not winning the one of the Outfield Gold Gloves in an outrage. What a joke!

pete... an article on SI.com said the orioles are among the top 3 teams to get manny. please tell me this isn't true!

If we have to use Baez as a starter we may as well start trying to figure out who we're going to draft number 1 ovarall in 2010. A guy coming off of Tommy John surgery who before the surgery was mediocre at best as a reliever wants to be a starter?

Wow.

"Just for for..."?

Hank Aaron "played in 137 games in 1974, but only 112 in '74..."

Who is b's editor? That guy needs to pick it up! He's making b sound like an idiot!

But really... I meant:

"Just for fun..."

and

Hank Aaron "played in 137 games in 1975, but only 112 in '74..."

Thanks for the publicity, Pete. Not too much more of it or people are going to figure out who I am.

Oh, I almost forgot. Sorry about the golf game. Enjoy the rest of your vacation.

The Orioles in the hunt for Manny Ramirez ? Where is Jon Heyman getting that? Can't be from the O's, that's for sure.

Clearly, he hasn't read quotes from Andy MacPhail about how the team wants to stay away from older players as it's counter to rebuilding. Even for the sake of argument, that the O's might make an exception in the case of a player with Manny's ability, they would offer terms similar to the Dodgers, rather that a long-term contract.

Still, since Heyman brings up the subject I have an image of Ramirez in an Oriole uniform that's really awfully enticing. Manny taking aim at Camden's cozy left field bleachers with NO Green Monster to bang off of or hit over = 50 to 60 homers. He could put up better numbers than he ever had at Cleveland or Boston.

It's not going to happen, I know, but still a very intriguing thought.

Incidentally, Nick Markakis was cheated out of a Gold Glove imho. There were not three better outfielders in the AL. Maybe next year the injustice will be corrected, but I'm not holding my breath.

Since today's blog entry is in my words, I feel that I need to defend myself. Here goes:

To Paul B Towson: I don't think paying taxes is patriotic. My first choice for president was Ron Paul, who wants to abolish the federal income tax. But the media picked John McCain as the Republican candidate, so that idea went up in smoke.

Either way, I didn't even say anything about whether or not these ballplayers should be paying higher taxes or whether or not I think it's ridiculous that agents are going to go for bigger signing bonuses to avoid higher taxes. All I was saying is that I think it's ridiculous that players and agents are so worried about having to pay more taxes when they already make more money than they can spend.

-----

To Ken Francis: From 2000 - 2004, excluding the outlying 73 homer season, Bonds hit a homer every 8.9 at-bats. In 2006 and 2007, he hit one every 13.1 at-bats. A 35 homer season with a homer ever 13.1 at-bats translates to 458 at-bats, a figure Bonds last eclipsed in 2001, mostly due to how often he was walked. You also mentioned Bonds' late-career injuries. Where do you think those injuries came from? Don't you think that his age had a hand in them? There's a reason that most guys either don't play or don't perform too well in their 40's.

b -- Where did Bonds' injuries come from? Age? Okay, I'll buy that to an extent...but don't you think part of it came from his, ah, "meds?" (Steroid use has it's consequences, you know.)

Also, I emphasized Manny needing to get on an AL team, where he'll be able to DH, for him to be productive at 40 and beyond. Bonds' injuries were mainly to his knees, which really take their toll on an outfielder. (The Dodgers, then, really aren't a good fit for Ramirez.)

As for the homer run per at bat rate, in my opinion this translated more to him being off for extended periods than to eroding abilities. When a player, after being on the DL for several months, is going straight into games without any rehab in the minors (as Bonds atttempted) there's inevitably going to be rust, no matter whether a player's 42 or 22.

If we broaden the discussion to players other than power-hitters, a number of them have done very well after 40, including Nolan Ryan (threw till be was 46, including two no-hitters, a 300+ K season and four other years of 200+ K), Warren Spahn (two seasons of 20 + wins after age 40, including 1963, when he went 23-7, 2.60 ERA), Satchel Paige (6-1, 2.38 on 1948 World Champion Indians' team), Rickey Henderson (109 SB after his 40th birthday), Julio Franco (several effective years as a utility player for the Braves, including 2004 when he hit .309 in 320 AB at age 45), Phil Nieko (16-8 at age 45), Jamie Moyer (21-7 at 40, 16-7 at 45 for this year's WS Champion Phillies), and Randy Johnson (went 50-33 from 40-42).

When you factor in things like superior conditioning and modern sports medicine for today's athletes, then the possibility of players performing at a high level is better today than at any time in the past. Ramirez has also stayed away from any serious injuries in his career. Throwing out 1993, when he was only up for 22 games and his rookie season in '94 (91 games), he's averaged a very durable 142 games year.

Ken -

It doesn't make sense to broaden the discussion to players other than power hitters. I can rattle a few of those guys off the top of my head too: Tony Gwynn, Pete Rose, Lou Brock. But Manny Ramirez is a power hitter, so it doesn't make sense to compare him to a few power pitchers (Ryan, Johnson), a couple of ultimate outliers (Paige, who tossed a few shutout innings for the KC A's when he was 58, and Franco) and some soft tossers (Niekro and Moyer). If you were looking for the blender that would last the longest, would you compare it to a toaster oven? No. It makes sense to compare Manny to other power hitters.

(And for the record, Ricky Henderson had a solid year for the Mets in 1999, when he turned 40, but after that, he never again hit over .230 in the bigs and then faded into Independent League obscurity.)

More on this later...

Ken -

Conditioning and overall information about health and training is obviously far superior in 2008 than it was in 1948, 1968 or even 1988. That's a given.

But (and there's always a but), power hitters still aren't performing well into their 40s. I'd love for you to find me a 40something-year-old power hitter from sometime over the past 10 or 15 years (the "Training Era") who finished in the top 10 in any power category (hr, rbi, slg, ops, etc). There's one exception though. No steroid users. That means no Bonds. Wow... That's tough. I'll tell you what. If you can find a 39-year-old, I'll take it.

The fact is, most old power guys just can't hack it. Don't you find it telling that since MLB instituted a serious drug testing policy, the old guys have ridden of into the sunset and given the power game over to Ryan Howard, Albert Pujols, Josh Hamilton and Miguel Cabrera?

And back to Bonds for a second. MLB put that new drug testing policy in place in the spring of 2006. In 2004, Bonds hit 45 homers, one every 8.3 at bats. Then, he missed all of 2005 due to elbow surgery, came back without steroids and didn't come close to his previous power output. Without steroids, he was human again. Still very good, but nowhere near as good as he was on the juice.

And just for fun, in 1999, Bonds only played in 102 games (because of a knee injury, I believe) and still hit 34 homers, one every 10.4 at bats.