Would you hire Manny Ramirez?
The slugger doing what he does best.
On Wednesday night, Manny Ramirez hit yet another postseason home run. Unfortunately for him, it was all the scoring the Dodgers could muster, and his exploits for this season have come to an end.
And some exploits they were. As though the future Hall-of-Famer needed any more luster on his hitting resume, he batted above .500 (!) and slugged more than 1.000 (!!) across the Dodgers’ series against the Cubs and the Phillies. Those numbers, along with Manny’s career marks of 527 homers, 1,725 runs batted in, and a .314 batting average, are sure to figure prominently in the sales pitch that super-agent Scott Boras will be making to interested teams this off-season, now that Ramirez is a free agent.
What price greatness?
In the economics of today’s game, a hitter of Ramirez’s rare skill should command more than $20 million per year. Heck, even I could negotiate with the Dodgers or the Yankees and get him a two-year, $40 million deal. Boras’s challenge, though, will be to get the 36-year-old Ramirez a multi-year agreement that will take the slugger through the end of his career in style. That means the agent will be gunning for a four- or five-year deal — but still at those sky-high annual rates.
Set aside Boras’s reputation for employing tactics that go beyond hardball, as well as Ramirez’s reputation for decreasing his level of effort when he’s unhappy. (On the eve of the playoffs, ESPN uber-columnist Bill Simmons published a lengthy, highly informed opus centered on the connection between these two themes.) The question remains whether it’s reasonable to guarantee that much money for that many years to a hitter who’s that old.
Disturbing precedents
Sure, a few of Ramirez’s historical peers — he doesn’t have many — have hit that well at 40. But plenty of other high-dollar stars have signed long-term deals when they were already long in the tooth . . . and then declined right on cue, while their teams were still forking out major sums for their services.
- Exhibit A — the once-otherworldly Pedro Martinez, who has made just 48 pitching starts for the New York Mets over the past three years, about half of a normal workload. During that time, he’s mostly been an average pitcher, not the juggernaut who won three Cy Young awards between 1997 and 2000.
- Exhibit B — the Over-the-Hill Gang employed by the New York Yankees in recent years: formerly-great players signed as free agents who helped the team with the largest payroll in the sport to miss the playoffs this year.
If I were Scott Boras (wait . . . I need a minute to stop shuddering), I’d certainly try to land my client a $100 million contract, for my own sake and his. If I were Frank McCourt (who own the Dodgers) or Hank Steinbrenner (whose family owns the Yankees), I’d think long and hard about the winner’s curse before deciding that the Manny Ramirez Sweepstakes was a contest I wanted to win.
~
(Photo by Mr. Littlehand, used by permission.)
Category: Management, The business of sportsIf you liked this post, please consider subscribing to the RSS feed so you can receive future articles delivered to your feed reader.
7 Comments so far
Leave A Comment
I’d sign him to a multi-year contract with a whole bunch of incentives tacked on after the first two years – then I’d buy up every dreadlock wig, shirt, cap, anything blue that has Manny’s name and stamp on it, and sell like crazy! In a couple of years the Dodgers might make back the last 2-3 years of that contract in merchandising revenue alone. Plus, he’ll fill seats. Did you see all the little kids at the games who had dread wigs on? Baseball is magical! And yes – I’d hire him in a New York minute!
I’m from Kansas City.. meaning the Royals.. Now I doubt they could/would shell out that kind of money, but I definitely would hire him if I could. The team out here is deflated, and they’ve been this way for a good amount of time. Even if it didn’t make the team a whole new team, it’d still help to revitalize the energy and draw once fans, like me, who are tired of the game, back into the stands.
I would definitely not sign Manny to a multi-year contract. He’s one injury away from being on the shelf for a long time. At his age you really have to consider if it’s worth shelling out all that money for one player becuase he’s defintely on the tail-end of his career.
I’d rather much acquire a pitcher with that money or try to improve my bullpen.
Forget his health–the guy’s poison in the clubhouse. As an employer, I wouldn’t want ANYONE around who feels the need to constantly badmouth the organization he’s working for.
He’s already told the Dodgers that he couldn’t care less whether he spends another season there. That’s a pretty big attitude he’s carrying around considering he’s paid $20mm a year to play a GAME.
So, no–I don’t think I’d any sooner hire Manny than I would Barry Bonds.
Glenda — Good idea. L.A. seems like a very good cultural fit for Manny, for reasons that Bill Simmons made clear in the article I linked to. Here’s the key quote from Manny himself:
“Baseball in Boston is like a Sunday football game, but played every day. We lose in L.A., I go to breakfast and people say, ‘Well, you’ll get them tomorrow.’ In Boston, it’s ‘Hey, what’s going on, the Yankees are coming.’ It’s just a different atmosphere. The fans in Boston got your back no matter what, but I’m talking about the people who write all this bull because it means so much to them. If your happiness depends on Boston winning or losing, you have to get a life.”
Mind you, this is coming from a guy who’s supposed to be a total airhead.
CoolProducts — While Manny-in-K.C. would certainly be an adventure, I think that Dee’s points are particularly relevant when you consider how much of the Royals’ payroll Manny would represent. Teams as bad as the Royals need more help than ANY one player can bring — whether we’re talking about help in winning games, or help in terms of putting butts in the seats.
Dee — Overall, I agree with you. That said, there are VERY few pitchers who could have as much impact on a team’s win column as Manny could over the next couple of seasons. But you could take, say, $25 million per year and get a couple of quality starters plus a bullpen stud. *That* would help a mediocre team more, plus spread out the risk of injury.
Cantabrig5 — In general, I agree with you about not wanting to hire anyone who’s not going to get with the program, who’s going to put his own moods above the health of the team, and so on.
That said, I have two objections to what you say:
1. Bonds is *demonstrably* in his own separate category of clubhouse poison, and Manny is nowhere close. If Simmons is right, Manny has needed (1) more tough-minded teammates to bring him in line, and (2) separation from Boras. Those things are not forthcoming, so no, I wouldn’t hire him either. But that’s a loooooooong way from the behavior that Bonds exhibited year after year.
2. It’s convenient for sports fans to fall back on the argument that stars are paid millions to play a kid’s game, ergo they should be grateful, humble, etc. And indeed, the best human beings among the great players (Mays, Clemente, Brett, et al.) do this. But Manny plays baseball to make money, and fans are happy to fork out money to watch him hit.
So whether we like it or not, it IS an economic transaction, and Manny IS worth $20MM+ on today’s market. So, little though I like it, he’s earned the right — economically — to express whatever attitude he cares to.