Thursday, October 23, 2008

At Least Ned Colletti is Consistent

I have to give Dodgers GM Ned Colletti for this, at least he's consistent. Colletti has historically refused to give out long term deals that could potentially kill a franchise over the long haul (except for Juan Pierre!). Instead, he chooses to give out less years with more money per season because hey, if these shorter contracts go bad (see Jason Schmidt, Andruw Jones), then the franchise will simply be paralyzed, not killed. The Dodgers have been successful with these types of contracts before (see Rafael Furcal, Brad Penny); so it comes as no surprise to me that Colletti is willing to pay Manny Ramirez the big bucks (A-Rod money) for only two or three seasons.

From ESPN.com:
"Ramirez has said publicly that he is looking for a long-term deal. Sources told SI.com that the Dodgers might be willing to pay Ramirez Alex Rodriguez-type money, but only for two years."
Could you imagine if Manny Ramirez received a two year/$54 million dollar contract? I mean, wow, I know the guy is an absolute stud at the plate, but how comfortable would you be paying that much for a guy, who does not have the best track record in terms of playing hard or playing defense.

With that said, in this situation, I think the Dodgers have no choice. If the Dodgers failed to make a major push to sign Manny, they would be crucified in the media. If the Dodgers fail to sign Manny, the media will more than likely bash Colletti and upper management. They need Manny, case closed. Dodger fans need to see Manny's goofy dreadlocks and Turk Wendell like #99 wearing royal blue for the Dodgers next season. And for all my Colletti bashing, I think that this type of deal would be best for both sides. Manny gets his money while the Dodgers get their superstar and a major draw to the ballpark.

If the Dodgers are going to make a real hard push for Manny, this is the way to do it. Be aware though, if some team overwhelms Manny with a 4 or 5 year deal for $100-$125 mil, then pass. It's not worth it.

No comments: