Navigation: Jump to content areas:


Pro Quality. Fan Perspective.
Login-facebook
Around SBN: How Not To Criticize Tom Brady For The Patriots' Loss

Manny Ramirez Deal To White Sox Now Done

Manny Ramirez is now a member of the White Sox, as the Dodgers let him go on a straight waiver claim, per multiple reports by Jayson Stark of ESPN, Jon Heyman of Sports Illustrated, and Bob Nightengale of USA Today. The Dodgers could have taken a prospect or two back in exchange for paying a portion of Manny's remaining salary, per Stark:

The teams talked about scenarios where #Dodgers would have paid up to $1.5M of contract depending on prospect they got. Never agreed on that.

Per Nightengale:

The Dodgers rejected the White Sox's offer and simply let Ramirez go on a waiver claim.

With 35 days left in the 183-day season, the White Sox are on the hook for $3,825,137, the remainder of his $20 million salary this season. Thank you, Jayson Stark, for actually reporting this number rather than use (wrongly) estimated numbers as so many others have.

By my rough estimate, the Dodgers have paid, and will pay, Manny $35,344,263 for his total time as a Dodger.

The Dodgers will likely call someone up for tonight's game to take Manny's place on the roster. But, with outfielders Jay Gibbons and Reed Johnson on the team, and the active roster limit expanding Wednesday, don't be surprised if the initial addition today is not an outfielder, but rather a reliever (just not Travis Schlichting, as he is on the disabled list), or as Mike Petriello of Mike Scioscia's Tragic Illness surmised, perhaps Juan Castro.

UPDATE: The Dodgers have recalled reliever Ramon Troncoso to take Manny's roster spot.

Comment 70 comments  |  0 recs  | 

Do you like this story?

Comments

Display:

Manny's White Sox debut tomorrow night

Manny waited for deal to be finalized before leaving for Cleveland. Flight lands tonite, but too late for game.

Manny’s White Sox debut is scheduled for Tuesday against Cleveland.

http://twitter.com/BNightengale

by Alex41592 on Aug 30, 2010 11:52 AM PDT reply actions  

I was all for trading Manny last week

and then we refused to use him to try to win some games that could actually have helped us, and then just dumped him. Thanks dodgers for finding another way to dampen my enthusiasm!

Have you ever tried just turning off the TV, sitting down with your children, and hitting them?

by nolander on Aug 30, 2010 11:53 AM PDT reply actions  

I know!

I was completely frustrated that he was benched through the Rockies series.

by DodgerSF on Aug 30, 2010 11:56 AM PDT up reply actions  

Don't know what to make of all this

Did Dodgers do the right thing? The prospects offered were probably nowhere near the ones we’d initially dreamed of. If that’s the case then this is probably the right deal. But to a fan’s eye, given divorce trial and the reputation, fair or not, of McCourt’s finances, one could cynically think that money won’t go to help the team. I’m actually not quite the cynical (the Zach Lee signing coup helped), but still… spending a little more money and getting a good prospect would’ve been nice.

There's no need to fear, Underdog is here! / Broncos/Dodgers/Lakers fan in Niners/Raiders/Giants/Warriors country, and damned proud of it.

by underdog on Aug 30, 2010 11:53 AM PDT reply actions  

If this money does go towards the trial

and Frank gets to keep the team, is it worth it? I say yes.

by Jesse S. on Aug 30, 2010 11:55 AM PDT up reply actions  

I’d rather have taken a lottery ticket C prospect than saved a really, really small amount of money.

It’s less than a million in savings every year until 2012, then it goes up to about 2 in 2013. That’s pretty useless.

by regfairfield on Aug 30, 2010 11:56 AM PDT up reply actions   1 recs

I am okay with the idea of using the money to “buy” a prospect or two.

My feeling on Manny was this:

Manny stays = no help for 2011 & beyond
Manny leaves = keep $3.8m

I’m OK with transferring the money into something that helps in the future. Absolutely.

by Eric Stephen on Aug 30, 2010 12:10 PM PDT up reply actions  

The straight waiver claim is a little unfulfilling because it is hard for us to completely evaluate the transaction. We don’t know what is going to happen with the money saved, hopefully it will be used to pick up someone useful for next season.

by OB12 on Aug 30, 2010 12:15 PM PDT up reply actions  

Yeah, I just have to assume it will be parlayed, but of course it’s just speculation.

by Eric Stephen on Aug 30, 2010 12:18 PM PDT up reply actions  

I am kinda have a feeling that it will one way or another but it is hard to tell right now, which is a little unsettling

by OB12 on Aug 30, 2010 12:22 PM PDT up reply actions  

Yeah I guess that's what I was feeling about it too

Maybe we should see what kinds of moves Dodgers make in the off season before really evaluating what this means and what direction they’ll be headed. It’s just… unsatisfying.

There's no need to fear, Underdog is here! / Broncos/Dodgers/Lakers fan in Niners/Raiders/Giants/Warriors country, and damned proud of it.

by underdog on Aug 30, 2010 12:24 PM PDT up reply actions  

The fact that we have to question it at all is a huge problem IMO, and that’s what sucks about it.

by Eric Stephen on Aug 30, 2010 12:24 PM PDT up reply actions  

Indeed

There's no need to fear, Underdog is here! / Broncos/Dodgers/Lakers fan in Niners/Raiders/Giants/Warriors country, and damned proud of it.

by underdog on Aug 30, 2010 12:26 PM PDT up reply actions  

That’s the point. We can’t judge this until we see where the money goes. Oswalt? Worth it. Pods? Not worth it. I suspect it will be Pods, but the off-season is all about hope.

"There’s no reason I can give you that makes sense. A lot of what I do is a feel thing."

by Little Blue Bicycle on Aug 30, 2010 12:30 PM PDT up reply actions  

Would love to get Oswalt for $3.8M over three years. :)

by Xeifrank on Aug 30, 2010 1:12 PM PDT up reply actions  

Eric, was it you or somebody else that said Manny gave us something like 7.7 WAR over his 2+ seasons with us?

by Xeifrank on Aug 30, 2010 11:57 AM PDT reply actions  

I believe it was 7.1 (3.1 of which was 2008)

by Eric Stephen on Aug 30, 2010 11:59 AM PDT up reply actions  

Then I’d say we just about got what we paid for from Manny. Given the $35.3M and 7.1 WAR numbers you’ve given.

by Xeifrank on Aug 30, 2010 12:02 PM PDT up reply actions  

Where it breaks down is when you realize we only paid $1 million of that for 2008.

I can’t defend the 2-year contract, but I will say that with Manny the offense was very good, and you just wonder if they didn’t spend that money on Manny what would they have spent the money on instead? That’s where it gets murky.

by Eric Stephen on Aug 30, 2010 12:04 PM PDT up reply actions  

Right. We took our house money and slowly lost it to the point of breaking even.

by Xeifrank on Aug 30, 2010 12:06 PM PDT up reply actions  

Spot on.

Of course, then you have to come to terms with whether it was all worth it or not.

by prosellis on Aug 30, 2010 12:10 PM PDT up reply actions  

If you can even remember what happened.

“Didn’t we once have a shaggy haired Dominican play for us?”

by Jesse S. on Aug 30, 2010 12:11 PM PDT up reply actions   1 recs

Assuming no one knew about the PED issue, I still think it wasn’t a horrible contract. At the end of 2008 I seem to recall numbers like $100m/4 being thrown around. Thank god that didn’t come through.

by prosellis on Aug 30, 2010 12:08 PM PDT up reply actions  

this molly knight tweet from this morning made me lol for real

McCourt trial begins tomorrow. Have to board train at 5:50 a.m to get there. If they settle between 5:51 and 8:30 I will stab an innocent.

by hee came hee seop'd he choi'd on Aug 30, 2010 11:59 AM PDT reply actions   1 recs

That's tremendous, hahaha

"If we hit that bull's eye, the rest of the dominoes will fall like a house of cards. Checkmate"

by Ivdown on Aug 30, 2010 12:20 PM PDT up reply actions  

How do insurance policies on players work?

Do the Dodgers get any money for when Manny was injured? I know on some long term injuries (a la Jason Schmidt) they can get some relief, but I didn’t know if the same applies to short stints like Manny had this year.

by prosellis on Aug 30, 2010 12:04 PM PDT reply actions  

It all depends on the individual case of course, but usually the payoff comes with long-term disabilities, like out-for-the-year stuff. Also, in recent years the insurance policies have become so expensive as to almost be prohibitive, to the point where I’m not sure how prevalent the policies are anymore.

by Eric Stephen on Aug 30, 2010 12:07 PM PDT up reply actions  

Prospect being discussed last night

The prospect being discussed last night was Jon Gilmore a 3rd baseman. Didn’t see any catchers in their system that were all that enticing. If we knew the money was going towards player development or a signing next year, I can accept it, but the Mcourt’s credibility is so low, wouldn’t be surprised if it goes right into the lawyers pockets.

by wineracquet on Aug 30, 2010 12:05 PM PDT reply actions  

wouldn’t be surprised if it goes right into the lawyers pockets.

Again, if that results in a win for Frank, that’s money well worth it.

by Jesse S. on Aug 30, 2010 12:07 PM PDT up reply actions  

Miguel Gonzalez...

looked interesting to me. Really wish they would have bought a prospect…

@neufaustcan

by uclatroy on Aug 30, 2010 12:23 PM PDT up reply actions  

That’s the guy I would have taken. Gilmore didn’t interest me much—close to 40 errors so far and his hitting has tailed off.

"There’s no reason I can give you that makes sense. A lot of what I do is a feel thing."

by Little Blue Bicycle on Aug 30, 2010 12:27 PM PDT up reply actions  

They have several catchers in their system I could find enticing

But on the other hand realistically none of them would be offered in this deal.

There's no need to fear, Underdog is here! / Broncos/Dodgers/Lakers fan in Niners/Raiders/Giants/Warriors country, and damned proud of it.

by underdog on Aug 30, 2010 12:25 PM PDT up reply actions  

Time for lunch at court!
DodgerDivorce Frank’s lawyer: I honestly believe a junior high student could understand the effect of the MPA 1 minute ago

by Jesse S. on Aug 30, 2010 12:10 PM PDT reply actions  

haha, that made me laugh.

I wonder how I can get a hold of this MPA. Wonder if it publically filed or filed under seal. Would like to read it…

by DodgerSF on Aug 30, 2010 12:12 PM PDT up reply actions  

Josh Fisher over at Dodger Divorce has a great overview of the trial. Not the actual MPA docs, but the next best thing.

by Eric Stephen on Aug 30, 2010 12:15 PM PDT up reply actions  

Ya, I read DodgerDivorce. Great page!

http://www.latimes.com/media/acrobat/2009-10/50119432.pdf

137 pages of the original Divorce papers. Not sure if the MPA is in there though.

by DodgerSF on Aug 30, 2010 12:19 PM PDT up reply actions  

McCourt
DodgerDivorce Frank claims to have six witnesses who will testify to Jamie’s role in creating the MPA 1 minute ago

by Jesse S. on Aug 30, 2010 12:15 PM PDT up reply actions  

Jamie
DodgerDivorce Susman: “jamie is trying to become the first spouse ever in the state of California to invalidate an MPA she proposed.” 1 minute ago

by Jesse S. on Aug 30, 2010 12:16 PM PDT up reply actions  

That doesn’t bode well for Jamie.

by prosellis on Aug 30, 2010 12:21 PM PDT up reply actions  

On a side note:

How great is Twitter for leaking courtroom proceedings that we used to have to wait at least a few hours to hear?

by prosellis on Aug 30, 2010 12:22 PM PDT up reply actions  

Is it Good Troncoso or the Zombie Troncoso

who replaced him this year and sucked? ;-)

There's no need to fear, Underdog is here! / Broncos/Dodgers/Lakers fan in Niners/Raiders/Giants/Warriors country, and damned proud of it.

by underdog on Aug 30, 2010 12:26 PM PDT up reply actions  

Who will take Manny’s place on the 40-man?

by OB12 on Aug 30, 2010 12:24 PM PDT reply actions  

Castro, on Wednesday, is one.

by Eric Stephen on Aug 30, 2010 12:25 PM PDT up reply actions  

But we are at 38 right now on the 40-man. Castro will make 39, and of all the non-roster guys, I would guess Russ Mitchell has the best shot at getting added since he’ll have to be added to the 40-man this winter anyway.

by Eric Stephen on Aug 30, 2010 12:27 PM PDT up reply actions  

Insurance

I think it was Jon over at dodger thoughts who said that these insurance policies are expensive and not so common anymore. So there might have been no recovery from Schmidt etc.

by David in Florida on Aug 30, 2010 12:24 PM PDT reply actions  

Vegas

I know whenever I go to vegas, if I win big in the beginning, and play on their money. I consider it a success even if I lose most of it back. I think we ‘kept’ some of our winnings with Manny. Our two best seasons in 20 years. And certainly the owners profitted from all that extra cash and probably got all their money back.

by David in Florida on Aug 30, 2010 12:27 PM PDT reply actions  

Not sure the success of 2008

has to be parlayed in to a loser hand. We don’t know what the team might have done if they didn’t have their hands tied with the Manny contract in 2009/2010. A plethora of opportunities may not have been explored to their fullest because of the Manny contract.

As far as measuring Manny he was great in 2008 but I don’t see how you tie 2008 into his free agent contract.

We paid him 35,000,000 for not much production. You all may consider it house money but I consider it opportunities lost.

Patience is for those who die waiting for something to happen

by Phil Gurnee on Aug 30, 2010 12:38 PM PDT up reply actions  

But I don't think the Dodgers were going to go long term with CC

in 2009, that would be just too much time and money.

I think we would have seen JP play LF in 2009.

by bhsportsguy on Aug 30, 2010 12:48 PM PDT up reply actions  

They could have gotten Dunn or Abreau

Have you ever tried just turning off the TV, sitting down with your children, and hitting them?

by nolander on Aug 30, 2010 1:32 PM PDT up reply actions  

Would've been better to parlay

the winnings into buying a hooker. j/k of course, trying to stick to the Vegas/Manny theme.

by Xeifrank on Aug 30, 2010 1:14 PM PDT up reply actions  

The Dodgers did not have a lot of leverage in this deal

This wasn’t like a trade at the July 31 deadline, the White Sox did not have to offer anyone to the Dodgers to get Manny since they already had taken the risk of absorbing the contract by making the waiver claim. The only thing the Dodgers could do was offer to pay some of the contract for a player but again, unless the White Sox really wanted not to pay the contract, they had no real incentive to offer anyone of real value.

It came down to the question of did the Dodgers ultimately want to get some salary relief and send Manny to Chicago or keep him for a probably pointless last month.

So the idea that the Dodgers had any chance to land anyone of note from the White Sox was slim unless they were willing to maybe take on most if not all of the contract, and I doubt given the players the White Sox were willing the trade, that there was anyone in their system they thought was worth that kind of money.

by bhsportsguy on Aug 30, 2010 12:31 PM PDT reply actions   1 recs

Vegas again

Also, unlike the owners, the fans are just in it for fun and entertainment. I am not a big gambler, so if I can stay in Vegas for a few days and go home with some money in my pocket I am happy. Manny gave me plenty of entertainment for his 2+ years

by David in Florida on Aug 30, 2010 12:34 PM PDT reply actions  

I agree, even though there were ups and downs

seemed like the take for Manny came out as a net positive. I guess when they say you go to Vegas and break even, consider it a win. This year sucks all the way around and this is not the way we would have liked to have ended Manny’s time here, but we did get an incredible half a season out of him for peanuts (in baseball terms). Contended for the NL pennant 2 years in a row, and the Dodgers sold a lot of tickets and merchandise based on his name. There are a lot of difficult decisions ahead, I just hope there is enough to go around to get this team on track again next year.

"Follow your dreams, you can reach your goals, I'm living proof. Beefcake. BEEFCAAKE!!" --Eric Cartman

by S Jay Bruin on Aug 30, 2010 12:41 PM PDT up reply actions  

I for one am very disappointed

Not that nothing was got in return or that McC gets additional $ for attorneys, I am disappointed in how the weekend played out. I truly believe that Joe was told not to play him and that came from higher than Ned. And if I am wrong than it is even worse because then the “baseball guys” (ned,joe, donnie) actually believe that PodBoy playing gives them a better a better chance to win that Manny Ramirez playing does.

this whole thing playing out as the Divorce trial starts where we have a debt laden owner fighting with his adulterer wife over control of the team makes me very jaded. and contrary to Jesse S’s opinion I am starting to lean toward the hope that the team becomes community property and they are forced to sell. I know the next owner could somehow be worse but I really have a hard time imagining how and a change of the magnitude that a new owner should bring is what is needed. Keep Ng and LW and make DeJOn the GM (a tough feat, but money does talk) wipe the rest out. Hire Tim Wallach let him pick his staff, possibly suffer a couple of years of rebuilding but come out far better by 2013 than the present owner and GM would.

by MammothDodger on Aug 30, 2010 12:38 PM PDT reply actions  

Feel sorry for Torre

I never thought I would say that. As much as he made crazy with his game and lineup decisions , I have to believe that under ‘normal’ circumstances he would have had Manny in there 2 or 3 of those games. Even if he took him out after 5 or 6 innings. But he was forced to make up those stories to keep Manny ‘safe’ Lucky for him it didn’t drag on any longer. What more could he have come up with?

by David in Florida on Aug 30, 2010 12:44 PM PDT up reply actions  

I would hope you are right

I do think that Joe is a good, not great, game manager and matchup maker. But above all else he is a “team player” that will take one for the boss, be it Frank Ned or in an earlier time the BOSS in pinstripes

by MammothDodger on Aug 30, 2010 12:51 PM PDT up reply actions  

The problem with that argument is that Pods actually played pretty well in Denver

Because as a singles hitter with some speed, he is going to be able to take advantage of the dimensions (like Juan Pierre) plus he played the field better than Manny.

Andre Ethier’s performance yesterday had more to do (along with Lilly’s) with the loss than Pods playing instead of Manny.

by bhsportsguy on Aug 30, 2010 12:46 PM PDT reply actions  

it wa kcal so I could not see

but was there really any plays that Pod made that Manny would not of?

and just the reference to JP must invalidate the argument.

by MammothDodger on Aug 30, 2010 12:48 PM PDT up reply actions  

I think one

but I don’t think Manny would have made a hill of beans of difference this weekend. This ain’t 2008.

Patience is for those who die waiting for something to happen

by Phil Gurnee on Aug 30, 2010 12:51 PM PDT up reply actions  

Manny's career tOPS+ at Coors Field

was 54, only his numbers at Petco were lower in around the same number of PA (60+) at 51.

Juan Pierre as a 121 tOPS+ lifetime at Coors, Scotty Pods is at 81.

However, Manny’s career numbers at Arizona was 187.

by bhsportsguy on Aug 30, 2010 12:56 PM PDT up reply actions  

Comments For This Post Are Closed


User Tools

A place for Dodger fans to congregate without spending $15 on parking.

FanPosts

Community blog posts and discussion.

Recommended FanPosts

2011-philly-game-me__2__small
2011 Dodgers Spreadsheet Project
Ed-ak286_scully_g_20091006143938_small
It is time to play - Name the BA Top 30
P1010315_small
1st Trip to LA
Small
Take me out to the bid game.
Sbn_ds_small
And Down The Stretch The Dodgers Go

Recent FanPosts

Small
DODGERS -- 2 GREAT SEATS FOR SALE
Small
Joe Torre Horrow Show
Small
Are you the Biggest Dodger Fan?
Small
San Diego Road Trip April 7
Dgy_small
Dodger Blogs Softball - Sign Up For The TBLA Team Today

+ New FanPost All FanPosts >

2012 Dodgers Payroll

Italics denote estimates
Pos No Player 2012 Salary
C 17 Ellis $500,000 team control
1B 7 Loney $6,375,000
2B 14 Ellis $2,500,000
3B 5 Uribe $8,000,000
SS 9 Gordon $485,000 team control
LF 21 Rivera $4,000,000
CF 27 Kemp $10,000,000
RF 16 Ethier $10,950,000

IF/OF 6 Hairston $2,250,000
OF 10 Gwynn $850,000
2B/3B 3 Kennedy $800,000
C 18 Treanor $850,000
IF 12 Sellers $485,000 team control

SP 22 Kershaw $8,500,000 arb
SP 58 Billingsley $9,000,000
SP 29 Lilly $12,000,000
SP 37 Capuano $3,000,000
SP 44
Harang $3,000,000

CL 54 Guerra $485,000 team control
RHP 74
Jansen $500,000 team control
RHP 55 Guerrier $4,750,000
RHP Coffey $1,000,000
RHP 66 MacDougal $650,000
LHP 57 Elbert $485,000 team control
RHP 36
Hawksworth $500,000 team control

TJ 41 De La Rosa $485,000 team control



Manny $8,087,432 deferred


Andruw $3,375,000 deferred


Pierre $3,050,000 deferred
Furcal $3,000,000 deferred
Kuroda $2,000,000 deferred
Garland $1,500,000 option buyout
Blake $1,250,000 option buyout

Totals
$114,662,432

For more detailed information, click here.

Players on 40-man roster used as roster
fillers until moves are made.

Current 40-man roster count: 40
(not including Belisario)

2012 Non-Roster Invitees

No Player Age*
63 Jose Ascanio rhp
27
61 Alberto Castillo lhp
36
60 Matt Chico lhp
29
35 John Grabow lhp
33
59 Angel Guzman rhp
30
47 Wil Ledezma lhp
31
72 Shane Lindsay rhp
27
62 Fernando Nieve rhp 29
73 Scott Rice lhp 30
70 Will Savage rhp
27
71 Ryan Tucker rhp
25

30 Josh Bard c 34
82 Griff Erickson c 24
81 Matt Wallachc 26
67 Jeff Baisley 3b/1b 29
62 Luis Cruz ss/2b 28
33 Josh Fields 3b 29
64 Lance Zawadzki if 27
56 Cory Sullivan of 32

*Age on June 30, 2012

NRI count: 19

For more info, click here.


Manager

Eric___ned___reporters_2011_trade_deadline_small Eric Stephen

Editors

100_1427_small Phil Gurnee

Dgy_small David Young

Hanauma_bay_small Chad Moriyama

2501_small Michael White

Raptors_small Brandon Lennox