The Republic of Sport

Rikj

Rikj's Comments

Posted Tuesday August 25, 2009, About: Report: Some Vikings want Tarvaris over Brett

I don't really care about the Jets or Mark Sanchez, but are you honestly foolish enough to make career projections based on 2 pre-season games? Stop being absurd.

Posted Tuesday August 25, 2009, About: Manny hears boos in L.A.

Actually, he didn't. He tested positive for no banned substances whatsoever.

His test showed a high testosterone level, so MLB asked for his medical records to determine whether it was natural or influenced by a substance. The records he turned over from his doctor, showed he had been prescribed the fertility drug, which is a banned substance, and which he admitted to taking. He was suspended based on that, not on any positive test.

I understand facts may get in the way of humor sometimes, but I like to state them anyways.

Posted Tuesday August 25, 2009, About: Manny hears boos in L.A.

Well, I think the poster you quoted was simply giving the opinion that the Sox WITH Manny in '08 would have had a better shot at winning it all.

Whether or not the Dodgers won it all doesn't really have any bearing on that opinion.

Posted Tuesday August 25, 2009, About: Manny hears boos in L.A.

1) They wouldn't have even been in the playoffs without him.

2) He put up a ridiculous .520 BA, .667 OBP, 1.080 SLG, 1.747 OPS, 4 HRs and 10 RBIs in 8 playoff games.

Are you honestly trying to imply that the Dodgers didn't win because of Manny, and by extension, he wouldn't have improved the Red Sox chances of winning come playoff time?

The fact is that he changed LA from a team with zero shot at anything, to one that made it to the NLCS - and he performed big-time when they got there. I'm not sure how you can try to portray that as a negative.

Posted Tuesday August 25, 2009, About: Manny hears boos in L.A.

Yep, it's a team accomplishment to win, I agree. But that doesn't mean that any championship team still wins it if you take away their best player.

No one can say for certain what those teams would have done without Manny, but their chances at the title between 2000 and 2007 would have been far, far less wihtou him in the lineup, that's a certain fact. It is extremely likely that we would still be looking at 1918 as our last championship.

As for the quitting thing, again, you can blow any individual at bat, or fielding error, or lack of hustle out of proportion all you want, but hitting .347 for the last month in a Red Sox uniform cannot be considered "tanking it", by any reasonable individual.

Posted Tuesday August 25, 2009, About: Manny hears boos in L.A.

Quite an intelligent response.

You can be one of those bitter Sox fans if it makes you happy I suppose. For myself, I'm a Sox fan who understands the fact that we'd be going on 92 years without a WS title if not for Manny signing here in 2000. I appreciate everything he did for this franchise and wish him well in LA.

Posted Tuesday August 25, 2009, About: Manny hears boos in L.A.

You gotta love how some myths are accepted as fact after they are repeated often enough:

Myth 1 - Manny quit on the Red Sox.

Truth - While one has to admit that he was certainly a distraction while the trade deadline approached, the fact is he hit .347 with 16 RBIs during July of 2008, his last month with the team. No one hits .347 if they have quit trying. Some might say "But he didn't run out ground balls", as evidenced by the overblown clip of him trotting to first base during one of his last games there. Guess what? Even when Sox fans loved Manny and he was happy, he didn't always run out ground balls.

Myth 2 - His numbers since returning are a reflection of him playing without taking steroids.

Truth - If this is the case, why did he have 5 HRs and 17 RBIs in his first 16 games after returning from the suspension? The fact is slumps happen, even to the best players, and Manny has been in one for the better part of the last month. That's all.

Whether one loves Manny or hates him, he will come through when it counts for the Dodgers. His career OPS for the months of September and October is 1.028. That fact doesn't change, no matter what anyone wants to type in their little comment box.

Posted Wednesday August 19, 2009, About: Sharks strip Marleau, Thornton of captain's honors

You're right. In 41 playoff games with the Sharks, he has produced 35 points. Unfortunately, most sports fans never let go of their initial perception of something, so once that label was thrown on Thornton, they will never let it go. He could put up two points a game in the playoffs for the rest of his career, and people will credit it to his linemates, or weak opposing goaltenders, or ANYTHING that will still keep him labeled as someone who doesn't produce in the playoffs, no matter what he does.

Btw, that 2003-2004 playoff season when he produced zero points, he was trying to play through severely injured ribs wearing a flak jacket under his sweater basically. He wouldn't have even been on the ice with the injury if it was the regular season.

Posted Thursday July 23, 2009, About: Sponsor drops Manny bobblehead promotion

As a Red Sox fan, I agree with you 100%.

I understand why some people don't like Manny, and that's fine. But to claim that the team is better off without him, or that the Red Sox never should have signed him, or anything of the sort is just plain foolishness. Signing Manny as a free agent 9 years ago was the single most important move the Red Sox ever made. I absolutely appreciate everything he did for this franchise and am frankly embarrassed by idiots who don't.

Posted Wednesday July 22, 2009, About: Sponsor drops Manny bobblehead promotion

Ummm, make that 91 years...no idea what I was thinking when I added the extra 2 decades, lol.

Posted Wednesday July 22, 2009, About: Sponsor drops Manny bobblehead promotion

He didn't let me down in Boston. We'd be going on 111 years without a championship if he'd never signed here.

Posted Thursday February 26, 2009, About: Why Celtics want Marbury

That's true, nobody knows.

But the REAL bottom line is this:

If he pulls his act together, the Celtics are an improved team.

If he doesn't, they get rid of him and they are no worse or better off than they are today.

Every situation Marbury has been in where he has been deemed a "cancer" and ruined a team, he had leverage to do so whether it was a big albatross of a contract a team couldn't get rid of, or being counted on as a vital star of the team. Neither of those cases applies here. If he continues to be an idiot, the Celtics get rid of him and the failed experiment has not hurt the team in any way - they gave up no players, no draft picks and committed nothing to him in terms of the salary cap or the clubs future.

The move has the potential to help, and no possibility of hurting the team. You can't get a better deal than that.

Posted Wednesday February 25, 2009, About: Why Celtics want Marbury

What does that fragment of a sentence even mean?

There is no risk in this potential signing. Nada. Zip. That's the entire point. There is a potential upside if he is able to contribute, but zero downside if he's a bad fit.

Posted Wednesday February 25, 2009, About: Why Celtics want Marbury

While I am not predicting whether it will work or not, the real point is that there is NO downside to taking the chance.

They are giving up no players, no draft picks, and the amount of money they will pay him this year amounts to the salary of the team trainer.

If it works, great, they are a deeper team.

If it doesn't work, they cut him and end up exactly the same team they are today.

You can't make a better move than one that has some possibility to improve the team, and zero possibility to weaken it.

Posted Wednesday February 25, 2009, About: Why Celtics want Marbury

Right. And it's not even the full $1.3 million. It's pro-rated, which means it'll cost the Celtics about $300k - $400k for the rest of the season.

Posted Wednesday February 25, 2009, About: Why Celtics want Marbury

It's simply not in the realm of possibility for him to negatively affect the team chemistry.

Again, if he has the slightest attitude problem, they waive him. They've lost nothing. Until that time, a backup trying to show he can still play and earn some minutes on the floor, doesn't carry the weight to disrupt team chemistry. He's nothing.

In addition, the Celtics are not trading away anyone to acquire him, so it doesn't have the possibility to affect team chemistry from that angle either.

I'm not predicting anything about how successful it will be or won't be, but there is simply no potential downside. If it works and he accepts his role and improves the team, great. If it doesn't, they get rid of him and it cost them nothing but a few hundred thousand dollars and they are right back where they are now. It's a no-lose situation.

Posted Wednesday February 25, 2009, About: Why Celtics want Marbury

In all likelihood, the Knicks saved a few million by releasing him. It's possible that they didn't change their stance at all. Marbury said all along he wouldn't take anything less than the full $21 million, but it's likely that as the March 1 deadline approached, he blinked and agreed to take less money in the buyout in exchange for his release.

If that's the case and the Knicks saved a few million, I doubt they care where Marbury goes and whether or not he gets a ring. It's not like the Knicks are a title contender who are really affected this year by whether the Celtics get stronger or not.

Posted Wednesday February 25, 2009, About: Why Celtics want Marbury

There is nothing to keep in check. I'm sure it's pretty clear to him if he signs with the Celtics that he is Rondo's backup.

Besides that, you seem to be missing the point that this is an absolute no-risk situation for the Celtics. He will be signed to a pro-rated minimum contract. 75% of the season is gone. Therefore, a pro-rated contract is going to cost the Celtics about $300,00. If it doesn't work out, they waive him and they've lost less money than they pay the trainer. Who cares.

The move has zero potential to negatively affect the team.

Posted Saturday February 14, 2009, About: Why Cardinals won't trade Boldin

And in the private sector just as you can get fired and have nothing, you can also leave at any time you want and go work for someone else willing to pay you what you are worth. Maybe at McDonalds you can't "hold your boss hostage" for a raise, but at real jobs, people renegotiate what they are worth all the time. Sorry, your analogy has nothing to do with the double standard of non-guaranteed NFL contracts.

Again, it has nothing to do with the outlandish salaries NFL players and owners make.

It's simply about the double standard irrational fans seem to apply. Why is it "just a good business decision" when teams decide to not "honor the contract" they signed and cut a player before the deal is over, but for some reason players are labeled whiners when they want to renegotiate that same deal before it's over?

Posted Friday February 13, 2009, About: Why Cardinals won't trade Boldin

Oh, and the point about non-guaranteed contracts is very central in that issue I think.

If this column were about a baseball player, I would agree with people that the player should shut up and honor the contract - because the team is required to honor it as well. If they sign a guy for 5 yrs and $80 million, and he proceeds to bat .220, they still have to pay him that $80 million. So likewise, I think a player needs to honor a deal. If he signs and way outperforms the contract, the team got a good deal. Both sides are taking a risk in signing the deal because it's a real contract.

Again, in football it just comes down to the double standard - why are players who want to renegotiate labeled whiners, but teams that renegotiate a pay cut, or just cut a player altogether before the end of the deal regarded as "doing what's best for the team"?

Posted Friday February 13, 2009, About: Why Cardinals won't trade Boldin

Could ya miss the point anymore?

I don't feel bad for the players or the owners. Don't really care. Astronomical sports salaries or the reeling economy, again, have nothing to do with the point.

Very plainly, and simply, it is this:

People have complained in response to this "story" that players should "honor" their contract. Yet those same people support their team cutting a player loose in the middle of a contract if he has underperformed or is getting older. So why the double standard? Why do people expect one side to live up to a deal, but not the other?

Whether or not Boldin has been fairly compensated aside, why do people have a problem with him wanting to renegotiate when teams renegotiate, or just terminate the deal, whenever they feel like it?

Nothing you or I, or anyone else, says here on the subject is going to change reality. It is what it is. If the Cardinals think he's worth more and renegotiate it, great. If they don't and will only pay him his current contract, then he has two choices - play and be paid, or sit out and make nothing. I can understand people debating his worth. I can't understand people being against his right to renegotiate for what he thinks he's worth.