Manny Fatigue

"I don't want to talk to them about contracts right now. So what? Enough is enough. I'm tired of them. They're tired of me, and after 2008, just send me a letter, whatever.

-- Manny Ramirez, Sunday.

It's a general rule in presidential politics that voters develop fatigue -- a deep-seated apathy, even a desire for change -- after eight years of one president. It happened with Bill Clinton, who is generally considered a good president, and it's happened with George W. Bush, who is generally considered a bad one, though history will render more final verdicts on both men in the decades to come. Only two presidents have ever survived this axiom: George Washington, the only president to voluntarily step aside after two terms, and Franklin Roosevelt, who died shortly after beginning his fourth -- both considered among the greatest presidents to serve this country.

Manny Ramirez is no president, but Red Sox Nation is in its eighth year of the Ramirez administration, so to speak. Only Tim Wakefield has been here longer, and Wakefield is not the on-field leader Ramirez is. For eight years, Manny Ramirez has been the future-Hall-of-Fame cog in the Red Sox' lineup. Although nothing is certain, it appears that is likely to end once this season is over.

I admit I have Manny fatigue. Eight years of drama, controversy, media-fueled overparsing of his every word and action ... Ramirez has been treated by the Boston sportswriters much like Washington political reporters treat a sitting president (Was he where he should have been? Is he giving 100 percent? Is he corrupt -- i.e., did he intentionally shirk his duty in important situations?). Through it all, I've grown a bit tired.

Tired of defending him, yes. I've been a big Manny defender. In some ways, he's the modern day Ted. Ripped by the press because he doesn't pay obeisance to the things the Boston sportswiters think he should. His intelligence is generally underappreciated, even while his work ethic and hitting prowess are legendary. He played an integral role in doing twice what even Ted, Yaz, Jim Ed and Wade could not do even once.

I named my cat after Manny Ramirez. Named my female dog after David Ortiz (we got around the gender issue by naming her "Poppy"). Without Manny first in front of him then behind him, there is no Big Papi. There is no greatest 3-4 lineup combination in our lifetimes playing for the Red Sox. There's no Yankee killer tattooing Mike Mussina and Andy Pettitte. There's no arms-raised, walk-off home run off Frankie Rodriguez, forever the Hall of Famer's definitive moment in baseball, never mind just his time with the Red Sox. There's no celebration of Home Run No. 300, or 400, or 500.

Then there's the other stuff you must be heartless not to like: Visits into the Green Monster, high-fiving a fan in the middle of a catch-and-throw double play, dancing and fist-bumping with Orlando Cabrera, Pedro Martinez, David Ortiz. The crazy hair, a new 'do every spring. The incredible comments when he does speak to the media: "I'm a bad man."

Yes, there's a lot to love about Manny Ramirez -- not least of which is the fact that he is third in RBI, fourth in home runs and second in OPS and OPS+ to Albert Pujols among all ballplayers with at least 5,000 plate appearances between 2001 and the present. No one will be calling Dan Duquett'e signing that December of 2000 a failure. Not now, not ever.

But there's the rest. And what makes my feeling of Manny fatigue frustrating is that much of it is based on news reports or rumors I've found to have little credibility.

There's the Gordon Edes hatchet job that essentially created and has since fueled the legend that Ramirez quit down the stretch in 2006 -- a piece that ever since has tarnished that writer's otherwise sterling image in my eyes. It was entirely unsourced, filled with innuendo and accusation, yet without any piece of evidence -- or even logical deductions based on observation -- to support it. The piece legitimized a rumor that, considering the dearth of evidence, should have remained exactly that.

There's the Bob Lobel rumor-mongering on WEEI -- in which he claimed the front office believed Ramirez took three straight strikes in a key at-bat from Mariano Rivera to retaliate for a "six-figure" fine levied for his shoving of the Red Sox' traveling secretary. Lobel never even claimed to have a front-office source for his statements, was wildly off-base on the amount of the fine, and never explained why Ramirez would choose to protest a full week after the fine was levied and paid to charity -- a week in which he hit well over .400.

Despite the lack of evidence, the utter inability of these reporters to ever verify the rumors they chose to report, the accusations linger, unfairly. They sit there, easily dismissed when all is smooth, not so easily brushed away when times are rocky. This is one of the rocky times.

Because there are things that we know are true, as well.

We know he called John Henry a "white devil" when the owner wouldn't immediately accede to one of Ramirez's many trade requests. We know about those, too. 2003, 2005, 2006. In between, he was placed on irrevocable waivers (no takers, as we well know). We know he slapped at Kevin Youkilis in the dugout. We know he is accused of shoving traveling secretary Jack McCormick. And while we're not buying the anguished cries of those who seem to believe 64 years of life qualifies McCormick for a nursing home, it was an amazingly infantile act, quickly reinforcing the stereotype that Ramirez is nothing more than a very talented, very rich child playing a child's game. It's a stereotype I hate, yet one that is now harder to refute.

Which brings us back to fatigue. Yes, I'm tired of defending Manny Ramirez, but I'd be more than willing to do it -- if it were worth doing. Now, I'm not sure. Now, I feel not so much fatigue at the idea of defending Manny. I feel fatigue at the idea of Manny himself, and all that entails.

It entails more rounds of bizarre and maddening comments -- allegations that the Sox' front office lies to its players, expressions that he's "tired" of Boston, failing to communicate about injuries right before a key series with the Yankees. It entails more rounds of self-righteous columns from sports writers inexplicably angry about various slights, real and imagined, Ramirez has perpetrated against the game of baseball. And, worst of all, it entails inexcusable actions -- as relatively unimportant as staring at a home run that winds up hitting the wall and being held to a single or failing to run out a ground ball that gets booted, or as serious as shoving a team employee or hitting a teammate.

I'm tired of that Manny. Sometimes I want him to go away. Time for a new administration. Jason Bay. Mark Teixeira. Shake his hand, thank him for all his work here, and let him get No. 600 elsewhere. Or "send (him) a letter," as Ramirez would apparently prefer.

But that's only one side, isn't it? As true as all that may be -- and it's as factual as I can surmise -- it's not the full picture.

Because "Manny" also entails terrific production -- the man is fifth in on-base percentage, seventh in OPS, eighth in home runs and eighth in RBI this season; good luck finding that on the trade market without gutting the farm system. He's given us 2004. He's given us 2007. The odds are good he'll have a "B" on his cap when his placque is engraved for Cooperstown. Anyone who thinks the Red Sox can survive without Manny Ramirez or an equal bat is sadly deluded, and the chances of getting an equal bat before the offseason are unlikely.

I may be tired of him. I may not love him anymore. I don't think I even particularly like him after the events of this weekend. But he's still our Manny. For better or worse, he's wearing the laundry, and that means we root for him. Just like we'd root for Barry Bonds or Alex Rodriguez if they wound up in red and white.

No matter how tired Ramirez is of the Red Sox, or the Sox of him, they need each other if they want to play baseball this October. And that means we need him, too.

Comments

[Atheose]

I'm hoping for a Jays sweep. Apparently Maddon is afraid too.

http://tampabay.rays.mlb.com/news/article.jsp?ymd=20080727&content_id=3207415&vkey=news_tb&fext=.jsp&c_id=tb

Funny, since Tito said the same thing to weeks ago: "Yankees? I'm worried about the BLUE JAYS."

[SF]

In the car this morning and unable to avoid sportsradio, the best part of the reporting on the Manny thing is the whole "he's such a distraction every year" stuff, the implication being that Manny is a terribly divisive presence who kills the team. The funny thing is that the Sox have WON THE SERIES two of these last four years. Even with this horrible distraction around.

The cognitive dissonance was pretty amusing. It was like the results of 2004 and 2007 didn't exist to these talking heads, Manny was/is a distraction, a cancer, and everything else was irrelevant.

[IronHorse (yf)]

Paul,

Fair enough on your point that Manny's antics have irked SFs and the front office in the past. As you say, efforts to trade him and fan booing have made this clear in the past (although as a casual Sox follower I can't say I ever recall the guy getting booed at home but I trust a lifelong SFs' eyewitness account on this).

I read your original strong post here as you having reached your limit - and yes, I get that this is more a straw that broke the camel's back thing, i.e. just one more small thing added on top of millions of others, as opposed to one big thing that he has now done. So scrap my statement that SFs or the FO are saying he has now done something mroe egregious than before. The point I was trying to make though - that this fatigue, wherever it comes from, is only there because his performance has dropped - is still very much how I feel. I think your fatigue probably reflects what a lot of SFs are feeling and I just believe that if he was having one of his monster years, I would be seeing much more of the same old defense of Manny and much less of the fatigue with him.

This is perhaps just common sense for any fanbase blessed/cursed with a troublesome star, but for someone like me who has been tired of Manny because of those antics (esp. HR-gawking) PLUS has had to deal with the fact that his batting heroics have often come at my team's expense, I not only feel no sympathy for the fatigued SF on this point - I have to admit (with no pride for feeling this way mind you) to wanting even more Manny frustration to come your way because you and your team deserve it for having made the deal with the devil in the first place, put up with his stuff for so long, and defended him whenever his obnoxious acts (again, the HR-gawking being primary for me) antagonized other fans and teams, only because now they are antagonizing your own team, management, and fans AND he is no longer putting up the same numbers. (No, I am not calling him the devil by the way - just a figure of speech to indicate that a trade off was made from day one with him - performance for a whole lot of immaturity and crap).

I also reacted to the post a bit strongly because of the Bonds/A-Rod linkage at the end frankly, where I see no justifiable comparison between what is troublesome with each of those players.

There - my true confessions...

[Atheose]

where I see no justifiable comparison between what is troublesome with each of those players

I think his intention was to compare their perception by Red Sox fans; I don't think anyone here would claim that ARod and Bonds are equally-corrupt individuals.

[IronHorse (yf)]

Nick, I think I was at the other party you went to - the one where we talked about soap all night long. I'm sorry to inform you that none of us there really liked you there either. We just pretended to and then made fun of you as soon as you left. It seems some people are destined to be alone. I'm sorry you are one of them.

[IronHorse (yf)]

Got it Atheose - I read it as "just like Giants fans rooted for Barry and Yanks fans root for A-Rod, so too do I root for Manny", but yeah, upon re-reading prompted by your note, I get it. Sorry Paul.

[dc]

re. the arod reference in paul's post: "...The point was that I don't think Paul was equating his behavior with Bonds are Manny. ..."

uh, sure he was nick, otherwise, why mention both in the same breath...but that's ok...you have your perception and i have mine...

i do agree with paul on this: manny's actions have had a cumulative effect on eroding the love, or as ih put it this is "the straw"...however, what i read into ih's earlier comment was that the last straw coincides with manny's apparent decline and soon to be relatively high cost...the 20m no longer looks like the "bargain" it once did...and manny no longer looks as cute as he did when he was at peak performance...even the ever tactful francona looks like he's run out of winks and nods...

[SF]

that this fatigue, wherever it comes from, is only there because his performance has dropped

I guess this is plausible, IH, but I still have a hard time ascribing Paul's fatigue to anything but all the idiocy that surrounds Manny via the press and the fans, as he eloquently wrote about in the main thread.

I'll put it this way: Manny's production may have dropped, but it hasn't dropped to the point, at least for me, where I think the Sox are better off with someone else or, more pointedly, that the Sox would even be able to replace him with someone similarly helpful at this point in the season. So the fatigue may be related to all the stuff that gets talked about, and not rooted in a sentiment that Manny needs to be shipped out of town, the problem taken care of now that he isn't the player he once was. In fact, Paul says quite the opposite, that Manny can't be gotten rid of if the Sox want to win.

I think Paul's point is completely understandable and perhaps quite correct from a baseball standpoint, and to imply that there is a "what have you done for me lately" aspect to it is needless.

[Atheose]

I could see how it could be read either way. And OUCH, poor Nick. He's destined to be a soap-Moses wandering through the soap-desert for 40 years.

[walein]

One thing to remember here. Manny had leg issues for the past 2 months and was DHing as a result of it. David Ortiz comes back off of the DL and suddenly it's not ok for Manny to still have leg injuries? Manny Ramirez told Francona he would see if he could play the next game. Regardless of what he said Boston leaked out the MRI thing and the suspension thing.
Could Manny Ramirez not play at that point? If you look at his numbers and games played you need only go to the white guy in right field to see someone who has begged out of more games through his career.
The Red Sox have an awful history of using the media to bash players they want out of. This is the same exact situation.

[dc]

"...manny's apparent decline ..."

have to challenge myself on this one...dc, manny's decline is the peak for most other players...

still, he's not getting any younger, and any drop off is going to raise an eyebrow or 2

[walein]

I wrote this before on another thread.
Sydney Ponson was let go and it was only through a slip up of a rookie on Joe and Evan's show (Ian Kinsler during All-Star week) that the story of what actually happened came out. Manny Ramirez 2 or 3 years ago would not have had the shoving story come out. I'm not defending Manny's bad behavior. I'm just pointing out the fact that most of these things are handled. The media is aware, and witnesses, all kinds of bad behavior and does not write about it--ALL THE TIME.
Throw a baseball in a clubhouse and you will hit dozens of adulterers, drug addicts, and alcoholics.

[Atheose]

Good point Walein. Lugo was arrested for assaulting his wife but the media didn't say much about that.

[walein]

By the way...just to be clear: The Yankees too have an awful history of using the media to bash players they are unhappy with.

[rootbeerfloat]

I can honestly say that NONE of my Manny-fatigue comes from his drop in performance. I started coaching little league a couple of years ago and soon realized that I would rather my 7-8 year olds watch clips of David Eckstein than of Manny.

[Atheose]

ARod and Maris are great examples of that.

[IronHorse (yf)]

SF, Paul's post includes the phrase "I'd be more than willing to do it (defend Manny) if it were worth doing". I don't think the worthiness of defending manny is judged on anything other than whether he is playing well enough for fans, players, FO, etc. to look the other way on all the behavioral issues, even if you and/or Paul say that worthiness is only based on some general sense of fatigue independent of Manny's performance.

You can say that Manny is still great - and he clearly is - but placing the emphasis there, rather than on the fact that this is perhaps his worst year-to-date on a number of statistical fronts, is not as useful when asking the question, why was it worth defending him all these other years but now it is starting to feel like it might not be worth it?

And I'm not sure what correct from a baseball standpoint means - it's just as valid from a baseball standpoint to compare his current performance to that of past years (when it was apparently worth defending him) as I am doing, as it is to compare him to a hypothetical replacement player, as you are doing.

I agree that Paul's sentiments are understandable, which is why I said "This is perhaps just common sense for any fanbase blessed/cursed with a troublesome star..." and I appreciate the post because it has generated great discussion. I just believe that a typically great (by manny standards) season means this post is likely not posted and in its place is yet another defense of Manny's behavior from one SF or another.

[LocklandSF]

"Throw a baseball in a clubhouse and you will hit dozens of adulterers, drug addicts, and alcoholics."

Throw a Super Ball and you will hit twice as many.

[IronHorse (yf)]

"Throw a Super Ball and you will hit twice as many."

Place a prostitute with cocaine and booze in the middle of the clubhouse and you will attract 3 times as many.

[LocklandSF]

"Place a prostitute with cocaine and booze in the middle of the clubhouse and you will attract 3 times as many."

You have to get through Sidney first! ;-)

[dc]

"...this post is likely not posted and in its place is yet another defense of Manny's behavior from one SF or another...."

amen, ih....and i don't mean this as a criticism of paul or his post...i know he's insisting that his feelings aren't linked to manny's performance, and that's ok, but it would also be ok if he did make that link...frankly, i'd feel the same way about jeter [as a yankee guy having an off year for example] this year if he was always clowning around, or whatever we call "mannyisms"...

[dc]

"...this post is likely not posted and in its place is yet another defense of Manny's behavior from one SF or another...."

amen, ih....and i don't mean this as a criticism of paul or his post...i know he's insisting that his feelings aren't linked to manny's performance, and that's ok, but it would also be ok if he did make that link...frankly, i'd feel the same way about jeter [as a yankee guy having an off year for example] this year if he was always clowning around, or whatever we call "mannyisms"...

[dc]

my apologies for the double-header

[Paul SF]

rather than on the fact that this is perhaps his worst year-to-date on a number of statistical fronts

While I agree Manny's not having the 1999-2006 peak-type season he had, uh, from 1999 to 2006 (*smacks head*), I can't agree with this statement. He's roughly in line with his 1995-1998 pre-peak, and still doing much better than he did in 2007.

To clarify one thing: With Bonds and A-Rod, I simply picked the two players Red Sox fans are most likely to say they do not want to see in a Boston uniform; the reasons, of course, are very different.

I think some of the debate about my post may come from folks reading it as a definitive statement. I'm not sure that's what I intended, especially post-midnight, when I wrote it. I look at it more as a journey (God, how pretentious does that sound?). I started out writing the post because I was fatigued, worked through the fact that much of the fatigue comes from reports or allegations that I actually don't believe, and arriving finally at a destination where I decide he's still our Manny -- and I'm going to keep rooting for him, regardless of how these many episodes have affected my thoughts about him. I spend very little time discussing his production in the piece because that was ancillary to my thought process, more as a way to provide context for the ballplayer as a whole than anything. And where production plays its most critical role in the post, it's to ultimately defend him once again and lead me to what conclusion I could derive at that hour, which is mostly a positive one.

As for the "worth defending" comment, I had the Youkilis and McCormick incidents more in mind than any off-the-cuff quotation of his OPS+ this season.

[Nick-YF]

"To clarify one thing: With Bonds and A-Rod, I simply picked the two players Red Sox fans are most likely to say they do not want to see in a Boston uniform; the reasons, of course, are very different."

That's how I read it.

[Dirty Water]

All well said. Nice read.

"Anyone who thinks the Red Sox can survive without Manny Ramirez or an equal bat is sadly deluded"

There is one equal bat, one true cleanup hitter who makes those around him better and does not choke when called upon, and he plays for St Lou. Getting him would be impossible.

[IronHorse (yf)]

I just meant Paul that since the Sox have had him, this is the worst he has played, though it is admittedly - and quite clearly - still great. For those purposes, '07 and '08 are both relevant as they go to whether or not he is in decline. But I understand you are on your Manny-journey and that on-field performance is not primary on your mind. For all the reasons I noted in my true confessions comment above, I'd love for Manny to continue making trouble, but that has everything to do with my own fandom and fatigue at seeing him light up Yankee pitching. Appreciate the post.

p.s. Nick, you know that earlier crack was directed at the party-going character you were playing and not at the real Nick, right?

[Nick-YF]

of course, IH:)

[rootbeerfloat]

IH - I have to say I missed that and was wondering why you were being such a jerk to Nick. Back to napping at my desk....

[SF]

why was it worth defending him all these other years but now it is starting to feel like it might not be worth it?

Because until this year his antics were not really that offensive. It's pretty simple. In the past Manny took heat for what - not showing up to Spring Training early? Asking (supposedly, remember) for a trade? Rehabbing for a couple of extra days in 2002 (did Papi get media scrutiny this year for the same thing? Nope.)? For staring at homers? The past transgressions were borderline transgressions, for the most part, many overblown by the media drama queens. Manny stepped over a couple of lines this year, for sure. It's different. And it has zero to do with his on-field performance "decline".

The bottom line is that this year Manny a) shoved a team official and b) got into a fight with a fellow player. Oh, and c) hired Scott Boras.

Those are all very different actions from what happened in the past. On one occasion in 2006 Manny got me to to post about how he was a disgrace to the Sox, and I think in retrospect it was an overly dramatic post on my part. But this year I think fans have a reasonable basis for fatigue, and it has nothing to do with his performance. That's my beef, that you seem to be painting other SFs (not me, for the record, I know you weren't criticizing me) as fair-weather friends and not reasonable human beings who may have a tolerance level for antics that crests at physical violence against team members or employees. I am actually a bit pissed at the fact that you are using this false correlation between Manny's performances on and off the field to characterize reasonable sentiments as simply ones of convenience.

[attackgerbil]

> In the past Manny took heat for what - not showing up to Spring Training early?

Nope.. he took heat for when he did show up early, just not early enough for some reporters.

[IronHorse (yf)]

SF, to be fair, I also was pretty open about the hypocrisy that comes with my own fandom by owning up to the fact that if Manny wasn't as good as he is, and if his success hadn't come so often against and at the expense of the Yanks, I'd be much less bothered by his antics.

Reading your last comment, I am not sure you and Paul are saying the same thing so these seem to be two separate discussions and not one. If I understood Paul correctly he doesn't think Manny did anything this year that is all that different from past years, but rather is just tired of the whole package that Manny brings with him notwithstanding the great production. Please note that at one point Paul even comments:

"Is it because his production is down? Maybe so. Perhaps it's easier to take a lot of crap from a player when his production makes that crap worth it. Manny's production isn't what it used to be, and that does change the formula."

And that is the main point I was making. I don't think it is a kind of double-standard that is at all reserved to SFs, but I do think it is a double standard that, in RSN, is best evidenced by tolerance for Manny's stuff. For the record, I don't think the Yankees would have kept Reggie Jackson around with some of his egotistical me-first prima donna crap either if he wasn't the slugger he was. And I don't think Kevin Cash or Coco Crisp would last long, nor woudl get much defense from fans, acting the way Manny has.

If you are saying - distinct from Paul's argument - that you think Manny has crossed lines this year that he didn't cross before, OK. Physical violence is distinctly different from all other behavior - even calling management a "white devil". But I have to say in response that I read most of the SF discussion of the travel secretary affair at this site as not at all treating it like something serious and different. On the contrary, it seemed more geared at playing the matter down, defending Manny (again), and blaming much of the hoopla on an over-eager and sensationalist media. I would agree with you that physical violence - toward players, personnel, etc. - is altogether different and warrants a different response than in the past.

[SF]

is best evidenced by tolerance for Manny's stuff

Personally I don't find the "stuff" that offensive. In fact, I find the generic overreactions to the "stuff" to be more offensive than the "stuff" itself. At least until the shove of a team employee, for which Manny was, I hope, sternly punished, though my anger at that action has no impact on what the club does. Beyond my anger at Manny, what am I supposed to do? Hope he fails?

I find the anger at Manny, at least in the past, to be utterly hyperbolic, from both SFs and YFs (and other fans, and mediots as well). Stares at a homer? Outrage! Shows up at Spring Training on time (but not early)? Outrage! Goes inside the wall to talk on the phone? Outrage! It's ridiculous to me, that this stuff is treated as unforgivable by a huge number of fans and journalists. To buy into the idea that this stuff (not the violence, I want to make sure that is separated out) is "tolerated" gives automatic validity to the idea that it is divisive or terrible or atypical, which it is simply not.

[Dirty Water]

Any time one of you easily-led automatons want to offer proof of 'violent' Manny, and how he 'attacked' some old man, I'd love to see it. Until then I will continue to believe the reporting of said incident was typical hyperbole from Shank and Co.

[I'mBillMcNeal]

I have Manny fatigue just from reading this thread. Yikes.

[IronHorse (yf)]

SF, so I assume that you think Manny took a legit day off last Friday, not to mention in August and Sept of 2006. Fine. I assume you think repeatedly forgetting how many outs there are both as a defender and on the base pads is an example of playing the game the right way. And you think publicly villifying your team's management is professional behavior. Fine. And I am sure if A-Rod stood and admired every HR he hit off Boston pitching you would mock all those who call it for what it is - a-hole behavior - with a simple "outrage!". As Jose Reyes has clearly gone to the Manny school of sporstmanship, I hope all Manny-defenders stick up for Reyes' right to run around the bases with his finger up in a "number one" sign, to dance on the field when the other team fails, etc.

I am sorry, but you call it "offensive" that people react to this kind of stuff? How is it offensive? If you think it is all professional behavior not worthy of corrective measures or legitimate criticism - at least not until violence comes into the picture - then fine - argue that. But to say you are offended? I really just don't get that.

The amoutn of time I've spent on this particular thread may give the impression that I spend lots of time thinking about Manny. Well I don't. But most SFs I know support and defend all of the above and I firmly believe they do so only because he is as good with a bat as he is and for absolutely no other reason. Not because it all shows that Manny just loves the game or that it is the right way to play or anything else. And yes - I still think that if it were Coco Crisp doing it, he'd be gone by now - certainly not defended to the hilt.

It's fine that we disagree - but just because you're pissed at what I believe - well, I just don't know what to say about that.

[I'mBillMcNeal]

First, this point so we don't start playing revisionist history ...
When the Red Sox were making overtures to acquire Rodriguez from Texas for Manny, Rodriguez toured Boston, toured Harvard, said a lot of really nice things, all the right things and genuinely made it sound like Boston was the place he wanted to be, that this would the start of a special love affair in his mind.
Then the deal fell through. (He didn't jilt us.)
Then Big Stein jumped in and Rodriguez was in pinstripes.
Then Rodriguez said the same things about New York that he said about Boston. And it all came off as really disingenuous, leaving us to feel as though we'd been lied to by the hot chick.
So, that (and yes, with a few sour grapes thrown in) is really what we found so galling, and to me, at least, the reason we have a distaste for him, much more than than the whole "Slappy" thing.
(So what did we learn? That the word "gullible" is not in the dictionary.)

next point ...

[I'mBillMcNeal]

I find the biggest source of Manny's issues to be the same as the source of Teddy F. Ballgame's issues, and even Nomie's issues: None addressed/addresses the media when this crap comes up.
A lot of these things would blow over if Manny would answer questions about them and apologize about them publicly. But because he does not, the media are left to speculate and we are left to speculate and it goes on and on and on until we're left talking in circles, repeating ourselves ad infinitum.
And that is what makes me so damn weary of it all.
Manny won't talk, so everyone else talks for him. And so, so many of the voices are like me in college when we'd go to a movie and someone would open their mouth and not talk (sorry G. Carlin.) I'd provide the dialogue, and it wasn't when the character on screen was saying.

Oh, we just love to hate. It's so much easier than the truth.

I'm not excusing him on some things, like the McCormick episode. But him sitting out? We don't know the truth.

[I'mBillMcNeal]

Apply the same to The Bill. How quickly would the whole videotape thing have gone away if he'd just answered all of the questions?

So many in the media will rationalize facts into a story that sounds pausible because they have to submit something to an editor. "Won't talk? fine. I'll give you my version, the truth be damned."

Manny might not be THAT bad of a guy, but he makes it so much harder on himself than he needs to.

[I'mBillMcNeal]

"But most SFs I know support and defend all of the above and I firmly believe they do so only because he is as good with a bat as he is and for absolutely no other reason."

Largely true for me, horse. Not 100 percent, but more than 50 percent.

And I sense a Favre-holding-the-Packers-hostage analogy coming on (not the obvious onem but a better one), but I'm too tired to pull it out and try to explain it. Maybe tomorrow.

[IronHorse (yf)]

The Gammons article Lockland noted on the Sox thread last night says it better than I tried to multiple times yesterday. And he doesn't even mention this year's slapping and shoving episodes to make his case, but rather Manny's lack of character, integrity, or respect for the game.

He says the Sox "sold their souls" because of Manny's batting skills, looked the other way for years on his me-first attitude, and are paying for it now. He makes it clear that he believes Manny sat it out in 2006 and last week for selfish and not health reasons. He says he plays "with no regard for character and integrtiy", and that if the Sox can't win without him at least they can feel "clean and sober".

For a YF the added note of Sox players admiring the work ethic of Jeter, Damon, Abreu, and A-Rod is nice to see.

I don't think Gammons is part of a sensationalistic media horde, but regardless, this is the simple point I was trying to make - to say plainly that most of RSN has been defending and protecting him and rationalizing his behavior forever simply because he can hit and not because he just loves the game or is loveably childlike - the kind of stuff critics of Manny like me have gotten sick of hearing over the years. And yes - admittedly - I take a bit of pleasure in the pain Manny is causing his own now.

[Atheose]

I think this is the first time Gammons has admitted that he, too, believes Manny gave up at the end of 2006, which I'm somewhat shocked to see.

I had dismissed a lot of the Manny drama as the "media horde" blowing things out of proportion because, frankly, they do that all the time. Obviously this is not exclusive to Boston, but is especially bad regarding sports athletes. As I said on the other thread, Gammons is normally a calm, collected and objective reporter, so when he lashes out in an article this way (like he did against ARod last October) it carries more weight. Others (CHB specifically) are negative and pessimistic the majority of the time, and so I disregard a lot of what they say, but not so with Gammons.

[IronHorse (yf)]

I agree Atheose. Though I also agree with whoever commented elsewhere here today that Gammons has been writing some nasty and almost demagogic stuff in recent years. It's almost as if he is getting really crotchety in his older age. But yeah, I still place him in higher regard than lots of other sports commentators.

[Devine]

Even as a Manny defender/love, I have often thought that the end of this year may be the time to say goodbye (I don't think his production will likely be worth $20 million), and there's no doubt some of his antics aren't so fun.

But I still perceive a lot of this as media-driven and overblown. So, whatever. Love blinds you to people's negative qualities, and I fully admit to near-constant blindness with Manny. Eff it, dude. I'm just gonna watch him hit some monster shots for the rest of the year, even if this is 2006 redux, and enjoy it while I can.

[SF]

He says the Sox "sold their souls" because of Manny's batting skills, looked the other way for years on his me-first attitude, and are paying for it now.

See, this is ridiculous and hyperbolic. They "sold their souls"?! Seriously? You mean Ownerhsip sold their souls over Manny and not when they tacitly approved steroid use? They sold their souls how, apparently? How are the Sox different from any team that coddles a superstar, if that's what people feel they are doing? What if they can't trade him, are they supposed to cut him on principle? Beyond benching him or suspending him (a legitimate option if they feel he has been subordinate), what are the supposed to do, burn a Manny in effigy? What team EVER acts like this, what team has the uber-morality of a Jimmy Carter?

This kind of over-the-top statement from Gammons is exactly what I have my fatigue from, this sanctimony. Where was Gammons when there was a whistle to be blown on guys violating the spirit of fair play? Where was the outrage from all these media blowhards who are such insiders that they know exactly what goes on in the clubhouse but weren't exactly forthcoming with stories about PED use? Where were the front office stool pigeons ratting out drug users to the press, the same guys who whisper to Bob Lobel at bars late in the night? They were nowhere, that's where. But Manny staring at a home run is a violation. Manny drinking a Gatorade in the wall is a violation. When Manny took extra days in rehab in 2002 he was vilified, when Papi did it this year nobody gave a shit. Why is that, exactly? Because Manny is a horrible, horrible man and Papi is an angel? Or because Manny doesn't play the game like everyone else and kiss the media's ass, smile every day in front of the camera and give good sound bite? Manny's divisiveness (pre-2008, taking this year off the table) has always been completely exaggerated, if not fiction. The team hasn't suffered a whit as far as I can tell, and this year the root of their problems is not the enigmatic cleanup hitter, but relief pitching, three dead spots in the lineup, an aging catcher who can't hit his way out of a paper bag, oh, and relief pitching.

There's no excuse for Manny's actions this year, his shoving of a team employee, his speaking out against Ownership (who should deal with him however they see fit, they'd be justified in punishing him for subordinance as far as I am concerned). So this year is different to me, and it's directly related to the fact that Manny's actions are far more significant than in the past, when silly stuff was made demonic by the press. Let's cut the revisionist crap that the Sox have been negatively impacted by Manny all these years, that Manny was the embodiment of everything wrong with professional athletics, that Manny is the root of the team's troubles now, that the team "sold it's soul" over this player. Leave some of that territory to Floyd Landis, Marion Jones, Barry Bonds. So that kind of statement is, yes, offensive to me, particularly coming from the biggest insider journalist in all of baseball who wrote how many stories about players taking PEDs during the height of their prevalence? This coming a guy who still mocks players who went public with allegations (some substantiated) of the prevalence of steroid use. Gammons, who I grew up reading, who I still like reading, has very little moral high ground to stand on here. "Sold their souls"? Please.

[IronHorse (yf)]

SF, hyperbolic attacks on Manny's character is one end of the spectrum. Denial of - or refusal to acknowledge - any wrongdoing by him short of when he gets violent is the other. I get that the former annoys you and I certainly acknowledge it goes on, esp. from the media. But the latter also goes on, it is what annoys me and it has come for a long time from RSN. You don't think Manny hurt the Sox in 2006? Fine. Just because I do doesn't make my view of events "revisionist crap".

When I've complained in the past that Manny's HR-gawking was the sign of a supremely self-centered egomaniac who should be reined in, the virtual unanimity of SFs who respond as if this is the furtherst thing from the truth and I just don't understand Manny has always been overwhelming. The notion that "manny being manny" is anything other than a concise articulation of double-standards is absurd to me.

You don't want to hear the Sox sold their souls and I can understand that. I don't want to hear that all Manny's actions are simply Manny being Manny as if that makes them ok, that he is simply a misunderstood man-child who just loves to play, etc.

As to expected remedies, I am not talking about management cutting him loose for nothing or any other unrealistic expectations. It is not the Sox FO I'm tired of - its SFs defending him with such pablum as noted above for years. Now that a number of them are also finally starting to get sick of his antics and realiznig that maybe he is pretty selfish, I feel no sympathy for them and am taking some joy in those who defended his actions all those years now getting sick of it.

As for management, I agree - the Sox are not any different from all teams that coddle superstars. It's the pretense - mostly from fans - that this is not exactly what the team has been doing for years because he hasn't done anything wrong other than getting violent a couple times this year that I've been responding to.

[dc]

you know sf, your argument that guys like gammons should have been as concerned, or more concerned, about ped users as they seem to be about manny episodes is a bit scary...while in spirit i could agree with your sentiment, you seem to have missed that sports media has been talking about drug abuse for years...the fact that they have left out the dirty details suggests more that they just didn't have the hard evidence necessary to avoid libel suits, rather than negligence or a lack of interest, so they tap-danced around the issue until canseco squeaked and mitchell's report was made public...don't you remember how the media pounced on every page as it was released, just to see who was in it?...all media coverage was intense, because now they had "facts", or at least mitchell's version of them...do you really think guys were talking openly to gammons about it prior to that, or worse yet, actually shooting up in front of him?...did he really have "insider" information to expose?...doubt it...targeting manny's foolishness is much less hazardous territory journalistically...heck, even the "shove" was admitted by manny and subsequently excused by the ticket guy...

[SF]

Please let me know how Manny's previous past "transgressions" hurt the team. I am honestly curious to know how they negatively impacted the Sox' successes during his tenure with the team. I am curious to know how the 2006 stuff impacted the Sox' chances, and how you know, for that matter, that Manny wasn't injured enough for his presence in the lineup to be relatively impactless. Or, if he was hurt but could still play, how that might have changed the results of that season. I am also curious to know what other transgressions Manny has perpetrated, beyond the shenanigans chalked up to "Manny being Manny" (a term I don't care for, I find it demeaning to Manny) such as staring at homers, or going inside walls, or selling barbecue grills on Ebay, etc. I am absolutely honestly curious to know how this has caused such horrible things to happen to the Sox, how it is the manifestation of a franchise making a deal with the devil.

To that end, why is it now unfair for fans to draw a line at violence against a team employee or teammate? Why is it unfair or, worse, hypocrisy, for fans to tolerate enigmatic behavior that apparently impacts nobody (again, please provide proof of the negative impact, since you seem so damn certain that that impact can be measured or qualified) but get annoyed or angry or repulsed when it becomes vividly sociopathic? Why is this hypocrisy?

As for "I don't want to hear how the Sox sold their souls", that's not it at all. I want to know HOW THEY SOLD THEIR SOULS. Seriously, HOW DID THEY DO THIS, exactly? Your statmement implies that it is a FACT that they did this, that I am in some sort of denial about the obvious. But what can you point to that justifies such a blatantly hyperbolic, overblown, and sanctimonious charge? I assume that all sports franchises are business monsters. They make decisions that are, in the best case, barely reliant on anything morality-based. For the record, when did the Yankees sell their souls? Or are they still in possession? Care to articulate?

[Nick-YF]

The Yanks DID NOT sell their souls when they signed Tony Womack. That was an altruistic gesture.

On the other hand, they sold their souls when they signed Gary Sheffield because he is a controversial figure who could help them win games. That's the general rule.

[SF]

Did Mickey Mantle hurt the Yankees when he played drunk? Or was that just "Mickey being Mickey"?

[Nick-YF]

depends on if he was hung over. If all he was was drunk, in all likelihood his nerves left him and he excelled at the bat. That's how it works for me in social situations.

But, SF, in all seriousness, I completely agree, and have long argued this exact point about the general amorality of sports fandom. I don't know what got into Gammons, but this piece hyperbolic to say the least.

[IronHorse (yf)]

SF, when I said you don't want to hear that the Sox sold their souls it was not intended as an implication that you are in denial. It was meant as a genuine acknowledgement that such a phrase is hyperbolic and I can understand why you wouldn't want to hear it. This is why, even when I said the team made a deal with teh devil, I immediately followed that with qualification that I was not at all implying he was so bad - just using a well-known phrase to imply they made a conscious decision for a trade-off: performance for immature troublesome behavior.

I think between the two poles of being hyperbolic on the one hand and saying he has never done anything wrong until slapping and shoving a couple people this year on the other, there is a huge continuum wherein the truth lies. By acknowledging that much media criticism of Manny is too far on the hypebolic end, I was both being honest about my own views and trying to stake out somewhere in between where I stand. Your comments here lead me to believe you will never come off what I view to be the far other end of the spectrum. Fine.

You don't have to agree that Manny's actions in the past - before the '08 slapping or shoving - have ever been classless, self-centered, egotistical, disrespectful of both his team and bosses, indicative of someone who puts himself before his team and who has little regard for the way the game is supposed to be played. I believe that to be the case. I don't believe Manny's behavior in 2008 came out of nowhere and was totally unpredictable.

And by pressing me to tell you how he hurt his own team you are exactly missing the point I've been trying to make. I think RSN has turned a blind eye to any Manny misbehavior for years exactly because they felt, "hey, he helps us a lot so who cares if he acts liek an a*% toward others teams, insults our ownership publicly, etc?" Fine. I'm just glad that he is now turning his a-holeness back home so it is no longer just the rest of us who are sick of him.

[Atheose]

You could ask the same about David Wells, though he pitched a perfect game!

[IronHorse (yf)]

And yes, the Yanks have "sold their souls" many times as has every professional sports team in a profit-making business. Sheffield may be one example, Giambi is probably another, Billy Martin is another, and I could go on and on.

The question is whether fans can ever acknowledge it when it is happening. I don't think the vast majority of SFs have never acknowledged it vis-a-vis Manny.

[dc]

i told you guys a long time ago that gammons was a kook...i'll risk an attack for this one, but when he says "nice" things about the sox, he's a respected hall of fame journalist...when he [almost never] goes off on a negative rant, he's a fool [or some equivalent]

"...I don't know what got into Gammons..."

like i said nick, frustration...he's a fan first, like it or not, and is probably embarrassed for his team...for once we're talking about something besides yanks mentioned in the mitchell report, madonna-rod, and jeter's lack of range, probably brought on by his busy love life...something amiss in rsn?...heaven forbid...

nice tit for tat on the mantle comment sf...i know you did it for dramatic effect, but that kind of tactic always detracts from your main argument...which i agree with by the way...the phrase "selling your souls to the devil" is a bit extreme...same as i rooted for guys like mantle, billy martin, reggie, giambi, clemens, and sheffield to name a few, i never once felt like a sellout...neither should you...heck this isn't a fantasy league where we can pick our own teams and avoid those players with character flaws...we'd probably pick 'em anyway if they gave us the best chance to win...that's where the "holier than thou" part of the argument begins to crumble...

[dc]

oh, and i haven't seen a negative post about hank in awhile...either i'm not paying attention, or he ain't talking as much

[SF]

I never said Manny "never did anything wrong" pre-2008. That would be pretty stupid and naive. I merely stated my opinion that whatever he has done "wrong" (and again, I have a real problem with joining a morality arbitration gang on this front) it has had little impact on the team. The two things are not necessarily intertwined. I don't understand the sudden need for Gammons or others to suddenly link the Manny shenanigans to the on-field difficulties, to tie it to an "I told you so" to Sox fans in such broadly general terms. I find it a tenuous connection at best, grandstanding at worst.

Manny is a selfish, egotistical, highly paid athlete. I have said this here on numerous occasions. But recognizing this fact is different from using it to bash the player as a negative influence in such broad terms, which is what has gone on for too long with Manny. The negative criticism of Manny is usually more just hollowly negative, and devoid of intelligent criticism of the real impact of his personality on the team, which is not entirely measurable or even, perhaps, that significant in the end.

[SF]

The question is whether fans can ever acknowledge it when it is happening. I don't think the vast majority of SFs have never acknowledged it vis-a-vis Manny.

You need to go read the "Barry Bonds to the Sox?" thread at SoSH if you don't think that fans think about this in real time. Seriously.

Here: http://sonsofsamhorn.net/index.php?showtopic=33720

[Nick-YF]

If Manny were on the Yanks, my major concern would be whether this past weekend's issues--the MRI's that seemingly forced Manny to play--are a prelude of things to come for the upcoming pennant race. My guess is that he will be playing the majority of the games the rest of the season, but there is always the chance that he'll try to ask out. If you're following the mainstream media line of truth, then his asking out is insubordination and truly one of the more selfish decisions a team sport player can make. Morally-speaking that might turn you off and make you think a little differently of Manny's legacy. Who am I to tell anyone how to think about ethical/moral issues. Of course, Manny could really feel unable to play, as he claims he felt this past Friday. The lack of evidence of injury from an MRI is not a slam dunk case against Manny. He could sincerely feel that his body is not up to playing certain games. Seems to happen a lot to JD Drew, for instance. Still, the reality is that Manny would not be playing, and that would hurt the team big time. As a fan then, I would have to wonder whether moving him is actually the thing to do right now.

[SF]

Seems to happen a lot to JD Drew, for instance.

Really? "A lot"? He's projected to play in 146 games this year, played in 140 last year, and played in 145 the year before. When is this meme going to die?

So when is the "Nancy Matsui" thread going to start? After all, he has missed nearly 2/3 of two of the past three seasons, and in the other one played barely the same number of games as JD Drew.

[Nick-YF]

why is that a controversial statement, sf? Drew sits a lot more than most everyday players. He has chronic health issues that are not always verifiable by MRI. No biggie to me. It's possible that Manny, albeit not likely, that Manny was going through a similar thing when he asked out of the line-up.

[Devine]

I didn't think Nick was being unreasonable. Drew sits out a bit. Maybe not more than like 6 or 7 games over what's expected, but he does occasionally have a "Not feeling it today" ask-out which Tito grants without blinking (seemingly).

[Nick-YF]

maybe I shouldn't have said a lot, but I feel relatively speaking it's a lot for someone who is an everyday player.

[SF]

There were 74 players in all of baseball who played 150 games or more in 2007, 72 in 2006. Of these 146, four were DHs, the number would be higher without interleague play.

In the AL in 2006 there were 35 players who cracked 149 games. In 2007 there were 37 players.

Not trying to be overly defensive here, but just pointing out that nearly every single regular position player in baseball doesn't play games here and there due to wear and tear. With a guy like Drew, you just hear about it because of reputation, and I am inclined to believe that the reputation is just that, a reputation, and barely different from the norm. The guys who consistenly crack 150+ games (Abreu, the object of much hatred from YFs) are basically freaks.

For the record, some reasonably high-profile guys who played fewer games than Drew last year: Pedroia, Jermaine Dye, Garko, Kotchman, Tejada, Kinsler, BJ Upton, Mora. These are just a few. Guys who played 1/2/3 games more than Drew: Teahen, Casey, Carl Crawford, Matsui, Polanco, Damon, Youk, Wells (played 149 games), Shannon Stewart.

Heard about their "Nancy-ness", ever?

[dc]

"Nancy Matsui"

funny stuff sf...i cracked up when i saw that...yep, you have a good point, except i don't think mat's ever been suspected of sitting out when he didn't need to...fair or not, drew has that reputation...and, i think it was his own teammates who coined the nickname "nancy"...nice tit for tat though...

[Lar]

Just because something is a cliche doesn't mean it's not true.. =P besides, with Matsui, he did play every game for a few years, plus a decade (give or take) of every game in Japan. I don't think any YFs are deluded, but the guy is a little old, so it's not unexpected.

Still, it's probably the whole demeanor thing though. He doesn't look like he tries hard so when he gets injured, it seems like it's off something "stupid". Matsui broke his wrist on a dive and then apologized for not being able to play. Yaaaaa..

[Lar]

But ya, missing 60+ games at age 25, 27, 29 does that to your reputation, fluke or not.

[IronHorse (yf)]

DC, for the record I never said I wouldn't or didn't root for social misfits who helped the Yankees win - I have and always will because I am a fan of the team. But I wouldn't stand there when Billy Martin is acting like an abusive cry-baby and not acknowledge that he is acting like an abusive cry-baby. That's all. I would go on to say he is our abusive cry-baby and he somehow gets the job done so I am all for him but yeah, I can see why people would hate him. I don't think it is moral grandstanding to do both of these things at once - root for the guy but not be blind to why he is hateful to so many.

The most concrete, and very specific recent example of this is Joba throwing at Youkilis' head. Whatever anyone else says, having watched their matchups and made up my own mind, I believe Joba has thrown purposefully at his head in an attempt to scare the hell out of a guy who was hitting .400 off him in early ABs or simply in order to key on one guy in that line-up to give himself an edge when he pitches against Boston and rattle that guy and his teammates. Whatever the reason, I believe it to be true. So last time he did it just last week, I am on record here as saying that I can fully understand why Youkilis, his teammates, and SFs would think he is headhunting and why they would hate him for it as I would hate someone doing it to A-Rod or Jeter. But I also said that regardless of my disgust for headhunting, I am thrilled to have an intimidator at the top of our rotation for the first time in decades (not counting an aged Clemens) and I love the guy. None of that makes me either a moral grandstander or less of a YF.

By contrast, I rarely ever encounter an SF prior to the past two weeks who would acknowledge that Manny could legitimately be viewed as an a-hole and not just a loveable man-child, and that lack of acknowledgement and living in Manny-rose-tinted-glasses fantasy-land is what annoys me.

OK - having typed the equivalent of the Rise and Fall of the Roman Empire about Manny in the past two days, I'm done on this topic. Sorry if I dominated with over-posting on this particular thread. The guy and his fans' reaction to him just annoy me to no end.

[SF]

By contrast, I rarely ever encounter an SF prior to the past two weeks who would acknowledge that Manny could legitimately be viewed as an a-hole and not just a loveable man-child, and that lack of acknowledgement and living in Manny-rose-tinted-glasses fantasy-land is what annoys me.

Then you haven't read a whole lot from RSN, SoSH, or at this site. Sorry to be so blunt about it, IH, but there is a TON of anger and frustration at Manny, a lot of people completely sick of his egomania. We can't win. If we now acknowledge he's an asshole, then we're doing it out of convenience because Manny is on the downslope of his career. If we don't do it we're living in Fantasyland. This is "when was the last time you beat your wife" territory, as far as I can tell.

And I am glad you love a guy who has no qualms about possibly turning a player into Tony Conigliaro. That says a great deal about the convenient morals of sports fans right there. The fact that you can admit that you love a guy who would do that to another player doesn't make you a better fan than those who don't consider Manny an asshole, as much as you want to congratulate yourself for doing so.

[IronHorse (yf)]

You're right SF - I don't frequent SoSH or RSN. It may be simply that fans of a team are much more critical of their players when debating each other than when debating the enemy (YFs). My impressions of SF views come from the many I know and debate with every year and from the debates I've followed and participated in on this site, in which I wouldn't describe the views of SFs vis-a-vis Manny in the same way you have, but you've been here much longer and maybe you're right there too.

As for your second paragraph, you get the last word on the substance of that debate because I would find it tough to respond with anything but nastiness at this point. I certainly don't want Youkilis hit in the head if that is what you are taking away from this exchange.

[SF]

Where did I say that you wanted Youk hit in the head? I certainly don't believe that you think that. The point was that you are congratulating yourself for admitting that Joba throwing at someone's head is distasteful while accusing in toto and in broadstroke generalization that somehow there aren't any Sox fans who would admit similar things about Manny and his actions. This is a patently false accusation.

Of course, if we do admit those things, then of course it's all because Manny is declining. How can we win?

The answer is with you is that we can't. You've set a total trap.

[IronHorse (yf)]

"You've set a total trap."

Or, alternatively, those who have defended virtually everything Manny has done short of violence with "well, that's loveable Manny being Manny" set their own trap and are now dealing with it.

Indeed, those differing points of view probably encapsulate much of our debate here.

Since you say you neither have defended all his non-violent actions nor explain them away with M-b-M, my frustration isn’t with sfs like you anyway. However, I do have to note that virtually all other sf comments on this thread have gone further than you in acknowledging Manny’s behavioral issues or in acknowledging a certain blindness to them born of love for his bat.

Paul notes that performance drop-off does change the equation in judging whether it is worth continuing to defend Manny (whereas you say you have difficulty ascribing any of Paul’s sentiment to the same) even while he says that this year’s antics are in a different league for him and are probably more the cause of his fatigue than is drop-off.

Devine says love blinds us to people’s negative qualities and he loves Manny.

IBM says that my point that many sfs defend many solely because of his performance and for no other reason is “Largely true for me…Not 100 percent, but more than 50 percent”.

rbf says he was fatigued by Manny long before the performance drop-off – i.e. when he started coaching little league and didn’t want anyone looking at Manny’s approach as the right way to play.

I don’t speak for any of them, but I don’t know that any of them felt “trapped” by me.

I agreed with all of them by acknowledging how my own fandom leads me to look past misfit behavior of Yankees whose performance helps the team win even while I can acknowledge that their behavior is wrong and I tire of it. This wasn’t an “I’m a better fan” statement as you painted it – just the reverse – it was a “we all do it” statement. Except I guess in your case you don’t and you don’t think most SFs have with Manny because until 2008, nothing he did was really all that problematic so there was nothing to excuse away.

I agree with you that Manny’s pre-2008 behavior has not been as bad as some of the media has made it out to be. I am not trying to paint him as the devil and I agree that it is dumb when people do. But as I said, I think much of that behavior was classless, self-centered, egotistical, disrespectful of both his team and bosses, indicative of someone who puts himself before his team and who has little regard for the way the game is supposed to be played – and I believe that if he were performing at the level of Coco Crisp all these years, fans would have stood for little of it and certainly not invented a “Coco being Coco” defense. He would either have been reined in or off the team by now for that same behavior – not because it is incredibly harmful, but because it is disruptive and unprofessional. I guess you disagree. Fine.

I went on to tell you that most SFs I know and with whom I have debated this issue portray Manny’s behavior as blameless or explain it away with “M-b-M”. You say I am wrong and that SFs have been much tougher on Manny than I know. Fine – I defer to your better knowledge of RSN on this. I just haven’t read your comments on this thread as very reflective of this – at least not as much as virtually all of your fellow-sfs.