Winners and losers in Manny deal

I find the LA Times coverage of Manny Ramirez's signing odd, if not overly cynical. The Times' headline on Wednesday's agreement between the Dodgers and Ramirez: Manny Ramirez deal with Dodgers: Who won?

Bill Plaschke says Dodgers General Manager Ned Colletti was the big winner, "correctly reading the market and holding firm despite a winter's worth of criticism.''

You can follow Plaschke, by the way, at twitter.com/latbillplaschke.

Jeff Passan of YahooSports! writes that all the stalling still didn't give the Dodgers enough time to recognize "the gravity of their mistake.''

As for Ramirez, he reportedly will appear at a news conference tomorrow in Arizona, but he spoke to T.J. Simers last night and revealed that he was close to returning to Mannywood.

I guess it's not just the paper that has the cynical view of the deal being between enemy combatants "The Dodgers" and "Manny Ramirez." Jeff Passan obviously sees it that way, too, that the Dodgers and Ramirez were at war over the contract, and there's obviously a winner and a loser between the two.

That's hard to say, and it's not really what negotiating is about. I remember early on in my career, when negotiating my work contracts, I was told the best deal resulted in both sides feeling like they could've done better, meaning each gave a little to get closer to what they wanted. What someone wants vs. what they get is not necessarily winning and losing. It's what's attainable vs. what isn't attainable at the time. The Dodgers, in a bad economy, decided they could only spend so much. Manny Ramirez found he couldn't get more money elsewhere and took the best offer he could get from Los Angeles.

There's no winner or loser here. Ramirez got a ton of money ($45M over 2 years). The Dodgers got one of the top offense outfielders in baseball. If anyone lost, it is the National League West, and perhaps whoever else offered up Ramirez a contract.