With the winter meetings in the rearview mirror, Marc Lancaster, Tampa Bay Rays beat writer for The Tampa Tribune, emerges from the smoke and mirrors of the Major League Baseball winter meetings to answer some reader questions about the Rays after their first-ever World Series.

Q: I know it sounds crazy, but why not Manny as a Ray? I know it violates all that ownership is trying to do, but why not Manny? On many levels, I think it makes total sense:

—Current FA market in baseball is down so they could probably get him to sign a one year deal.

—At say $24 million for one year, he would be a risk but not a long term risk.

—This team as currently constituted (with a few minor changes) did make it to the World Series last year, by winning the AL East.

—Manny would drive ticket sales thru the roof in Tampa. Furthering the Rays effort to get a new stadium.

—His RH bat in the lineup (at DH presumably) would be exactly what the Rays need on offense.

—His presence would instantly vault Rays into title contenders again.

—Maddon could probably handle Manny’s personality and I don’t think any other Rays players would resent the money spent to win the World Series THIS YEAR.

—It takes Manny away from the two most relevant rivals…Yanks and BoSox.

—In the grand scheme of things, what’s a one-year $24 million flyer on Manny to Stuey? Chump change. Increased season ticket sales would offset deficit spending by Stuey.

—It doesn’t upset the long-term plan at all. No prospects, no long term commitment. Nothing changes except that you’re signaling that you’re going for the gold right now.

—Manny proved in LA that in the right situation, he can thrive and be a positive influence rather than a distraction.

I know it won’t happen, but why not? This team it built to win right now. Price replaces EJ in the rotation and Joyce replaces Gross/Hinske in RF. Let’s go win it right now.

—Thad Waugh, Little Rock, Ark.

A: Sheesh, where to begin? Obviously, there are benefits to having Manny on a team – as demonstrated by the Dodgers’ run to the finish last year – but I just don’t see him as a fit for the Rays for several reasons.

First off, I don’t think he’ll take a one-year deal. And the Rays can’t handle even a two-year, $50-million contract. They have too many other players to pay and it would fly in the face of everything they have done to get to this point. As for ticket sales, I doubt he would have that significant an impact. There are too many games over the course of a baseball home schedule for the presence of one player to make that big a difference. The Rays’ ticket sales should be up in 2009 simply because of what they did in 2008, recession or not.

As for the not-insignificant issue of what effect he might have on the clubhouse, I’m sure Maddon probably could handle his personality to a certain extent. But when it all comes down to it, Manny could decide to tank it whenever he wanted to, and that wouldn’t fly in Maddon’s clubhouse. Think of the way he disrespected his teammates and the organization in Boston after all they had done for them by shutting it down in the midst of a playoff race just to get himself traded. I’m sorry, but this isn’t fantasy baseball – that kind of nonsense has an impact on everyone involved.

As for the keep-away theory, there’s no way the Red Sox would take him back, and I just don’t see the Yankees going that route either. I can’t fathom him playing for Joe Girardi.

————

Q: Do you think you would consider a contract to Manny Ramirez?

—Lucas Moran, New Port Richey

A: No.  See above.

————

Q: Do you think the Rays will sign any big name free agents or make a big trade this offseason? Personally, what i would love to see is for them to maybe trade a speedster like Fernando Perez and a prospect to the White Sox for Jermaine Dye. The Sox want speed and Dye fits our outfield need perfectly and he would provide the same type of veteran presence that Cliff Floyd did. Then they could sign a less expensive closer/reliever such as Juan Cruz or Brian Fuentes. I think they would have World Series champions written all over them after that. So, what do you think?

—Anonymous, Florida

A: Signing a big-name free agent, preferably a DH, is definitely a possibility for the Rays this winter. Though I like Dye and think he would fit in well here, I don’t see that happening because the Rays would take a hit on two fronts to get him. Not only would they have to give up prospects in trade, they also would have to pay his rather hefty salary once they got him. They probably would be better served signing someone like Jason Giambi and paying him about as much or less than Dye would make while holding onto their young prospects. As for signing someone like Cruz or Fuentes, I don’t think there will be anything “less expensive” about either. I think the Rays will try to fill in around the edges in their bullpen and go closer-by-committee once again if they have to with Wheeler and Balfour backing Percival.

————

Q: One of the best pitcher retires today [Greg Maddux] and he never threw over 90 in his last 5 years. Scouts and GMs dont get it. Its not speed its brains. Speed guys come and go and never last long. Give me a pitcher who can out think a hitter and you will win. Mad Dog youre the best.

—Bob Delaney, Land O’ Lakes

A: Maddux obviously was a unique blend of talent and intellect, but I think scouts and front office-types have become more open about pitchers who don’t light up the radar gun in recent years. Look at Andy Sonnanstine. He never made a scout’s jaw drop with his pure stuff, but he has won at every level and simply finds a way to get hitters out.

————

Q: Are the Rays/MLB going to put the Rays ALCS and World Series highlights on DVD? Would be a nice addition to my Bucs and Lightning championship seasons.

—Robert Raimonde, Tampa

A: MLB releases a World Series DVD every year, and the 2008 edition is currently available through various online retailers. It’s obviously geared more toward the Phillies, but it’s probably as good as you’re going to get when it comes to the World Series in particular.

————

Q: E-Howdy Marc,

Thanks for a great job this baseball season. My question is about Troy Percival.  I haven’t heard anything about why he stayed in California.  Have you got any updates?

—Jerry Young, Tampa

A: Percival was dealing with some family matters in California. The Rays consistently said that he would have joined the team immediately if needed, but since he wasn’t on the active roster for any round of the playoffs, they were content to allow him to remain at home.

————

Q: It’s been great reading your daily blog on the Rays this season. Who are the players that the front office must address during the offseason? I ask because the only info I can find for B.J. Upton, Dioner Navarro and Matt Garza show as deals that ended with this season.

—Judd Hall, Miami

A: Thanks, Judd. MLB’s contract system does get complicated. Here’s my best shot at a quick breakdown. Basically, players with 0-3 years of big-league service time are under team control and paid around the league minimum (unless they have signed a long-term contract during that time, as Longoria did this year). Players with 3-6 years of service time are arbitration-eligible. They’re still under team control during that time, but their salaries rise significantly in their first year of eligibility and keep going up – sometimes at quite a healthy rate – throughout the arbitration process. After six years of service time, players become free agents.

As for specific players, Upton and Garza remain in the first category and will make around $400,000 each in 2009 unless they sign long-term deals. Navarro is in his first year of arbitration eligibility and is due for a big raise. Other Rays eligible for arbitration this winter are Jason Bartlett, Gabe Gross, Grant Balfour and Willy Aybar.

————

Q: I would like to know why the teams have to play 162 games? it would be better if the teams played a shorter season. Have the teams play 3 series with each other as always, go into the playoff sooner. So when the World Series begin, This would put them at a better advantage so they won’t have to play in terrible conditions, and it would make for less delays

—Grace Cantu-Griffis, Lutz

A: The 162-game season has been in place since 1962 (it was 154 games before that), but I don’t see it going away anytime soon. There is talk every once in a while about going back to 154 as a way to expand the first round of the playoffs from best-of-five to best-of-seven or keep the World Series from ending so late, but it never seems to gain any traction. A big part of the reason is the owners aren’t inclined to give up the home gates they would lose with a shortened regular season, and money does tend to carry the day in arguments like this.