A-Rod or Bonds: It's not as clear-cut as you think

It's a simple question with a complicated answer.

If you had to choose between signing 32-year-old Alex Rodriguez or 43-year-old Barry Bonds to a free-agent contract, whom would you pick?

A-Rod, right? He's in his prime. He's coming off a season for the ages. And he's about to become the first three-time MVP since, well, Bonds. I mean, what's there to debate?

But if Rodriguez opts out of the last three years of his 10-year, $252 million contract (and agent Scott Boras has said he favors his client terminating his current deal with the New York Yankees), you know what's going to happen next. Boras, the master manipulator, is going to try to turn this into a bidding war. Opening bid: likely $30 million per, which is more than the entire Tampa Bay Devil Rays' payroll ($24 million) and about the same as the Florida Marlins' payroll ($30.5 million).

Barry Bonds
Bonds

Left Field
San Francisco Giants

Profile
2007 Season Stats GM HR RBI R OBP AVG
126 28 66 75 .480 .276

Bonds is not going to get $30 million. He might be lucky to get $3 million base salary, plus incentives. Maybe less.

"Why would you pay him $9 million, 8, 7, 6 or 5?" a major league scout said. "If you're the Oakland A's, offer him a base of $2 million, and if he gets 500 at-bats, then he'll get his [incentive] numbers."

Two or three mil is respectable money, but for Bonds and his considerable ego, it's going to be an insult. It shouldn't be. He's a one-dimensional player who got paid an eye-popping $15.8 million by the San Francisco Giants to put butts in the seats during his joyless chase of Henry Aaron's home run record. He got the record, the Giants got their sellouts, and then Giants owner Peter Magowan, citing irreconcilable differences with Bonds, got his divorce.

So Bonds is a free agent. Let's say he sucks it up and agrees to sign a one-year deal, with incentives, worth (and we're being generous here) $5 million-$6 million.

Meanwhile, A-Rod decides to opt out, the Yankees take a pass on an extension and Boras does what he does best: create demand -- in this case, for a player who wants an unprecedented $30 million per year.

Who would you sign?

Alex Rodriguez
Rodriguez

Third Base
New York Yankees

Profile
2007 Season Stats GM HR RBI R OBP AVG
158 54 156 143 .422 .314

"Wow, that's a good question," the scout said.

Only a limited number of teams will be interested in each player. In Bonds' case, it will be because he's old, almost always hurt, a prima donna and the only career home run leader we know who has testified in front of a federal grand jury about steroid use. In A-Rod's case, it will be because he's really, really expensive.

The market for Bonds shrinks by 16 teams because chances are no National League team needs a weak-throwing statue in left field. Let's face it, Bonds runs like he has a bullet in his thigh.

"He'd be better served in the other league," an NL general manager said. "It's awful hard to line up 120, 130 games in left field at this point in his career."

If no NL team is interested, that means designated-hitter duty in the American League. The AL is the Statue of Liberty of baseball ("Give me your tired, your poor, your crippled sluggers ..."). Or, as the NL general manager said, "Sammy Sosa didn't play [in 2006]. He was the worst player in the American League during the second half of the 2005 season. But if the Texas Rangers can give Sosa a job, then certainly I would think somebody would give Bonds a job."

Not exactly a ringing endorsement, but you get the point. Sosa, after a year off, returned in 2007 to hit a very respectable 21 homers and 92 RBIs as a DH. So some AL team, looking for a bargain, is going to offer Bonds a contract.

Bonds might prefer the Los Angeles Angels, but it would be a stunner if image-conscious owner Arte Moreno let Bonds within a Rally Monkey of his franchise. The Seattle Mariners? I can't see Ichiro Suzuki or the team's conservative ownership signing off on that one. The Yankees? Sure, they need to get older.

No, the Athletics are the logical choice. They're on Bonds' favorite coast. They're just across the bay. They're familiar with these kind of flyer deals (Frank Thomas, Mike Piazza, etc.) It all makes sense.

A few teams from both leagues will kick A-Rod's tires. Moreno and the Angels are a possibility, as are the revenue-rich Boston Red Sox (second-highest payroll in the big leagues, trailing only the Yankees), the New York Mets and the Los Angeles Dodgers. The Chicago Cubs' Lou Piniella would love to be reunited with Rodriguez, but the team's impending sale complicates matters. And Chicago White Sox owner Jerry Reinsdorf has been known to pay top dollar to the game's top talent (remember Michael Jordan?).

Of course, if it were based purely on projected salaries, Bonds is the better buy. Bonds hit 28 home runs, drove in 66 runs, had 132 walks, batted .276, had a .480 on-base percentage and had a .565 slugging percentage in 126 games and 340 at-bats. Lots of numbers, but the bottom line, said the NL GM, is this: "Quality left-handed bats are still very hard to come by."

A-Rod nearly doubled Bonds' 2007 home run total (54), more than doubled his RBIs (156), had an 80-point advantage in slugging percentage, hit 38 points higher in average and had 243 more at-bats. It isn't close ... until you factor in the money.

If you go from a straight mathematical analysis, A-Rod is going to make about $30 [million], Bonds about $5 or 6 [million]. Will A-Rod's stats be five times higher than Bonds'? Probably not.

--MLB Scout

"If you go from a straight mathematical analysis," the scout said, "A-Rod is going to make about $30 [million], Bonds about $5 or 6 [million]. Will A-Rod's stats be five times higher than Bonds'? Probably not."

The Chicago Tribune's Phil Rogers [who also contributes to ESPN.com] crunched more numbers. The payroll rankings of the past five World Series champions: 11, 13, 2, 25 and 15. The payroll rankings of this year's final four playoff teams: 2, 23, 25, 26. Average number of wins during the three years before A-Rod signed with the Rangers: 85. Average number of wins during his three years there: 72. Average number of wins in the four years prior to and then during A-Rod's Yankees tenure: no difference, 97.

So, you've got to choose Bonds, right? He's the new car equivalent of 0 percent financing. A-Rod is simply too expensive.

Sorry, I'd rather take my chances with Rodriguez and that K2-sized contract than Bonds and his lineup of question marks. Sure, Bonds will come relatively cheap, but do you really want him in your clubhouse?

Remember when Bonds was within a couple of home runs of Aaron's record? Remember Giants manager Bruce Bochy's pained expression whenever anyone asked if Bonds would be in the lineup the next day? Bonds essentially dictated to Bochy when he'd play and when he wouldn't.

Bonds is old. His body continues to break down. In the past four seasons, he's played in more than 130 games just once. And Bonds' drama king reputation gives some GMs and owners the shakes.

"He may have a hard time getting a job, he really might," the general manager said.

"He's such a distraction for everybody," the scout said. "He just walks around in his own miserable world. A-Rod is going to be a distraction, too, but I'd still take him, just because of the negative factors [of Bonds]."

"[Bonds' 2007 numbers] were good, there's no question," said another MLB club front office executive who specializes in statistical analysis. "But with [Rodriguez], at least you know what you're getting. Right now, I'd be paying the money to [Rodriguez]. Because you don't know what the price would be on the headaches, the negatives of Bonds."

The steroid cloud still appears on Bonds' Doppler radar. He also would be making the switch from NL pitching to AL pitching. And, as usual, Bonds would be about Bonds, and those 65 hits he needs to reach the 3,000-hit mark. Neither choice -- Bonds at Wal-Mart prices, A-Rod at $30 mil -- is ideal. In fact, I wouldn't touch Bonds with a 10-foot checkbook.

But one owner is going to be intrigued by Bonds, and another owner is going to be swayed by Boras. And one, if not both, are going to regret it.

Gene Wojciechowski is the senior national columnist for ESPN.com. You can contact him at gene.wojciechowski@espn3.com. He co-authored Jerome Bettis' autobiography, "The Bus: My Life In and Out of a Helmet," which is available now.

http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/colum...7&sportCat=mlb

I just don't like how these guys use "one-dimensional" as a sort of insult. When you're one dimension is being a great hitter, that's **** good - especially when 14 teams have a roster spot specifically dedicated to that one dimension.

And I think that this article is severely underestimating how much Bonds is going to get paid. I don't expect it to be the $16 million or so that he got last season, but 2? 3? 5? 6? million? I highly doubt he'd take a threefold paycut.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoustonGM

I just don't like how these guys use "one-dimensional" as a sort of insult. When you're one dimension is being a great hitter, that's **** good - especially when 14 teams have a roster spot specifically dedicated to that one dimension.

And I think that this article is severely underestimating how much Bonds is going to get paid. I don't expect it to be the $16 million or so that he got last season, but 2? 3? 5? 6? million? I highly doubt he'd take a threefold paycut.

---

but who will be willing to fork the money over?

I personally think neither are worth the money they want. Bonds because he is such a disliked figure, A-Rod because he's so damned expensive. Either player brings more harm than good to any team.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tannhauser

I personally think neither are worth the money they want. Bonds because he is such a disliked figure, A-Rod because he's so damned expensive. Either player brings more harm than good to any team.

---

how so?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by wassit3

but who will be willing to fork the money over?

---

I don't know. I'm sure there's at least one team that'll be willing to pay around $10 million for him.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tannhauser

I personally think neither are worth the money they want. Bonds because he is such a disliked figure, A-Rod because he's so damned expensive. Either player brings more harm than good to any team.

---

That's just crazy talk. I guess an argument can be made for Bonds because he's such an off-the-field issue. I don't believe that his off-the-field issues cause more harm than his hitting ability causes good, but I suppose an argument could be made in the case of Bonds. Alex Rodriguez, however, there is absolutely no way that he brings more harm than good. Absolutely no way.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoustonGM

I don't know. I'm sure there's at least one team that'll be willing to pay around $10 million for him.


That's just crazy talk. I guess an argument can be made for Bonds because he's such an off-the-field issue. I don't believe that his off-the-field issues cause more harm than his hitting ability causes good, but I suppose an argument could be made in the case of Bonds. Alex Rodriguez, however, there is absolutely no way that he brings more harm than good. Absolutely no way.

---

i guess you could argue that the other players on the team might become jealous over what A-ROd is paid relative to what they are paid and thus that might make them play worse but I have a hard time believing adults would be that petty...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wassit3

i guess you could argue that the other players on the team might become jealous over what A-ROd is paid relative to what they are paid and thus that might make them play worse but I have a hard time believing adults would be that petty...

---

Yeah, that's an argument that would stretch reality. Baseball players aren't weak-willed jealous human beings. They're not going to perform worse just because somebody else is making more money. If anything, they're going to to try to motivate themselves to do better because playing better = more money.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoustonGM

Yeah, that's an argument that would stretch reality. Baseball players aren't weak-willed jealous human beings. They're not going to perform worse just because somebody else is making more money. If anything, they're going to to try to motivate themselves to do better because playing better = more money.

---

one would hope so, just like in any other job....

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoustonGM

Yeah, that's an argument that would stretch reality. Baseball players aren't weak-willed jealous human beings. They're not going to perform worse just because somebody else is making more money. If anything, they're going to to try to motivate themselves to do better because playing better = more money.

---

That's not always true in any sport, though. If you sign a guy, and in doing so, throw your entire salary structure out of whack, it DOES cause problems in the locker room. How are you going to feel if you've been busting your butt for a team for 8 years, then they go sign Bonds and all his baggage to more money? ESPECIALLY if he is allowed to keep acting the way he has in the past in the locker room? (I see this as a bigger concern to GMs than his salary, by the way. He needs to realize he can't continue to act like a king in the locker room, but his ego is so massive, I have doubts he can accept reality.)

It may cause clubhouse problems, sure, but there seems to be this idea that professional baseball players are so weak and fragile that some clubhouse turmoil is going to cause them to turn into pumpkins at the plate or on the mound.

Tannhauser is right, but not because of the reasons you guys are thinking of. Paying a player $30 million + per year harms the team because it ties too much money up to one player. You need to field a complete team in order to win, and getting to the playoffs is what it's really about (playoff appearances are basically pure profit for the club). That, basically, means that you're looking for 95 wins. If you're at around 80 wins with your current roster, an A-Rod is not likely to get you the complete 15 win deficit, although he'll certainly help. The problem though is that with $30 million tied up in him, that leaves nothing else for other players for the majority of teams. On the other hand, if you can take that $30 million and upgrade at two or three positions, you're more likely to make up that 15 run deficit.

None of this really has anything to do with the clubhouse, in A-Rods case.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ohms_law

Tannhauser is right, but not because of the reasons you guys are thinking of. Paying a player $30 million + per year harms the team because it ties too much money up to one player. You need to field a complete team in order to win, and getting to the playoffs is what it's really about (playoff appearances are basically pure profit for the club). That, basically, means that you're looking for 95 wins. If you're at around 80 wins with your current roster, an A-Rod is not likely to get you the complete 15 win deficit, although he'll certainly help. The problem though is that with $30 million tied up in him, that leaves nothing else for other players for the majority of teams. On the other hand, if you can take that $30 million and upgrade at two or three positions, you're more likely to make up that 15 run deficit.

None of this really has anything to do with the clubhouse, in A-Rods case.

---

maybe Ohms but I would put that in the realm of the owners problem, not the players. Look at it like this,when you interview for a job do you worry about how your minimum acceptable "price" will affect the prospective employers ability to add staff??

Let's ignore Bonds, as his issues are clubhouse-related more than money-related.

It's false to state that Alex Rodriguez does more harm than good for any team. The Royals signing Alex Rodriguez may cause more harm than good, for the reasons you stated, ohms. The Yankees signing Alex Rodriguez won't, as they have the money to be able to do that.

I certainly believe that for some teams, signing Alex Rodriguez will cause more harm than good for money reasons. However, it is false to state that that is the case for every team.

Absolutely. But the point that you guys were arguing aginst was:

Quote:

---

Either player brings more harm than good to any team.

---

There are simply different reasons that each does create problems. But, the fact remains, either player will create issues for the team that their on. The Yankees can afford to deal with A-Rods value issues, but I'm really not sure anyone else can.