Printable View
I don't think so. He had a lot of leverage with the Giants to get that much there.Quote:
Originally Posted by gRYFYN1
Bonds is not the cause of the headache tho, nor the only source, there are still many players who have done/are doing PEDs.Quote:
I guarantee the owners have probably colluded at this point to make sure this headache stays gone in baseball.
Nobody mentioned the Orioles. This is a classic Peter Angelos moment...the aging (or in Barry's case, ancient) slugger, with copious off the field troubles, but a lot of pop left in the bat. Remind anyone of other great moments in recent O's history...Sosa, Palmeiro, Tejada, Javy Lopez?
Note...Lopez had no off the field troubles, but still...
I fully expect by mid-June to see Barry Bonds as DH for the Baltimore Orioles, chewing up a good 5-6 million in salary for half a season.
Roger did it and got away with it at the same age, bilking the Yankees out of their money (not that I mind that), for a few injury-plagued innings and a "fatigued groin," something I don't want to contemplate too seriously.
Hank Steinbrenner may have learned his lesson, but Peter Angelos is exactly the owner to take a flier on Bonds haflway through the season, especially if Camden Yards continues to languish half-empty whenever the Red Sox or Yankees aren't visiting.
You think now that there has been somewhat of a precedence set by Frank Thomas signing for the prorated league minimum, that perhaps some teams are starting to sniff around the Bonds camp to see if he'll also be willing to take the same deal? Obviously $350000+ is a lot less than several million, and definitely less riskier.
I doubt that his ego will allow him to do that...
I think that the Thomas signing gives Barry Bonds a very good piece of evidence that there is collusion going on against him. He reportedly has not even received any offer, league-minimum or otherwise.Quote:
Originally Posted by WHAK0985
You know, I think this is becoming more and more likely. I think that the O's might get the delusion that they're actually going to compete due to their good record so far (ignoring that they've done the same thing in recent years), and then get Bonds has a way to continue their illusory quest for the playoffs.Quote:
Originally Posted by chuckwillard
If there is collusion against Bonds, I simply see it as the owners policing the game when Bud refuses to do it. The evidence against Bonds is at least as convincing as that against Pete Rose, he should have been treated the same.
Except for the fact that nothing Barry Bonds did was against the rules of the game, and there were no punishments on the books for steroid use. What Pete Rose did was break a very well-known rule that carried a punishment of "banned for life." The situations are different, and if the owners are refusing to sign Barry Bonds because of that, that is collusion and it against the rules.Quote:
Originally Posted by chuckwillard
The owners are just as much to blame as Bud. The owners didn't care what the players did as long as fans came to the games. Maybe if some of them owners would have spoken up instead of writing checks to these players.Quote:
I simply see it as the owners policing the game when Bud refuses to do it.
I think in reality it's far more likely that it's simply risk-aversion by the owners individually, rather than any concerted effort. Simply put, at least half the teams in the AL (NL teams are out of the running--his glove and speed are too much of a liability) couldn't begin to afford his asking price if they had a guarantee he would produce on the level he did last year. The few teams that can...Red Sox, Yankees, Angels, White Sox...are set at DH. Bonds over Ortiz? I think not. Bonds over Vlad? Even over Giambi/Matsui/Damon/insert aging overpriced Steinbrenner minion here?
Then you take into account the fact that you could shell out that 5-6 million for half a season, and any number of things could shelve him for the duration...injury, legal problems...then add that he will only play for a contender...unless the O's stay in it through the All-Star Break, I don't see it happening at all.
Frank Thomas is not only probably equally productive at this point, and certainly more durable, he comes without the baggage. There's just no comparing the two.
The thing is, no team has even contacted Bonds' agent to even SEE what he would be willing to play for. He hasn't even been offered a league-minimum contract.Quote:
Originally Posted by chuckwillard
Frank Thomas is not equally productive. He's productive, but not as productive as Barry Bonds - thank Bonds excellent OBP for that.Quote:
Frank Thomas is not only probably equally productive at this point, and certainly more durable, he comes without the baggage. There's just no comparing the two.
See these articles:
Those who do not learn from history…
See windmill … tilt at windmill … rinse, lather, repeat
Frank Thomas’ release could lay a “Big Hurt” on MLB…
Thank opposing managers/pitchers for that. It's the baseball equivalent of Hack-a-Shaq, and it's a disgrace to the game. If they do that for Bonds, why not for A-Rod or Ryan Howard or Pujols? Why never to Griffey in his prime? Why never to McGwire or Sosa?Quote:
Originally Posted by HoustonGM
Well, to answer my own question, they had other major-league caliber players on their teams. The best the Giants ever came up with to protect Bonds was Ryan Klesko, Marquis Grissom, Pedro Feliz, and Ray Durham. Not exactly as frightening as Jeter, Burrell, Scott Rolen, Edgar Martinez/A-Rod, or Jim Edmonds. It's hard to walk a hitter every time you face him if the guy on deck can hit too. When he's a washed-up mediocre player, or a never-was like Feliz, it's easy to take your chances with them instead of Bonds. If Bonds played with decent players, I think his OBP would be more normal.
Whether or not the opposing managers are walking him, it still provides value.Quote:
Originally Posted by chuckwillard
It's also not completely the managers. Bonds has ALWAYS walked a lot and had a high OBP. And the managers do do it to other players, just not to the extent that they did it with Bonds, mostly because those other players never hit 73 home runs.
Over 2006 and 2007, Ryan Howard was walked over 70 times intentionally, each season being in the top 11 all-time of single season IBB's. Mark McGwire was walked a lot, 28 and 21 times respectively in his two best seasons. Pujols draws a fair amount of intentional walks - 20+ in each of the last 3 seasons. Griffey was intentionally walked a fair amount, he didn't post ridiculously high OBPs because he himself didn't draw walks on his own at a really high rate like Bonds and McGwire did. Sammy Sosa drew 37 IBB's in 2001, and his walk rate skyrocketed at the same time his home run totals did (he drew 45 walks in 694 plate appearances in 1997, his record-breaking 1998, in 722 plate appearances, he drew 73 walks).
Even putting all that aside, whether or not its Bonds or the opposing managers, the on-base percentage is equally valuable.
Well, his lack of "protection" is certainly true, but what is "more normal"? Every year since 1990, he has had an OBP above .400, except for 1999, which was due to a batting average dip, not a walk rate dip. With the Pirates, he played in a very good lineup, with guys like Andy Van Slyke and Bobby Bonilla hitting around him. The fact is that Barry Bonds walks a lot and thus has a high OBP. The reasons are irrelevent. It's equally valuable no matter the reason. Even with good hitters behind him, he draws walks - because he has a good batting eye.Quote:
If Bonds played with decent players, I think his OBP would be more normal.