Printable View
OK...I don't wanna hear the 'I don't think he should be allowed to play' type arguments. Barry Bonds is still better than the average bear (I don't know how old you guys are, but I'm 29 and Yogi Bear was a great cartoon during my youth). Chance are, someone is going to take a stab at him at some point during the season.
So who's it going to be?
yankees should and dump giambi....Quote:
Originally Posted by dickay
I honestly have no clue. If I had to bet, I'd bet no team signs him. I don't doubt that the teams have colluded against Bonds.
I think by mid-July if Sexson isnt producing, the Mariners will take a stab at Bonds
God, I don't know if Bonds could survive in NY, lol.
Maybe, though, given what he was overcome thus far, he might could.
But yeah... I wouldn't mind dumping Giambi's sorry ***.
Don't know if he could survive???? He's the poster boy for Steinbrennars 'second, third, and thirteenth chance club'. Put his with Gooden, Strawberry, Howe, Martin and countless others and I'm surprised Steinbrennar hasn't jumped at him yet lol. Seeing how a good deal of the clubs recent players have been accused and quite a few admitting to being roid users, Bonds will fit right in and the fans will adore him when he hits a long ball.Quote:
Originally Posted by koolzach1
Well, the thing is... he comes with a ton of baggage. He would be very distracted. 'Course he is a professional, and has been for many, many years. Even so, I think with a possible jail sentence... that might would take a toll on you.
Yeah, I agree he's not a good fit for the Yanks who have too many DH's as is. I do however think someone will take a stab at him and it'll probably be either the Angels or the Mariners as they fight with each other for the division. Both teams need more offense and the Mariners are the more logical choice which is why i'm gambling it'll be the Halo's.Quote:
Originally Posted by koolzach1
I'm actually a bit surprised Bonds isn't a Yankee yet. I think it's an indication that Hank is actually taking control.
Giambi is the one who's body was destroyed by steroids. Bonds is still looking good compared to The Giambino. Signing Bonds to DH seems like an obvious Yankee move.
The Pirates should, for old times' sake.
The Pirates can't - they don't have Pirates helmets that large, which is why Barry had to leave in the first place.
They also have decent OF'ers, in Nady, Bay, and McLouth...and Nyjer Morgan, too. Nowhere for Barry.
My vote is on the Cardinals, Royals, or Tampa Bay.
I really doubt it, not with Sexson's contract and in his final year. If anything they would most likely move Ibanez to 1B and call Balentien up mid year to play LF. Barry is done in the field as far as I'm concerned and Vidro may not be the greatest DH but he's doing fine and they have Jeff Clement in AAA waiting to either DH, 1B or C.Quote:
Originally Posted by asianinvasion
I'd be really surprised if the Mariners did.
if anyone id have to go with seattle but tamp ONLY because they like guys that bring people to the park.. boggs, canseco, mcgriff... these guys were all past their prime
I'd bet the same thing, but I doubt that there is collusion against Bonds.Quote:
Originally Posted by HoustonGM
It's probably not explicit collusion -- where twelve GMs meet in a smoke-filled room and say, "okay, let's all not sign Barry Bonds". It might be more or less implicit collusion, the way you have some firms be "price leaders" in an oligopoly. Some teams don't sign Bonds and everyone else follows the leader -- "Hey, if the Yankees won't sign Bonds with their cash, maybe they know something I should know. I shouldn't sign him either."
Then again, not signing Bonds might just be normal competitive behavior. "Go ahead. Sign Bonds. I double dare ya! (chuckling)"
The only team that signs Bonds will have to be a desperate one, one that needs his eye and his bat. I suspect that Bonds, however, will only play for a contender, and unless a division leader suffers an injury at the DH or productive outfield position, you won't see Bonds in 2008. Even if Bonds is (relatively) free of injury, there's the possibility that court time might suck away his available time at the ballpark.
True, Bonds is a bad outfielder. But we're not talking John Gochnaur or Lou "The Mad Russian" Novikoff. If the guy Bonds replaces is a bottom-tier infielder, then Bonds will have a chance even in the NL.
--Pet
Seriously as a Yanks fan Giambi is just awful now. I say boot the dead-weight to the curb. I also think no one, not even the Yanks, would take on Bonds at this point. TOO MUCH BAGGAGE! He is also too OLD! However the age would not bother the Yanks butthe legal baggage, I see NO team picking him up.
The age shouldn't bother any team. Bonds is still one of the best hitters in baseball. Add Barry Bonds to any team and that team IS better baseball-wise.
But it's the legal issues and media headache that will make this a no-go!
The biggest Dynamic noone here has mentioned is Barry's Ego.
Any team that signs him isnt going to be paying 3,6 or 8 million, he will demand 10-15 million easy, any less and Barry wil scream he's being treated unfairly.
I think the chances of him being signed are fairly slim, but with injuries and such alot can change around the trading dealine.
I guarantee the owners have probably colluded at this point to make sure this headache stays gone in baseball. Party is over. Everyone go home. We milked the cow dry and don't want to get kicked in the head anymore. Nothing to see here, move along.
And that is in direct violation of Major League Baseball rules.Quote:
Originally Posted by RickD
For more on Bonds and possible collusion, check out these great articles by John Brattain of the Hardball Times:
Those who do not learn from history…
See windmill … tilt at windmill … rinse, lather, repeat
1st of it has to be a team in need of a DH since he cant run. 1B MAYBE.
2nd its a player who in the WS and Interleague cant play. I think he is stil a f/a because there really IS no place for him. seattle maybe. tampa but they wont pay his ego $$$. And who wants to take a chance on a guy who is going to need tome off to rest and is an injury risk. I see noone signing him because he is a 1 tool player. Yet another reason the DH should be gone. If there was no DH it wouldnt even be an AFTERTHOUGHT about him playing
Out of all the Bonds/collusion articles, I've only read one about the legal remedies Bonds can take. They are:
1. File a labor grievance: If there is true collusion, this is a violation of the Collective Bargaining Agreement that states that "players may not collude, nor may teams". Of course, filing such a grievance would take so long to wind its way through the courts that Bonds wouldn't play in 2008.
2. Pull "The Dawson" manuever: like Andre Dawson did, hold a press conference and tell the world that you'll sign a contract for any amount of money with a team. Bonds'll have to take a humiliatingly low salary, but he might get a multimillion dollar payoff if it's decided that baseball colluded. Meanwhile, he can add to his homerun totals.
The problems with this strategy are:
a) it would be a humiliating act for a proud man, and
b) there's still no guarantee that a team would sign him. It would look very bad for Bonds.
3. I, Petrel, would like to use this space to announce to major league baseball that I am ready to play in the 2008 baseball season. I'd prefer to play for the Braves, Blue Jays, Mets, Giants, or Yankees, but I'm willing to negotiate with any team in need of a 42-year old guy who has not only never played at the high school level, but has played at no level outside of two years of church league softball. I'll leave them my number and they can call me. (I am also seeking an agent.)
If teams refuse to sign me, can I ask Donald Fehr to file a collusion lawsuit on my behalf ? :D
All the defensive metrics put him around an average left fielder, and all the baserunning metrics put him around an average runner. The only real reason to try and fit him into a DH role is because it'll help keep him healthy. He is by no means a liability in the field or on the base paths. He just isn't good.Quote:
Originally Posted by TheNamelessPoet
Yes. He can.Quote:
2nd its a player who in the WS and Interleague cant play.
A lot of teams, apparantly, because tons of players who need a lot of rest and are injury risks get signed...except the very best of them.Quote:
And who wants to take a chance on a guy who is going to need tome off to rest and is an injury risk.
Ignoring that he's not a 1 tool player, because he can hit for a solid average, along with great power, and his other tools are all slightly below average to average but nothing abominable, that should be irrelevent. He's one of the absolute best hitters in the league. If your "one tool" is putting up a .450 OBP and a .550 SLG, that's **** fine tool to have.Quote:
I see noone signing him because he is a 1 tool player.
And that'd be silly because he's a very valuable player whether he plays the field or DH's. The DH just helps alleviate some of his health problems a bit.Quote:
If there was no DH it wouldnt even be an AFTERTHOUGHT about him playing
Agreed but you know it probably is still happening.Quote:
Originally Posted by HoustonGM
I know. I said I don't doubt that there's been collusion.
Bonds might as well call it a career.....and buy tickets to the HOF every year as he also won't get it for awhile.
I have a feeling about the White Sox. I think, if they start struggling, Ken Williams job security (not to mention Guillen's), could become a discussion point, and a GM trying to save his job is willing to do just about anything. Also, who do they have in LF...Brian Anderson?
:confused: Carlos Quentin...Quote:
Originally Posted by Arctic Blast
They have an outfield of Carlos Quentin, Nick Swisher, and Jermaine Dye.
Yanks will sign him because the yankees are evil and cheaters and so is Bonds :)
And this coming from a Red Sox fan. Do we need to be reminded that there were several Sox players and a GM named in the Mitchell report.Quote:
the yankees are evil and cheaters
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…