This pleas is written on a cocktail napkin! And it still stays guilty!

Trial date is March 2, 2009.

Was Bobby Bonds the player whose Miller Lite commercial was pulled because he lied about his career numbers on it?

Wow....a Bonds/Steroids thread up for over two hours and only four replies? How things have changed.

well kev,

i hear tell he ain't the only one...

Wow....a Bonds/Steroids thread up for over two hours and only four replies? How things have changed.

Indeed. Even here, the Barry fixation is rapidly fading away as the understanding dawns on more and more people that his career really is over.

By August, the threads will likely be getting zero posts, though they'll certainly shoot up again once the trial really gets underway.

The only rational explanation for this plea is

he got the first set of charges dismissed, what makes you think this set won't be dismissed as well?

he got the first set of charges dismissed, what makes you think this set won't be dismissed as well?

No, they weren't dismissed; he was still under indictment. The government just had to re-plead, which was a fairly unremarkable event.

So far everything has been pretty standard, as far as I can tell.

On steroids, I watched this documentary called Bigger, Stronger, Faster last week. It's in theaters now (at least in New York). It's a pretty interesting examination of the steroids culture in general, including the link to professional sports, even if it left a number of issues unexplored.

I mention this of course to note how clueless Henry Waxman is. See this clip, which I don't think is even a full clip of the entire scene showing his cluelessness.

From a Tim Brown column:

So, on the day the courts cut Bonds loose for the season, I called Jeff Borris, Bonds’ agent. Anything?

“No,” he said, “I did not receive any phone calls, nor do I expect any phone calls. There’s not a single team out there that has any interest in Barry Bonds at any price.”

At any price?

“At any price,” Borris said.

...

So, Bonds can still play, Borris has forwarded his records of unanswered calls and rejections to the players’ union, and now it’s starting to look bad. The man hit 28 home runs in 340 at-bats last season. His on-base percentage was .480.

And he’s not going to go quietly. Borris said Bonds continues to work out, continues to believe there’s work out there for him somewhere, someday.

“He’s definitely not retiring,” Borris said.

On steroids, I watched this documentary called Bigger, Stronger, Faster last week.

Why'd you need to be on steroids to watch a documentary?

Yeah, that's quite the authoritative showing by Waxman. Tripping over his feet on the friggin' drinking age?

“No,” he said, “I did not receive any phone calls, nor do I expect any phone calls. There’s not a single team out there that has any interest in Barry Bonds at any price.”

At any price?

“At any price,” Borris said.

Hmmmmm, who was it here at BTF who said precisely this very thing a little while back? Give me a moment, let me think, hold on a sec... oh yeah, that's right, how silly, it was me!

“He’s definitely not retiring,” Borris said.

ROFL, that's great.

Why'd you need to be on steroids to watch a documentary?

I wanted to get the full effect :-)

I wanted to get the full effect :-)

Heh. I thought you were looking fairly buff the other day...

Hmmmmm, who was it here at BTF who said precisely this very thing a little while back? Give me a moment, let me think, hold on a sec... oh yeah, that's right, how silly, it was me!

Neifi Perez never bat .000, either.

“He’s definitely not retiring,” Borris said.
ROFL, that's great.

The article you're fake-chuckling at says, "There will be no more hearings, no trials, no legal disturbances before next year... Of course Bonds has been blackballed... Bonds can still play, Borris has forwarded his records of unanswered calls and rejections to the players’ union, and now it’s starting to look bad."

There were people back in the day predicting that the Expos would teach greedy Tim Raines who was the boss. History has treated them well.

Whatever it is that you need to tell yourself in order to try and make yourself feel better, kid.

Thanks for the pep talk, Dad. But only one of us has our self-validation wrapped up in what happens to Barry Bonds.

If there were ever a case of "the market" processing all the information available to it and coming up with a decision that agrees with the consensus of the marketplace, you've got it here.

Barry Bonds's records remain in the books, because you can't erase history.

And Barry Bonds remains at home, because at this point, no team feels any compelling urge to sign him. I still think that this might change in about six weeks, but I wouldn't put much money on that thought, if you can believe that Tim Brown column.

The truth is that even though Bonds's "crime" isn't even remotely close to O.J. Simpson's, the two have this in common: Nobody in the mainstream wants anything to do with them. They don't need the court to validate common sense and logical inferences about guilt. They know damn well why Greg Anderson refused to testify under oath.

And if you want a parallel that doesn't invoke the racial sceptre: John McCain isn't likely to sign up George Bush for the remainder of the 2008 season, either. I suppose you might call that a "blackball," too, but more likely, as with Bonds, it's just a matter of too much excess weight to carry on the plane.

I am absolutely, unequivocally, 100% sure that horse racing could get rid of all the steroids and it would not help the sport one bit. Seriously, I want to meet the person who's saying "Okay, I don't mind taking horses, forcing them to race, hitting them with a whip, having a small but real chance of a life-ending injury....but giving them STEROIDS? No, I can't support that." This is a completely manufactured controversy by the anti-steroid forces, who haven't even presented a reason why horses shouldn't use them beyond OMG TEH STEROIDS. Are they worried that ponies are going to juice up to look god at the 4-H Fair?

Okay, then, inform me. What are their reasons for banning them? I never see anything beyond vague quotes from WADA people that it's a bad thing and columnists talking about how it's damaging the sport. What's it supposed to be doing to the horses?

Really, though, my problem is less with the horseracing people deciding to ban them, as it is with the way it keeps getting brought up as a terrible thing, and nobody even tries to explain why. They can ban them all, and next year we'll be talking about whatever the new reason is that horse racing is in trouble.

and next year we'll be talking about whatever the new reason is that horse racing is in trouble.

No one cares about it (same as the old reason)?

Thanks for the pep talk, Dad. But only one of us has our self-validation wrapped up in what happens to Barry Bonds.

Now now, Gonfalon--that's not at all fair to Joey. He's got his self-validation wrapped up in what happens to Barry Bonds AND in the success of John McCain's presidential candidacy.

This is a completely manufactured controversy by the anti-steroid forces

Who says horse racing is nothing like baseball.

I still don't understand how it's fun to watch tortured animals run around in circles.

Also, I don't get why people think I'm the worst person ever when I take a big bite out of Big Brown Bunny or whatever he's called and they watch auto racing for the crashes.

And we haven't yet entered the conversation about exactly where you stop once you decide it's OK to bio-engineer race horses.

I have an idea. Let's race cars.

Yeah, that's quite the authoritative showing by Waxman. Tripping over his feet on the friggin' drinking age?

This walking advertisement for term limits (33 years in Congress!) is making policy for everyone in the country.

The truth is that even though Bonds's "crime" isn't even remotely close to O.J. Simpson's, the two have this in common: Nobody in the mainstream wants anything to do with them. They don't need the court to validate common sense and logical inferences about guilt. They know damn well why Greg Anderson refused to testify under oath.

Andy, you're missing the point here. It's not a guilt-or-innocence thing with Bonds; it's a Barry Bonds thing. (And Clemens too, probably, if he were to try to play again.) The issue -- assuming no collusion, which I don't -- is the silly "media circus," not anything else. Jose Guillen was signed. Guillermo Mota was signed. Players named in the Mitchell Report were signed, and acquired. Players who failed drug tests -- whose guilt was not in doubt -- were signed, and acquired.

If there is a pattern emerging here it is perhaps that stars who are suspected of PED use with some evidence to support those accusations, and who don't grab their ankles and confess regardless of whether they are actually guilty, are blackballed. So Bonds, Clemens, Palmeiro, and McGwire are pariahs.

So Bonds, Clemens, Palmeiro, and McGwire are pariahs.

Mark McGwire voluntarily retired from the game years ago.

If there is a pattern emerging here it is perhaps that stars who are suspected of PED use with some evidence to support those accusations, and who don't grab their ankles and confess regardless of whether they are actually guilty, are blackballed. So Bonds, Clemens, Palmeiro, and McGwire are pariahs.

Palmeiro was a 40 year old, at best league-average, first baseman who stood before Congress and claimed under oath that he had never used steroids, then tested positive for them, and attempted to blame it all on one of his teammates. I would say that his case is just slightly different from the others in your list.

It's not clear to me that there's anything to the claim that he "attempted to blame it all on one of his teammates," but that seems to be the perception, so I agree that this poses a different issue. Nobody except the Orioles wanted him before the season, so it didn't exactly take collusion to keep him out of the game. And McGwire was out of the game, as Joey suprisingly gets something right, before the allegations surfaced. At most, he's being blacklisted from the HOF, which is different.

Bonds and Clemens are arguably the only two being treated differently, and it's not clear that Clemens is seeking a job, so it may just be Bonds.

Miguel Tejada is the subject of an ongoing FBI/DoJ steroids and perjury investigation, this season, right now.

Luckily, it's one of those nice federal inquiries. Not the bad kind that invalidates employability, poisons a clubhouse, creates a media circus, forever blackens the sport, and flouridates our precious bodily fluids.

The truth is that even though Bonds's "crime" isn't even remotely close to O.J. Simpson's, the two have this in common: Nobody in the mainstream wants anything to do with them. They don't need the court to validate common sense and logical inferences about guilt. They know damn well why Greg Anderson refused to testify under oath.

Andy, you're missing the point here. It's not a guilt-or-innocence thing with Bonds; it's a Barry Bonds thing. (And Clemens too, probably, if he were to try to play again.)....

If there is a pattern emerging here it is perhaps that stars who are suspected of PED use with some evidence to support those accusations, and who don't grab their ankles and confess regardless of whether they are actually guilty, are blackballed. So Bonds, Clemens, Palmeiro, and McGwire are pariahs.

As others have pointed out, McGwire and Palmeiro are in a different category, and until Clemens "unretires," so is he.

That said, I think you're right that Bonds is being treated differently than the no-names, some of whom have been signed to new contracts after their suspensions. The reason for this seems pretty clear: Nobody cares about no-names*, but enough people would probably raise enough of a stink about giving Bonds a contract** that it acts as enough of a deterrent, given his age, his potential fragility, and his salary.

If Bonds were five years younger, I don't doubt he'd be getting plenty of offers, since the potential payoff would far outweigh any possible PR hit. But at only six weeks shy of 44, the risk / reward balance is a lot less predictible.

* Hypocrisy duly noted, BBC.

**In truth maybe they would and maybe they wouldn't---I think it would vary greatly with the team and the circumstances. But it's the perception here that matters, as well as the usual CYA mentality among most baseball people.

As others have pointed out, McGwire and Palmeiro are in a different category, and until Clemens "unretires," so is he.

Yes, but -- although my language was sloppy -- I included McGwire and Palmeiro because I have little doubt that had they been free agents seeking work, they'd not have been signed. Hell, Palmeiro was sent home mid-season, and it's not clear to me that he wouldn't have been interested in continuing his career absent the controversy (granted he's somewhat of a special case).

If there were ever a case of "the market" processing all the information available to it and coming up with a decision that agrees with the consensus of the marketplace, you've got it here.

i think is unbelievably naive.

Even ESPN doesn't bring it up - What's wrong with the Mets? They have ONE HR from a LF this season, and that was Fernando Tatis. THey have an OPS+ of about 50 from that position. No matter how much you think Bonds would decline, that's utterly retarded.

The GM and Manager are going to get fired if the Mets don't get well soon, and there's no way Bonds could make it worse.

As others have pointed out, McGwire and Palmeiro are in a different category, and until Clemens "unretires," so is he.

Yes, but -- although my language was sloppy -- I included McGwire and Palmeiro because I have little doubt that had they been free agents seeking work, they'd not have been signed. Hell, Palmeiro was sent home mid-season, and it's not clear to me that he wouldn't have been interested in continuing his career absent the controversy (granted he's somewhat of a special case).

The problem with both of those guys is that they were both on their last legs, anyway. Not that you didn't know that. So neither of them would have provided much of a test for any blackballing theory.

The real test would have been if any or all four of them (including Clemens) would have hit the wall (Palmeiro failing the drug test; Bonds up for perjury; McGwire ducking testimony; Clemens named by his trainer) while they were still well before the end of their careers and hadn't been talking about retirement anyway.

Consider these hypotheticals, all based on the 2005 steroid rules having been in effect earlier:

Bonds's current plight had happened in 2002

McGwire had stonewalled Congress in the Winter of 1999

Palmeiro had failed a drug test in 1996

Clemens had been named by his trainer in December of 1998

Now assume that they'd all been found guilty and been given suspensions.

Do you think that any of these guys would have NOT been offered new contracts after their suspensions had been served? That seems highly doubtful to me.

I'm pretty sure that those contract offers would have been lower, maybe a lot lower. And maybe they might not have gotten as many of them.

But I don't think that all 30 teams would have just left them sitting at home the way Bonds is now. Not while they were still in their primes. Not while there was still guaranteed money to be made off of them, as opposed to the far less likelihood of that if Bonds were to be signed today.

In fact, I have little doubt that even though the great majority of baseball fans would have turned against all four of them, there would have been enough support for them in their respective home team cities to bring them back. Certainly in San Francisco. Certainly in New York (it might have cancelled the Clemens-Wells trade, but eventually Clemens would have made his way to New York). Almost certainly in St. Louis, especially if McGwire had pulled a Hillary and begged for forgiveness. Maybe not in Baltimore, but if not, some other team would have surely grabbed Palmeiro.

All this is to say that Bonds is primarily where he is now not because he's unusually hated (though he may well be), but because he's nearly 44 years old and he's an all around RISK. From the standpoint of your typical CYA executive, the ONLY way signing Bonds could turn out "right" would be for him to demonstrably lead his team into the postseason, and then proceed to shine once he got there. Anything short of that would bring forth all sorts of scary possibilities in the average GM's mind:

"We could have missed the playoffs without him." / "Sure he helped get us into the DS / LCS / WS, but look what he did there."

You know the drill.

Do you seriously doubt any of this on a factual basis? I can't see how this is all that controversial a way of looking at it.

The GM and Manager are going to get fired if the Mets don't get well soon, and there's no way Bonds could make it worse.

I agree with you that "there's no way that Bonds could make it worse" ON THE FIELD, but as I just said above, there are other considerations that for better or worse, GMs take into play. And I don't think that it's being "naive" to acknowledge the reality of those other considerations---quite the opposite, it's more like it's overly "idealistic" to ignore them.

Your problem is---and believe it or not, I'm meaning this as a compliment, and not a knock at all---you're looking at this as if it's purely a baseball question. Chris---it's not purely a baseball question. Maybe it should be, but it isn't. And you should know that.

And BTW, Chris, in spite of my negative HOF opinion about Bonds, if I were the Mets' GM today, I'd probably try to sign Bonds myself. I'm saying this just to make sure you don't misunderstand my reason for writing what I just did above. I was analyzing, not advocating.

Even ESPN doesn't bring it up - What's wrong with the Mets? They have ONE HR from a LF this season, and that was Fernando Tatis. THey have an OPS+ of about 50 from that position. No matter how much you think Bonds would decline, that's utterly retarded.

There are also a ton of AAAA LF mashers who they could grab for nearly nothing if you just want to improve the position. Why aren't they doing that?

I agree with you that "there's no way that Bonds could make it worse" ON THE FIELD, but as I just said above, there are other considerations that for better or worse, GMs take into play. And I don't think that it's being "naive" to acknowledge the reality of those other considerations---quite the opposite, it's more like it's overly "idealistic" to ignore them.

What are these "other considerations?" Do you think ticket sales will increase/decrease/stay the same? He'll be vilified in the press? Have you seen what the press has to say now? The fans will start to boo? What do you think they are doing now? They won't sell as much merchandise? What do you think is going to happen?

Your problem is---and believe it or not, I'm meaning this as a compliment, and not a knock at all---you're looking at this as if it's purely a baseball question.

You're problem, Andy, is that you are an arrogant ignoramus. Don't condescend to tell me how I am looking at it.

Chris---it's not purely a baseball question. Maybe it should be, but it isn't. And you should know that.

Seriously, this is douchbaggery, even for you. I am plenty old to know exactly the type of things that factors into these decisions. I do it professionally and have done so for 20 years.

And I toned those sentences down considerable. Please don't lecture me about what I think and what "I should know." It's unbecoming of you, and utter horseshit.

I am aware of the other factors, and I haven't heard a decent argument at all that "those other considerations" in any way shape or form will be worse than things are for the Mets now. After Omar and Willie get fired, what would have happened if they signed Bonds? They get *really* fired? The only bad thing will be that MLB will fine the Mets because they broke with Selig's mandate that Bonds not be signed.

The Mets will lose long-term fans because of signing Bonds? That's brutally naive. Time and winning heals ALL wounds.

SO, what are the probable repercussions of "those other considerations"? What is going to happen if the Mets sign Bonds?

There are also a ton of AAAA LF mashers who they could grab for nearly nothing if you just want to improve the position.

List?

John Rodriguez?

The GM and Manager are going to get fired if the Mets don't get well soon, and there's no way Bonds could make it worse.

Let's say...they are doing badly. Then they hire Bonds, and they do badly with Bonds on the team. That would be worse.

I agree with you that "there's no way that Bonds could make it worse" ON THE FIELD, but as I just said above, there are other considerations that for better or worse, GMs take into play. And I don't think that it's being "naive" to acknowledge the reality of those other considerations---quite the opposite, it's more like it's overly "idealistic" to ignore them.

What are these "other considerations?" Do you think ticket sales will increase/decrease/stay the same? He'll be vilified in the press? Have you seen what the press has to say now? The fans will start to boo? What do you think they are doing now? They won't sell as much merchandise? What do you think is going to happen?

Here's how I addressed that point to Ray in post #42, if you want to even bother to read it:

From the standpoint of your typical CYA executive, the ONLY way signing Bonds could turn out "right" would be for him to demonstrably lead his team into the postseason, and then proceed to shine once he got there. Anything short of that would bring forth all sorts of scary possibilities in the average GM's mind:

"We could have missed the playoffs without him." / "Sure he helped get us into the DS / LCS / WS, but look what he did there."

You know the drill.

You can agree with this or not, but if you want any more "other considerations," ask Minaya yourself. Obviously he has a few of them that you haven't thought of, or that you simply reject. But that's between you and Minaya, since I don't give a damn about the Mets.

You're problem, Andy, is that you are an arrogant ignoramus....

Seriously, this is douchbaggery, even for you....

And I toned those sentences down considerable. Please don't lecture me about what I think and what "I should know." It's unbecoming of you, and utter horseshit.

Jeez, Chris, I wonder what you would have written if I'd said that the Mets shouldn't sign Bonds! What level of douchbaggery (even for me) would that have sunk me down to?

What are these "other considerations?"

C-O-L-L-U-S-I-O-N. Anybody who thinks that the Mets are making an individual decision -- cough cough Andy cough cough -- is being incredibly naive.

And BTW, Chris, in spite of my negative HOF opinion about Bonds, if I were the Mets' GM today, I'd probably try to sign Bonds myself. I'm saying this just to make sure you don't misunderstand my reason for writing what I just did above. I was analyzing, not advocating.

curious, the Yankees aren't doing much better than the Mets, and they could realistically miss the playoffs this year also.

Do you feel the same about Cashman signing Bonds?

curious, the Yankees aren't doing much better than the Mets, and they could realistically miss the playoffs this year also.
Do you feel the same about Cashman signing Bonds?

There's nothing odd about a given team not signing Barry Bonds for one reason or another. When Alex Rodriguez hit the free agent market, there were many, many teams who did not even consider making an offer. In his case, various teams bowed out due to cost or contract length. Or in a few cases, having a top SS already. There wasn't a team in existence which couldn't have improved themselves with A-Rod, yet nobody questions why he didn't receive thirty serious offers.

There's something incredibly odd about 30 given teams taking 30 paths, and all coming to the same conclusion on Bonds. (Actually, it's not odd at all. Just obvious, shameless, and if it could ever be proven, illegal.)

The Yankees aren't a suspicious absentee in the inert Bonds sweepstakes, because they already have four outfielders playing well enough. Other teams who should have been candidates this past winter, like the Rays and the Mariners, have arguably played their way into a now-logical refusal. (Albeit in different directions.) The A's picked up Frank Thomas. The White Sox have more than filled their LF slot. The Angels have a lot of money and history with Garret Anderson. St. Louis is probably assuming Duncan will come around. Atlanta may be on the verge of bailing on '08, rather than reloading.

But the listing Mets? Minnesota and its devastating Young-Kubel combo? Cleveland? Detroit? L.A.'s Juan Pierre love affair? EVERY team in MLB? If it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, and colludes like a duck... Maybe they can all print up their "moral stand" onto a cloth pennant, and fly that instead.

What are these "other considerations?"

C-O-L-L-U-S-I-O-N. Anybody who thinks that the Mets are making an individual decision -- cough cough Andy cough cough -- is being incredibly naive.

Well, I can only give you the same answer that you give anyone about Bonds's juicing:

Prove it.

Collusion is a crime. You seem to think you have the evidence. Should be easy money, just like in '87.

The problem is that every individual team can credibly repeat the reasoning I cited above. Collectively it may very well walk, talk and quack like a duck, but the "collectivity" of that decision, absent a smoking gun, still has to be proven.

That must be a mildly annoying answer. Can't say that I blame you. You might want to reflect on what it sounds like outside the courtroom when some of (cough cough David cough cough) you pretend that Greg Anderson's silence doesn't "prove" anything, either.

---------------------

And BTW, Chris, in spite of my negative HOF opinion about Bonds, if I were the Mets' GM today, I'd probably try to sign Bonds myself. I'm saying this just to make sure you don't misunderstand my reason for writing what I just did above. I was analyzing, not advocating.

curious, the Yankees aren't doing much better than the Mets, and they could realistically miss the playoffs this year also.

Do you feel the same about Cashman signing Bonds?

This answer will satifsy absolutely no one. Be that as it may.

As a fan, I don't want Bonds on the Yankees. That's not to say that I'd object if any other team were to sign him. I just wouldn't want him on the Yankees.

But if I were Cashman, it's possible I'd feel differently. Even though I'd be taking the "baggage" question into consideration, in Cashman's position I'd feel obligated to snuff my personal feelings about Bonds. Right now I'd be thinking far more about the rotation, but I certainly wouldn't close off the Bonds option.

Collusion is a crime.

To be precise -- I know you know this Andy -- collusion is not a crime. It's just against the CBA.

To be precise -- I know you know this Andy -- collusion is not a crime. It's just against the CBA.

$hit. You mean I can't nail every Fortune 500 company for their unanimous lockstep refusal to hire me as their CEO?

As I see it, people are saying, "I think someone should sign Barry Bonds. No one has. Therefore, there's collusion. And its not just me - other people at Baseball Think Factory think teams should sign Bonds, and Baseball Prospectus too! If we think it would be a good idea, and no one has signed him, it must be collusion!"

And on the other hand, you have a 43 year old player, with no defensive value, who's offense now consists of a lot of walks and an occasional home run, who can't play full time anymore, who's offense may very well collapse this year, who is known to be a pain in the ass, who has legal difficulties, who might be a public relations nightmare, who won't solve anyone's problem's for more than the extreme short run even if his offense doesn't collapse, and so on, and so on...

And with all that said, I think it would be a good idea for one of a couple teams to sign him this year and see what he can do. I'm just not going to scream collusion because those front offices disagree with me.

There are also a ton of AAAA LF mashers who they could grab for nearly nothing if you just want to improve the position.

List?

How about a AA masher?

Collusion is a crime.

To be precise -- I know you know this Andy -- collusion is not a crime. It's just against the CBA.

True enough, and I should have made that clear. But the point remains that in both cases, there's what many people consider overwhelming evidence that points to a clear conclusion, and then there's the sticky point that there's a difference between a logical and reasonable inference, and the sort of "proof" that would stand up either in a court or before an arbitrator.

On the one hand, many of us get a bit annoyed when Greg Anderson's refusal to testify under oath is dismissed as unworthy of any logical connection to Barry Bonds's juicing. If I've heard "prove it" in that case once, I've heard it a thousand times.

And OTOH, others get equally annoyed when not one team seems to have any interest in a player with Barry Bonds's 2007 performance credentials, and yet their cries of "collusion" are likewise met with "prove it."

I think that in both cases the frustration is more than a bit understandable, independent of one's views on the larger subject of steroids and Bonds. In both cases, the people making what seems to them to be perfectly obvious deductions keep getting met by the equivalent of Jerry Seinfeld's dry cleaner, who offers every possible explanation for the fact that Jerry's shirt came back a full size smaller---other than the one explanation that makes the most sense: that his dry cleaning company shrunk the shirt.

So I feel the pain of those who are crying "collusion" here. But if they want to take it beyond the realm of easy opinion and internet forums, they're going to have to---prove it.

I know every fan base has its fair share of yahoos, but I have to admit that rooting for the same team as a certain sneering, disrespectful individual featured prominently about a dozen posts up makes me feel a little queasy. Congrats on becoming only the second BTF poster who's ever motivated me to search out the "ignore" feature. (Come to think of it, the other guy was also a fan of my team. Hmmm ....)

greenback seems ok to me.

And on the other hand, you have a 43 year old player, with no defensive value, who's offense now consists of a lot of walks and an occasional home run, who can't play full time anymore, who's offense may very well collapse this year, who is known to be a pain in the ass, who has legal difficulties, who might be a public relations nightmare, who won't solve anyone's problem's for more than the extreme short run even if his offense doesn't collapse, and so on, and so on...

But Fernando Tatis is a player with no defensive value, whose offense consists of absolutely nothing and has for several years, who should never ever play full time and by continually running him out there the Mets are saying they don't care about this season at all, which is a public relations nightmare of a different kind.

The Florida Marlins, a ballclub apparently in a pennant race, just picked up, and are giving ab's to, Jacque Jones.

Is Jacque Jones a better bat than a 50 year old Barry, hell no. All three of their fans would be upset for 48 hours, and then it would blow over. Heck I'd argue Bonds would double game attendance in the sunshine state. Plus Barry would play in the east, it would be an ESPN dream come true. ESPN should just pay his salary!

It is not inconceivable that some cheap owner, like in Florida, could get Barry Bonds for the league minimum. Yet nobody knows, cus they won't even call.

its shamefull.

its collusion.

Baseball executives, from what I can tell, genuinely believe that Bonds is a.) done and b.) too much of a distraction/poor a teammate to contribute to a team. I don't see any way he gets signed at this point. There's also a subsection that believes he needs to publically apologize for being a poor teammate and humble himself in order to be considered for a signing.

its shamefull.

its collusion.

Quite possibly true in both cases. But until that conclusion is accepted by an arbitrator, it's a "collusion" that hasn't been proven in any relevant venue. Merely repeating it here for the 1,001st time doesn't change that.

prorated league minimum

Let's say...they are doing badly. Then they hire Bonds, and they do badly with Bonds on the team. That would be worse.

Worse how? Minaya gets super-fired instead of merely fired?

The Mets are in a position where there will be an absolute explosion in the front office if they don't make the playoffs. Take every possible worst-case scenario you can imagine with Bonds in LF at Shea. He hits like Rey Ordonez, makes an error a game, and he takes a page out of the Vince Coleman fan-relations handbook. What is the most horrible thing that can happen for the franchise? And how much worse is it than winning 80-something games and missing the playoffs without him?

Of course, it's outrageous to think that Bonds is likely to be that bad. He could put up numbers like his rookie season (.223/.330/.416) and be the best offensive LF on the team other than Alou. Take away 100 points of OBP and 100 points of SLG from 2007, and he's the third-best hitter on the Mets.

Right now, there's a LF in the NL that plays absolutely terrible defense and is putting up a .259/.301/.469 line in a great hitting park. And that's good for an OPS+ of 100. It would be shocking for Bonds to be as lousy a player as Carlos Lee, and he's available for nothing but money. The Mets are crazy not to sign him.

BTW Gambling Rent, you're an Angels fan, right? Or are you a Madres fan?

In either case, I hope your team signs your man and makes everyone happy.

And on the other hand, you have a 43 year old player, with no defensive value,

By the advanced defensive metrics that I've seen, is considerably better than "no defensive value." There are players playing left field (or who would be playing left field if they weren't DHs or if there weren't a DH position) who are worse than Bonds and who are very much in demand.

who's offense now consists of a lot of walks and an occasional home run,

Bonds's "occasional" home runs are reminiscent of Chris Carter's "all he does is score touchdowns." Bonds last year hit home runs at a better rate per at bat than everyone else in the National League not named Ryan Howard or Prince Fielder -- in fact, only two players in history with over 3000 plate appearances have a lower career AB/HR than what Bonds put up just last year. Unless Mark McGwire and Babe Ruth are the only players in history who could be said, on average, to hit more than the occasional home run, I think you're underselling Bonds's home run hitting. And it's not as if a player can't be damned valuable by drawing walks and hitting home runs if he does enough of these things.

When a bunch of BBTF nerds buy a MLB franchise, I can just see it...

Fire the PR staff. Winning is all that brings fans out.
Tell all press to ### off and bar them from the locker room. No point in talking to them, winning is all that brings fans out.
Signing autographs before games? ### it, winning is all that brings fans out.
Throwing balls into stands? ### it, waste of money, winning is all that brings fans out.
Signing players under federal indictment? Why not, winning is all that brings fans out.

BTW Gambling Rent, you're an Angels fan, right? Or are you a padres fan?

I could only be so lucky.

The Angels are plum full of bats. They already have Juan Rivera and Kendry Morales under contract, and they are just rotting away.

And if San Diego signed Bonds, half the city would call it a season and start looking forward to Chargers mini-camps. There are two cities where the fan base wouldn't take to kindly to a Bonds signing, for reasons all their own.

LA and San Diego.

course, i'd get great seats

Bonds last year hit home runs at a better rate per at bat than everyone else in the National League not named Ryan Howard or Prince Fielder

The key word here is "per at bat". The percentage of times Bonds hit a home run per plate appearance was good, but nowhere near as impressive, and I think its more relevant. Bonds walks a ton, which certainly has its benefits (although he never scores as many runs as someone should with that many times on base), but it does cut into the number of home runs he hits based on his playing time.

If Bonds continues to hit lots of homeruns and draw a ton of walks and keep his average at a respectable rate, he'll continue to be a valuable hitter, which could certainly happen for a little while. Based on history, however, there's a very good reason to suspect that he is likely to lose those abilities very quickly and in the very near future.

Quite possibly true in both cases. But until that conclusion is accepted by an arbitrator, it's a "collusion" that hasn't been proven in any relevant venue. Merely repeating it here for the 1,001st time doesn't change that.

Of course, there's certainly sufficient reason to be suspicious, given the comical ethical history of the owners.

Bonds walks a ton, which certainly has its benefits (although he never scores as many runs as someone should with that many times on base),

Considering the bags of crap hitting behind him on the Giants last year, this isn't a good way to measure his ability to score.

Bat him 2nd on the Mets, and I am sure he scores a higher percentage of times than he did last year.

Based on history, however, there's a very good reason to suspect that he is likely to lose those abilities very quickly and in the very near future.

Yes, there's a good chance of Bonds losing his abilities quickly. But teams are out there signing players that either already lost their abilities or hadn't had much to begin with.

I can understand someone not buying a well-maintained 1988 Camry at any price on the reason that they're worried about it breaking down in the near future. But when that person then goes out and spends the same money on a poorly-maintained 1991 Ford Tempo or a 1993 Dodge Spirit that just needs a minor major transmission overhaul, they should hardly be able to claim that they were so worried about the Toyota. I mean, Matt Mantei and Chad Fox actually showed up in spring training this season, with the latter actually getting into a few games.

Quite possibly true in both cases. But until that conclusion is accepted by an arbitrator, it's a "collusion" that hasn't been proven in any relevant venue.

Well, yes, but that's just stating the obvious, and is kind of beside the point. A murder victim's no less dead just because his killer's still awaiting trial. (For the record--I (1) suspect Bonds is being colluded against, but (2) don't really care.)

Or perhaps not--seems to me the specter of the Federal indictment hanging over Bonds' head might be a legitimate non-collusive reason to pass on him. (Or [arguing with myself here--fun for the whole family] not again--the indictment probably wouldn't have much effect on having Bonds as an employee for the last 95 games of the season, since he doesn't go to trial [if it gets that far] till next year.)

Of course, there's certainly sufficient reason to be suspicious, given the comical ethical history of the owners.

Just as there is sufficient reason to be suspicious that Clemens used PEDs. However, as certain posters claiming Bonds is a victim of collusion have stated repeatedly with respect to Clemens, suspicion is not the same as proof.

Baseball executives, from what I can tell, genuinely believe that Bonds is a.) done

Doubtful. What part of "he led the league in OPS+ last year" do you think baseball executives do not understand?

There's also a subsection that believes he needs to publically apologize for being a poor teammate and humble himself in order to be considered for a signing.

And just how would such an apology go?

"I'm sorry, guys, for only winning the MVP four times in a row; I shouldn't have let you guys down like that. I'm sorry for leading the league in OPS+ in only 6 of the last 8 years. Sorry for hitting only .471 with 4 HRs in the World Series we lost; had I hit .600 we may have won. You guys deserved better."

I can understand someone not buying a well-maintained 1988 Camry at any price on the reason that they're worried about it breaking down in the near future. But when that person then goes out and spends the same money on a poorly-maintained 1991 Ford Tempo or a 1993 Dodge Spirit that just needs a minor major transmission overhaul, they should hardly be able to claim that they were so worried about the Toyota. I mean, Matt Mantei and Chad Fox actually showed up in spring training this season, with the latter actually getting into a few games.

But the '88 Camry has "I HATE FAGS", "FARK THE POPE", and "I BAGGED YOUR MOM" spray painted on it, and was last owned by a drug dealer and was recently searched by federal authorities and has another pending search scheduled for an upcoming trial. Does that change your valuation of it? Or should we all just scream "look at the reliability measures and TCO of the '88 camry!!!1"

But the '88 Camry has "I HATE FAGS", "FARK THE POPE", and "I BAGGED YOUR MOM" spray painted on it, and was last owned by a drug dealer and was recently searched by federal authorities and has another pending search scheduled for an upcoming trial. Does that change your valuation of it? Or should we all just scream "look at the reliability measures and TCO of the '88 camry!!!1"

Heh. This thread could produce the most entertaining analogies yet devised by man.

But the '88 Camry has "I HATE FAGS", "FARK THE POPE", and "I BAGGED YOUR MOM" spray painted on it.

Isn't that Hagee's car?

The key word here is "per at bat". The percentage of times Bonds hit a home run per plate appearance was good, but nowhere near as impressive, and I think its more relevant. Bonds walks a ton, which certainly has its benefits (although he never scores as many runs as someone should with that many times on base), but it does cut into the number of home runs he hits based on his playing time.

Here's a free clue: walks are good things.

But the '88 Camry has "I HATE FAGS", "FARK THE POPE", and "I BAGGED YOUR MOM" spray painted on it, and was last owned by a drug dealer and was recently searched by federal authorities and has another pending search scheduled for an upcoming trial. Does that change your valuation of it? Or should we all just scream "look at the reliability measures and TCO of the '88 camry!!!1"

You can paint a car and I don't think you can sell a car with a pending search.

The drug car, of course, makes it more desirable. I would assume that big drug deals require dependable modes of transportation. If a drug dealer trusted his car to transport many kilos of blow or suitcases full of cash, it's a car that I can trust to get me to the grocery store.

Here's a free clue: walks are good things.

True, but the value of a walk depends on both the player doing the walking, as well as the batters available behind the player doing the walking. Bonds' walks tend to be worth less to his teams because:
1) He's lost a lot of his speed
2) Batters behind him have been unlikely or unable to turn his walks into runs
3) His walk totals have been heavily influenced by IBB, which are extremely context dependent.

That being said, Bonds and his walks would look really nice in LF for the Jays.

Quite possibly true in both cases. But until that conclusion is accepted by an arbitrator, it's a "collusion" that hasn't been proven in any relevant venue. Merely repeating it here for the 1,001st time doesn't change that.

Of course, there's certainly sufficient reason to be suspicious, given the comical ethical history of the owners.

No question about that, Dan. Just as to many of us there's certainly sufficient reason to draw conclusions from the sight of Barry Bonds's trainer sitting there refusing to testify under oath about Bonds and steroids. No proof there, either.

--------------

Quite possibly true in both cases. But until that conclusion is accepted by an arbitrator, it's a "collusion" that hasn't been proven in any relevant venue.

Well, yes, but that's just stating the obvious, and is kind of beside the point. A murder victim's no less dead just because his killer's still awaiting trial.

Again, just as in the case of "do we really know for sure that Bonds juiced?", you're correct about the logic, but all the logic in the world won't help you until you get an arbitrator (or a jury) to agree with you. I'm not saying that there's no logical reason to infer some sort of collusion, but until you "prove" it, it's little more than a cry in the wilderness.

Again, just as in the case of "do we really know for sure that Bonds juiced?", you're correct about the logic, but all the logic in the world won't help you until you get an arbitrator (or a jury) to agree with you. I'm not saying that there's no logical reason to infer some sort of collusion, but until you "prove" it, it's little more than a cry in the wilderness.

And, again--I don't think anyone's disputing that. I don't think (most of) the folks arguing Bonds is being colluded against actually think the owners will be FOUND to have colluded. I think they're arguing that (as in the "did he juice or not" arguments) the evidence points that way, and critiquing the possible justifications for no team's having signed him. Nothing unusual about this.

Isn't that Hagee's car?

Heh.

Doubtful. What part of "he led the league in OPS+ last year" do you think baseball executives do not understand?

Based on this past week...they understand none of that.

And just how would such an apology go?

"I'm sorry, guys, for only winning the MVP four times in a row; I shouldn't have let you guys down like that. I'm sorry for leading the league in OPS+ in only 6 of the last 8 years. Sorry for hitting only .471 with 4 HRs in the World Series we lost; had I hit .600 we may have won. You guys deserved better."

I was told it should be something along the lines of "Sorry for being a bad teammate and not respecting the game enough."

it's a car that I can trust to get me to the grocery store.

So you are going by the reliability ratings.

Prove it.

Collusion is a crime. You seem to think you have the evidence. Should be easy money, just like in '87.

The problem is that every individual team can credibly repeat the reasoning I cited above. Collectively it may very well walk, talk and quack like a duck, but the "collectivity" of that decision, absent a smoking gun, still has to be proven.

When somebody investigating MLB for collusion against Barry Bonds is endowed with subpoena power and the ability to compel discovery and call witnesses, "Prove it" will be a legitimate argument. But we're not in a court of law trying to impose penalties on MLB for their actions and nobody here has any ability to procure any evidence other than whatever circumstantial evidence is in the public domain. Some people think that circumstantial evidence is powerful enough to support an inference of collusion. Others do not. That's the crux of the discussion. If Dial takes this to court on behalf of Barry Bonds, then the judge can tell him "Prove it." Until that time, all we can do is argue about what we know. Last I checked, there were no standards of proof required to make an argument on an internet message board.

If Bonds continues to hit lots of homeruns and draw a ton of walks and keep his average at a respectable rate, he'll continue to be a valuable hitter, which could certainly happen for a little while. Based on history, however, there's a very good reason to suspect that he is likely to lose those abilities very quickly and in the very near future.


To what degree?

The problem starts with a failure to properly value the level of Bonds' performance as recently as the 2007 season. He wasn't just a decent hitter or a good hitter. He was one of the best hitters in the sport. He wasn't a brutal defender. He was merely below-average. He wasn't a terrible, immobile baserunner.

There is so much space for Bonds to drop from 2007 production and still remain not only a useful player, but a very good player. Even the type of production drop that we've seen in other players and described as "falling off a cliff" would not reduce Bonds to below-average overall.

Roberto Alomar had a collapse going from 2001 to 2002. He went from .336/.415/.541 to .266/.331/.376. Take away 70 points of BA, 84 points of OBP, and 165 points of SLG, and Bonds puts up a .206/.396/.400 line, which would be the best OBP in the Met lineup and a SLG better than all of the Met LF in 2008. With that significant a collapse from 2007, Bonds would be the 4th best hitter in the lineup.

True, but the value of a walk depends on both the player doing the walking, as well as the batters available behind the player doing the walking. Bonds' walks tend to be worth less to his teams because:
1) He's lost a lot of his speed

How many runs do you think this costs his team? Please do the math. And then let us know whether finishing in the top 5 in OPS+ might offset that just a little.

2) Batters behind him have been unlikely or unable to turn his walks into runs

Which is mainly the fault of the batters hitting behind him, obviously.

The attempt to criticize Bonds for reaching base is rather comical, and just shows the nonsense people are willing to engage in in order to justify a position that is not justifiable. People are now criticizing Bonds for reaching base instead of hitting a home run. Okay.

3) His walk totals have been heavily influenced by IBB, which are extremely context dependent.

And now the ludicrous criticism that Bonds is so good that he receives intentional walks which deprive him of the opportunity to hit a home run in a big spot.

It makes not the slighest bit of sense, Ryan.

But thanks for highlighting the fact that opposing managers thought Bonds was so "done" last year that they... issued him a league-leading 43 intentional walks.

I'd simply have an easier time believing that 30 teams individually decided that his charges were too much of a distraction if other players with legal problems had received similar treatment. I mean Elijah Dukes threatened to kill his wife and Bobby Chouinard actually pointed a gun at his wife's head, yet they weren't blacklisted.

There's no proof as of yet, but given the history of the owners, it's not a stretch to envision it happening.

Again, just as in the case of "do we really know for sure that Bonds juiced?", you're correct about the logic, but all the logic in the world won't help you until you get an arbitrator (or a jury) to agree with you. I'm not saying that there's no logical reason to infer some sort of collusion, but until you "prove" it, it's little more than a cry in the wilderness.

And, again--I don't think anyone's disputing that. I don't think (most of) the folks arguing Bonds is being colluded against actually think the owners will be FOUND to have colluded. I think they're arguing that (as in the "did he juice or not" arguments) the evidence points that way, and critiquing the possible justifications for no team's having signed him. Nothing unusual about this.

I understand this, and I'm not denying the logical inference of collusion, even though each and every individual owner and GM could offer the same reasons for not making Bonds an offer.*

But I also find it amusing that many of the same people who were forever raising the "not proven" cry about Bonds and steriods (while at the same time defending Greg Anderson's silence, and claiming not to see any connection between the two) are reluctant to see the obvious parallel between that case, and this case of collusion. The only substantive difference seems to be whose ox is getting gored.

* Though it's hard to imagine why, given the current circumstances, no owner or GM has decided to try the gambit of offering Bonds the minimum prorated salary. Clearly that would be an insult, and would almost certainly be slapped down by Bonds, but it would at least establish the beginning of a process.

Absent even this minimum offer, IMO the case for collusion becomes much stronger.

Until that time, all we can do is argue about what we know. Last I checked, there were no standards of proof required to make an argument on an internet message board.

Agreed. However, as noted above, several of the people who are arguing that Bonds is a victim of collusion based on their suspicions are the same people who aggressively pursue those who argue that Clemens used PEDs based on their suspicions. My understanding is that Andy's comments to "Prove it" are directed at those same people.

I'm sure that Andy will (rightfully) correct me if my understanding is wrong.

When somebody investigating MLB for collusion against Barry Bonds is endowed with subpoena power and the ability to compel discovery and call witnesses, "Prove it" will be a legitimate argument. But we're not in a court of law trying to impose penalties on MLB for their actions and nobody here has any ability to procure any evidence other than whatever circumstantial evidence is in the public domain. Some people think that circumstantial evidence is powerful enough to support an inference of collusion. Others do not. That's the crux of the discussion. If Dial takes this to court on behalf of Barry Bonds, then the judge can tell him "Prove it." Until that time, all we can do is argue about what we know. Last I checked, there were no standards of proof required to make an argument on an internet message board.

That's a very good argument. Try it sometime on those who say that Greg Anderson's silence shouldn't be used as evidence (here on BTF, not in court) of Bonds's juicing.

EDIT: However, as noted above, several of the people who are arguing that Bonds is a victim of collusion based on their suspicions are the same people who aggressively pursue those who argue that Clemens used PEDs based on their suspicions. My understanding is that Andy's comments to "Prove it" are directed at those same people.

I'm sure that Andy will (rightfully) correct me if my understanding is wrong.

Ryan ain't wrong. That's exactly whom my comments have been directed towards.

And now the ludicrous criticism is that Bonds is so good that he receives intentional walks which deprive him of the opportunity to hit a home run in a big spot.

It makes not the slighest bit of sense, Ryan.

Ray, I was merely commenting that the value of Bonds' walks may be less that the average value typically associated with a BB. Whether or not you want to admit it, context does matter.

Also, thank you for failing to quote only the part of my comment where I state that I would be happy if my team were to sign him.

EDIT: To clarify, it is recognized that Bonds has, at best, limited control over the context of his walks.

I mean Elijah Dukes threatened to kill his wife and Bobby Chouinard actually pointed a gun at his wife's head, yet they weren't blacklisted.

Because the talk shows aren't constantly filled with discussions of it, ESPN doesn't lead off with it, people aren't showing up at their games dancing around with placards of pregnant women and guns (instead of asterisks and syringes), Around the Horn doesn't go into 24 hour coverage, etc.

I don't see why its so difficult to see why teams wouldn't want to sign him.

That's a very good argument. Try it sometime on those who say that Greg Anderson's silence shouldn't be used as evidence (here on BTF, not in court) of Bonds's juicing.

I generally try to stay away from the Bonds threads, but:

1) There is a difference between arguing that Greg Anderson's silence shouldn't be used as evidence of Bonds's juicing as a logical matter than as a procedural matter. I have no problem with the former but I do with the latter (so long as we are arguing on BTF).

2) There has been quite a bit more pressure brought to bear on answering the question as to whether Bonds used steroids than whether MLB is colluding against Bonds.

But I also find it amusing that many of the same people who were forever raising the "not proven" cry about Bonds and steriods (while at the same time defending Greg Anderson's silence, and claiming not to see any connection between the two) are reluctant to see the obvious parallel between that case, and this case of collusion. The only substantive difference seems to be whose ox is getting gored.


I think you're missing a pretty significant difference. It's a response to a mentality that Bonds is unquestionably guilty and that there's no need for any trial of the facts before passing judgment. People cry "not proven" re: Bonds in response to "Bonds should be suspended/made ineligible to play" or "The HR ball deserves an asterisk" or "We shouldn't acknowledge Bonds' records because they are tainted." Those same people are not suggesting that MLB teams be punished or even censured unless there's some showing of proof.

There is no question that it's reasonable to suspect Bonds of using PEDs. Even the most ardent Bonds supporters tend to say it's more likely he used than not used.

Historically, baseball teams have been willing to sign players that were less productive than Bonds in 2007, despite serious character issues such as wife-beating, drunk driving, weapons charges, etc. Vince Coleman injured a pitcher on his own team, and injured three young fans by throwing a firecracker at them in the same year. The very next year, he signed with Kansas City and got around a 30% raise.

I find it highly suspect that none of 30 teams would take a flyer on Bonds even with a lowball offer. I could see some teams making an argument that they thought they were good enough and so didn't want the hassle of the PR hit. I could see some teams making the argument that they wanted to develop long-term LF/DH prospects because they weren't winning in 2008 anyway. I could see some teams unwilling to sign him for a large salary. But nobody, not even an offer at league minimum? I don't see 30 front offices with 30 different philosophies on player acquistion all making the same decision, one out of character with the history of baseball in hiring "problem players."

That said, my suspicion is clearly not enough evidence to suggest that the MLBPA should just assume guilt and move right to the punishment stage. Certainly, it's worth questioning.

Another substantial difference is that there isn't universal agreement that PEDs are even a bad thing. Baseball itself turned a blind eye to the "problem" because it liked the on-field results. Many players knew about PED use and didn't report it. I think you'd have a harder time finding people that support collusion as a general principle as something reasonable.

Historically, baseball teams have been willing to sign players that were less productive than Bonds in 2007, despite serious character issues such as wife-beating, drunk driving, weapons charges, etc. Vince Coleman injured a pitcher on his own team, and injured three young fans by throwing a firecracker at them in the same year. The very next year, he signed with Kansas City and got around a 30% raise.

This argument is based on the idea that the only reason people have been unwilling to sign Bonds is moral. Its just not true. First of all, Bonds' age matters. Almost Everyone around here completely ignores it, but its relevant. Its one thing to take a chance on a 23 or even 32 year old player with character issues, and another to take a chance on a 44 year old with character and PR issues.

Second, It makes no sense whatsoever for most of the 30 teams out there to sign Bonds - Either they already have a left fielder/DH, or they shouldn't be signing 44 year old baseball players due to their current level of competitiveness. The actual number of teams where it makes some sense to take a chance on someone like Bonds is much, much smaller than 30. Its much more understandable why five teams haven't signed him despite being in a realistic situation to do so, versus 30 teams.

The actual number of teams where it makes some sense to take a chance on someone like Bonds is much, much smaller than 30. Its much more understandable why five teams haven't signed him despite being in a realistic situation to do so, versus 30 teams.

This is an extremely important point. Of the teams out there, who are both in contention, and have a spot to play him. Personally, this is the list I would go with:
1) Mets - huge hole in LF
2) Jays - same as above, and have a DH spot available
While other teams may be able to use a player like Bonds, too many of them either aren't in contention, or would have to move another useful player to the bench - many of whom have large contracts (Yankees, Angels).

I'm sure there are other teams, but the two above are the ones who first come to mind.

And the Mets are just barely hanging onto the edge of "contention" by their fingernails.

There is still a chance they could make the playoffs, but they have to play .600 ball (or close to it) from here on out, and let's be honest: that's probably not going to happen.

Depending on what's going on with Ortiz's injury, the Red Sox are certainly in the same group as the Mets and Jays -- perhaps behind them for now because in a sense it's less obvious they need to make a move (as Ortiz's absence has yet to make itself seriously felt in the standings).

The Red Sox, even with Ortiz' injury, still have enough players to fill out DH and OF without adding Bonds. All they do is put either Crisp or Ellsbury in LF, and play a full defensive configuration.