User Comments, Suggestions, or Complaints | Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Advertising
Buy MLB playoff tickets, plus 2011 World Series, 2011 ALCS tickets and NLCS game tickets. We also have Texas Rangers playoff schedule, tickets to Red Sox games and Yankees game tickets. Plus, buy Phillies baseball tickets, Tigers playoff tickets and the biggies like ALDS baseball tickets and 2011 NLDS tickets. |
Demarini, Easton and TPX Baseball Bats
|
AllianceTickets.com has cheap MLB Tickets. Get all your Colorado Rockies Tickets, Seattle Mariners Tickets, San Francisco Giants Tickets and all your favorite baseball tickets here. We also carry cheap Denver Broncos Tickets, Seattle Seahawks Tickets and Denver Nuggets Tickets. |
Page rendered in 2.6497 seconds
40 querie(s) executed
Reader Comments and Retorts
Go to end of page
Statements posted here are those of our readers and do not represent the BaseballThinkFactory. Names are provided by the poster and are not verified. We ask that posters follow our submission policy. Please report any inappropriate comments.
The reason Bonds' age is relevant is because old players tend to decline more sharply than young players. I don't fail to acknowledge Bonds' age at all. I gave a pretty extreme example of a collapse in Roberto Alomar and applied that sort of dropoff to Bonds' 2007 numbers, and he still was a plus offensive player. It most certainly isn't just some arbitrary threshold where teams simply won't sign any player once he crosses a certain age. Julio Franco had a job at 48. The difference between the 23 or 32 or 44 year old is how much the performance is likely to decline, not a negative in itself... a 44-year old with X defense and Y offense in Z games isn't worse than a 22-year old with X defense and Y offense in Z games because he's older.
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.
There is no team in baseball that does not have at least one man on the 25-man roster that is not inferior to the most pessimistic reasonable expectation of what Bonds 2008 would look like. Not one.
It may make sense that some teams wouldn't want to pay him starter money, or sign him to a multi-year deal. It may make sense that some teams have young players that they'd rather start over Bonds based on where they are in the success cycle. It may make sense that a very small number of teams would feel so confident in their drive for a championship in 2008 that they wouldn't see Bonds as a difference-maker worth the PR hit (Boston comes to mind as a possibility, the Mets perhaps entering the 2008 season... I think it's wrong to have that level of confidence that you deliberately avoid signing a player that is highly likely to improve your team at such little cost).
There is no team for which signing Bonds for league minimum would be a poor on-the-field decision. If he was terrible, you could cut him. If you want to start your young LF, put Bonds on the bench and have him PH in the 7th. If you are so out of contention, at least he'll draw a few more fans to the park, even if only to boo him.
and a willingness to sign and play other player with a connection to steroids
and a team that has shown no apparent clue WRT the aging curve.
Mutt LFs have hit .235/.288/.305 with ONE(1) home run.
The headed into the season with Moises Alou as their LF.
They once signed Julio Franco to a 2 year deal.
They are now playing Tatis
They resigned Mota after his PED suspension
The Mutts showing NO interest in Bonds would be a clear sign of collusion, if not for the fact that the org still has it's head stuck as far up its posterior as it was the day they traded for the wrong Zambrano.
Two questions:
(1) Is it the case that Bonds has not been approached by anyone for a league-minimum shot?
(2) Do chemistry questions matter at all? The mention of Julio Franco suggested this to me. With Franco, all you got was an old guy who could do a few things w/o any (apparent) clubhouse problems at all and perhaps even some clubhouse assets. If you're gonna go old guy, wouldn't you want to go "sage, quiet, no special treatment" old guy?
I agree w/Chris et al that on talent alone, Bonds is better than a lot of the crap out there.
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.
To the second point, no argument.
To the first, the "logical matter" is all I've ever talked about. I've never said that Anderson's silence constituted any sort of procedural (or legal) proof against Bonds. I don't even think that prosecutors should be wasting their time on ballplayers to begin with. Anderson himself is another matter. My only stand against Bonds is in the case of the Hall of Fame, where legal arguments about proof are no more relevant than they should be here on BTF.
---------------------------
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.
Well, here you're lumping together several different arguments, not all of which are necessarily held by the same people. I'll break it down:
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.
My case here has never been that Bonds is "unquestionably guilty." My position is that it's hard for me to form any other working hypothesis when I look at Greg Anderson's refusal to testify under oath about his relationship with Bonds.
People cry "not proven" re: Bonds in response to "Bonds should be suspended/made ineligible to play"
I've never once said that "Bonds should be suspended/made ineligible to play", since he's never failed a steroids test. I certainly have never said that no team should sign him now.
or "The HR ball deserves an asterisk"
Whether or not #756 "deserves" an asterisk is a legitimate matter for debate. I do applaud Mark Ecko's action, though, for reasons that I've spelled out ad nauseum on at least two long threads.
or "We shouldn't acknowledge Bonds' records because they are tainted."
At one point a couple of years ago I said I think that they should be asterisked. I no longer believe that, at least not in any official record book. And I've never said that they shouldn't be "acknowledged." I'm not channeling Frank Robinson on that subject.
Those same people are not suggesting that MLB teams be punished or even censured unless there's some showing of proof.
"Punishing" them obviously requires proof. But go ahead and "censure" all you want. I'm not even really arguing with you on that point, even though I can still see the case that given the CYA and herdlike attitude of owners and GMs, formal "collusion" isn't really necessary, and isn't necessarily there.
You talk about "have enough players," and then you cite Coco Crisp?
Yes. Completely, and without question. Jeff Borris said: "There’s not a single team out there that has any interest in Barry Bonds at any price."
He then repeated "At any price."
Bonds' agent has indicated that no team has approached him with any offers whatsoever. Since this is from Bonds' agent, you'll probably want to take this with a grain of salt.
EDIT: Looks like Ray beat me to it.
Why?
Last year, he put in a monster defensive season, and they're on the hook for his salary (~$6M a season) for the next couple years. He does have value, even if it's not (nearly) as much as a standard Bonds season.
There are 100 games left in the season for the Mets. If they play .550 for the rest of the season, that's 85 wins. That's close enough to playoff contention in this division that a swing of as few as 2 or 3 games could be the difference between making the playoffs or staying home.
Of the teams out there, who are both in contention, and have a spot to play him.
For league-minimum or close to it? Every team has 100 PA to throw at a bench player.
You hit a point where you need to either expect Bonds to experience an unrealistic decline in production, or where a team is so good that the best place for Bonds to play on that roster provides a negligible difference. 50-100 PA of Bonds is enough production to merit minimum salary as a financial decision, even for the Marlins.
B/c an agent's job is to protect his client and make him appear in the best light?
The same reason that anything taken from an agent should be considered with a grain of salt. It's in their interest to spin things as best they can.
In this case, it's in the agent's best interest to make it seem like he's not getting offers due to circumstances out of his control, rather than due to his own abilities - it doesn't look good for him to his other clients if he can't get a contract for the all-time HR champ.
That being said, I believe him in this case.
How interested do you think Bonds would be in:
a) playing for the minimum, or
b) acting as a 5th OF, PH for 50 - 100 AB.
In my opinion, I think the answer to both would be "he's not".
I mean, for all intensive porpoises, the Sox had an option of playing Crisp over "Bonds," but oddly enough they chose to play Ramirez in left and their version of "Bonds" (i.e., Ortiz) at DH.
If Bonds were interested in rehabilitating his reputation, with an eye on the HOF vote, it seems to me nothing would go farther than taking this kind of role on a playoff team.
That being said, Barry has never given us much reason to believe he cares about his reputation, so I doubt any of us have any real idea what Bonds is likely to think (and yes, Ray, that includes you).
Teams who already have a left fielder/DH (I'm sure Bonds would love to sign somewhere so that he can pinch hit once a week - either that or you can bench your currently well-performing and popular leftfielder/DH to play a guy no one likes)
Teams who are not competitive (it makes lots of sense for non-competitive teams to sign 43 year old players with PR issues, instead of a younger player who might actually help the team in a year or two)
What the hell would the Red Sox do with Bonds once Ortiz comes back? Bench him? Release him? Bench Ortiz? Bench Manny? Do you really not see how insane these options are?
According to his agent, yes. This seems like a very foolish thing to lie about because it's so easy to get caught, but I suppose it's possible that he's being dishonest.
(2) Do chemistry questions matter at all? The mention of Julio Franco suggested this to me. With Franco, all you got was an old guy who could do a few things w/o any (apparent) clubhouse problems at all and perhaps even some clubhouse assets. If you're gonna go old guy, wouldn't you want to go "sage, quiet, no special treatment" old guy?
Chemistry definitely matters, but not as much as performance. I'd rather have a miserable scumbag that is probably going to be a productive baseball player than a charming mascot that is nearly certain to be terrible. Franco was actually a productive player even as a 46 year old, so he's not really that guy.
I know that when Tatis or Marlon Anderson or Easley is playing LF, that it's nearly certain they bring less production than Bonds, and I know that costs the Mets runs. I know Bonds will bring a lot of media attention if he's on the club.
I don't know that this attention will be a bad thing for the Mets. It might be good. People won't be talking about Beltran's silence or Wagner's big mouth or other potential clubhouse problems. Bonds will be a magnet for all of the negative attention. That could be a positive thing for this team. I'm not saying it would certainly be positive, but it could be. I'm just guessing about the effect.
On-field production can be predicted with better accuracy than the effects of interactions between 25 players and the front office and the media and the fans. So generally, if one player is much better in terms of his talent and performance, I'll wiegh that much more heavily than how nice a guy he is.
Or it could be the press talking about Beltran's silence over the Bonds issue, or Wagner's big mouth shooting off about Bonds. It would be very easy for the Bonds coverage to spill over into other areas of the team.
However, on this issue, I'll state that I'm just guessing too.
a) playing for the minimum, or
b) acting as a 5th OF, PH for 50 - 100 AB.
In my opinion, I think the answer to both would be "he's not".
I agree, and here's a question that really can't be answered with any certainty:
How many GMs out there might be willing to give Bonds a shot, but are deterred by the thought that what they'd feel comfortable in offering would be so much below Bonds's minimum asking price that it wouldn't even be worth the effort of trying?
I'm trying to see this from Bonds's point of view, discarding the rhetoric.
Here I am, Barry Bonds, with plenty of cash in the bank, and a place in baseball history, good and / or bad, that can't possibly be altered significantly by whatever I might be able to do in a few months at the age of 44.
Why on Earth would I want to sign any sort of a contract that didn't approach what should rationally be expected for a batter with my proven track record, and with my 2007 season? Why should I grovel to people who likely despise me behind my back? Love me or hate me, I'm a proud man, and proud men don't grovel.
Given that this is a fairly logical and reasonable point of view, why would you suppose that most GMs aren't aware of it? And given the pressures from the other direction, which say "we can't be seen giving Barry Bonds too much money," why would you also not see the position that this puts these GMs in, and why would you not see that from their POV, it's perfectly rational just to walk away from the whole damn mess, with or without any collusion?
That media has stamina. Lupica would be following him into every urinal, scooping up the leftovers for sample. Some phanatic like kevin would do it for free, and who knows what would end up in there.
The first sign of a blemish, and we would have "Zit Gate".
Come to think of it, anywhere but New York. Either of them.
Not when it's so easy to get caught lying.
Would it really be so hard for Selig to say: "Borris's claim is not true. We had X number of clubs approach Bonds expressing interest, and Y number of clubs offer Bonds a contract."
And your argument would be more persuasive if there was a single club who had expressed even the slightest bit of interest in signing Bonds.
I don't see why such "spin" puts Bonds in the best light anyway. "Hey, nobody else thinks my client is worth any price -- everyone apparently thinks he's a pariah and that there would be a fan revolt -- but you should sign him."
It would be far better to say "He's received some interest and some offers, and he appreciates those, but he is hoping to find something that might be a better fit."
But if he's lying about no interest/offers, then he could get a contract for the all-time HR champ. Your analysis makes no sense.
So when you said "Since this is from Bonds' agent you'll probably want to take this with a grain of salt," you were just wasting everyone's time?
You can live with his utter lack of offense in center, given his defense. I say live with it. It doesn't make him a valuable player, by any stretch of the imagination. Even less so in left field.
Well, now you admit that it's not nearly as much as what Bonds might be able to provide. So I don't know why you were claiming that Crisp could somehow approach Bonds's value. You said:
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.
a) playing for the minimum, or
b) acting as a 5th OF, PH for 50 - 100 AB.
In my opinion, I think the answer to both would be "he's not".
How interested do you think a team would be in substantially improving 50-100 AB over the season if it cost them the minimum salary and the worst player on the 25-man roster? Even with a huge PR hit, there's no Dallas Cowboys signing Pacman Jones or Nationals trading for Elijah Dukes?
If he's not interested, he can say no. At the very least, a club making that offer has eliminated any question of collusion.
How many GMs out there might be willing to give Bonds a shot, but are deterred by the thought that what they'd feel comfortable in offering would be so much below Bonds's minimum asking price that it wouldn't even be worth the effort of trying?
The effort of saying to his agent that you'd be interested in his services at a certain price but not interested in negotiation? If I'm a MLB GM, I call the agent and put a minimum salary offer on the table. If for nothing else, I do it just to protect myself from the perception of collusion.
If the agent says no then it cost me less than 5 minutes of time. If the agent says yes, the club likely pays his entire salary with extra fans in the first home series. I have to be willing to risk 5 minutes on that sort of potential win.
Well, gee, I don't know. If teams are really wondering the same thing (hint: they're not), there would be one certain way to find out:
Ask him.
Heh. I like this.
Robert, you are a bonified pre-Madonna. :-)
It wasn't about putting Bonds in the best light. My comment was about the agent putting himself in the best possible light.
Or he can't get an offer worthy of a player of Bonds talents - which reflects poorly on the agent.
It's nice to see that you've decided to start taking everyones word at face value, without consideration of the possibilities.
The effort of saying to his agent that you'd be interested in his services at a certain price but not interested in negotiation? If I'm a MLB GM, I call the agent and put a minimum salary offer on the table. If for nothing else, I do it just to protect myself from the perception of collusion.
If the agent says no then it cost me less than 5 minutes of time. If the agent says yes, the club likely pays his entire salary with extra fans in the first home series. I have to be willing to risk 5 minutes on that sort of potential win.
I agree here about eliminating the "perception of collusion" part, but I'm still skeptical as to how many GMs would want to be put in the position of making what would in many ways an insulting offer to a man who is not only the greatest hitter of his generation, but who on the evidence of 2007 still retains a skill level that in a rational world should rightfully command more than an insult. There may well be more than "5 minutes of time" at stake here. Any GM---and especially the first GM---who makes that ridiculously lowball offer is going to know the price he's going to have to pay when he looks himself in the mirror the next morning. Studied disrespect doesn't always sit well with the disrespector. In the real world, it isn't always "just business."
And yet the GMs are also aware of the counterforces. I know it's kind of silly to show any sort of empathy for general managers, but I have to say that I wouldn't want to be in their position here.
I never said that Crisp was equivalent to Bonds. I only said that the Red Sox already have players capable of filling the holes incurred by Ortiz' injury. You've decided to infer the equivalence between Bonds and Crisp.
Would Bonds be an improvement over Crisp? It seems likely. Are the Red Sox in desperate need of a replacement for Ortiz? Not really.
Am I missing something, or did you later admit that you believe Borris and, thus, were _not_ really taking his statement "with a grain of salt."
But Crisp is not capable of filling the hole. And if you're not arguing that he could approach Bonds's value, I don't see what your point was. We're talking about whether Bonds would improve the Red Sox.
I'm inclined to believe him, but that doesn't mean that he's telling the truth. His statement, given the absence of our absolute knowledge, should be evaluated in light of his own interests.
That's really what I was trying to get at. If people are arguing that Anderson's refusal to testify against Bonds doesn't constitute proof that Bonds used steroids because Anderson could have had many other reasons for refusing to testify and his refusal thus doesn't further the conclusion that Bonds used steroids, I think that is a fair argument. If people were arguing that Anderson's refusal to testify against Bonds doesn't constitute proof that Bonds used steroids because, as a matter of process, we shouldn't consider such things, then I would have a problem with it. To me, it's the difference between saying something is not proof because it doesn't support the intended conclusion and saying that it is not proof because qualitatively it doesn't fit in the category of what we acceptably deem to be "proof." While the latter might be a valid position in the courtroom, I don't believe it is in casual discussion. If Bonds' supporters were only taking the former position, I think it is acceptable for them to do so without being labeled as hypocrites for alleging collusion against MLB against Bonds without "proof." But as you can see, I haven't really followed the Bonds discussions very closely, so I could be missing something.
Edited because Ryan answered it, more tactfully.
I don't know. I kind of preferred your version.
Really? I thought we were talking about which teams currently have a legitimate need for Barry Bonds in order to remain contenders - that's why I originally listed Toronto and the Mets as teams which should be pursuing Bonds.
Based on Boston's current roster, I don't think they have such a need. I'm assuming that you disagree with that point.
I don't see how offering to give Bonds a spot on your team when he says he wants to play and nobody else has offered one isn't more than an insult. Bonds and his agent are not stupid. They know that the baggage is a serious concern.
If I'm Minaya, I call up Borris and say something like "Look, I think our club could really use Bonds but my bosses are really resistant to the idea for all of the non-baseball reasons. I think I would be able to pitch it to them to get you a minimum contract and at least your guy would be playing. If you think Bonds wouldn't be interested, I understand completely, but my hands are tied. Is this something worth working on?"
I don't know how someone not looking to be insulted can get insulted by that. And if they are looking to be insulted, who cares what they think?
I completely believe Borris and take his statement at face value and I'm not skeptical of it at all. Just so my position is clear.
That doesn't mean he's telling the truth, of course; it means I believe him. Note the following:
1) Bonds has said he is training and wants to play.
2) Bonds has said that he has heard nothing from any team.
3) Borris has said that he has received no interest or offers from any team.
4) It would be silly for Borris to claim that he's received no interest/offers when he has.
5) No team has expressed the slightest bit of interest publicly in signing Bonds.
6) Some teams have said that signing Bonds is not an option at any price.
7) Bud Selig has not said that any team expressed interest to Bonds.
Given all of those factors, I believe Borris. Completely, and without reservation.
The "baggage discount" may shave that down quite a bit, but it doesn't bring it down to the dog biscuit level. I don't think that Bonds is necessarily "looking to be insulted" to be insulted by an obviously lowball offer that pays no attention to his record, but seems to be nothing more than a case of wanting something for nothing.
If I'm Minaya, I call up Borris and say something like "Look, I think our club could really use Bonds but my bosses are really resistant to the idea for all of the non-baseball reasons. I think I would be able to pitch it to them to get you a minimum contract and at least your guy would be playing. If you think Bonds wouldn't be interested, I understand completely, but my hands are tied. Is this something worth working on?"
I will say, though, that this would be the best way to approach it. About the only way, I might add. We're all in unchartered territory here. This isn't a fantasy league.
No team will make Bonds an offer because they're afraid he might go Andre Dawson on them.
Yeah, but you forget - the Mets have decided to stop really trying to win until Bud gives them the all-star game.
I completely believe Borris and take his statement at face value and I'm not skeptical of it at all. Just so my position is clear.
On this one point, I agree with Ray - I don't doubt that Bonds hasn't received any offers. I don't think anyone has been dishonest.
I just think it makes sense why most teams haven't offered Bonds a contract, at any cost, since the season began. I continue to believe Bonds' presence makes sense on only a few teams (the Mets and Blue Jays potentially among them).
These are all good examples, and I repeat what I've said for months: It wouldn't surprise me at all if at least one or two teams make a move for Bonds just after the All-Star break. At that point the window of risk will be smaller, the money will be less, and the tangible rewards will be much more in immediate focus. I don't think that this whole question is going to fade away; it's just that with all the "baggage" problems in the minds of the GMs, I don't think it's yet reached a stage in their minds where they feel forced by the circumstances of the division race to make a decision.
Translation: They're chickenshlt, but eventually one of the chickens will cross the road. Even if he winds up getting flattened by a truck.
Taking it team by team...
Detroit, I think perceives that its hitting will be fine this year, but that it needs pitching/defense - I don't think they perceive another veteran DH/LF bat as that helpful, even if it is Bonds. Its possible, though...
I could easily see Cleveland as starting to plan for the future, so Bonds won't be a part of that, althoug it would make some sense.
Minnesota, would make some sense, except that I think they are focused on youth - Bonds isn't going to replace Young, and I bet they prefer to give Kubel a shot to see if he works out for the long term, rather than bench him for a 43 year old. Plus Bonds doesn't seem to me like the kind of player the Twins have ever really gone after.
The Dodgers have plenty of outfielders at the moment, thank you very much, even with Andruw injured/washed up. They're not going to sign another.
Bonds and LaRussa - not going to happen.
Marlins - I don't think they really think they are going to win this year, even though they are still in the pennant race. The Gonzalez signing is just so that they can put a body out there to get them through the season. Bonds would be a better body to put out there, but I'm guessing they don't want the PR baggage if they really don't think they are going to win.
To summarize, most of these teams make some sense, if you look at it right, but I'm not surprised that none of them have taken a chance on Bonds, for the reasons I mentioned above (and excluding collusion of course). Also, I'm not saying it wouldn't help some of these teams from a baseball standpoint, but that its not that surprising that each wouldn't sign Bonds given the total picture.
The teams and commissioner's office cannot maintain information on who has offered what to whom. Doing so would be collusive behavior that is prohibited by the CBA.
I'm not surprised that none of them have taken a chance on Bonds, for the reasons I mentioned above (and excluding collusion of course).
Indeed. And people would have died anyway during the 1300s for various reasons (and excluding the Black Death, of course).
But this is all just an armchair exercise. My expectation is that the ban will hold. It ain't collusion if teams can opt out. And historically, MLB rarely comes to obvious wisdom except by being dragged to it.
Wasn't it LaRussa who grabbed Bonds' agent at the winter meetings after the 2006 season, to at least express drunken interest in a deal?
Let's check the NL East:
1. Phils: Maybe/Maybe not, but Bonds is better than Geoff Jenkins.
2. Marlins: they are playing Jacque Jones and Luis Gonzalez at the corners, and could make a run with the way things are going - so yes, they could use him. Jacque Jones...
3. Braves: They are playing washed uup 3B Greg Norton in LF. They DEFINITELY could use Bonds.
4. Mets, obviously
5. NAts- okay, not interested.
NL Central:
1. Cubs - Put Fuku or Sori in CF and play BOnds - he'd be a huge boon over their CFs. The Cubs signed the husk of Jim Edmonds instead of Bonds...
2. Cards: The Cards just sent down their LF - Duncan. So, I think they have a need.
3. Milwaukee - The BRewers are actually set in the OF. Cameron can't hit, but he's got a good contract.
4. Astros - Bourn has an OPS+ of 56. Their present RF Pence played CF for them last year. Bourn gets the minimum, I believe, so there's no reason not to add Bonds for a run.
5-6. Pit/CIn, okay, they blow.
NL West:
1. Dbags - Eric Byrnes. Yes, they don't need to replace him (eye roll)
2. LA: Juan Pierre or Barry Bonds....hmmmm...
3. Giants. They have a deceny hitting OF so far.
4. Padres: Hairston/Macanulty platoon. They blow, but you could argue the Pads, who competed last year, don't want to compete. I heard Harold argue "if SD signed Bonds, what would they do when Edmonds came back" I replied "Cut him"...and the Padres did.
5. Rockies - okay, they have Hawpe and Holliday.
So, in the NL: 4 in the East, 3 in the Central and 3 in the West. 10 of 16. THese teams are playing low salary AWFUL players (mostly).
Want the AL? Yankees need him, and even where they are they *think* they can compete.
Just to needle Levsky a bit:
Byrnes is .250/.319/.410 the last 365 days (OPS+ 84)
And to needle myself:
and he's still better than the Mets' LF...
They sent him down because they were facing a plethora of lefties and they wanted to get Joe Mather in the lineup. La Russa suggested the Cardinals go after Bonds this past offseason (and, yes, he also tried to get a hold of Borris at the winter meetings a couple of years ago), but the front office had no interest. As things turned out, La Russa has to give playing time to Skip Schumaker, so the Cardinals have too many outfielders, if that's possible.
Considering the innuendo from about ten years back, it's weird that Tatis apparently is considered good for chemistry in both the clubhouse and PED senses of the word.
And in a steroids thread, no less...
Agreed.
By the way, note that if 5 or more clubs are found to have colluded with respect to any player, the Players Association can opt to re-open the CBA (in addition to the injured player(s) getting monetary damages, etc.). Article XX(E)(5):
The Marlins worried about P.R.?
Ummmmmmmmmmmm O.K.
I'd love to see Bonds on the Marlins--to read that Barry administered the world's biggest suppository to Jeffrey Loria while David Samson has been reported missing (although he may have been spotted "in passing" looking "flushed") would allow me to die a happy man. I can just picture plumbers at Dolphin's Stadium gazing into a toilet bowl saying "The white one, pull out the white one--that's probably him."
Actually, Jenkins bat has started to heat up a bit--he's hitting .315/.356/.543 since the end of April.
Best Regards
John
Honestly, I didn't remember him playing after his Colorado days.
For an NL club? I'd just as soon have Jenkins, all things considered. He's got a pretty good glove.
Yes, but the question is how good Jenkins is, not how well Rawlings makes gloves.
You're not getting a defense of Schumaker from me. It's Tony La Russa's weird little sacrifice to the baseball gods that somehow makes the team 11 games over .500 in the middle of June.
Duncan's got a lot of power and he's one of the best defensive left fielders in baseball. He's also the son of the pitching coach... OK, that part about defense I can't type with a straight face, UZR and ZR be damned. But I don't see enough difference between him and Bonds to deal with the PR and coach-specific clubhouse problems, and that doesn't even address what they do with Rasmus -- dismissing Mather the way you did makes it harder to dismiss Rasmus.
Jenkins uses a Rawlings glove? Well, then--I stand corrected. Those things are shite.
Well, if you'd linked the two sentences ("He's one of the best defensive left fielders in baseball who happens to be the son of a pitching coach"), it might not've been completely smirk-worthy.
The NLs top 20 (non-pitchers)
Year LastName NAME TEAM DRS PA Outs Xrp+AA OPD2007 Utley, Chase Phi 20.45 612 369 43.1 63.5
2007 Wright, David NYM 0.93 711 428 52.1 53.1
2007 Jones, Chipper Atl 7.45 600 365 45.1 52.6
2007 Pujols, Albert StL 12.13 679 414 32.4 44.6
2007 Beltran, Carlos NYM 11.12 636 420 33.0 44.1
2007 Martin, Russell LA 6.23 619 404 31.7 37.9
2007 Holliday, Matt Col 13.21 713 447 24.6 37.8
2007 Ramirez, Hanley Fla -16.41 706 445 53.7 37.3
2007 Reyes, Jose NYM 14.37 765 502 18.1 32.4
2007 Fielder, Prince Mil -7.69 681 421 38.3 30.6
2007 Bonds, Barry SF -9.16 477 261 38.3 29.2
2007 Helton, Todd Col 10.40 682 401 17.2 27.6
2007 Rowand, Aaron Phi 5.14 683 447 20.4 25.5
2007 Cabrera, Miguel Fla -18.74 680 424 44.2 25.4
2007 Rollins, Jimmy Phi -2.09 778 521 27.1 25.0
2007 Hart, Corey Mil 4.28 566 374 19.2 23.4
2007 Tulowitzki, Troy Col 14.81 681 453 5.6 20.4
2007 Ramirez, Aramis ChC 1.50 558 366 17.8 19.3
2007 Hermida, Jeremy Fla 5.40 484 316 13.4 18.8
2007 Hamilton, Josh Cin 2.90 337 219 15.7 18.6
EDIT: And add that Bonds' so-called PR problems have been proven to be drastically overstated, as evidenced by the reaction when Bonds broke Aaron's record.
Yes, Mr. Anderson hasn't said much of anything under oath, has he? Which makes Curious David suddenly not so curious---why, we can't possibly read anything other than pure self-protection on Anderson's part into that silence! There couldn't possibly be any ancillary beneficiaries of his Mr. Mum act, could there?
With collusion, we have the evidence that (a) Bonds one of the best players in baseball, (b) some teams desperately need someone with his skill set, (c) he hasn't received an offer at any price, and (d) other players with serious PR problems and much less talent have received offers before. Sometimes very generous offers.
But as you've said on many occasions, "evidence" is not proof. I agree that the evidence for collusion is strong, but all you're using is inferential logic to reach that conclusion, which is hardly proof---as you well know. And each individual owner can certainly cite reasons for a lack of interest, fishy though some of these reasons may seem to some of us.
But I'd be more interested in why you think that Bonds hasn't pursued collusion charges. Do you think he's waiting, just in case he might get an offer? Do you think that he (or his mouthpieces) think that the case would be too hard to prove? Or do you think that he figures it's not worth the aggravation? Your guess here is as good as anyone's. I'd be inclined to think that it's a mix of all three reasons.
EDIT: And add that Bonds' so-called PR problems have been proven to be drastically overstated, as evidenced by the reaction when Bonds broke Aaron's record.
I admit that this demonstrates one pretty good reason why the Giants shouldn't be holding out. For all I know, Bonds could possibly be elected Mayor of San Francisco. But it doesn't exactly address the potential PR reaction with the 29 other teams.
And the ARod contract shows exactly how.
I agree with you that Bonds would never be made a bench player unless he wasn't producing. I was merely responding to this comment:
which was, as I'm sure you can see, speculating about a team signing Bonds as a bench player.
Thats not quite true Andy and you know it. Anderson struck a deal, ratted on his suppliers, and did his time. end of story.
then the government came back to him and said wait a minute, we want you to testify about ONE [just one] of your [alleged] USERS, deal be damned, and if you don't do it, we will destroy you.
and they did
Your previous post didn't offer any reason at all on what repercussions a team would suffer. You offered that a team must make/succeed in the playoffs, or else. Or else *WHAT*?
Bonds has such a rotten reputation around the majors, all the players on the team he would sign with would threaten to hit the bricks if that mouthy prima donna set one foot in the clubhouse. That's why he hasn't been signed. The word on the street is out.
Which is why all the players on the Giants quit last year when he hit the clubhouse? He's not any less liked than he was last year or the year before.
While I have your attention Kev, can you e-mail me your addresss again to dan@baseballprimer.com? I asked a certain young woman to try and get in touch with you when I was in the hospital, but she apparently was looking for someone named Ken.
Thats not quite true Andy and you know it. Anderson struck a deal, ratted on his suppliers, and did his time. end of story.
then the government came back to him and said wait a minute, we want you to testify about ONE [just one] of your [alleged] USERS, deal be damned, and if you don't do it, we will destroy you.
Be that as it may, GR, I'm still don't see what's "not true" about what I wrote. The A #1 ancillary beneficiary of Mr. Mum's mumming was Mr. B.
---------------------
But as you've said on many occasions, "evidence" is not proof. I agree that the evidence for collusion is strong, but all you're using is inferential logic to reach that conclusion, which is hardly proof---as you well know. And each individual owner can certainly cite reasons for a lack of interest, fishy though some of these reasons may seem to some of us.
So, you are satisfied with the difference between the Bonds "PED" and "MLB collusion"? there's a big difference.
I'm not sure what you're getting at here. My parallel isn't between whatever difference of degree of disgrace there is between juicing and colluding. That's a matter for another bottomless pit debate altogether.
My parallel is between the requirements of "proof" regarding Bonds's juicing and MLB's collusion. And there are two parts to this parallel.
First, the sort of common sense inferences that most people (in the larger baseball world, at least) make about Greg Anderson's silence are parallel to the sort of common sense inferences that most people (here, at least) are making about the lack of any contract offer to a supremely qualified player.
But second, the requirements of "proof" are much higher once you leave the realm of common sense and enter the courtroom or the arbitrator's office. And this is why there's a relatively strong chance that neither Bonds's perjury nor MLB's collusion will ever be "proven." But that's life in the big city, and what can you do?
That's all I'm saying. I'm not trying to defend not offering Bonds a contract on any rational baseball grounds, because as you and others have very accurately pointed out, there are several teams at least who could much better use their money on Bonds than on the player he would be replacing. The most I've said is that the human factor of chickenshltism has to be taken into account when you tally up the reasons for the lack of any contract offer. When it comes to baseball GMs and owners, I don't see how you can ever not consider that factor.
Heh.
Dude, I'm trying to give you the $15 I owe you!
Unclear, and likely to be evaluated on a case-by-case basis. Over the years, there have been numerous players under criminal investigation or convicted in the US who have been allowed to play pro-sports in Canada. However, most of them have been for DUI/DWI or similar - I don't think that there's a pro-sports precedent for a perjury indictment.
Killing me is a violation of BTF's TOS.
From a PR perspective, I would wager that attendence would *increase* with Bonds on the team (any team). That's not a "on field" effect. So the team would make more money.
From a PR perspective, the local media would rip the GM (and talk radio). Maybe. If the team starts winning MUCH less so. Nobody is ripping on the Yankees for having Giambi, who the only difference between Giambi and Bonds is that Giambi took steroids knowingly, and whimpered about it. When teams give in to media pressure, that's when they are on their way out. And every GM I have ever heard says something to the effect "I can't worry about the media - I have to do my job to get the best team on the field and win."
Players will quit? #### - the Mets players already HAVE quit. That's complete BS.
For sheer deterrent value, capital punishment's got nothing on BTF's TOS.
Okay, but what are the actual effects of this? What does a GM think will happen? Ticket sales will drop? Reaming in the press? What will happen to Omar Minaya that isn't happening now?
But the very essence of chickenshltism is an often irrational (or at least exaggerated) fear of the unknown. If these guys were strictly rational (or better yet, strictly baseball-rational), they wouldn't be chickenshlts in the first place.
From a PR perspective, I would wager that attendence would *increase* with Bonds on the team (any team). That's not a "on field" effect. So the team would make more money.
That's a bit more speculative. I think that the reward / risk (in this case meaning money) ratio might vary quite a bit among different teams. No question you'd see a temporary attendance spike, but unless the team started winning, there's no guarantee how long it would last, and how it would at the end stack up against the added expense of the Bonds contract. These are all factors that by their nature can't be predicted with any great degree of certainty.
From a PR perspective, the local media would rip the GM (and talk radio). Maybe. If the team starts winning MUCH less so. Nobody is ripping on the Yankees for having Giambi, who the only difference between Giambi and Bonds is that Giambi took steroids knowingly, and whimpered about it.
There are two real differences between Bonds and Giambi, and it's an incomplete tally that omits either of them.
The first is that Giambi, for all his whimpering, did admit that he juiced. That counts in his favor. Bonds is seen not only as a juicer, but as a liar, which is two strikes against him.
And the second is---and it's every bit as true as the first point---that Giambi, far more than Bonds, fits the idealized mold of "Yankee" that the Yankee fan base has in its collective mind. You can decry this, but it's hard to deny it.
When teams give in to media pressure, that's when they are on their way out.
We'd like to think that, but they do it all the time anyway.
And every GM I have ever heard says something to the effect "I can't worry about the media - I have to do my job to get the best team on the field and win."
And of course Exhibit A of that heartwarming sentiment is the flood of offers to Bonds!
Question: Given that DePoedestra was essential fired as a result of the media, and other GMs surely recognize this, do you believe that GMs really don't worry about the media, or are just paying lip service to the notion?
Yes, but the local media -- though they'd never admit it -- would love to see Bonds on the team.
That way, they wouldn't have to do much work to write their columns. They could open up a new Can O' Column every day.
While I realise that any good GM isn't going to be controlled by the media, I do think that the media and associated press coverage does have a not insignificant impact on the actions of any GM. After all, a significant part of any GMs role is public relations, which is often most easily handled through interaction with the assorted members of the local and national media.
With respect to what I personally think, I'm willing to recognize that my own thought are influenced by those around me, and by the forms of media which I choose to interact with. While I don't wander around saying "X just said this. I now believe only this", I'm not going to bother pretending that the assorted opinions that I encounter daily don't shape my own thoughts - either positively or negatively. I can't believe that GMs are immune to this same phenomenon.
I'll take that as a compliment.
Although it hasn't been much of a test, since I've never once had the thrill of being berated by the media.
But Beane also wanted Thomas last year. And this year, Thomas suddenly became available for the pro-rated league minimum. For him to pick up a player who wanted to come back to Oakland at a known price over a player who may or may not have wanted to come to Oakland for an unknown price isn't exactly a hard decision. It can be explained easily without hauling out a conspiracy.
But Beane didn't know that Thomas was going to suddenly become available, unless you're arguing that Beane was psychic.
The point is that Beane was willing to sign an old DH for his lineup. But he wouldn't sign Bonds.
Because he had a cheap young DH already in Cust, and a cheap old DH available in Sweeney. Those were sufficient coming into the season. At that point, when Thomas became available, he signed him too. It doens't require Beane being psychic or part of a conspiracy for him to not sign Bonds. There are other much more notable cases for Bonds' absence than Oakland.
Obviously those were not sufficient, since as soon as Thomas became available, Beane acquired him. As you note.
Beane was willing to move Cust to left, so being worried about Cust playing left can't have been the reason Beane didn't sign Bonds. And Beane can't have been delusional enough to think that Sweeney could handle DH, since Sweeney wasn't able to handle DH in either 2006 or 2007; indeed, Beane wasn't delusional enough, since as soon as Thomas became available, Beane acquired him.
You try to argue that Beane thought he was ok heading into the season, and later something changed; but Beane could have signed Bonds a day before he knew Thomas would be available. Or a week before. Or two weeks before. Yet, Beane refused to do so, with an Oakland front office type saying that Bonds was out of the question.
Beane showed the willingness to acquire Thomas, an analogue to Bonds, yet, decidedly inferior (both offensively and defensively). But Beane wasn't willing to aquire Bonds.
And Beane is simply one example. There's a ton of indirect evidence suggesting there is collusion.
I recall from a Baseball Today podcast that Billy Beane told one of the reporters (I'm sorry, but I can't remember which one) that this year he had no interest in Bonds because of the effect that Bonds would have on a young team. He specifically mentioned the clubhouse issues and the media circus. Aren't these legitimate concerns?
You imply that Beane is part of this mass conspiracy. Beane hardly seems like the kind of GM who makes moves based on the wishes of MLB. In fact, he seems like the kind of GM that would would do the exact opposite of what MLB wants.
And you keep insinuating that Bonds will play for the league minimum. Please source the quote where his agent has stated this. From what I recall, his agent has only said he hasn't received one offer. This is vastly different from saying that Bonds would play for the league minimum, but hasn't received such an offer.
Does anyone have a quote from Bonds or his agent specifying what exactly they are looking for in monetary figures. If not, can we please stop saying that "Bonds will play for the minimum...if only the mean GMs would give him an offer"?
You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.
<< Back to main