While I'm more or less ambivalent towards the antichrist playing on my local nine, it would seem to me that the biggest need for this team another right-handed bat to platoon with Tracy. Adding Bonds is only going to take at bats away from Conor or Tracy.

Yeah...thats true. But CJ's slugging is .390 over his last 200 PA's, and I don't know who else they are going to replace.

Check out this split:

D Backs RHB VS. RHP .226/.305/.386 .691 OPS

What else are they going to do? They are sticking with Upton, no matter what. He's not going down. That Leaves Young or Reynolds. Or getting a lefty hitting LF and platooning Jackson and Tracy. None are easy choices.

I don't think they'll go with Bonds.....it's just been discussed. But most likely rejected.

The levski vs. kevin flamefest would be epic.

The levski vs. kevin flamefest would be epic.

Oooh....I didn't think of that angle. Levski in fact is totally up for this. He wants Bonds.

I would be happy with this signing, just so we don't have to have any more threads about how Bonds is only out of the game because of collusion. The levski/kevin flamefest would just be icing on the cake.

Proof JByrnes reads primer since I posted this earlier in the Mets/Bonds thread. This signing makes perfect sense esp. if BLB is willing to take the league minimum as his agent has claimed.

Won't we get at least two weeks worth of crap from Curt Schilling to make fun of? I mean, he's got nothing better to do, like play baseball or anything.

I'd like to know what high-profile players on various teams mentioned in this continuing saga think of signing Bonds. There are obvious reasons why guys can't go on the record about it, but in this case, I would like to hear what Webb, RJohnson, EByrnes and OHudson would say: do they want Bonds? Do they think he is a disgrace and a cheater as so many media guys and fans do? Do they think he would be a distraction? Would he help them win games?

The pitchers are probably so desperate for run support they would pay his salary themselves.

Since May 9th, (Chicago series) last 55 games, D Backs have averaged 3.5 R/G

I'd like to know what high-profile players on various teams mentioned in this continuing saga think of signing Bonds. There are obvious reasons why guys can't go on the record about it, but in this case, I would like to hear what Webb, RJohnson, EByrnes and OHudson would say: do they want Bonds? Do they think he is a disgrace and a cheater as so many media guys and fans do? Do they think he would be a distraction? Would he help them win games?

I don't know if reporters will get an answer to those questions, but it seems like one Josh Byrnes should be asking. If those guys are for it (well, I could see Byrnes balking), then it would really seem to put to rest many of the spoken fears about acquiring BLB.

D-Backs talk internally about Barry Bonds

1) The Arizona Diamondbacks are apparently telepaths, able to talk internally amongst themselves.

2) Zenna Henderson's absolutely brilliant stories of The People, telepathic (among other gifts) aliens who escaped to Earth while fleeing the destruction of their home planet, are set in Arizona.

Hypothesis: The Arizona Diamondbacks are actually really cool aliens.

I'm sure that Barry Bonds is not one of The People.

I read that Bonds's soon-to-be ex-wife is in London with Madonna's soon-to-be ex-husband, where they have been spotted knoodling.

I read that Bonds's soon-to-be ex-wife is in London with Madonna's soon-to-be ex-husband, where they have been spotted knoodling.

Is that even legal?

The levski vs. kevin flamefest would be epic.

yet another reason to see Bonds in sedona red

If those guys are for it (well, I could see Byrnes balking)

if you mean eric byrnes, i've got three words: fk eric byrnes

With the rubber beginning to hit the road for a lot of these contenders, we are hearing more and more rumors about Bonds. Methinks he has not taken his last major league PA. And thank God for that.

if you mean eric byrnes, i've got three words: fk eric byrnes

Oh yes, I definitely didn't mean that any self-interested objections from EB should hold up a deal.

Eric Byrnes is out for the season with torn hamstrings anyhow, so what does it matter what he thinks about Bonds in AZ in 2008?
Eric Byrnes better get used to the idea of being the team's fourth outfielder in 2009 and 2010, is what I say.

Eric Byrnes is out for the season with torn hamstrings anyhow, so what does it matter what he thinks about Bonds in AZ in 2008?

Don't follow your club levski, wasn't even aware of Byrnes' unavailability. I was merely commenting that if I'm a GM considering signing Bonds, I run it past my team leaders, whomever they may be (and EB was listed as one by RR) to gauge their feelings. I'd do it ostensibly to remove one of the supposed stumbling blocks to a Bonds signing - his integration into the clubhouse.

D-Backs talk internally about Barry Bonds

I'm imagining sub-sonic fart sounds.

Here's how I envision Bonds's integration into the clubhouse:

Wednesday evening. Late July. Dbacks locker room. Chase Field. Arizona has just lost its sixth straight after scoring 13 runs in the last week. Chris Burke has been starting in left field the last 4 games.

Bonds walks in, says nothing. Five feet behind him are three hulking men carrying a 9 foot wide black leather recliner. Some of the lesser Dbacks (Augie Ojeda, etc.) are forced out of their lockers and into the hallway for the remainder of the season to make room for said recliner, Bonds's head. No one really notices. Bonds says only one thing to his teammates the remainder of the season. He catches Justin Upton and Chris Young, black and talented outfielders with which he feels a slight bond, before the next day's game to inform them of the following: "If you guys wanna know how to make some real money selling memorabilia, you know where to find me." Upton and Young say thanks, never speak to Bonds again.

Bonds proceeds to play some pretty geriatric defense in left for the next few months, hit 19 home runs, and walk like 340 times. Bonds punches Eric Byrnes in the dugout in mid September for reasons that are never made fully clear. Dbacks win division, then World Series on the backs of Webb, Haren, Bonds.

I lean toward there being collusion, but admit there is no proof and you can make a logical case that he's not being signed for obvious reasons.* However, if Jay Gibbons is signed by some team to play LF and be a "bat" while Bonds isn't, I will hold this as proof of collusion.



* Not that the obvious reasons negate collusion. In collusions 1-3 in the 80s, you could make a logical argument for all the non-signings. If everyone just decided not to pay as much, it isn't collusion. That these brainiacs owners managed to collude obviously shows that even when logic is on their side they can still fluck things up.

However, if Jay Gibbons is signed by some team to play LF and be a "bat" while Bonds isn't, I will hold this as proof of collusion.

My god, the A's signed Emil Brown to do this for them. Emil Brown! Let me go all Steven A. Smith for a minute:

EMIL BROWN!!!!!!!!!

However, if Jay Gibbons is signed by some team to play LF and be a "bat" while Bonds isn't, I will hold this as proof of collusion.

No kidding.

Clearly someone on the DBacks is talking externally, or else we'd never know this.

Correct me if I'm wrong but is Gibbons under federal indictment? Just asking.

Correct me if I'm wrong but is Gibbons under federal indictment? Just asking.

No, but he sucks, so he's not a plausible solution to a team's lack of lefthanded hitting.

Federal indictment is the dumbest thing anyone keeps bringing up about Bonds. Dude isn't going to see the inside of a court until some time next year. That's not a maybe, that's the earliest he'll be there.

It may be a reason not to offer him a multiyear contract, but nobody is talking about anything other than signing him for the rest of 2008. It's a complete non-issue.

"I'm sure that Barry Bonds is not one of The People."

You sure? It'd explain why he went to ASU.

"Clearly someone on the DBacks is talking externally, or else we'd never know this."

Maybe they're using sign language.

Federal indictment is the dumbest thing anyone keeps bringing up about Bonds.

It's Kevin we're talking about; Federal indictment may not be in the top 10 dumbest things he brings up about Bonds.

Correct me if I'm wrong but is Gibbons under federal indictment? Just asking.

You're not wrong. But you're also leaving out that, whoever signs Gibbons, he'll have to sit out 15 days due to a suspension leveled for violating the MLB drug policy. Someone else in this conversation has never been suspended for that reason.

The point is you can choose between a guy who, as recently as last season, has shown he may still be a good hitter or a guy who has never really shown that. Both have legal issues and are likely cheats, if you believe (as I do) that PEDs constitute cheating. As far as I can tell, the PR hit ought (yes, I know) to be the same but one guy might help while the other certainly won't. Like I say, I understand there are good, sound, logical reasons not to sign Bonds. But, all of those reasons, aside from one guy simply being much, much better than the other, apply to Gibbons as much as to Bonds.

Baseball has long had room for stories of redemption. I'd actually like to see Bonds come back and help an unlikely team to a ring while being tested daily. It could help him, it could help baseball. If it ends the way it looks like it's going to, the Bonds stigma is never going away. I think Selig and MLB, whether collusion or no, has miscalculated this one all along. They should have done more early to stem the PEDs craze and now they should make an effort to let people make amends. Breaking the Aaron record and then exiting stage left is, IMO, the worst possible outcome. If you let him play long enough to break the record, it makes no sense not to go for him now. And I say this as someone who really doesn't like Bonds.*


* Another possibility, one that isn't quite as good as redemption but comes close, is letting him back in and having him suck the big one. Everyone can point to him as a "definite" cheat (though I understand it wouldn't actually be proof). Right now we just have a big confusing mess.

But you're also leaving out that, whoever signs Gibbons, he'll have to sit out 15 days due to a suspension leveled for violating the MLB drug policy.

Ah, yeah. Forgot about that, perhaps because Gibbons' numbers don't suggest he benefitted much from the drugs...

"D Backs RHB VS. RHP .226/.305/.386 .691 OPS"

Just a thought: Adam LaRoche for Conor Jackson? Pirates get a little younger/cheaper at first, and move a guy who wasn't going to re-sign after '09. D-Backs get a lefty power guy, and they pick up LaRoche at exactly the right time (i.e. just as he's starting his annual second half torrid streak - .347/.432/.640 last 28 days).

I don't know if reporters will get an answer to those questions, but it seems like one Josh Byrnes should be asking. If those guys are for it (well, I could see Byrnes balking), then it would really seem to put to rest many of the spoken fears about acquiring BLB.

Sure,and I think one could speculate that the fact that Bonds hasn't been signed means players do have some issues with him, as we would assume that GMs would ask. OTOH, maybe they aren't asking because they know Selig does not want then to sign him.

As to collusion, I seriously doubt there is any provable case, in part because Selig's facial expression when he followed Bonds a little last summer at 754 shows anyone how he feels about it. Who needs a conpsiracy to figure that out? Also, as I said on a previous Bonds threads, to me, the indictment matters. As I have said many times, I think the Feds should cut Anderson loose and leave Bonds alone, but I do think its existence plays into the signing calculus. That said, if I were a GM whose team needed a bat on the corners or at DH, and my team leaders said, "Bring him in. He can help us, and a million guys were taking that #### while he was, so who cares?" I would seriously consider it.

Federal indictment is the dumbest thing anyone keeps bringing up about Bonds. Dude isn't going to see the inside of a court until some time next year. That's not a maybe, that's the earliest he'll be there.

I'd love to see some sort of collusion brawl rise up and be settled such that Bonds "has to" be signed just in time for the indictment to really matter. Then some poor team that could have used him in 08 would have to pay him and put up with the dreaded media circus while he actually does miss games while settling The Indictment For Bad Behaviour.

But you're also leaving out that, whoever signs Gibbons, he'll have to sit out 15 days due to a suspension leveled for violating the MLB drug policy.


His suspension was overturned, so that's not an obstacle. The fact that he sucks mightily is probably hurting him a bit.

Really? I hadn't heard the suspension was overturned, thanks.

The sucking does still interfere. Was it overturned due to lack of evidence - I mean, I've been putting him in the juicer camp. If he didn't/wasn't, I'll amend my complaints with the man to his simply sucking.

Edit: Scratch that, I'm just confused.

Last I heard, Jay Gibbons was playing for an independent team. Not sure how he was doing.

He seemed like an OK bat with potential a few years ago, but was really bad the last 2 years and isn't young anymore. At this point signing him because you need a lefty bat is only a slightly better option than signing Brady Anderson, Fred Lynn, or Von Hayes.

The sucking does still interfere. Was it overturned due to lack of evidence - I mean, I've been putting him in the juicer camp. If he didn't/wasn't, I'll amend my complaints with the man to his simply sucking.

It was overturned as part of the off-season negotiations between the MLBPA and the owners, with respect to some other changes to the drug testing programs. The KC hothead also had his suspension overturned as a result of the same negotiations. The fact that it was overturned should not be taken to mean that he didn't use PEDs.

"He seemed like an OK bat with potential a few years ago, but was really bad the last 2 years and isn't young anymore."

Also, he's a bad fielder, and he has a reputation as kind of a dick. Neither of those are probably helping him much.

Also, he's a bad fielder, and he has a reputation as kind of a dick. Neither of those are probably helping him much.

So, yes, he's Barry Bonds without the skill. So I stand by what I said: if Gibbons is signed by a MLB team, I'll assume the league has colluded against Barry.

It's summertime, I don't have to use pure logic.

Last I heard, Jay Gibbons was playing for an independent team. Not sure how he was doing.

.964 OPS in 20 games. Which sounds better than it is; his teammate Alex Sanchez has an .888 OPS, and Carl Everett has an 1.112 OPS. Still, he's clearly better than the run-of-the-mill indy league players, FWIW.

If a team hires CARL EVERETT instead of Bonds, there might be something to this collusion thing. Jay Gibbons would not be strong enough evnidence.

I'd love to see some sort of collusion brawl rise up and be settled such that Bonds "has to" be signed just in time for the indictment to really matter.

A grievance on collusion wouldn't result in a directive that Bonds must be signed.

1k5v3L Posted: July 09, 2008 at 01:32 AM (#2850228)

The levski vs. kevin flamefest would be epic.
yet another reason to see Bonds in sedona red


- that would be AWESOME
but unfortunately not near as good as the red suxz signing bonds.

now THAT would be the most fun EVAH

- and by the way, would all yall boys please go to the front page and take the lefty/righty poll please?

thank yuh verra much

If Barry signed with the D-Backs, almost every player on the team would get better pitches to hit. I'm all for it.

someone on the DBacks is talking

Robothal just signed up for Parcel tongue lessons.

Reading Nick Piecoro's column, Byrnes never said Bonds was an option, as a matter of fact Brynes pretty much said he didn't want to talk about him.

Does that mean they would look for help against left-handers?

“It’s a possibility,” he said, “but I think with the overall composition of our roster, someone that could help us against right-handed pitching is a little more of a priority.”

The big bombshell name was dropped on him as a possibility: Barry Bonds?

“He and maybe a couple of others are sort of sitting out there,” Byrnes said. “I think it’s a bit of assessing any players’ readiness, then knocking somebody out of the lineup, dollars, etc. I don’t want to talk about him specifically, but, believe me, we’ve considered a lot of options. There is sort of no one obvious option right now, but there are a lot of considerations.”

I’m not sure what entirely to make of that. He didn’t exactly rule him out, did he?

uh, yes Nick. He did.

In a "discussion" about this story on Around the Horn just now, Woody Paige referenced "Zone Percentage" as a superior defensive metric to fielding percentage. I couldn't believe it either.

If a team hires CARL EVERETT instead of Bonds

HOW'S THE KNEE?
HOW'S THE KNEE?

More like 6 years, Carl.

LOL

I completely forgot about "HOW'S THE KNEE". And can't find the original thread, either.

Correct me if I'm wrong but is Gibbons under federal indictment? Just asking.

Arizona (or anyone) would have to have a whooooole lotta rainouts to lose Barry's services for their March 2, 2009 makeup game.

I don’t want to talk about him specifically = I've been ordered by Major League Baseball not to discuss the idea or [heaven forbid] consider signing the player I'm not allowed to talk about.

Source: D-backs not buying on Bonds

The D-backs will not be pursuing free agent slugger Barry Bonds, a source said Wednesday.

The club had internal discussions about signing Bonds, who remains unsigned after the Giants elected not to re-sign him following the 2007 season, as it had about several potential free agents and possible trade acquisitions, but decided to move forward.

D-Backs notebook: D-Backs won’t chase Bonds, Bradley

After internal discussions, the Diamondbacks have opted against pursuing Barry Bonds to aid a flagging offense, team sources indicated Wednesday. Nor are they interested in Texas DH/outfielder Milton Bradley, contrary to a radio report Wednesday.

Why? What has Bradley done now?

"I completely forgot about "HOW'S THE KNEE"."

Yeah, talk about a blast from the past.

Context, in case you need it.

Nor are they interested in Texas DH/outfielder Milton Bradley

Is Texas actually looking to move Bradley? I know he's on a one year deal but I'd think he'd be a target to lock up. Just give him the money that Torii Hunter turned down last winter. Wouldn't mind seeing the AL's best hitter out of the division though.

I believe the Dbacks threw Bonds and Bradley out there to scare the natives who were angling for some action from the front office. "You want a trade? We give you Bonds or Bradley! Oh, now you don't want a trade? Great. We give you Jeff Moorad instead."

The D-backs will not be pursuing free agent slugger Barry Bonds, a source said Wednesday.

The club had internal discussions about signing Bonds, who remains unsigned after the Giants elected not to re-sign him following the 2007 season, as it had about several potential free agents and possible trade acquisitions, but decided to move forward.

Translation: Bud called.

Best Regards

John

Translation: Bud called.

No, what's really going on is that these obsessed reporters keep on pestering these poor general managers nonstop with their Barry Bonds fetish, the GM usually makes some kind of innocuous comment such as "we talked about him for a bit", and then the reporters get all hysterical and blow it up into a "story" much bigger than it is. This pattern has happened with about three or four teams already this season.

Jeff Moorad also didn't deny he was tapping Madonna. Just saying

It could be a preemptive response to a potential grievance by the union. "Oh, sure, we considered him and we considered him and then we considered him some more. Co-WHO-sion?"

What Joey and others don't get (well, not don't, but won't) is that Bonds NOT being signed is the story.

Had Bonds been on a team all year, he'd already be an afterthought. No HR record, no new legal twists, no MLB steroid report. Only the "Help Me Make It Through the Night" longterm planning strategies of Selig + 30 has kept Bonds' status fresh and in the news.

And incessantly reported by media who don't care about Barry, for fans who don't care about Barry either. (Hey, it makes as much logical sense as thirty distinct and unique decisions to "move forward.")

What Joey and others don't get (well, not don't, but won't) is that Bonds NOT being signed is the story.

Good luck finding a reason for the media to report that story for 180 days in a row. They report new developments. Which until Bonds is signed, means reporting the possibility that Bonds's status may change and he may be signed.

Had Bonds been on a team all year, he'd already be an afterthought. No HR record, no new legal twists, no MLB steroid report.

Unless he was on a team other than the Giants, and constantly being monitored for bad behavior and signs of clubhouse oncology by the alarmists in that team's press corps.

What Joey and others don't get (well, not don't, but won't) is that Bonds NOT being signed is the story.

No, it isn't, at least not anymore. It definitely was a big story at first, early on in the season.

But by now, it's got to be fairly obvious I think to even the thickest heads out there that nobody really wants him on their team. It has ceased to be a legitimate newsworthy story; now it's just some reporters being a pain in the ass.

Bonds is not the only guy who wasn't wanted anymore this season. It happens to lots of guys every season; everyone's career ends at some point. If anything, the general tendency of most teams has been to hang on to guys too long.

And yet the "Where's Barry?" coverage is growing, not shrinking. It's almost as if the longer Bonds is out there, the MORE newsworthy his absence becomes. But nothing's changed! Inexplicable!

Don't the media realize no team has a spot for him? Don't they understand he'd be no good anyway? Don't they see that the circumstances of Bonds' retirement are just the usual, run-of-the-mill chapter you see with any fading career?

And yet the "Where's Barry?" coverage is growing, not shrinking.

That's only because the media is obviously obsessed with him, as you are, and because the modern press enjoys manufacturing news and trying to generate controversy as much as they enjoy reporting actual news. It's an outgrowth of the 24-hour news cycle and the need to fill space and time.

Also, Mr. Potato Head is obviously desperate to collect his 3,000 hits and tack on a few more home runs, which is why he keeps sending Borris out to do the "yoo-hoo, we're still here" pleas for attention. That's part of it as well; he's simply too big to ignore. When he finally gives up once and for all, then the media will have to as well.

And by the way, in case anyone doubts that I'm right that no team wants him, Borris officially confirmed it yesterday to U.S.A. Today. Here's the direct quote: "I am not talking to any club about Barry Bonds," Borris said, "because they all made it very clear to me they are not interested in him. Every club.

It doesn't get more plain and straightforward than that.

Arizona (or anyone) would have to have a whooooole lotta rainouts to lose Barry's services for their March 2, 2009 makeup game.

They'd also have to deal with a whooooole lot of fallouts from the negative press and the anger from the season ticket holders.

yeah - all this anger from season ticket holders seeing as how the dbax would be replacing the absolutely awesome eric byrnes and his MVP bat in left

season ticket holders don't WANT their team scoring runs. gotcha.

Would that be the same kind of uncontrollable fan hate and anger we saw directed at Bonds in San Diego last August, just as predicted? Or even hatier than that?

The indefatigable Joey might want to go lighter on the "everyone else is obsessed with Bonds but me" premise.

And by the way, in case anyone doubts that I'm right that no team wants him

You could always try wishing him into the cornfield.