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 2.1028 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.
Yeah, if you don't have good chemistry, there's too much of a chance that your team could fall apart down the stretch.
they are our favorite things... when they happen in the Bronx. New Yorkers are people too, people.
Malone actually played well for the Lakers.
The issue with signing Bonds IMO is the indictment. If the Feds had dropped the charges, I think adding him would be a reasonable decision for a veteran team in contention that needs a LF/DH. The indictment, however, tilts it into the negative column.
robinred: Only desperation can create a need for Jenkins to write a column about Bonds
I don't want Bonds on the Mets, either, for the same reasons as Orinoco.
SF Chronicle Editor Phil Bronstein is taking some heat for assembling such a vulnerable, aging roster of columnists - and the continued employment of Jenkins only escalates that shortcoming into full-fledged farce. But somebody has to write. Somebody has to be a prick in the middle of the sports section. Employing a partially trained monkey on page D2 wouldn’t look that bad, because Ratto is constantly in the paper and will undoubtedly make the monkey look insightful within two or three weeks. A very good reporter, Gwen Knapp, could replace Jenkins towards deadline, and if Jenkins were out of the paper, she’d might provide readers with some insight about what was happening in baseball.
Nothing could be more tedious than spelling out all the issues around Bonds for the umpteenth time, but there’s an additional one in the Jenkins’ case. Down in the wretched bowels of Chronicle HQ, Jenkins is an ego-sized relic from another era. No problem this year - there is still some chance Bonds will play - but in a year, Bonds’ lack of presence might make Jenkins' head explode when his editors wake up and tell him he can't harp inaccurately about Bonds every week.
Still, there is no substitute for irrelevance, especially for a newspaper in constant competition with better sources of news and comment on the internet. Jenkins brings headlines, snark and single-minded Bonds obsession, to say nothing of gloom, rudeness and facile associations - all your favorite Chronicle things. If will be fascinating to see if desperation trumps common sense and his contract is extended.
With that being said, anyone else care to turn this into the 1 pm gamechatter? We're on network TV today!
Anyone who thinks there's any chance the Mets are signing Barry Bonds in order to get younger and healthier is in a dream world.
Only three weeks to go until the regular season, and nobody is even so much as talking to Bonds or his agent.
You're quickly running out of days left, sycophants.
.
***
Of course, no one thinks anyone is signing Bonds to "get younger." However, he is, at this time, healthier than Moises Alou, and not much older.
I'm just glad I didn't vow to ban myself for a year like Bernal Diaz did.
Agree there. You are an entertaining dude at BTF.
I'm sure Cubs fans could chime in and tell you how much fun it is to see Angel Pagan get a lot of playing time.
Most predictions from the anti-Bonds side have not borne out: i.e. about Bonds' dessicated knees preventing him from reaching Hank Aaron; on Aaron taking part in the celebration; of Bud Selig showing up; of the Giants re-signing Bonds; of Bonds facing time for tax evasion; of the live fan response to Bonds' 756th if it happened on the road; of Greg Anderson flipping for the feds; etc.
The indictment prediction came true, eventually. But even after years of presumable diligence and preparation, it was filed incorrectly. I don't pretend to know how this affects the odds of the case (if at all), but we all know it will be a tough one to prove even if the prosecutors are on their game.
I just find endless repetition of certain doomsday prophecies amusing-- "Bonds will collapse"; "the aging Yankees can't keep winning"; "Pedro's fragile arm will never hold up." And I'm not wowed by these dreams deferred, even if they sometimes come true on the 5th, or 8th, or 11th try. "American Idol" always blew, and now this latest season's ratings aren't as good as the last six years... er, um, I told ya?
sure, the Mets are a franchise that historically had a lot of success with George Foster, Vince Coleman and Bobby Bonilla. Barry will double the fun of those three put together, right?
That's all fine, dandy, and wonderful. Nevertheless, there's three weeks remaining until the start of the regular season, and there isn't even so much as a discussion currently going on between Bonds and his people and a major league team. This isn't a "doomsday prophecy", it's nothing but a simple fact. And you know just as well as I do that Borris has been working feverishly for weeks and weeks now trying to get any team interested, because that's his job.
So tell me, who do you think is going to sign Bonds to a contract, and when?
But so what? It's March 2008, and the "sell-by" date on that sour milk is long past.
the Mets are a franchise that historically had a lot of success with George Foster, Vince Coleman and Bobby Bonilla. Barry will double the fun of those three put together, right?
George Foster's best OPS+, over the age of 30: 150, 131, 121, 111
Vince Coleman's best OPS+, over the age of 30: 92, 86, 59, 23
Bobby Bonilla's best OPS+, over the age of 30: 151, 128, 125, 114
Barry Bonds' OPS +, most recent four seasons: 170, 156, 174 (hurt), 263
And you know this... how?
How about this: because if there were, it would have leaked out to the press, and we would all know about it. For God's sake, you've got guys in the sports media trying to talk to Bonds and Borris every single day asking "so, any interest from anyone?", and all they can respond with is "no comment".
The only thing even remotely close was that story a couple of weeks ago when word got out that his name came up in discussions amongst the Devil Rays, and everyone got all crazy there for a couple of days. Which made the Rays management feel obliged to come out and put the kibosh on the story and say "don't read too much into this people, there's no serious discussions going on".
Anything else?
The Cubs can have him then. I'm a Mets fan. I root for the club because it's fun. I do not want Barry Bonds on the Mets. I don't want him even if his presence here guarantees a championship and his absence guarantees a loss. I reserve my bargains with the devil for more important things than an entertaining diversion we call baseball.
Yes, but I already asked the question once and you couldn't answer it.
Rather than focusing on the negatives of Bonds, I would prefer to focus on the fun of having one of the three best (or ten best, if you want to give him a roid discount) hitters in the history of the game wearing my team's uniform. And maybe, just maybe, doing some damn fine hitting while wearing it.
Why don't you want Bonds on the Mets?
It's a personal feeling so there is no concrete calculation for each individual. For you, if Bonds brings more wins it's more fun. For me the headache Bonds brings outweighs everything else. The idiots, scoundrels, and Mota in club history are in the past, fait accompli. Nobody can do anything about them. I root for the Mets despite of them. It is an easy choice now not to have anything to do with Bonds so why bring in the circus? I'll enjoy watching a circus, if say he plays for the A's or Royals. But it's awfully hard rooting for a circus.
This is the clincher; If the Mets won the championship with him, twenty years down the road the face of this team wouldn't be Jose, David or Pedro, it would be Bonds.
It's not that the Mets haven't had jerks on the roster, it's just that I don't want my team, the team that still I root for with some small but discernable, not insignificant, and unexplainable fraction of the innocence with which I rooted as a child, to actively solicit the services of a jerk.
What headache?
why bring in the circus?
What circus? You mean a crazy media crush on the team? Yes, because that's not going to happen *anyway*.
This is the clincher; If the Mets won the championship with him, twenty years down the road the face of this team wouldn't be Jose, David or Pedro, it would be Bonds.
Obviously that isn't true. The "face" would be whomever performed the best - and you forgot Johan. If David wins the MVP and Johan wins hte CYA, then they'll still be the face.
You haven't really given anything other than you don't like him, when you've never met him.
But they do all the time (a media-named jerk). ALL the time. Lo Duca? Pedro has quite the history himself.
I said it's a personal feeling. I'm speaking as a fan, a fan of baseball and one club in particular, the New York Mets.
I don't like a lot of people I haven't met, eg. George O'Malley, Steve Phillips and Bill Plaschke. I haven't met many people who I like. What's your point?
Just as long as you are clear with yourself. Not wanting Bonds is equivalent to not wanting Ted Williams, or Babe Ruth. It's an odd position of fandom.
True though, I couldn't stand Tommie Herr, but that's specifically on the baseball field.
you should email that to Jenkins.
Actually no. I have no problem with sticking Ted Williams' frozen noggin or whatever is left of George Herman in left at Shea.
Because cite all the LoDucas you want but Bonds is WAAAAY less fun than either of them. Infinitely so. It isn't even in the same universe. (And seriously, Pedro?)
What circus? You mean a crazy media crush on the team? Yes, because that's not going to happen *anyway*.
Do you honestly, truly think that the media crush WITHOUT Bonds is not going to be appreciably different from the media crush WITH Bonds? It will simply be the same whatever? I can't believe that's your stance.
I think it's been made clear enough by the folks who do not want Bonds that it has nothing to do with anything other than we simply don't want the madness that comes with Bonds' presence and the dark cloud that currently exists over him and his very well-known and public personality. I mean, call us pantywaists, think we don't know anything about "the true meaning of baseball and winning", but do not actually brush aside the concerns as if they have no rational basis whatsoever.
But we can appreciate the anti-Bonds sentiment of some Met fans. They cherish their 1986 title, whose glory was free from the corrosive memory of "idiots, scoundrels and headaches."
The Bonds/Clemens debate on BTF, if you can even call it that, has so poisoned the atmosphere it's only possible to get something reasonable edgewise. People with fixed positions are so viscious now. Everything and every position has to be taken to extremes.
I think that if Bonds really applied himself, he could live up to the Gold Glove legacy and baserunning wizardry of Rocket Legs Ruth and the Splendid Speedster.
God knows. I can't even remember that year. I was too coked up.
Ted Williams did just fine.
When the Giants are out of contention come June 1, take a long vacation Bruce. There will be nothing to write about as there will be no help in sight.
Plus the whole adipocere issue.
Best Regards
John
****
***1/2
G Mota
"Ted Williams was despised everywhere in the American League, including Boston...He took constant actions to reinforce that relationship. He splattered water coolers, including glass ones. He made obscene gestures at fans, carried decades-long vendettas against selected reporters, sometimes didn't treat his family well...was obsessed with his own success, was contemptuous of coaches and some managers, and alternated, in his dealings with fans, between rugged charm and uncharted rudeness."
What a sack of ####. I'd never have him on my team.
From the same source:
"American League president Ban Johnson in 1923 issued a policy prohibiting 'trick bats' after Babe Ruth was caught using a bat which consisted of four pieces of wood glued together."
What a cheating sack of ####. I'd never have him on my team. 714*
If you admire Bonds, as I think you do, why do you have to diminish Williams or Ruth?
Whether or not they were jerks has no bearing on whether Barry is one. Even if they were both be jerks, it is not inconsistent to like them but dislike Bonds, because they could be different kinds of jerks.
Easy enough to document. Starting with Jim Tabor -- who beat him up for dogging it in the field in Minneapolis.
Besides Bonds is still a better hitter and fielder than Pat Burrell or Carlos Lee. And if Adam Dunn has an edge with the glove it's not enough to cover the difference between the two with the bat. And all of the guys I named are pretty fair hitters.
Yeah Bonds is old enough that the possibility of him just losing it can't be ruled out. No actual evidence that it's happened though. And he was reasonably healthy last year.
I was being facetious. The quotes from the Abstract were intended to point out how kevin and others are misinformed about players like Ruth and Williams. To say that having players who are the greatest ever but happen to be guilty of being ######## will hurt your team's chances of winning is absurd. To say that Ruth never cheated is ignorant. The purpose of baseball is winning games. A healthy Barry Bonds will help any team do just that.
Yes, it is. Williams was pretty much exactly the "same kind of jerk", if not worse.
The purpose of baseball is to be entertaining. Bonds will most certainly NOT help any team do that these days.
Yup. I certainly don't find guys who could be the best hitter in the league entertaining. Giants fans should be much happier this year.
Mets Rule Out Bonds, Sosa.
Dammit and woo hoo!
Is it really that hard to understand that some people don't find THIS guy who could be the best hitter in the league entertaining?
I don't even have an opinion on whether he cheated or not. I just find the entire thing tiresome, and don't want to be hearing about it every single damn day on my favorite team. That's all.
Sosa lumped in with Bonds. Insulting.
I love watching Bonds hit but I don't want to spend the season having to listen to Cohen talk about Bonds.
Some people? Nope. Bonds "will most certainly NOT help any team" be entertaining? That's ridiculous.
This isn't directed at you, Lassus, but what's wrong with people saying "I don't like Bonds and don't want him on my team" instead of "Bonds won't help a team win" or "watching Bonds isn't fun for people"? The first is fine, the second is pretty stupid.
Anyway, Lassus, what do you think the Mets should do? It's March 8th and I'm already worried. I guess it wouldn't be baseball season if I wasn't worried about something.
Hmm, maybe if Bonds is on the team Cohen will tire himself out by the end of the first week and be more bearable.
I'm worried as well, but again - I'll take a season of struggle over 162 games of Bonds stories. I just don't want it. I really really REALLY don't want it.
Whatever. Sammie! is probably sucking **** for crack right now.
wow. what are you talking about
You've really got to hand it to the Mets: they wasted absolutely no time whatsoever in shooting this idea down. Blowing it out of the sky, even! Just like Tampa Bay did.
And the sands of time keep on marching towards the start of the season...
My estimation of Chris Dial's character, personality and temperment: already low.
My estimation of Chris Dial's intelligence: rapidly falling.
My estimation of Chris Dial's intelligence: rapidly falling.
That's a nice thing to say because I disagree with you on who Bonds is. Your mom must be proud. My character? My personality? My temperment? Have we met? My intelligence? Well, that going to be disappointing for my career.
Read the contemporary pieces about each player. You couldn't tell one from the other.
There are plenty of people who (incorrectly) believe Bonds cheated. Now, those individuals can certainly "feel" cheated, but it's thusfar demonstrated that he did not. Or certainly no more so than 90+% of baseball players since 1960 or so (which goes to it not being cheating).
I was hoping that the parallels would continue after he retired, and Barry would assume that position as the go-to guy for talk about hitting, analyzing the new crop of ballplayers. Sadly, I think, the Balco scandal has made that highly unlikely.
Have you ever met Bonds or Williams?
We make judgments on what we hear and what we have available, that's the way it is. He is making his judgments on what you've written here over the years (which is quite a bit of material), and everyone - including you - are basing your judgments on baseball players using what they've seen in soundbites and written by the media. To be perfectly honest, I would think if Bonds and Williams had written as many words as we have here over the same amount of time, we would all consider it a better indication of their personalities than what we've seen so far.
Note: I think that probably Williams was a greater jerk than Bonds. A different KIND of jerk - the kind that would still go be a fighter pilot when needed and risk his life - but a jerk nonetheless. And I mean that seriously. My grandfather was a decorated veteran, but a very very very unpleasant man.
Of course Ted Williams vs. Barry Bonds has very little to do with whether one wants Bonds on the Mets. It is rude and disengenuous for people like Dial to not at least understand why some Mets fans don't want him this year and actually attack us. Just because a player is good doesn't mean a fan has to like him on the team to "understand the game" or "want to win" or "be a true fan". I'm pretty sure every Mets fan would hate it if Clemens were to play for the club after 2000.
edit. I should add it's unfortunate that Bonds will always have that cloud over him. We all would have liked great baseball players to be great human beings. But that's not going to happen. Baseball history is full of jerks like Ty Cobb. You can over look their character flaws when considering their achievements in the diamond. But it doesn't mean their flaws don't diminish them.
Williams didn't fly in combat in WWII. He was a flight instructor at NAS Pensacola. He was awaiting orders to a combat unit when the War ended.
But that's not the Bonds we'd get. I'm guessing we'd get 100 games of a good to very good hitter who would clog the bases and could barely field his position. Would he help the Mets on the field? Sure. Would it be worth a half year of Bonds' a-hole antics, the media circus, and the tarnish on the team? For me as a fan, definitely not.
It's silly to ask whether Bonds and Williams are the same kind of jerk. In some respects they are the same. In some respects they are different. Williams, for instance, has never been accused of cheating, has never blamed a teammate for a failed drug test, never had the other players on his team vote to kick him off, never perjured himself, and never had a possible jail sentence over his head in the middle of the season. Whether these differences are significant to you depends largely on how you view Bonds. But to act as if it's absurd to notice a difference in quality and magnitude of Bonds' and Williams' personalities is silly.
No I never met either, but I am not judging either. I don't know either to be a jerk. My point wrt ted is that his contemporary portrayal is the same. Keith Hernandez was a cokehead, and displayed considerable arrogance. Straw was pretty- er, confident.
I don't judge them. Unlike some, I want the Mets to be the best team. Some don't want ARod. "He's a phony, and I don't want phonies on the Mets".
IMO, that is some pretty judgmental and shallow.
And as I noted not wanting Bonds is akin to not wanting Ted.
I haven't yet seen where the analogy fails.
Was Ted under federal indictment and facing a trial and possible prison time before the season was up? I'm not entirely sure if the analogy fails there but god knows it definitely doesn't succeed particularly well either.
The view of not wanting A-Rod based on his "phoniness" is a matter of opinion. The insanity following Bonds around this year is simply fact.
I apecifically recognized your "why". That's where the Ted analogy comes from.
And "attack" you? Where? I mean I see where you wrote specifically bad things about me, but I don't recall "attacking" anyone. Please highlight where I have done so. I'll be surprised if you manage it.
Is 90 a BTF inside joke I'm unaware of?
What Lassus said, plus what G-string said, Bonds '08 is not going to be Bonds '01. We don't want Williams in his present condition to be on the 2008 Mets either.
You are operating from a different perspective.
In 1953, you'd be saying the same things (probably worse) about Ted. Ted tried to get out of those service commitments, and he was really bitter about the Korean assignment. He *spit* at people.
Much of what you both write is complete fabrication. And kevin knows his is. G-string is nerely parroting a Pearlman (hey, a media guy who doesn't like Bonds!), so that's loaded with half-truths.
Have you guys read the testimony and indictment (which was filled improperly)?
Even BL doesn't think present evidence is going to do it.
Chris Dial did. I don't know who you are.
He did not. He spit in the direction of the stands.
"at people". "in the direction of the stands". Are you completely off your rocker?
Now we've found Nieporent's sock puppet.
You mean Backlasher?
He was well liked by some teammate. Others couldn't stand him. Jim Tabor I mentioned. Doc Cramer and another teammate (Chapman ? -- blanking on this) sent him a "glad you're going back to the minors" telegram after he was sent out in 1938.
As for Ruth, here are bits and pieces from some of those contemporary articles Chris mentioned (all in the wake of his sale to the Yankees -- and to be clear, I disagree with the sentiment. Jerk to be sure. Well worth the problems he created)
"Ruth's failure to respect the club's training rules, his unwillingness to submit to any form of discipline, and the bad example he set for the other men formed a combination that President Frazee could no longer endure,"
Paul Shannon of the Boston Post
The Boston Globe's James O'Leary wrote that the Red Sox had "made a good bargain" and an article in the Boston Evening Transcript declared "Red Sox players doubtless will be pleased with the disposal of the incorrigible slugger, and team play should be in more evidence."
And Harry Frazee issued a statement that included the following, ""The Boston club could no longer put up with his eccentricities. While Ruth without question is the greatest hitter that the game has seen, he is likewise one of the most inconsiderate men that ever wore a baseball uniform."
One of the most interesting quotes about Ruth comes from Ban Johnson a few years later.
"It seems the period has arrived when you should allow some intelligence to creep into a mind that has plainly been warped."
Ban Johnson to Babe Ruth May 26, 1922 (following a Ron Artest level meltdown. Ruth went into the stands after a heckler. Took his bat with him. Why? "They can boo and hoot me all they want. That doesn't matter to me. But when a fan calls insulting names from the grandstand and becomes abusive I don't intend to stand for it. This fellow today ... called me a 'lowdown bum' and other names that got me mad.")
I hope they read that, but facts aren't terribly interesting to some.
You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.
<< Back to main