[Cash’s epic season was an anomaly in an otherwise middling career. That a player could have a brilliant year out of nowhere, used to be one of the charms of baseball. Today they would be accused of sprinkling steroids on their corn flakes.]

Or corking his bat.

When did Bonds get an ice pick in his eye?

I have to get into this internet thing more often, because I'm missing everything!!!

When did Bonds get an ice pick in his eye?

Dammit, Socrates, you beat me to that one, you lickspittled jackboot of hyena-howling social fascism!

Does thie mean we get another hilarious piece from Rob Elias?

Ah, the benefits of listening to the Stranglers....

had an on base percentage of .480. Since 1950, only Ted Williams, Mickey Mantle, Norm Cash, and Bonds himself have recorded higher OBP’s.

The first name that entered my mind was Frank Thomas, and sure enough he was at .487 in 1994.

Jeez, I know his defense wasn't all that, but a 15 year career with a 139 OPS+ is a bit better than "middling", isn't it?

Yezhov was vanished, not Trotsky.

Calling Cash's career 139 OPS+ "middling" is inaccurate & petty. Outside that outlier year, his numbers were remarkably consistent over the rest of his career. HOVG, if not a low-end HOF, is hardly middling.

There is no reminder that Bonds ever even wore a Giants uniform.

This is false, and has been reported on accurately at least a dozen times since the season started. Apparently Googling '2008 bonds att' and clicking on the first link is too difficult for the author.

Is there a Stalin equivalent of Godwin's law?

Look, I'm as big a Bonds apologist as the next stathead, but there are multiple good reasons for Bonds not to be on a team's roster right now. I wrote a big honkin' post about it a few minutes ago, but the short version is that a player's age, strategic fit, or controversy all provide a team with a plausible, legal, and even justifiable reason to steer clear of an otherwise attractive free agent. In Bonds you have the perfect storm of all three, and that's without even going down the team chemistry or salary roads, which may also be a factor in the minds of GMs.

I have no idea if there is a conpiracy to keep out Bonds and neither does Zirin, but I do know that (a) there are, at the outside, 4-6 teams for whom signing Barry Bonds makes sense, with sense being defined as (1) playing in the DH league; (2) being a team that needs a DH because theirs really sucks; and (3) being a team that isn't already making a major financial commitment to a DH.

Sure, I suppose you could make a conspiracy case out of Bavasi and Riccardi not wanting to sign Barry Bonds, but it ain't a really good one.

Sorry to blogpimp, but for a more expansive take of this you can go here.

RE: 1, didn't Cash cork his bat his bat for many years other than 1961?

I was there on Friday, and there were plenty of Bonds things around the park. Didn't take a picture of any of them, but there was one particularly disturbing 1/3rd scale smiling bobblehead, in a souvenir shop window.

I have no idea if there is a conpiracy to keep out Bonds and neither does Zirin, but I do know that (a) there are, at the outside, 4-6 teams for whom signing Barry Bonds makes sense, with sense being defined as (1) playing in the DH league; (2) being a team that needs a DH because theirs really sucks; and (3) being a team that isn't already making a major financial commitment to a DH.

the problem is that your "makes sense" criteria don't "make sense".

Bonds is still every bit the fielder Moises Alou is. And his bat plus glove are all that really matters. And he can DH. We're already in May, so Bonds can really just add about 4 wins to nearly any team picking him up. ANY team. Of course, only the teams where that margin matters might want to pick him up, but your restrictions are too tight.

Ah, the benefits of listening to the Stranglers....

Stick my fingers right up your nose.

Chris -- maybe they are too tight. I'm just trying to put myself in the shoes of a GM who you can be quite assured is going to care more about just the bat and glove. Specifically, he's going to care about the risk -- and there is risk, no matter how confident we are in Bonds -- that his bat and glove simply won't work this year because, hey, he is almost 44.

If you're the GM who takes that chance and it fails, you probably made your last free agent signing. This isn't like taking a flier on Jim Edmonds. If Bonds is signed and he doesn't perform at his historic levels and your team doesn't make the playoffs, the GMs name is going to be mud because some writer -- maybe lots of them -- are going to say that you sold your team's soul for nothing. That's a lot of baloney of course, but it's a storyline that will gain currency on talk radio and among the fan base at large.

RE: 1, didn't Cash cork his bat his bat for many years other than 1961?

Yes, of course he did, as he readily admitted.

The notion that bat-corking explains a spike season is every bit as nonsensical as the notion that PED usage explains a spike season; in both cases we're asked to believe that either the magic potion suddenly stopped working after a single year, or that the player in question was so idiotic as to stop doing the thing that had skyrocketed his performance.

RE: 16, that is an excellant point; I think that is probably the main reason Bonds does not have a job. Of course, the mandate of the GM is to help his team win, not protect his own job, but they are only human. I guess you would need some owner to tell his GM that he had the green light to sign Bonds, that the owner understood the risk and would not fire the GM if the deal did not pan out.

I have no idea if there is a conpiracy to keep out Bonds and neither does Zirin, but I do know that (a) there are, at the outside, 4-6 teams for whom signing Barry Bonds makes sense, with sense being defined as (1) playing in the DH league; (2) being a team that needs a DH because theirs really sucks; and (3) being a team that isn't already making a major financial commitment to a DH.


I don't accept your main premise.

There's a difference between a poor defensive player and one who's incapable of playing the position. Bonds can play LF with some ability. He may be a poor defensive player at this stage in his career, but he isn't so bad, even with a dropoff from 2007, that he might only be a DH.

Take away 100 points of OBP and 100 points of SLG from 2007, and Bonds is a .380/.465 hitter. Even with terrible defense, that's not terrible production from a LF. How many teams would be improved by replacing their current LF with this crippled version of Bonds?

The Braves have Matt Diaz hitting .269/.279/.343. The Cardinals have Duncan hitting .253/.377/.391. The Padres have McAnulty hitting .217/.345/.348.

There are also teams with brutal production in RF: Philly has Jenkins (.255/.291/.345) in RF; SF has Winn (.286/.324/.368).

That's just NL teams with a little research. The argument against Bonds has to be that he's so bad defensively that he legitimately cannot handle the position anymore, or that his offense will tank so sharply that he'll be a net negative with merely very bad defense.

I don't see either as particularly supportable theories given his 2007 performance. Of course, there's also the chance that his offense doesn't drop off that much, and that his defense doesn't get much worse, in which case he's one of the better LF in baseball. For what is now about 2/3 of a season, nobody is willing to take that risk?

There are legitimate reasons for not wanting the PR hit that comes with signing Bonds, but it's very difficult to make a case for not wanting him based on his projected 2008 performance. Whether you think the PR is sufficient deterrent without some collusion or secret directive from the commissioner's office is reasonable to debate. I'm not sure what I think. I have suspicions, but not enough to say it's definitely something fishy.

If you're the GM who takes that chance and it fails, you probably made your last free agent signing. This isn't like taking a flier on Jim Edmonds. If Bonds is signed and he doesn't perform at his historic levels and your team doesn't make the playoffs, the GMs name is going to be mud because some writer -- maybe lots of them -- are going to say that you sold your team's soul for nothing. That's a lot of baloney of course, but it's a storyline that will gain currency on talk radio and among the fan base at large.

I agree with you here, and Ithink we're basically on the same page witht hat. Crosby goes furhter on my point, and if the Mets miss the playoffslike they did last year, it will be *because* they didn't sign Bonds, and Omar should be fired. (also the Phillies and the Braves and the second place Central team and the second place West team).

Actually, pretty much *EVERY* team that finishes within 5 games of the playoffs blew it because they didn't sign Bonds. And waiting until next year never works because hter are too many variables beyond your control.

All fair points. It just seems to me that risk is part of a player's value just like OBP and slugging. Normally it's very very minimal compared to those things. In Bonds' case, it's much higher than in any other player's, partially in terms of risk that he won't perform (again, age and health), but more pointedly in terms of risk that his lack of performance will be attributed to team managment. Bonds walks away after this season worth nine figures no matter what happens. The guy who signs him could be unemployed.

Bonds is still every bit the fielder Moises Alou is. And his bat plus glove are all that really matters.

Ah, no, that's not all that really matters.

All fair points. It just seems to me that risk is part of a player's value just like OBP and slugging. Normally it's very very minimal compared to those things. In Bonds' case, it's much higher than in any other player's, partially in terms of risk that he won't perform (again, age and health), but more pointedly in terms of risk that his lack of performance will be attributed to team managment.

By whom? If it's fans and the media, you'd think baseball owners would be better businessmen than to be intimidated out of avoiding a good financial decision based on risk/reward. If it's the front offices themselves, you'd think some of them would be less short-sighted. At least one of them should recognize a market error and take advantage of it.

Bonds has some value. There's some equation involving his baseball ability, public relations positives and negatives, and risk. We've seen how heavily owners tend to consider these categories, and it really does look like the Bonds equation is different than it would be and has been for other players. Players have done far worse things than Bonds has done and gotten contracts. Players have had more risk of failure in performance than Bonds and gotten contracts.

The way I see it, either Bonds is really being blackballed, or he's asking for some salary that doesn't account for the PR negatives and risks. Since I don't have any information of what salary Bonds would be willing to accept, it's hard to determine what is going on. I really wish he'd make a public statement that he'd play for league minimum or some arbitrarily low amount; then we'd know for sure.

crosby,

i think that the teams aren't considering bonds baseball playing abilities - IF there is no collusion, then i think that seeing as how bonds is the designated goat about steroids, the owners/GM really don't want to deal with the media shtt that gonna be flung all over them.

because let's face it, the media doesn't care about teams giving contracts to roids users. they don't. even when espn jumped on tejada, they were all over his lying about his AGE, not about the mitchell report naming him as a roid user. they didn't CARE about that.

and simmons, as usual, is full of poopoo.

i didn't bother to stay up to watch the Giants/Astros game and i would have if barry lamar had been playing. and when they come here, i won't be making SURE we get tickets no matter what. because barry lamar Himself was worth the price of tickets/gas/parking/kids screaming cuz they didn't get to go...

By whom? If it's fans and the media, you'd think baseball owners would be better businessmen than to be intimidated out of avoiding a good financial decision based on risk/reward. If it's the front offices themselves, you'd think some of them would be less short-sighted. At least one of them should recognize a market error and take advantage of it.

Well, you'd think those things, but you'd be wrong in most cases. PR matters to these guys. GMs and owners do things in response to PR all the time. If front offices weren't short sighted, this site wouldn't exist and all of us would reading MLB.com.

Not sayin' it's right -- I'd sign Barry if the money wasn't crazy -- just sayin' that I think that's what's happenin'. This is especially true for teams that are part of a corporate conglomorate of some kind. Kevin -- tell me that you wouldn't sign up to boycott a product produced by your team's ownership group if they signed Bonds.

Of course he would -- probably proudly -- and even though many of us disagree with kevin on a great many things, he isn't the only person out there with an irrational (yes, I know you consider it rational kevin, but work with me here) distaste for Barry. Corporations and businessmen fear this sort of thing, and they'll react in very small ways in response to it.

Actually, pretty much *EVERY* team that finishes within 5 games of the playoffs blew it because they didn't sign Bonds.

Because he is guaranteed to provide 5 wins over replacement. Right.

Because he is guaranteed to provide 5 wins over replacement. Right.

There are no guarantees. And he's 5 wins above *average* not replacement.

I wonder why it is that we're not seeing this tiresome, endless drumbeat of articles beating the dead horse and wondering out loud if there's a collusion conspiracy by baseball to keep Roger Clemens out of the game. After all, we're talking about one of the best pitchers in baseball history.

I wonder why it is that we're not seeing this tiresome, endless drumbeat of articles beating the dead horse and wondering out loud if there's a collusion conspiracy by baseball to keep Roger Clemens out of the game. After all, we're talking about one of the best pitchers in baseball history.


Clemens has retired about seventeen times. Seriously? Is there any indication that Clemens even wants to play?

plus Clemens would presumably be only up for pitching in Texas or NY.

and he was a mediocre 5-6 inning pitcher last year.

Actually, pretty much *EVERY* team that finishes within 5 games of the playoffs blew it because they didn't sign Bonds.

If by some miracle the Rockies manage to finish within 5 games of the playoffs, this won't be true for them.

even though many of us disagree with kevin on a great many things, he isn't the only person out there with an irrational (yes, I know you consider it rational kevin, but work with me here) distaste for Barry.

This is anecdotal evidence, but from my experiences talking to baseball fans, kevin's is the majority opinion w/r/t Bonds.