By recommending the signing of Bonds, LaRussa, consciously or unconsciously, may have been looking for a way to rehabilitate McGwire's contribution to the Cards.

Damn it. That would have at least provided some interest to what is going to be a very sucky year.

Most likely he looked at it as 5 to 7 more wins. GMs are apparently trying to win elections or maybe some sort of grants from the king.

Great info from Scott Rolen on how bad his relationship with LaRussa had gotten - he would have waived his no-trade clause to go back to Philadelphia in order to get out of town. Tony LaRussa - worse than Philly fans.

I posted an entire article about Rolen's feelings today, Devin!!!!

Question: Bonds is a Type A, so at this point if he signs with a team, will that team forfeit their 1st or 2nd round pick?

We have more proof that Tony LaRussa abuses dangerous drugs than Barry Bonds.

When will Tony be put away?

Who will think of the children.

MSI - Giants didn't offer arb, so not an issue.

MSI - Giants didn't offer arb, so not an issue.

He would have accepted for sure.

Considering the Mets total lack of depth in the outfield how likely is the following scenario;

Alou gets hurt and will miss a lot of time. The Mets sign Bonds to fill that gap.

Alou gets hurt and will miss a lot of time. The Mets sign Bonds to fill that gap.

Sentence One: Very likely. Sentence two: Very unlikely.

I like this. I think it shows one aspects of why Tony LaRussa will be going to the Hall of Fame as soon as he retires - there is nothing he cares about more than winning. He knows he needs another bat in the order, so he focuses on the best bat out there. However you judge the ethics or the politics, that's the thought process of a winning manager.

Incidentally, the number of HoF managers who weren't alcoholics is pretty damn small, too.

In other words, integrity and ethics don't count.

I'm pretty sure the Red Sox still fly the pennants they won with people taking performance enhancing drugs.

*Every* team thinks about winning first (your standard idiotic examples excluded).

That's horseshit. If that were true, Bonds and Clemens would already be signed.

And the fact that they're in their mid 40's and want 8 figure-a-year contracts mean naught?

That's horseshit. If that were true, Bonds and Clemens would already be signed.

I thought Clemens retired so he could avoid steroid testing?

kevin's absolutely right on this. Bonds and Clemens project to be close to all-star level players next year. They are easily above average. There is no way they wouldn't be signed if it weren't for steroids.

"19. Matt Clement of Alexandria Posted: February 25, 2008 at 09:33 AM (#2699138)
kevin's absolutely right on this. Bonds and Clemens project to be close to all-star level players next year. They are easily above average. There is no way they wouldn't be signed if it weren't for steroids."

Actually things are hardly ever quite that clear cut. In each players case there are legitimate baseball reason why the number of team that would have interest would be very limited. In Bonds' case he is limited to either DH'ing or playing LF poorly. How many AL teams don't have a DH? The second half of that question is how many of those teams have big $$$ to spend? In Clemens' case you need to consider how his last season ended. He looked done against the Indians in the playoffs and there was talk that he had an elbow injury of some sort. Both players are past 40 years of age. You can play past 40, but as Julio Franco has shown your negotiating power decreases as you age. Teams correctly realize that older players have reduced reliability due to greater potential for injury or diminished ability. A guy like Julio willing to be a cheap addition has a better chance of hanging around longer than a superstar who feels he still commands a top salary.

There is no way they wouldn't be signed if it weren't for steroids.

This is much more true of Bonds than Clemens. Clemens has unique contract demands that eliminate the vast majority of potential suitors.

kevin's absolutely right on this. Bonds and Clemens project to be close to all-star level players next year. They are easily above average. There is no way they wouldn't be signed if it weren't for steroids

kevin is rigth about what? Teams don't think about winning first? That's dumb as dirt - of course they do (except the Marlins). Then they temper those decisions with other information, weighing risk/reward.

This is Idiocy 101; and Professor Kevin is giving his dissertation.

kevin's absolutely right on this. Bonds and Clemens project to be close to all-star level players next year. They are easily above average. There is no way they wouldn't be signed if it weren't for steroids.

Bonds yes, Clemens, no.

The difference is Bonds wants to be signed. Clemens is going through his yearly routine. If he wants a contract, the Astros almost certainly will give him one. There's a difference performance-wise as well. Bonds was still the best hitter in the league, at least by rate stats. Clemens was still a slightly above average pitcher, but not a dominant one like in 2006. Of course a lot of that is the difference between Jeter and Everett and the AL East vs NL Central.

Then why aren't Bonds and Clemens signed yet, Chris?

Same reason Shawn Green isn't. FA signings seem to be lagging this year.

And the true idiocy is believing that business units like baseball teams are concerned about something other than the bottom line first.

That has nothing to do with your position. Bonds would increase any team's revenues. *ANY* team's.

What's really comical about that, chris, is that you seem to be acknowledging and denying that in the same sentence in #22. Which goes a long way towards explainging why you are so continually befuddled and confounded by anything Bonds.

You'll need to clarify.

Is Clemens even pursuing a contract at this point? I think he's still cycling off his winter steroids regimen.

Same reason Shawn Green isn't. FA signings seem to be lagging this year.

That's not true Chris. Teams are on the same page with analysts here. They don't think Green can play anymore.

I seriously doubt that any team has refused to sign Bonds because they don't think he can hit anymore. Its about asking asking price, steroids, blackballing, federal trial, etc.

That's not true Chris. Teams are on the same page with analysts here. They don't think Green can play anymore.

Green hit: .291 .352 .430

I disagree. With Green, and many FAs, its about asking asking price, steroids, etc.

Tejada getting popped has slowed the timetable. I think teams are trying to seewhat the rest of the collateral damage is. Look how long it took to sign Colon (didn't he just sign?)

Look how long it took to sign Colon (didn't he just sign?)

Minor league deal, which isn't surprising given his last 2 years.

well, i got on a thread last week and said i'd go to cards games and root for barry if they signed him (if i lived in STL). that's what will happen if he lands in st. looey. doesn't mean i don't think he juiced. the fans would hold their noses and cheer him, or most of them anyway ... cards would make a bundle of money. i guess management weighed the pros and cons and decided there were enough fans who wouldn't like it, and also didn't want to deal with the PR baggage. from what i've read there's already a good deal of grumbling going on in st. louis about how the front office has handled personnel in what is almost certain to be a tough year for the cards. this decision is almost certainly not about whether bonds could contribute. so kevin is kind of right. the steroids were what tipped the scales in the wrong direction, imo. does anybody really think barry wouldn't still be playing in SF if he hadn't been indicted?
as far as TLR, he's doing his job by bringing up viable alternatives, and then letting the brass decide. but it reads as a CYA move on his part. 'look, i know we'll suck at this rate. and i told them barry was out there ...' (shrug)

Does Green actually improve any team as a starter though? He can't field, not a lot of power anymore. I'm surprised to see his rate stats were that decent given all the crap he takes around here, but he's pretty marginal as a starter, and may have to accept a bench role (Luis Gonzalez came to grips with reality there).

Bonds is still a dominant hitter, if he can just find a team willing to sign him.

Does Green actually improve any team as a starter though? He can't field, not a lot of power anymore. I'm surprised to see his rate stats were that decent given all the crap he takes around here, but he's pretty marginal as a starter, and may have to accept a bench role (Luis Gonzalez came to grips with reality there).


Nonetheless, your contention that teams would think he's "done", is nonsense.

Of course a lot of that is the difference between Jeter and Everett and the AL East vs NL Central.

And here marks the new excuse for Clemens success.

Why does there have to be one and only one reason that Bonds hasn't signed? It's obviously a combination of the steroids stigma, his age, probable asking price, the fact that you'd pretty much have to guarantee him starts and his probably selectiveness in the situation that he'd in.

Steroids are obviously a necessary but insufficient factor.