On the contrary, you have wildly exaggerated my points into a kind of farcical rendering, as in the statements above: "I merely challenged your "incontovertible" notion that Bond's addition would be a plus." & "Of course he is not the greatest player in history so he can be thrown under the bus for Bonds." As a matter of fact, as you can see from my other posts, not only have I never said that his addition would "incontrovertibly" be a plus (only that his offensive production would be, something quite different), but that I am not even sure he should be signed. I have repeated that hesitancy over and over.

Part of the reason for my hesitancy is that I want to see Floyd get plenty of at-bats, although from a purely offensive standpoint, I think the chances of him outperforming Bonds as a DH are slight. But purely from an emotional standpoint, I would be unhappy to see him superceded by Bonds.

I was waiting for your posts (before the grudging effort in the last one) to do more than attack the character and qualities of Bonds. I was waiting for some recognition that he is among the greatest players in history, in any short list of a discussion of the greatest of all time, and that despite his lessened playing time he has remained an immensely productive hitter the past 2 years. One can say that without sponsoring his signing. But, having said it, one has at least to weigh the pros and cons, demonstrate a recognition that it is not a gimme decision, in asserting one's opinion.

What made it all the more peculiar to me is that I have never read one article by any analyst or scout that did not assert categorically that Bonds remained a great offensive force, still among the best in the majors. I have read many articles questioning other aspects of his play and influence, some positive, many negative. But even his most ardent critics, even the Bonds' haters, admitted to his offensive prowess the past 2 years. Yet in every post, you saw fit to downgrade that factor, ignoring OBP, ignoring Slugging, seeking to discover ways to suggest he was not producing. Even that is ok so long as the obvious truth of his performance is recognized, but no, not even that.

You may very reasonably object to what you may think is my hyperbole. I would certainly reconsider my language if you make a good case. But I am touchy about my points being misrepresented, exaggerated and taken out of context. You don't think his performance recently has been brilliant? Fine. But before dismissing him, demonstrate some appreciation for what he still does with the bat and incorporate that into your reasoning.