Pre-trade deadline move?
by Steve Slowinski on May 17, 2008 9:45 AM EDT
Email
PrintOkay...people have been speculating like crazy on this issue recently and I figured I'd throw out an idea. As much as I would love to sign Bonds or trade for a big name outfielder, I think that's dangerously approaching the Yankee philosophy - go for the biggest name out there for short-term success. Granted while signing Bonds wouldn't cost us prospects or anything, that would leave Cliff Floyd as a bench player and I dunno...it doesn't make the most sense in that regard.
Anyway, my point is that if we want to make a move at the break, I don't think we should pursue any big name offensive talent. Our offensive is currently under performing (or at least Upton, Pena, Longoria, and Crawford are) and so I see no reason to believe they won't eventually kick it into gear.
In terms of dealing for a front of the rotation starter, we have so much starting pitching depth in the minors coming up, I don't see the need to go for a big name pitcher that would clog our rotation in the long run.
However, you can never have too much bullpen depth. I know they've been awesome so far, but Wheeler and JP Howell have been relied upon a lot to this point. I don't want to risk them getting overworked early on in the season and then fizzling out down the home stretch. Especially if we're thinking p******s, a strong bullpen that isn't overworked is uber important. That said, there should be a decent amount of relievers available at the break...George Sherril and Huston Street jump to mind. Thoughts?
This post was written by a member of the DRaysBay community and does not necessarily express the views or opinions of DRaysBay staff.
87 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
I don't think we'll need them
Our pen will get stronger as the year goes along. Glover will eventually have to be DFA for Salas, who will make our pen 5 deep (provided Reyes continues to look like he did the day he came off the DL) with guys I’d be comfortable with in the 8th inning or later in a close game. That’s a pretty impressive pen.
Tools Whore
Sign Bonds!
Number one
I’m no where convinced that Reyes is going to continue to be that successful…he had a 4.90 ERA last year and he’s getting old. Then again, maybe he was just unlucky last year. He did have a low WHIP and didn’t give up any more walks than the previous year when he dominated…so I don’t really know. Personally, though, I’m not much of a fan.
What is the timetable on Salas? He’s finally pitching now, I guess, but I didn’t think he was that close to being ready. Also, regarding a comment down below, there’s no way Morlan is only 6 months away from the majors, right? He’s currently injured and has only throw 7 innings this year in AA (with an 8.10 ERA). If he was closer, I’d say there’s no need for a little more bullpen help.
by Steve Slowinski on May 18, 2008 4:00 AM EDT up reply actions
I think it would ber bad to DFA Gross and sigin Bonds. We just traded for Gross, so 1st of all it wouldlnt make sense for them to turn around less than a month later and drop him. Bonds hasnt played in montnhs and the guy was balooning up like a whale the past couple years. He has serious injury problems, hes in his 40s, and he brings bad press. I’m not even convinced that he would be that feared anymore.
If Salas can get the job done and live up to the hype, that would be great. We wouldnt need anyone else, especially considering Eduardo Morlan is probably only 6 months behind Salas until he is hopefully in our pen
His OBP is .480. I don't care what you're convinced of, he's the best hitter on Earth today.
"I've seen many, many blue skies turn gray, but the sun will eventually return, and so will I. So will I." - Carlos Pena
by R.J. Anderson on May 17, 2008 1:58 PM EDT up reply actions
And probably the best
to ever walk on the earth.
Tools Whore
Sign Bonds!
Actually his OBP was .480
And his RC numbers placed him at abouty the 50th best player last season. But don’t let that ruin your hero worship.
RJ is not an elitist douchebag who hates scouting
His OBP was .480
Bonds was 19th in VORP, only Pena was in his ballpark on our team. I’ll let my hero worship continue, because Bonds would help any team in any league of any year.
"I've seen many, many blue skies turn gray, but the sun will eventually return, and so will I. So will I." - Carlos Pena
by R.J. Anderson on May 17, 2008 9:39 PM EDT up reply actions
You've made my point for me
Better than I could have. You and Tyler will say anything (he’s the best hitter on earth today…His OBP is .480) even when you know that even with your best pick of stats Bonds was the 19th best player and his OBP was .480.
RJ and Tyler are perfectly willing to make any claim about Bonds whether it is supportable or not.
Facts are
Bonds is very old for a ball player.
Bonds has declined. He has not been anything like the best hitter since 2004. Even RJ’s stats admit this even if RJ won’t.
Bonds received more time off after he broke 756.
Bonds has been a steriod abuser which causes bone age advancement.
Bonds brings a media circus whereever he goes.
Bonds hasn’t faced live pitching since September.
Bonds told his previous manager when he was taking a day off. He missed 36 games in 2007 despite his barcalounger in the dressing room and never having an injury serious enough to lead to the 15 day DL.
His injuries last season were listed as Shin Splints, Sore Legs, Hamstring Injury, Pinched Nerve in Hip, Ankle Injury, Strained Right Big Toe.
Bonds thoughts on travel as quoted by the Pittsburgh Gazzette in Sept 2007 – Barry Bonds doesn’t plan to play in either game of Monday’s makeup doubleheader with Pittsburgh. “Day game (Saturday), another day game Sunday and then we have to fly all the way out there …” Bonds said.
Adding Bonds takes away all of Floyds ABs. And it certainly leads to DFA for either Hinske, Floyd, or Gross.
Even if you give Bonds no regression from his 2007 stats (dubious), his addition and removal of one of the above leads to at best 2 more wins by the Rays. It is far more likely that he costs the team wins.
“Best hitter on earth today”??? – only for those blinded by hero worship.
RJ is not an elitist douchebag who hates scouting
He's been old for years, yet his OBP has climbed three straight seasons.
At his worse he’s better than Hinske/Floyd, but whatever blackball him for doing steroids.
"I've seen many, many blue skies turn gray, but the sun will eventually return, and so will I. So will I." - Carlos Pena
by R.J. Anderson on May 18, 2008 1:46 AM EDT up reply actions
Blackballed?
Even his union is not backing him on that one. Like I said, you’ll say anything.
RJ is not an elitist douchebag who hates scouting
Frank Thomas has a job, Bonds doesn't. That's a crime.
"I've seen many, many blue skies turn gray, but the sun will eventually return, and so will I. So will I." - Carlos Pena
by R.J. Anderson on May 18, 2008 10:52 AM EDT up reply actions
Frank Thomas has a job costing the A's the MLB minimum.
All your hero has to do is say that he would work for that and he would have a job.
RJ is not an elitist douchebag who hates scouting
You've received the same number of offers as him.
"I've seen many, many blue skies turn gray, but the sun will eventually return, and so will I. So will I." - Carlos Pena
by R.J. Anderson on May 18, 2008 12:42 PM EDT up reply actions
I will, personally pay his $60k MiLB salary
There he has an offer
RJ is not an elitist douchebag who hates scouting
So what's your point?
That Bonds has had offers but hasn’t taken them because they’re too low? Or that he wants a ridiculous amount of money? Because in one breath you’re saying you think it’s silly for us to sign him and then you’re offering him a minor league deal.
by Steve Slowinski on May 18, 2008 12:51 PM EDT up reply actions
No I'm serious
The Rays should sign him to an MiLB deal if they can.
RJ is not an elitist douchebag who hates scouting
But....wait...
So it’s dangerous to put him in a locker room full of proven MLB talent, but not dangerous to put him in the locker room with some of our young and unproven minor league players? Or do you want him on the big club?
by Steve Slowinski on May 18, 2008 1:17 PM EDT up reply actions
Then I stand corrected
Source?
RJ is not an elitist douchebag who hates scouting
How do you explain it then?
Say what you want about his steroid use, or his age but he is still a damn good hitter and a decent fielder. At the very least he’d be an improvement at DH for half the teams in the AL… yet, no phone call. No one’s even given him an offer to play at the league minimum. That sounds like blackballing to me.
Forget the union. They are looking at the bigger picture.
by floridaroar on May 18, 2008 12:16 PM EDT up reply actions
I'd sign him to an MiLB deal today
RJ is not an elitist douchebag who hates scouting
Then RC is a piss poor stat
if it’s trying to tell me that a guy who gets on base almost 50% of the time and SLG over .500 is the 50th best player in the league at creating runs.
Tools Whore
Sign Bonds!
However you look at it
Bonds is still the best deal out there. You only have to give up cash to get him…not prospects, which are worth gold these days. Even if you look at OFers in the range of ability of Milton Bradley, you’re still going to have to give up valuable prospects. And if we talk about Manny….well, I don’t even want to know which pitching prospects the Red Sox would demand from us. Personally, I don’t want to trade McGee or Davis to Boston at this point…
by Steve Slowinski on May 18, 2008 3:49 AM EDT up reply actions
Manny's not happening.
"I've seen many, many blue skies turn gray, but the sun will eventually return, and so will I. So will I." - Carlos Pena
by R.J. Anderson on May 18, 2008 11:08 AM EDT up reply actions
RH Bat
If the Rays are in the hunt around the All Star break it’s most likely a free agent in 2009 will be traded for. The ideal situation would be to get a RH hitting RF’er. IMO, there’s a player who fits the bill and could be had for Hammel.
Texas will be rubbing there eyes trying to see where the Angels have run to by July. In that time OF’er and swith hitting slugger Milton Bradley could be had for a young player or widget in the Rays organization. That player is Jason Hammel.
The Rangers are going young and trying to builfd their pitching staff, the Rays will be in desparate need of protection of slugger Carlos Pena. Realizing Bradley has been disgruntled, he’s still young (31), and hits from both sides of the plate. He’s been taking his anger management courses and would be an ideal candidate. If he excels sign him beyond 2008, if not, we’re not giving much up in hammel.
Unless of course the Red Sox aren’t planning on picking up Manny’s $20M opt. for 2009 and would like to move him to Tampa. How choice would that be seeing Ramirez donning sunshine on his derby?
I just don't see how Bradley could be a possibility
For better or worse, the Rays’ moves last off-season put an emphasis on high-character guys, and acquiring Bradley would be the antithesis of that. They won’t sign Bonds for a similar reason. Like it or not, the Rays are very much insisting on character as an issue.
by Patrick L. Kennedy on May 17, 2008 10:20 PM EDT up reply actions
Manny a Ray?
Yeah right, like that will ever happen. I’m sure the Yankees will be offering him mucho grande el casho once he’s up just so they can rub it in Bostons face ala Damon.
Manny would never do it
I think he’s obsessed with getting his number retired by the Red Sox. That requires him finishing his career with the Red Sox, which means taking his two option years.
by Orlando Rays on May 18, 2008 9:24 AM EDT up reply actions
Not many teammates have ever called Bradley a bad guy
He has an unfair reputation. He isnt a rotten soul like Dukes and he actually has redeemable qualities as a human.
You guys can have at it with your stat wars, but Bonds is in his 40s and we are running off an assumption that a) he’s still working out and swinging a bat, b) he won’t be a jerk, c) he wont attract negative attention by media and fans both locally and nationally, d) he can still run to 1st base, e) he will be a big enough upgrade to Hinske/Floyd that these potential problems wont matter. I just dont understand the fuss over this guy when we are 25-17 with suitable players at his position that we know will help team chemistry and we know are in baseball shape
Bonds is done. Let him go to some ageing team on the decline to sell tickets.
If he is the best deal out there, then we are in a position to hold our cards and play on
There is one thing I'll give Milton Bradley
He does have an awesome name…
by Steve Slowinski on May 18, 2008 4:43 AM EDT up reply actions
Seriously, though...
I think the deal everyone is clammering about Bonds is because he’s such an easily accessible talent right now. If any team approaches him with a contract and a dollar amount, he really can’t say no at this point if he wants to play. So the potential to add the career HR king to your team for simply cash and no prospects? How crazy is that?
Yeah, the biggest problem is that Bonds has all sorts of character issues and legal problems at the moment. Maybe he would be a bigger hurt to the team than anything else…we have no way of measuring that. But if you were to look objectively at the things you can see on the field and nothing else, Bonds will be an upgrade over our current DH situation (nothing against Floyd, but I’ll take a 1.000+ OPS any day).
Do those offensive upgrades make up for the off field issues? That’s a matter of opinion and that’s obviously why this is such a debatable issue. I can accept that argument as valid…it’s definitely a defendable position. But If you’re trying to argue against Bonds based on the fact that on the field, he wouldn’t be an upgrade…well, I don’t think anyone can justifiably make that argument. It’s just not true.
by Steve Slowinski on May 18, 2008 4:51 AM EDT up reply actions
B.J./C.C. were all for Bonds.
"I've seen many, many blue skies turn gray, but the sun will eventually return, and so will I. So will I." - Carlos Pena
by R.J. Anderson on May 18, 2008 11:09 AM EDT up reply actions
BJ and CC may want Bonds, but I can see the reasoning of the Front Office to avoid him. Bringing in someone linked to so much negative press doesn’t help their chances at getting the new stadium deal done. In the grand scheme of things the stadium deal is more important to the future of this team than a one playoff run.
by floridaroar on May 18, 2008 12:19 PM EDT up reply actions
But at the same time
Wouldn’t it potentially bring in good press, like the fact that the Rays are committed to winning, even if it means taking a risk on him? Plus, if Bonds fits in well, isn’t a jerk, and our team doesn’t go all to hell, it could be a great story for the Rays and put us in a positive spotlight, helping the stadium cause.
by Steve Slowinski on May 18, 2008 12:54 PM EDT up reply actions
Oh and By The Way
Bonds OBP is not .470, because he hasnt had a ML AB this year. I dont understand how Bonds will help any team in any year. I guess I will be awaiting your lobbying for the next several years to sign Bonds. 48 yers old? Who cares?! He is the best not matter what
This is so stupid.
If you don’t think Bonds can help any team in the league then frankly you don’t know what you’re talking about. He’s been old for almost a decade now, that hasn’t stopped him. Cliff Floyd is old and injury prone, Troy Percival is old and could blow at any minute. Wanna know how durable Bonds is compared to the rest of our team, here’s his GP the last 3 years, minus the lowest year for each of Floyd/Bonds.
Bonds: 134
Floyd: 124
Crawford: 150
Manny Ramirez: 138
Yes, he’s so old and decrepit that he’s actually averaged all of four games less than Manny, who has the DH rule to his favor.
"I've seen many, many blue skies turn gray, but the sun will eventually return, and so will I. So will I." - Carlos Pena
by R.J. Anderson on May 18, 2008 10:59 AM EDT up reply actions
How can Barry help?
http://www.hardballtimes.com/main/article/who-should-sign-barry-bonds/
"I've seen many, many blue skies turn gray, but the sun will eventually return, and so will I. So will I." - Carlos Pena
by R.J. Anderson on May 18, 2008 11:01 AM EDT up reply actions
Average VORP last two years
OLD MAN 50.9
NOT OLD Manny 50.35
CC 39.55
BAD KNEES Bay 26.8
And here’s your real fallen star, Ken Griffey Jr.: 28.5
"I've seen many, many blue skies turn gray, but the sun will eventually return, and so will I. So will I." - Carlos Pena
by R.J. Anderson on May 18, 2008 11:08 AM EDT up reply actions
What is so stupid...
Is thinking that he would make a difference in terms of Rays wins even if by some unlikely reason he can play at his 2007 level.
RJ is not an elitist douchebag who hates scouting
I'd take his 2006 level.
"I've seen many, many blue skies turn gray, but the sun will eventually return, and so will I. So will I." - Carlos Pena
by R.J. Anderson on May 18, 2008 12:52 PM EDT up reply actions
Why 2006?
I thought he was the best hitter on earth today. LOL
RJ is not an elitist douchebag who hates scouting
Because his 2006 numbers were the worst he's put up in the last however many years.
A .990-something OPS as opposed to 1.000+
I think the point is that even a “bad” year by Bonds at this point means an OPS in the .900 range.
by Steve Slowinski on May 18, 2008 12:56 PM EDT up reply actions
No
A bad year by Bonds in 2006 means a worse year in 2008
RJ is not an elitist douchebag who hates scouting
Yet he improved in 2007.
"I've seen many, many blue skies turn gray, but the sun will eventually return, and so will I. So will I." - Carlos Pena
by R.J. Anderson on May 18, 2008 1:06 PM EDT up reply actions
He's been consistently around a 170 OPS+ ever since 2004.
That’s currently about 30 points higher than anyone on our team (minus Floyd, who only has 30 ABs).
by Steve Slowinski on May 18, 2008 1:11 PM EDT up reply actions
And by your standards that means that he will improve again in 2008
And 2009 and 2010, etc
RJ is not an elitist douchebag who hates scouting
bonds=best lineup in baseball
hey quit bashing on bonds i dont care about his past off the field and his bad past with teammates( jeff kent was the only one) and he is a jerk! but honestly with all the reporters asking the same questions no matter what you did you wouldnt like them either, but what the man can do on the baseball field no one can do his numbers at his age are outstanding and his on base percentage is also 50% OF THE TIME! and putting him in this lineup they couldnt pitch around him every time because last year he was the only good player in the SF lineup and still put up great numbers!
You won’t win arguing Bonds stats or age. His stats are impressive and trump any objection reasonable people have to his age. He’d be a DH, all he has to do is hit, and there’s no question he can do that.
The only reason teams are avoiding him is they don’t want to become caught up in steroid investigations, hearings, trials, bad press, etc.
by floridaroar on May 18, 2008 12:27 PM EDT up reply actions
all he has to do is hit, and there’s no question he can do that
There is a major question that he can do that
RJ is not an elitist douchebag who hates scouting
Why do you say that?
"I've seen many, many blue skies turn gray, but the sun will eventually return, and so will I. So will I." - Carlos Pena
by R.J. Anderson on May 18, 2008 12:42 PM EDT up reply actions
I know I am repeating myself but I guess it is necessary
Bonds is very old for a ball player.
Bonds has declined. He has not been anything like the best hitter since 2004. Even RJ’s stats admit this even if RJ won’t.
Bonds received more time off after he broke 756.
Bonds has been a steriod abuser which causes bone age advancement.
Bonds brings a media circus whereever he goes.
Bonds hasn’t faced live pitching since September.
Bonds told his previous manager when he was taking a day off. He missed 36 games in 2007 despite his barcalounger in the dressing room and never having an injury serious enough to lead to the 15 day DL.
His injuries last season were listed as Shin Splints, Sore Legs, Hamstring Injury, Pinched Nerve in Hip, Ankle Injury, Strained Right Big Toe.
Bonds thoughts on travel as quoted by the Pittsburgh Gazzette in Sept 2007 – Barry Bonds doesn’t plan to play in either game of Monday’s makeup doubleheader with Pittsburgh. "Day game (Saturday), another day game Sunday and then we have to fly all the way out there …" Bonds said.
RJ is not an elitist douchebag who hates scouting
Right.
So in other words: I have no proof that this is the year Bonds becomes human and I’ll just cite that he got some time off yet STILL plays in nearly as many games as Manny on average.
"I've seen many, many blue skies turn gray, but the sun will eventually return, and so will I. So will I." - Carlos Pena
by R.J. Anderson on May 18, 2008 1:00 PM EDT up reply actions
News Flash
Bonds is human. Regression expected.
RJ is not an elitist douchebag who hates scouting
Okay, maybe he is regressing.
Still, last year he led the NL in OPS+, I believe. So how much of a regression are you expecting? I simply can’t see him dropped off to the point where he produces less than Cliff Floyd, as awesome as that guy is. Plus, Bonds is much less injury prone than Floyd and that’s not even a debatable point.
by Steve Slowinski on May 18, 2008 1:14 PM EDT up reply actions
Did you ever see Mays or Mantle play in their final year?
Regression will more likely be falling off a cliff than a steady decline
RJ is not an elitist douchebag who hates scouting
Bonds =/= Mays/Mantle
"I've seen many, many blue skies turn gray, but the sun will eventually return, and so will I. So will I." - Carlos Pena
by R.J. Anderson on May 18, 2008 1:22 PM EDT up reply actions
Okay, if you want to look at individual players, look at Mantle's 1966 and 1967 years.
The comparison to Bonds is actually pretty scary. Similar HR numbers, nearly idential 170 OPS+. However, when Mantle dropped off the next year, he still only dropped off to a 150 OPS+. Yes, his BA was low, but he still got on base a lot and managed to hit 22 HRs. Personally, I’d take a 150 OPS from Floyd, but he’s never produced that well and so I don’t think we can expect it.
Mantle did only have a 142 OPS+ his final year as well. Not too shabby for someone falling off a cliff.
by Steve Slowinski on May 18, 2008 1:22 PM EDT up reply actions
If you want to talk about missing games, Cliff Floyd anyone?
Yet I don’t see anyone complaining that we signed him. And as for the time off after Bonds broke the record, I think that was probably a lot to do with his manager and not him. The team knew they weren’t going to bring him back, so after the record was broken, time to give some young players more time to play.
by Steve Slowinski on May 18, 2008 1:01 PM EDT up reply actions
As for the stats...
Yeah, Bonds dropped off after 2004. So he went from an OPS+ of 263 to a “mere” 170, which still put him only about 4 points off from being the league leader every year since then. Also, that’s at least 30 points higher than Floyd has ever done.
So basically, Bonds dropped off from superhuman, reaching-base-over-60-percent-of-the-time level to a more Albert Pujols-ish level.
by Steve Slowinski on May 18, 2008 1:08 PM EDT up reply actions
I Get It
You hate Barry Bonds. You’ve made it clear and there’s no need to repeat yourself.
Your most valid reasons for not signing Bonds are not fact, but speculation. You’re speculating he will decline, you’re speculating he can’t hit, you’re speculating he will get hurt, you’re speculating he will be a bad teammate. All of those scenarios are entirely possible, but imagine if he could hit, and doesn’t get hurt, etc… I think what every one here (except you) is saying is that it’s worth a gamble to offer the guy the MLB minimum and use him as a DH. He has the potential to really help bolster the Rays lineup.
Milton Bradley and Kenny Lofton
These are credible options at DH. But I’d go for Lofton personally, since all we need to do is entice him with cash, not trade anything.
I concur...
But at the same time, he wasn’t going to turn it around with us. Too much of a history and bad blood here, so he needed to get a fresh start. I’m just uber glad for the guy…couldn’t be more happy that he’s finally figured it all out and found success. Too bad it’s not here, but it’s a hell of a story nonetheless.
by Steve Slowinski on May 18, 2008 12:58 PM EDT up reply actions
Bonds in 2007
Suppose we use cumulative stats rather than rate stats. That would penalize Bonds for missing games (for whatever reason) and compare his numbers to those of other regular DHs in the AL in 2007. Remember, he played left field in SF, so the wear and tear was probably worse for him. Nonetheless, how does he stack up?
I only considered DHs who were expected to be the regulars from the start of the year, eliminating late arrivals like Cust or those displaced like Piazza or anyone from the Rays since we rotated so many through the position. That leaves 8 other regulars. Thus, the disadvantage to Bonds is even greater when cumulative stats are used. (He blows everyone away on rate stats.)
Home Runs: His 28 are second to Thome’s 35.
Stolen Bases: His 5 are second to Sheffield’s 22 (5 CS). Bonds was not
at all and the next best was 1.
BBs: His 132 is first by 30 walks. (Hafner)
Ks: His 54 is the least. Of course, fewer PAs is part of this, but his 11%
is second to Vidro’s 9%
Runs Created: His 99 is tied for first with Thomas and Hafner.
Batting Wins: His 46.1 is 11.4 more than Thome’s second place figure and
another 13.3 ahead of 3rd place. BB-Ref defines this as a
more meaningful metric than Runs Created
Batting Runs: His 4.3 is 1.2 ahead of Thome’s second best figure and
another 1.6 ahead of 3rd place.
I am not plunking for the Rays to sign him, but I think we need to be honest about the man’s tremendous contribution to winning. There is no question that he could fall off a cliff, but what sets some players apart is that they cannot be contained within the normal range of expectations.
It was not predictable that Nolan Ryan at 44 would get 202 Ks and have a 2.91 ERA (139 ERA+). It was not expected after he hit 10 home runs and hit .254 at 40 that Ted Williams would hit 29 home runs and hit .316/.451/.645 at 41.
There is every reason to be cautious about Bonds’s ability to repeat his 2007 performance, but he is an extraordinary player and there is also no reason to think the risk is greater with him than with Floyd.
Again, I am not endorsing signing him, but if the reasoning is that he is unlikely to contribute on offense, there can be no rational argument in favor of that proposition. As for the character issues, I am too exhausted with the nonsense about that even to address it beyond pointing out that those arguments have the validity of assessing the character of Crazy Horse based almost exclusively on the testimony of the wives of the slain U.S. soldiers at Little Big Horn.
For all the reasons
Mentioned and thusfar unaddressed much less refuted, Bonds is the poster child of a baseball player primed for a major fall. This is widely accepted by the non sabr community but of course they haven’t a clue according to the braintrust here. They have no metric for a 43 year old declining ,disinterested, inactive, selfish, chronically sore steroid abuser whose lies have created his own media circus whereever he plays.
RJ is not an elitist douchebag who hates scouting
Addressing reasons
“Bonds is very old for a ballplayer.
Bonds has declined. He has not been anything like the best hitter since 2004. Even RJ’s stats admit this even if RJ won’t.
Bonds received more time off after he broke 756.
Bonds has been a steriod abuser which causes bone age advancement.
Bonds brings a media circus whereever he goes.
Bonds hasn’t faced live pitching since September.”
Every one of these points has been addressed. I will summarize what has already been said in numerous posts. He is old for a ballplayer as he was last year when he still played excellent baseball. He has declined from his peak which was so high that he remained an elite player. He did get more time off after 756; given the Giants situation there was little reason not to allow him more time off. He still got 477 plate appearances, more than Floyd for example, and enough to put up not only elite rate stats but excellent counting stats.
Steroid user or not, there are too many open questions regarding their use, their effect or Bonds’s actual involvement and its effect on him to draw any definite conclusions about how it will affect his performance. In the couple of years that the testing was practically constant, he maintained his outstanding play, so projections otherwise are based on supposition and weak evidence.
Additionally, several other known steroid users are currently employed with little concern apparently.
I agree a media circus follows Bonds. That is both good and bad, but in any case not a reason to penalize him for what others do. The complexity of that issue is too much for this post, and can be accessed in many places including on sites with John Brattain and Joe Sheehan, but it certainly is not so simple a negative as you posit.
I admit I cannot address the issue of his lying because it makes me so spitting mad that he is placed in a position where that becomes an issue that I think the people asking him the questions ought to be imprisoned or at least pilloried and humiliated.
He has not faced live pitching for a while as far as I know. I doubt anyone would sign him until they saw what he still had in that regard.
One reasonable point that some people have made is that Bonds seems to combine all the negatives so comparisons to others are misleading as most usually only have a few of the problems associated with him. I don’t think that is entirely true, especially as so many of the so-called negatives are media driven myths with a life of their own and not real.
If by non sabr community you mean the half wit columnists with grudges, I concede they have a clue; it is found in their sense that Bonds does not respect them enough. As for being selfish and disinterested, more nonsense. Even his worst enemies concede that he is among the hardest working players in the game.
Actually, there are plenty of metrics regarding decline due to age. Bonds is an outlier in that regards as have been a number of other either great or special players.
There is no question that Bonds is a risk to fall off a cliff. Some of the players on my list above may already have done so: Hafner, Giambi, Thomas, Sosa, Sheffield, Vidro. And they are younger than Bonds. Yet they remain employed, except for Sosa. But despite his superior play last year, one in which he improved from a high level the previous year, Bonds is not given a chance to prove himself. Find me a player apart from officially banned Joe Jackson who had as good a year and was involuntarily kept out of the game.
And please refrain from referring to my appreciation of Bonds as idolization or anything of that kind. I don’t know him and might not like him if I did. But injustice of the sort visited on him is galling to anyone with even a minimal sense of decency. And while I am perfectly willing to agree that signing him is a risky proposition, any claim that such a risk outweighs the possible rewards is baseless.
Let's give Barry the benefit of a reasonable doubt
Let’s assume that 90% of the time:
1) His age will be a non significant factor
2) The known debilitating effects of steroids use will not be a significant factor
3) His lack of drive to play the game will not be a significant factor
4) His inactivity will not be a significant factor
5) The media circus will not be a significant distraction to him
6) The media circus and his barcalounger lifestyle will not be a significant distraction to the team
7) His recurring preexisting injuries will not be a significant factor
Any of the above could cause his game to fall off a cliff and/or could cost the Rays wins this season considering the loss of either Floyd, Hinske, or Gross.
If all of those scenarios are at 90%, the chances of Bonds being a productive addition is at 48%. And that is generous.
I can not understand how this makes any sense. I can not understand the notion that because there are few “definite conclusions” that be drawn about all of these concerns that they become disregarded in the calculus rather than weighed as a negative.
Floyd has durability issues for the balance of 2008 but much fewer than Bonds. He is a much safer bet.
Bonds comparison to Shoeless Joe is silly. Bonds only needs to hold a news conference saying that he would sign a minor league deal and he would be in uniform tomorrow.
And finally the “injustice visited” on Bonds is caused by his own lying. Something that you convenientlt ignore. Why? Is hero worship not a reasonable hypothesis given your appreciation of his game? Other PED users have received a pass from MLB and the media. Bonds made and continues to make his own mess. And you are completely oblivious to it.
Much has been made about Floyds durability, certainly a concern. But for right now,
RJ is not an elitist douchebag who hates scouting
I am not
disregarding those concerns. I am simply saying that, aside from those like #3 which is I think entirely false, there are plenty of counter factors that balance them as there are with other players. Considering his performance in 2007, the risks Bonds presents compared to the rewards he offers indicate he is worth signing somewhere. I emphasize that contradictory though it may appear, I am not convinced that somewhere is TB.
I am also not comparing him to Jackson, only pointing out that I don’t think there is any player in history that has been left unsigned when he had the kind of “final” year that Bonds did, Jackson excepted because of special circumstances.
I am not ignoring his purported lying. What you are ignoring is the pathological witch hunt that has created the hysteria about what is essentially a health question, and a dubious one at that. I don’t care what Bonds’s responses are because I think the entire enterprise of unearthing steroid users prior to the negotiated agreement is unethical and despicable.
Although not exactly what I am referring to, this link to Outs per Swing, the segment on “The Drug War’s Collateral Damage” is a part, only a part, of my larger objection.
Oops
The link is to shysterball, not Outs Per Swing.
I think the worst part about creeping (galloping?) senility is not the losing of one’s faculties but the knowledge that one is losing them by the regular evidence of careless mistakes and other signs.
Entirely false?
That Bonds has a lack of drive to play the game. Goodness, what more do you need? The man shows up about 75% of the time, more at home than the road due to travel. He has said that his love of baseball has long since gone and this is just a business to him. He played less following setting the HR record. That’s not at all disturbing? What the frig does taking it slower after the HR record have to do with helping his team?
You say that you are not disregarding any concerns but they NEVER come up in your analysis, only in response to a challenge thereof. Given your stated emotional attachment to the issues presented by Bonds and your apologies for his own responsibility for the mess that he is in, it strains credibility that you can give an impartial analysis of his valuation.
Of course, I am just a bit guilty in my own lack of impartiality. ;-)
RJ is not an elitist douchebag who hates scouting
There has never
been a question of Bonds working hard to play the best ball he can. Even with all the flack around charges of steroid use, his most avowed enemies admit he works out constantly to maintain his playing fitness.
I am not privy to the way decisions are made about his playing time. But playing less after the record, on the face of it, is not at all disturbing. By the time he did it, the Giants were long out of the playoff race. His presence would not have changed that.
There is nothing unusual for a veteran star to get time off and even to have some say in his own playing time. The year that Aaron broke Ruth’s record, he played in only 112 games (340 ABs). The year that Pete Rose bested Cobb’s hit record he played in 119 games. Bonds played in 126 games.
As for it just being a business, that is true for a lot of wonderful ballplayers. And given the vitriol he has had to endure, it is remarkable that he still wants to play at all.
As for me NEVER addressing concerns unless challenged, I don’t know why anyone has to anticipate others’ arguments, nor do I see many other people including arguments in their posts with which they disagree. Nonetheless, I do try to consider various viewpoints if they occur to me.
Here is an excerpt from my first post on this thread:
“There is no question that he could fall off a cliff, but what sets some players apart is that they cannot be contained within the normal range of expectations.
It was not predictable that Nolan Ryan at 44 would get 202 Ks and have a 2.91 ERA (139 ERA+). It was not expected after he hit 10 home runs and hit .254 at 40 that Ted Williams would hit 29 home runs and hit .316/.451/.645 at 41.
There is every reason to be cautious about Bonds’s ability to repeat his 2007 performance, but he is an extraordinary player and there is also no reason to think the risk is greater with him than with Floyd.”
You may not agree with my point or may think I address the issue poorly, but in my very first post I accept the possibility of Bonds failing, in two separate sentences, and go on to explain why I think it is not a definitive argument. Perhaps NEVER is too absolute a word.
I am emphatically not apologizing for Bonds. I am sure as in every conflict everyone involved, him included, bear some responsibility. I simply am not interested in culpability because I consider the entire issue a red herring. As for my credibility, that seems to me more or less acceptable based on my arguments, not on my impartiality or lack thereof.
In any discussion, all sides approach the issue with some prejudgments. To suggest one’s arguments are invalid because of such partiality precludes discussion and leads us back to “well, you have your opinion and I have mine”. Hardly a productive result. I take your arguments seriously and try to address them when I disagree. Whether I do so convincingly has little to do with my presumed partiality.
B.J./C.C. were all for Bonds.
Yea well its mid May now and how do you think it will go ove rin the clubhouse when Cliff Floyd and Gabe Gross are informed they no longer have jobs.
You could argue that the signing of Bonds wont effect Gross, who is mainly a late inning sub guy. But we have no need for a LH bat on the bench if we have either Floyd or Bonds in that role. Jonny Gomes and Ben Zobrist would be the backup OFers and we wouldnt have a roster spot available for a guy who only provides a strong arm with marginal defense.
If you don’t think Bonds can help any team in the league
Garret Atkins could help this team, should we cut Longoria and pursue him?
And here’s your real fallen star, Ken Griffey Jr
Id take a 39 year old Grif over a 44 year old Bonds
You completely fail to take into account that when MLB players hit 40 they start agenig in dog years. 6 months is like 2 years for Bonds, and I dont think anyone has seen him swing a bat in atleast 6 months so tell me how all of your projections can apply to a 44 year old MLB hitter no longer on the juice?
Putting all of that logic aside, we are a winning ballclub 1.4 of the way into the year with no real need for a stationary LH DH who cant play the field, unless of course we are jumping in a time machine.
Damn it, 3 posts again. I feel like the guy from Austin Powers
Id take a 39 year old Grif over a 44 year old Bonds
I think you did a nice enough job of ruining your own credibility here.
"I've seen many, many blue skies turn gray, but the sun will eventually return, and so will I. So will I." - Carlos Pena
by R.J. Anderson on May 19, 2008 4:19 PM EDT up reply actions
FAIL!
"I'd hate to leave right when the getting is good." -CC
by Matt Bishoff on May 19, 2008 4:21 PM EDT up reply actions
I'd argue it never was going to be seen like that, but unfortunately you're right about that perception.
"I've seen many, many blue skies turn gray, but the sun will eventually return, and so will I. So will I." - Carlos Pena
by R.J. Anderson on May 19, 2008 4:22 PM EDT up reply actions
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
Please read our Community Guidelines.
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Recommended FanPosts
Recent FanPosts
DRB Suggestion Box
Certain photos copyright © 2012 by Associated Press or Getty Images. Any commercial use or distribution without the express written consent of Associated Press and Getty Images is strictly prohibited.
