I have been discussing this with my son for a few days now. That bat is very tempting. I have a few questions that make me dubious.

1. Does he have the arm for RF? My understanding is no. Perhaps I am now overemphasizing the importance of defense given this year’s experience, but it still bothers me. Of course, we are currently using Hinske and Gomes there, and I suppose therefore there would be no dropoff and Gross is still here to come in for defense late in games.

2. Is RF hurting us now? Are we falling into the trap of worrying about what players can’t do instead of recognizing how they do contribute and thinking we need an all-star or regular at every position? Just because we do not have a regular there does not mean the position is not capably filled.
In other words, I agree Bay would add offense, but would the improvement over the current rotation be worth the sacrifice in talent it would entail? Is there a reason to think that Hinske/Gomes/Gross are going to regress and hurt the Rays’ chances to win?

On the other hand, Bay is not old (29) and not terribly expensive, and we can use the right handed bat.

We were thinking that the deal might include Brignac. If the Rays think that Tim Beckham is at least as good a selection as the other options, it might make that choice easier.

If the asking price includes Jennings, I’d give it a resounding “hell no”

I don’t think any of the above players would be seen as any more than a throw in at best in a deal.

I would not want to give up Jennings in a deal.

Given their depth at SP, I would be open to dealing Edwin Jackson or Andy Sonnanstine.

and Im all for trading Jackson btw. I dont see how Bay is enough of an upgrade over Hinske to justify giving away Jackson and more importantly Jennings.

I would be interested in Bay for the right price, probably not the type of price someone else will be willing to pay. I have been pimping Milton Bradley lately. I know for a fact he would fit in well with our clubhouse, I would be more worried about his health and the occassional fight he might get into with an umpire or fan. He is FAR more chemically balanced than Dukes though. And he leads MLB in OBP too, and Texas wont be in contention this year.

There was someone else I was thinking about for RF also, but I cant think right now.

are you honestly comparing media coverage of baseball between now and the 1920s? And you are comparing a guy who cheated the game of baseball, to a guy who drank and womanized?

Due to both the era of baseball/ technology, and the ENORMOUS difference in the way the 2 men were/are perceived by the media/ fans of the great game of baseball I dont see any comparison at all. They both hit HRs?

cheated the game of baseball-the fans, teammates, management-more than any player except Mickey Mantle. He was dealt from Boston because he was poison and often suspended by the Yankees for conduct detrimental. And that is just the tip of the iceberg.

He also helped his teams win 4 World Series and 7 pennants in 15 years and is the greatest player in the history of the game.

LOL I dont knwo how you call that man a cheat

Brady Anderson is a cheat. Brett Boone is a cheat. Barry Bonds is a cheat. Thsoe men define the word. Ruth? Played the game the right way, and if he didnt, Im atleast sure he didnt take performance enhancing drugs. I dont see what could be nearly as bad as that from the fans point of view. But hey, if you want to lump The Sulton of Swat in with wonderboy Bonds than have at it

Honestly, why compare Bonds to Ruth? Nothing you can bring up, not even punching an umpire or clubbing baby seals, will matchup to what Bonds did as a matter of historical significance to this game

Ruth may have been a lot to deal with, but Im pretty sure the Yankees didnt a) have to deal with the same national media coverage as today, b) have the same type of technology available to make everything that happens off teh field known to everyone, and c) he didnt take steroids. I really dont see what one has to do with the othe rin the context you used RJ

Im sorry but in the 1920s Ruth did not have the same media coverage as Bonds today, for many reasons as I stated before, and secondly he didnt take performance enhancing drugs.

Babe Ruth was loved by the fans, and Bonds is hated.

Again I dont understand the comparison the way you used it. I dont know how you can compare the baseball media and coverage of today to the media of 80 years ago

is this a serious argument? Did he not put up twice the numbers of anyone who polayed the game within 30 years of his era? I dont understand, was his conditioning a hindrance to the Yankees success? I think not

So again, someone inform me how Babe Ruth was a distraction to the Yanks success in the same way Bonds would be today.

Even if the general feeling towards Ruth in his day was negative, you have to put it in relative terms. MAybe a few people around the Bronx didnt like Ruth (find this very hard to believe), but due to lack of technology and media coverage this perception would mostly not be able to stretch across the nation to the point it is a 3 ring circus and something that would get in the way of the Yankees winning. Fact of the matter is, even if Ruth carried the same perception as a guy (Bonds) who cheated the game and the people who played it before him it simply wouldnt gain the same momentum that Bonds hate has gained today

and that is indeed saying a lot

Your perspective sucks. Not to insult you, but your reaosning is lacking logic. Let me explain…

Hamilton ingested illegal drugs that alter your mind state, not your physical ability to play a game.

Bonds “allegedly” shot up roids, HGH and whatever else designer drugs were out for the purpose of chetaing the game and the players hwo came bfor ehim. I would think yo uwould have a bigegr problem with this than anyone. Condiering you are a stat jockey, and Bonds and players liek Bonds have compromised the way we look at the game through statistics.

So you are going to argue Hamilton didnt allow us to witness his talent, so we should be more mad at him than a guy who cheated the game by using performance enhancers which directly helped take his team to the world series and break long standing records? That is just asanine. I dont know how you come up with some of your stuff, but it makes absolutely no sense in the context you use it

what are you recommended RJ?

bobr, I dont blame you for going off topic. The debate was over the “distraction” that is Bonds.

“All star players have quirks and media attention. Babe Ruth’s attention didn’t seem to hurt the Yankees.”

RJ was comparing the damage Bonds would do to a clubhouse and his media attention, to that of Bae Ruth

a) Ruth played 80 years ago when there was nowhere near the same baseball media coverage and technology.

b) I wouldnt compare the “quirks and media attention” of Ruth to that of Bonds. You are comparing a guy who did his best work on hot dogs and beers, to a guy who did it on performance enhancing drugs. Im not even sure wher eyou were taking the argumetn RJ, but it was clearly off topic at this point

c) of course Ruths attention didnt hurt the Yankees, see above

Am I aloud to recommend my own posts? Since I was the only one to actually stay on the original topic? No offense to you bobr, you speak well and make sense. You just arent addressing the point that originally started all of this debate

This is about media coverage and distractions. And a player like Bonds today was 100 times a bigger distraction than Bonds wouldve been in the 20s when men could go about their business off teh field without being on TMZ