Red Sox considering Bonds....

by td32 on Jul 7, 2008 11:33 AM EDT Comment 21 comments

Last not during ESPN's telecast of the Sox/Yanks game, Peter Gammons mentioned that the Sox had internal discussions about the possibility of signing Bonds. He said he didnt know how likely it would be given the Boston area, and how accepting they would be of this.

Frankly, this scares the hell out of me. If Ortiz doesnt come back, which is a decent possibility, I could see the Sox making this move. A health, well rested, Bonds in that lineup would be difficult to overcome. I know there are some on this board that have advocated signing Bonds....I would say now, more then ever, the Rays need to consider this, if only to keep him out of Boston's lineup(and making our's far better).

From a PR standpoint, I can see all the negative publicity. The clubhouse cancer aspect is not even plausible in my mind. The Giants were in contention every season with this "cancer". Bonds also knows this is his last shot, so he'd have to be on his best behavior.

I know it isnt likely, but this is a move the Rays MUST consider.

0 recs | Comment 21 comments

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

Sadly we won't do it.

by R.J. Anderson on Jul 7, 2008 11:37 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs

Nor should they...

I’ve been converted to the dark side and now see absolutely no reason the Rays should sign Bonds. Of course I understand the “because they want to win” argument, but they are having such success without him that there is no need to cloud that.

The amount of bad PR that Bonds will bring will do nothing but hurt all the positive press the NDRO has garnered.

As for the Sox, I can totally see them doing it. They know their fanbase will support it and really have nothing to lose. They are the Red Sox, they don’t have to worry about bad press.

by tallyray on Jul 7, 2008 11:51 AM EDT reply actions 1 recs

You're a fool if you don't want Bonds.

by BrianL on Jul 7, 2008 12:50 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Then I'm a fool...

I never said I didn’t want Bonds. If this wasn’t a business and all the Rays needed to do was put the best team on the field then I’d take him. Unfortunately, it is a business and the Rays will never take the PR hit that Bonds would bring.

This organization has built one hell of a reputation and it isn’t worth risking with the addition of Bonds.

I also think it’d be a slap in the face to the players on the team. They don’t deserve that media circus.

by tallyray on Jul 7, 2008 4:25 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Signing Bonds would be foolish....

Im not going to argue that he is one of the greatest hitters to play the game and he may or may not help the on field performance of the Rays. But for an organization trying to attract fans the ballpark i think this would be the worst possible move. All you have to do is look at the Bucs for an example, the goobers who run this market (Duemig, St. Pete Times, Ron and Ian etc.) would blast the Rays for this move and consequently their followers would have a poor taste in their mouth for the Rays.

Not exactly what the organization needs when they are trying to build a fan base.

Protect the Trop: Keep northerners out.

by St Pete Native on Jul 7, 2008 5:00 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

the goobers who run this market (Duemig, St. Pete Times, Ron and Ian etc.) would blast the Rays for this move and consequently their followers would have a poor taste in their mouth for the Rays.

Those goobers will continue to talk good about the Rays as long as they are winning. A good way to keep winning is to sign Bonds, one of the greatest hitters the game has ever seen.

by floridaroar on Jul 7, 2008 8:38 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

A good way to keep winning...

Is to sign BJ Upton long term and continue to develop players.

This team will keep winning this year and next with or without Bonds.

I don’t think anyone is underestimating Bonds’ ability. He’s great.

by tallyray on Jul 7, 2008 8:57 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Signing BJ Upton long term and signing Barry Bonds for a season are not mutually exclusive.

by BrianL on Jul 7, 2008 9:16 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Of course not...

But to say that signing Bonds is a good way to keep winning seems to imply that the Rays will not keep winning without Bonds.

You seem to be pushing this discussion by assuming I don’t think Bonds is a good baseball player. That isn’t true. I know he can post a .5OBP and probably slug .550 and that is very valuable. That isn’t the point. The point is the Rays are having a very successful season without Bonds and why tarnish that.

The only argument is that Bonds impact > then the negative PR impact that Bonds will cause. I don’t think it is worth the risk for this front office. I did in March but not anymore.

by tallyray on Jul 7, 2008 10:53 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

PR /=/ wins

PR is meaningless. Who cares? Honestly. If Bonds will help us win and fills a need (which he does) then we should sign him. Especially when it will potentially keep him away from a team in our own division who’s already more talented than us.

Tools Whore

Sign Bonds!

by Tyler on Jul 8, 2008 2:45 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

PR is not meaningless

Marketing is everything, and it makes or breaks a successful business. I am personally ambivalent to the idea of Bonds coming here, but to say that PR is meaningless is very, very wrong.

Now, the net benefit that Bonds brings might end up producing good PR. That is something you can argue, but the idea that Public Relations is meaningless is absurd.

by Patrick L. Kennedy on Jul 8, 2008 5:05 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

PR is very important.

All a team has is its public image. Especially now considering the Rays are going to try and win public approval and funds for a new stadium project.

All winning does is give the public a better feeling about the team. When a team makes such a controversial move than they are risking a negative reaction. This team does not need that at this point. If they were losing that would be different. They aren’t.

The type of team that should sign Bonds is one that is struggling to make the playoffs. I know Bradbury argued the Braves and I could see that. The A’s and Red Sox would also be good fits.

by tallyray on Jul 8, 2008 10:32 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Winning is going to get you a stadium.

The Mariners couldn’t get any support for Safeco until 1995, when they went on that crazy winning-spree in August/September and made the playoffs.

by BrianL on Jul 8, 2008 11:18 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

And they're winning now...

That keeps getting passed over…

This team should improve even more when certain members of the offense start playing up to their perceived norms. Barry would help, but he isn’t a make or break part anymore.

by tallyray on Jul 8, 2008 11:33 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

You'll be shocked what a deep run into the playoffs will accomplish.

by BrianL on Jul 8, 2008 11:50 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Ok PR is important

However any negative PR will be completely irrelevant if we make it deep into October, especially if Bonds is carrying us offensively (which is fairly likely). In the long run, winning is all that matters, namely winning in October and Bonds makes it a whole lot more likely that we are able to do that, regardless of our record on July 8th.

Tools Whore

Sign Bonds!

by Tyler on Jul 8, 2008 9:45 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Havent the Bucs continued to win ...

to an extent in a sport with a higher level of parity.

Protect the Trop: Keep northerners out.

by St Pete Native on Jul 7, 2008 9:03 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

The NFL's parity is largely overrated

For one, they have 32 teams and 12 playoff spots, meaning right around 38% of the league makes it. In the MLB playoffs only about 27% of teams can make it.

Over the last five years 20 MLB and 25 NFL teams have made the playoffs. Over those five years the NFL had an additional four spots per season—or roughly 20 extra spots over our time frame. Five more teams doesn’t seem too big considering the NFL has stuff like a salary cap and scheduling mechanisms in place, now does it?

by R.J. Anderson on Jul 7, 2008 9:24 PM EDT up reply actions 1 recs