http://www.baseballprospectus.com/article.php?articleid=7174

Surrounding him with Bossman in front of him and Pena, jeez that would by a dynamic offense.  Pena might drive in 150 with all the people on base in front of him.

1)He puts rear ends in empty seats. If nothing else one would attend a Rays game to see the best player to ever  suit up play one more time.

2)Gomes is the odd man out in RF/DH and will be traded. A healthy Baldelli may shock some people this year in RF. The signing of Floyd leaves Gomes with no playing time whatsoever if Baldelli is healthy.

3)"Just Do It" I would love to see this type of signing just ot enhance a media circus which would allow all the young players to let Bonds take the media frenzie off their backs.

The bottom line is: Bonds = $$$$ for the Rays

I also have a question. Does anyone know of any player besides Jeff Kent who has had a problem with Bonds? I know many in the media dislike him, which tends to be self-perpetuating image problem, and I know some reporters have taken every chance to exaggerate his surliness and aloofness, but have his teammates generally been uncomfortable, dissatisfied or demoralized with him on the team?

I think there is some scuttlebutt now among the Giants that the locker room will be an easier place, but I wonder how much credence we can give that sort of talk. After all, what choice do they have but to put the most positive spin on it, and to what extent are they being prompted by management and media to do so?

My only familiarity with Bonds is from the few interviews he has given or public statements he has made, and perhaps running against the tide, I have found him always to be incisive and forthright. He seemed to eschew baloney and BS and appeared impatient with silly questions or obviously hostile ones, but I did not see him duck answering nor did I find him unpleasant. In fact, I thought his demeanor refreshing.

I think it highly unlikely that Bonds comes here. And at this point it is really only very wild speculation. Topkin's article makes clear that so far it has been only internal discussion and the various conspiracy theories about coincidental arrivals are just that, far-out theories. The Rays have also had internal discussion about Piazza and Lofton, apparently, and probably every other free agent at one time or another.

But it is fun to think about, and I would hope that if there is any truth to it that we can see many sides to it rather than have a knee-jerk reaction.

1. How much?  What would it take to sign Bonds?  Its pretty fair to say the rays wouldn't have much competition to sign Bonds (maybe the Mariners), so could we name our own price or would Bonds demand a large salary?  At this point, I think Bonds needs to be thankful to get a major league job.  Something around 5 million base with incentives would work fine for me.  Anything over 10 million and I'd have to pass.
2. Who could we count on to play RF?  In signing Bonds (barring a trade or injury), it would ultimately leave Gomes as the odd man out.  That would leave us with 3 players (Baldelli, Floyd, Bonds) that are all injury risks in the outfield.  Obviously of that bunch Baldelli is the superior defender, but he is also the biggest injury risk.  Would the Rays sacrifice defense to have Bonds and Floyd out there a couple times a week, or would they roll the dice and just hope that Baldelli stays healthy?

http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/page2/story?page=bonds/080225

The positives:

1. He's a monster team presence who can still instill fear, and change the way the opposition plays the game.  There are few players who do this, and Barry still can.  That could give the Rays a new dimension.
2. He can still get on base, hit for power, and as a DH, is not the defensive liability he became in later years with the Giants.
3.  He will bring fans into the park, and money to the front office...which can be used down the line for all kinds of things, from signing Kazmir to a long-term deal, to paying for upgraded recruiting academies efforts the world.

1.  He is cancerous to team chemistry.  His presence has a big influence on everyone around him, and though I think he is respected by many players, his self-centered approach to the game and media can have a detrimental effect on young players, and can be potentially disruptive to team chemistry.  There's also the possibility that the younger players on the team will tend to sit back and watch Barry in awe, which does nothing to elevate their own games.

I have a friend who is a huge Giant fan, a staunch defender of Barry.  I asked him today what he thinks the Giants chances of finishing out of the celler in the NL West are now that Barry is gone.  He did not hesitate with the answer:  "Much improved."

And that's it in a nutshell--he's perceived as addition by subtraction, even among some of the more die-hard (and honest) Giant fans.  This should be a red flag to the Rays or anyone else.

2.  He is a distraction, and potentially disruptive. It is hard to teach, to coach, to play with confidfence, and thus to win when you have an oversized personality, especially one with the baggage he carries....Yes, he can carry a team, but he can bring one down too if he decides to sulk when things don't go his way...

All this to say, the man can play.  And he wants to win.  I am an Angel fan, and I've never seen anyone elevate their game to the extent he did in the 2002 World Series.  I have to give him his due.  But in that Series, there was always the feeling (to me) that the other Giants were waiting for Barry to save them...and that attitude ultimately sunk them.  The Angels played with more heart, and played better as a team.  And won.

I wish him well.  He is an automatic Hall of Famer.  The use of steroids should not be held against him.  He can still play.

And the Rays are better off without him.

I don't doubt there are Giant fans who think they are better off without him. There are Yankee fans who think they would be better off without A-Rod and Mets fans who want to get rid of Reyes. I don't think that demonstrates, let alone proves, that he was either disruptive or that his teammates did not play as well as they might have without him.

I just read some quotations from Percival that said he considered Bonds a good guy and one he had no problem with. Of course, they were not even in the same league, but Troy indicated he knew Barry well enough to comment.

I reiterate that I am not convinced it would be a good signing for the Rays. (It is fun to think about it, but I also reiterate that I really think we are spending a lot of time discussing a remote possibility.) And I don't deny that some of the intangible issues you raise, as well as others, have to play into any decision. But I question that they are critical or that they are even entirely real. For all we know, the inevitable attacks on a fellow teammate might galvanize the Rays to make the world shut up. Or Bonds may use his experience and the respect for his talent to teach the young players and prove himself a real leader. Nobody has accused him of being stupid.

I also think that in the unlikely event the Rays do sign him, it would only be after some very specific agreements were reached regarding his role both on the field and in the clubhouse and with the media. My guess is that would be a carefully stage-managed press conference with Barry saying all the right things. Who knows but that he might not turn out to be a very positive influence.

For example, three players often perceived by the public as either surly &/or selfish &/or as bad influences were Boggs, Ricky Henderson and Eddie Murray. But I clearly remember that when Boggs came to the Yankees, young Pat Kelly credited Wade with spending lots of time trying to help him improve his hitting
(It was not particularly successful), while we were led to believe that Boggs cared only for his own stats. And many players testified that Murray's hostility to the press was the reverse of his clubhouse demeanor which was always very positive. Henderson too was apparently a very positive influence despite being portrayed as a selfish player and shirker.

Granted, unless you are a teammate or friend of Bonds, you have no real idea of what it means to have him in your clubhouse.  But from afar, as an opponent, a fan, or a fan of a rival team, you have already formed an opinion, for better or worse, based on what is reported in the media, or how he handles himself in front of that forum.  As a potential teammate, that has to color your dealings with him, once he is part of your team.  And this is where I'm coming from when I speak of a cancerous presence.

Barry is a monumental talent, larger than life.  That fact alone has to affect everyone around him, but especially the younger players.  If you are a veteran like Percival, you are not in awe of Barry, but respect him as a player.  That is why Barry would be god on a veteran team.  But a young player has to see Barry differently--he's a rock star, a legend, someone to emulate.  What he says, how he conducts himself, the example he sets, they all make deep impressions.  And if those impressions are positive, great.  If negative, not so great.  As Barry goes, so will go the fortunes of many young teammates.  This may be my bias, but I would rather have a young team like the Rays follow the example of veterans like Percival or Floyd than the example of Bonds.  Again, it's my perception, but unless the younger players know Bonds well--and most probably don't--I'd argue that you're bringing an uncontrollable variable into an impressionable clubhouse.  Maybe a good thing.  Probably not.

I agree, you can always find a Giants fan who'd say his team is better off without Bonds, or a Yankee fan saying the same about A-Rod.  They only say this because they know the great shadow those guys cast on the whole team, for better or worse.  These fans legitimately feel that such players have such a disproportionate effect on team chemistry--for better or worse--it's better to have them off the team, rather than to risk putting all the team's eggs in the one basket--that of a single oversized personality.  It's no longer a team concept.  

Again, this is what I mean by cancerous presence.  A more precise term instead of "cancerous" might be "overly influential, and not easily controlled."  Are the Rays willing to risk future team chemistry for this?

I agree, Bonds brings a huge talent.  He may be an excellent signing, cost-effective, productive on the field, and may bring in fans.  Those are excellent reasons to sign him.  But if I were the owner or GM, I'd think hard about the wild card you'd be bringing to a clubhouse that appears to have good chemistry, and a mix of budding team leaders, both younger and more veteran.  

It's an unnecessary roll of the dice, when playing it straight up would likely be the smart move at this time...

"Barry would be god on a veteran team."  

Oops.

I meant "good", not "god", though to some he may be that, too.