Let's Go Tribe!: An SB Nation Community

Navigation: Jump to content areas:

Around SBN: Falcons and Chargers Recap: The Win Is The Thing Bar-right-arrows

SIGN BONDS!

Swindell_tiny by Matt in LA on

I know I'm not the first to mention this, but given our offensive ineptitude, it bears repeat mentioning:

Barry Bonds, the greatest hitter of all time, is available.

Hafner is showing signs of waking up and with Ben Francisco plugging along, there is one less outfield spot available.  Bonds is not a guy's guy and Eric Wedge won't give the time of day to anybody who won't go for a steam with him.  Third dumb argument blah blah blah.

The Indians need to be exploring ways to jump start the offense and reaching out the Bonds definitely falls into the scope of due diligence in that respect.  I know we're not throwing a ton of money at him.  I don't care that he might not be fan friendly.  But he can hit, and he might just be willing to do it on the cheap for a team with a shot at a ring.  Shapiro is obligated to make that call to Jeff Borris if nothing else.

Poll
Would you be open to signing Barry Bonds?
Yes
69 votes
No
42 votes

111 votes | Poll has closed

0 recs | Comment 82 comments

Read Related

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

Display:

Only if he brings some ‘roids with him. We could use them. Steroids that is. Just to be clear.

¡Free Chan Perry!

by TheVanillaGorilla on May 21, 2008 1:05 PM EDT   0 recs

I don’t think I quite got your insinuation there.

Disclaimer: this post doesn't mean what you think it means.

by AngG on May 21, 2008 6:10 PM EDT to parent up   0 recs

As opposed to Hemmorhoids?

I tried to make Paul Reuschel my Avatar, but he didn't fit into the box.

by emd2k3 on May 22, 2008 2:11 PM EDT to parent up   0 recs

i don’t get the Bonds argument. San Francisco’s offense has been horrible for several years—near the bottom in runs scored for the last three years (not counting this one). You have to go back to 2004 to find a Giants team that could score runs. Bonds was there during these bad years (although hurt at times). I guess you could say he was hurt and his teammates couldn’t hit. But, his teammates here haven’t been able to hit either, and he’s a year older and more prone to get injured again. He’s not the answer.

by peter m on May 21, 2008 1:14 PM EDT   0 recs

Wait, what? Do we have to sign the whole team? At least we’ll get Omar back.

by dgcambridge on May 21, 2008 1:17 PM EDT to parent up   0 recs

I think he was equating the 2008 Indians lineup production with the 2005-2007 Giants lineup production.

I can’t find any room to argue with him at present.

by steincat on May 21, 2008 1:18 PM EDT to parent up   0 recs

Yes, that’s what I was trying to say (imperfectly).

by peter m on May 21, 2008 1:25 PM EDT to parent up   0 recs

What’s going on here? You know, we do have ways to determine the individual contribution of a hitter. It’s not basketball.

I voted yes above, but I could go either way. Obviously it would involve a circus and the sweat smell of desperation. And hurt our defense. But we’re in a position where a few runs could help a lot.

I was against it all offseason, because in addtion to the points above, he’s got to be done at some point. But now I’ve been beaten down by this offense.

by dgcambridge on May 21, 2008 1:25 PM EDT to parent up   0 recs

You’re the only opponent our offense has succeeded in beating down! Perhaps there’s still hope for it?

by peter m on May 21, 2008 1:25 PM EDT to parent up   0 recs

Maybe, but my fastball sits at about 55 mph.

by dgcambridge on May 21, 2008 1:30 PM EDT to parent up   0 recs

I’m surprised we could hit it. We usually have trouble with junkballers!

by peter m on May 21, 2008 1:31 PM EDT to parent up   0 recs

Are we past the point where we give up draft picks if we sign him? When is that point? Opening day?

by CBusSteve on May 21, 2008 1:56 PM EDT   0 recs

I think the deadline for that is the draft itself, but it doesn’t matter, because Bonds was not offered arbitration, which of course he would have accepted since it would have guaranteed him at least $15 million.

by Jay on May 21, 2008 2:17 PM EDT to parent up   0 recs

Thanks for clearing that up.

by CBusSteve on May 21, 2008 2:26 PM EDT to parent up   0 recs

At this point, there’s no reason not to. It’s pure Moneyball, baby.

Burn on, big river, burn on...

by Turkmenbashi on May 21, 2008 2:23 PM EDT   0 recs

In this scenario: how much does he cost?

Disclaimer: this post doesn't mean what you think it means.

by AngG on May 21, 2008 2:25 PM EDT   0 recs

Doesnt his trial start in June? Won’t that keep him from playing during the week at least?

by talonk on May 21, 2008 2:39 PM EDT   0 recs

@AngG: In this scenario he costs whatever we negotiate. I’m just arguing that we need to open that door. If he won’t sign for a penny less than $10 mil, forget about him.

@talonk: I believe he needs to appear in court one day in June, but his trial, keeping him from a team on a day-to-day basis, wouldn’t be for months – after the end of the season.

@columbusOHcubsfan: Who cares what the media says? I just want to win.

LeCavs!
If you were good enough, maybe we'd name it after you.

by Matt in LA on May 21, 2008 3:06 PM EDT   0 recs

this is an interesting way of replying.

by Brick. on May 21, 2008 3:32 PM EDT to parent up   0 recs

Thanks? It’s used around the web.

With nested comments it’s not really necessary. It’s a great comment system here.

But… I was just to lazy to write 3 responses of a line each when one 3 line response would do.

LeCavs!
If you were good enough, maybe we'd name it after you.

by Matt in LA on May 21, 2008 5:07 PM EDT to parent up   0 recs

We’re talking Barry Bonds, not Ernie Banks. You think he would even consider a dime less than $10 million?

by odradek on May 21, 2008 3:50 PM EDT to parent up   0 recs

Yes. Next question.

I doubt we can offer the veteran minimum and tell him to get in line with no special treatment, but if he wants to play and he wants a shot at a ring, he’d have to consider a couple million on a contending team like the Tribe.

LeCavs!
If you were good enough, maybe we'd name it after you.

by Matt in LA on May 21, 2008 5:08 PM EDT to parent up   0 recs

Ok smartypants ….

1. As great of a hitter as Bonds is, he hasn’t played since last September. If somebody signs him, he is going to need a minimum 3 weeks of some sort of Spring Training to get up to speed.

2. Before the Giants decided to not pursue him, he was angling for something between $10-12M for this year. Obviously, that would need to be prorated if he started in June, but you are still talking about $5M at least.

3. listen closely … HE CANNOT PLAY LF anymore. I lived in the Bay Area up until this year and got to see him play a lot of the time. His knees are shot. Think of a statue with an arm slightly better than Damon. So if you sign him, you are having him take Hafner’s spot. Guess Hafner would have to take up a daily game of gin rummy with Marte on the bench since we can’t DFA him. Signing Bonds means losing someone off of the 25 man roster, most likely Marte/Francisco/Gutz. Shapiro will not sacrifice 2009 that easily.

4. Between his personality (major sourpuss) and his legal troubles, his mind would not be fully on baseball anyways.

5. He more than likely will not leave the West Coast anyways. He has homes in LA and the Bay Area. His trial stuff is all in the Bay Area. He will need to be close by to do that.

6-50. Shapiro won’t sign a malcontent like Bonds anyway. Although, for chuck’s sake, he could become buddies with LeBron.

by talonk on May 21, 2008 4:21 PM EDT to parent up   0 recs

The word sourpuss is underutilized on the internet.

by steincat on May 21, 2008 4:35 PM EDT to parent up   0 recs

even if you get bonds...

you guys won’t improve record wise.

by columbusOHcubsfan on May 21, 2008 5:14 PM EDT to parent up   0 recs

Thanks for that original and entirely convincing analysis.

by gahnki on May 21, 2008 5:16 PM EDT to parent up   0 recs

im not trying to be a dick here

but i don’t think bonds would be an asset to your team and would really screw things up for you guys. i would go after a younger outfielder. say what you want to me, but that’s what i think

by columbusOHcubsfan on May 21, 2008 5:24 PM EDT to parent up   0 recs

Say what you want to me, but I think the Cubs suck.

by gte619n on May 21, 2008 6:45 PM EDT to parent up   0 recs

wat

the indians have sucked just as badly. hey, we both haven’t won the world series in a while

by columbusOHcubsfan on May 24, 2008 3:25 PM EDT to parent up   0 recs

Boooooo Cubs!

by Stinky McDingus on May 22, 2008 12:38 PM EDT to parent up   0 recs

Careful friend, this is very close to a troll remark.

by talonk on May 21, 2008 5:17 PM EDT to parent up   0 recs

Before his latest set of legal troubles, I would have said yes… but now it’s an easy ‘no’ for me.

Give Marte a Chance. FIRE SHELTON. Find Wedge a Hot Seat.

by westbrook on May 21, 2008 4:12 PM EDT   0 recs

I voted no. If we lose with the guys we like, we lose with the guys we like (and I’m waiting for the response . . . we’re losing with the guys Wedge likes, but that’s limited to one or two guys), and we don’t go out and sign prima-donna assholes (sorry censors) at whatever cost just to save face.

C’mon folks . . . we’re Indians fans . . . this is what it’s all about. Wear it with pride. There is a very good chance they will let you down. And when they don’t (cf. 2005 & 2007 . . . one must understand degrees of being ‘let down’) the thrill is that much more intense.

Of course all the experts thought that this was a team to be reckoned with, and it could still turn out to be, but just don’t expect things to be easy and go the way they are supposed to . . . they’re the Indians fercrissakes
Now LGT, goddammit

by DocNo on May 21, 2008 4:17 PM EDT   0 recs

I root for whoever is in an Indians uniform. If Barry Bonds was in an Indians uniiform then I would root for him.

by gahnki on May 21, 2008 4:29 PM EDT to parent up   0 recs

The wording of the question is interesting, and I can’t tell whether people are answering the actual question, or the alternate question of :

“Would you want the Indians to sign Barry Bonds?”

Maybe there is no real difference, but I suppose that if certain criteria were met (like Hafner blew out his shoulder and went on the 60-day DL and we had a roster spot), then I would be OPEN to signing Barry Bonds.

But I definitely don’t WANT them to pursue him due to cost / roster squeeze / injury-proneness / general distaste for Barry Lamar Bonds.

by steincat on May 21, 2008 4:40 PM EDT   0 recs

It was intentional ambiguous wording. Saying I want Bonds signed suggests we need to aggressively pursue him, and while I’d like to see him in an Indians uniform, I don’t support that.

Many people (see above) reject the idea of bringing in Bonds automatically. I simply think we’d be foolish not to at least make that phone call, and that’s what I wanted to come across in the question.

LeCavs!
If you were good enough, maybe we'd name it after you.

by Matt in LA on May 21, 2008 5:06 PM EDT to parent up   0 recs

So for everybody who says no, if Bonds offers to sign for the minimum tomorrow, you’d really hang up the phone on him?

LeCavs!
If you were good enough, maybe we'd name it after you.

by Matt in LA on May 21, 2008 5:10 PM EDT   0 recs

Hey, he’s been one of my fav players to watch/root for over the years, but as a fan, no I don’t want to sign Bonds. Mainly becasue he’d cost us a player on the 25 that I’d rather keep.

You and I both know he won’t sign for the minimum.

Although Bonds did play for the Giants, didn’t he state somewhere he wouldn’t play for some of the franchises because of the way they treated his dad, Bobby? I know Bobby played for us, or was Barry just pinpointing the Yankees?

by talonk on May 21, 2008 5:16 PM EDT to parent up   0 recs

I guess I still think that if Barry Bonds was willing to sign for the minimum, he wouldn’t be on a plane to Cleveland.

But if the hypothetical still holds, that means that Ben Fran is sent back down and Bonds plays left? Or Looch gets DFA’d? I’m just trying to find a roster spot without dumping Marte, and I don’t see it.

by steincat on May 21, 2008 5:16 PM EDT to parent up   0 recs

I agree with you. We should investigate the scenario and at least contact him to see if he’s interested. Even if we don’t pull the trigger having that option there is better than not having it.

by gahnki on May 21, 2008 5:18 PM EDT to parent up   0 recs

No, but that’s not the question. I love how every discussion of Barry Bonds treats him like he’s an item on the grocery store shelf that Mark Shapiro can just pick up at his leisure should he choose to foot the bill. Bonds doesn’t play for anybody unless he wants to, and there’s no reason to think he wants to play here. He certainly doesn’t need the money, and he’s already got the HR record, which was the only thing he played for anyway. He has no incentive to come back, and certainly none to come back for us, at a lowered asking price.

The only ways to get Barry Bonds to come to Cleveland would be 1) if all his money disappeared, 2) MLB decided to adjust Hank Aaron’s HR total so that he needs to come back and hit a few more, 3) we brainwash him into thinking that he cares about things like winning the World Series, or playing for a competitive team, 4) move the team to the Bay Area. There’s nothing for him to gain by coming back, so he probably won’t.

by maledicta on May 21, 2008 9:21 PM EDT to parent up   0 recs

That is a whole lot of words not to include a single really good point.

by Jay on May 21, 2008 11:43 PM EDT to parent up   0 recs

Perhaps we can try again: Barry Bonds coming to Cleveland is as likely as us signing a clone formed from Ted Williams’ frozen head. Ergo, this discussion is pointless.

by maledicta on May 22, 2008 3:13 AM EDT to parent up   0 recs

Good point.

by Jay on May 22, 2008 8:53 AM EDT to parent up   0 recs

I love how you guys seem to know the demands and desires of Barry Bonds. How do you know this? People are acting like they know the man intimately, which I suspect not to be the case. The only things we know about Bonds comes from a group of people who don’t like him. These people have shown time after time that they can be incapable of showing objectivity toward certain situations. I’m not saying most of the stuff written about Bonds isn’t true, but there is no reason for me to accept it as fact.

by ClarkM on May 22, 2008 8:15 AM EDT to parent up   0 recs

Amen to this. The above post basically said “there’s no reason to think he wants to play here”, and turned it into “cleary Bonds would not want to play here.” Those aren’t the same. We’ve always underestimated very rich people’s desire for more money, and maybe he likes playing, or maybe he wants a shot at ring, or maybe he thinks a year or so of (relatively) quiet playing will help his image. Those speculations are equally tenable.

The point should been simply this: “Even if the Indians are interested, Bonds may not be.”

by dgcambridge on May 22, 2008 9:45 AM EDT to parent up   0 recs

I get that trying to handicap things from his POV is iffy at best (part of the reason why this discussion doesn’t work), but it’s just not true that all we know about him comes from people who don’t like him. We know he doesn’t need the money, because he made almost $16 million last year alone. Albeit, he might just want more, but this quickly puts him out of our range anyway. We know he doesn’t particularly care about winning, given that he chose to sign with the Giants last year, who everyone knew were going to finish 1,000 games out of first place. We know he doesn’t need to accomplish anything on the field, because he already has the record.

Is it possible that Bonds would simply buck all the odds and come back to play for a team with which he has no connection and no incentive to sign with? Sure. But the whole Bonds discussion assumes we get some kind of a deal because a) he needs money/playing time, or b) we’re a contender. Everything we know counsels against either being true.

by maledicta on May 22, 2008 3:03 PM EDT to parent up   0 recs

Well he only has connections to the Pirates and Giants. As for incentive, we could offer money and a contender. (And a more quiet town compared to the big ones, if that matters) I don’t see how we’re an unlikely choice. Is this was a straight up bidding war (i.e. the Dice K situation), then yeah we get outbid. But clearly teams around the league are reluctant to bid on him.

And we probably will be too, but that’s not the point here.

by dgcambridge on May 22, 2008 3:32 PM EDT to parent up   0 recs

Is there a group of people who like Bonds that would be willing to give us any information? For that matter, is there a group of people who like Bonds?

Free Andy Marte!

Pronk Needs You

by woodsmeister on May 23, 2008 4:18 PM EDT to parent up   0 recs

Woodsmeister, so what you are saying is that even though the information might not be reliable, its the only information we have, so we should accept it as truth. I’ll pass.

“We know he doesn’t need the money, because he made almost $16 million last year alone.”

I’m not sure that we do know this, we are not privy to the man’s personal finances. We do know that it isn’t entirely uncommon for professional athletes to spend as much money as they make and we do know that he has legal issues, and we do know that those cost money.

“We know he doesn’t particularly care about winning, given that he chose to sign with the Giants last year, who everyone knew were going to finish 1,000 games out of first place.”

The only thing we might know from this is that winning isn’t the only thing that is important. Maybe he does want to win, but other factors, such as loyalty, family, convenience, etc. outweighed that. Often times, factors such as these are fluid, and what he felt last year, might not be the same.

by ClarkM on May 23, 2008 7:06 PM EDT to parent up   0 recs

I don’t know that he had other offers a year ago, either. The Giants were widely criticized for giving him $16 million when apparently nobody else offered him anywhere near that amount.

by Jay on May 23, 2008 7:29 PM EDT to parent up   0 recs

If people think signing an old, injury-prone guy who can’t play the field, hasn’t played in several months, has had declining numbers, played for one of the worst offenses in MLB, and has been a huge distraction to his teammates would improve our team, we really ARE in trouble.

by peter m on May 22, 2008 10:12 AM EDT   0 recs

If people think signing an old, injury-prone guy who can’t play the field, hasn’t played in several months, has had declining numbers, played for one of the worst offenses in MLB, and has been a huge distraction to his teammates would improve our team, we really ARE in trouble.

Well, yeah, I think it may be so.

by dgcambridge on May 22, 2008 10:18 AM EDT to parent up   0 recs

I’m glad someone saw the huge, ironic fat pitch in that post. We are in trouble. But, Bonds won’t help enough to justify the commotion. And, the Giants WERE one of the worst offenses in baseball the last two years.

by peter m on May 22, 2008 10:24 AM EDT to parent up   0 recs

I know, I may be getting desparate. I just saying I’d look into it. I mean, if he was at all interested, get him out here and check out those knees and the swing.

I still can’t let you slide with worst offense in baseball point. I know its true, but its still a dumb way to judge a hitter, and so it stands out among the rest of your points.

by dgcambridge on May 22, 2008 10:31 AM EDT to parent up   0 recs

This nonsense about how the Giants sucked, therefore Bonds wasn’t that good … is just that, nonsense. The Giants were one of the worst offenses in baseball because they were among the worst six teams offensively at four positions out of eight — the entire infield — and below average at another two (RF and CF).

The projection systems understandably don’t really know what to make of Bonds, but they all come in between 900 and 1100 OPS, and in a platoon/bench role, that would go up even further. Having Bonds start 3-4 games a week and otherwise available to pinch-hit would improve the offense substantially, and that frankly is just beyond dispute.

by Jay on May 22, 2008 11:07 AM EDT to parent up   0 recs

My point was simply that his presence on the Giants last year didn’t make them a good team and his absence this year hasn’t made them significantly worse. I’ll take the point that that doesn’t make him a bad player—I hadn’t meant to imply that that followed from the Giants’ performance. I DID mean to argue that the other question marks (especially age and physical condition) about him make me think that he’s not worth the trouble. He’d certainly hit better than Dellucci or Garko or Gutierrez has thus far, but so would a lot of players, many of whom are younger and less of a headache. Before I went for Bonds, I’d like to be sure there weren’t other options out there that I could get through a trade.

by peter m on May 22, 2008 11:30 AM EDT to parent up   0 recs

Anyone who would put up Bonds like numbers would cost us an arm and a leg on the trade market.

by gahnki on May 22, 2008 5:23 PM EDT to parent up   0 recs

I just don’t accept that our only, and best, option is Bonds. I’m also not persuaded that the benefits are enough to justify the costs.

by peter m on May 22, 2008 5:32 PM EDT to parent up   0 recs

Perceived cost. We don’t know how much money he will cost us.

by gahnki on May 22, 2008 5:57 PM EDT to parent up   0 recs

If we’re only talking about on-field value and cost in dollars, Bonds is not only our best option, he’s our best option by far — as he is for at least ten other teams if not 20. I think if you acknowledged that, the rest of your argument would seem more credible.

by Jay on May 22, 2008 5:58 PM EDT to parent up   0 recs

his presence on the Giants last year didn’t make them a good team

True, but so what? Hanley Ramirez and Miguel Cabrera combined didn’t make the Marlins good last year. I guess we should assume that they aren’t worth acquiring either?

Never mind whether he’s a “bad player,” it’s very likely he’s a way above average hitter. You need to abandon this whole line of argument, because it’s retarded, and you’re not.

and his absence this year hasn’t made them significantly worse.

It is true that (a) they would be crappy either way, and (b) they’ve gotten very good production from LF, with an outlier performance from an older version of Francisco, but they nonetheless would be a better team with Bonds. American League teams of course have even more ability to leverage Bonds’ package of skills.

A trade will be inherently more expensive than signing a free agent. You can still say that Bonds isn’t worth it, but you should acknowledge that mitigating factor at least.

by Jay on May 22, 2008 6:07 PM EDT to parent up   0 recs

Assuming Bonds produced as he did last year, which isn’t a given in view of his layoff and an additional year of age, I’ll concede he would add to the team’s offense. He’d probably add something even if he slipped from last year’s numbers, especially since the Indians have no one doing anything at the moment. But, I also think he makes the team even more inflexible (another guy who can’t really play the field) and he brings a lot of other baggage with him. A trade would be more expensive, for sure. No one’s denying that. But, I think the possibility of getting a player who can make a long-term contribution and can actually plug one of the many holes we seem to have would be worth the additional cost. That’s my feeling, anyway.

by peter m on May 22, 2008 10:11 PM EDT to parent up   0 recs

Our so-called flexibility isn’t getting utilized anyway. What’s the difference between unused flexibility and no flexibility? Not much that I can see.

by Jay on May 22, 2008 10:52 PM EDT to parent up   0 recs

True enough. I don’t think we’ll win this way, however. The Red Sox used to stockpile slugging DH/1B types and it never got them anywhere (although they were more fun to watch than this year’s Indians).

by peter m on May 23, 2008 9:17 AM EDT to parent up   0 recs

Pretty sure that’s how they ended up with Ortiz.

by Jay on May 23, 2008 1:17 PM EDT to parent up   0 recs

I was thinking more the 80s and 90s versions of the Sox. I lived in Boston for a while in the 80s and remember a lot of public grumbling about how the Sox seemed to have too many players who were basically big, slow, sluggers. the 1996 team had (not all for the whole year): Mo Vaughn, Jose Canseco, Reggie Jefferson, Kevin MItchell, Scott Hatteberg, plus Mike Stanley and Wil Cordero, both of whom played 1b/DH at times (Stanley quite often).

Ortiz went to to Boston in 2003, I think. The year before, they didn’t have a full-time, regular DH. The guy who played the most as DH was Manny Ramirez, so I think in that instance they acquired a guy who filled a need rather than duplicating something they already had. I’ve got nothing against big, slow sluggers. I just worry about having several of them at the same spot, when you have needs elsewhere as well.

by peter m on May 23, 2008 1:44 PM EDT to parent up   0 recs

Not that I’m interested in the least in the Bonds speculation (and, to be clear, it’s just speculation), but those who posit that Bonds has nothing to play for should note that he has 2,935 hits in his career.

"A good body with a dull brain is as cheap as life itself."

by Fiddlesticks on May 22, 2008 10:44 AM EDT   0 recs

You really think the HR King is worried about 3,000 hits?

by maledicta on May 22, 2008 3:06 PM EDT to parent up   0 recs

Just looking to add another asterisk.

*

by steincat on May 22, 2008 3:51 PM EDT to parent up   0 recs

And in case you can’t tell, that is a bolded asterisk.

by steincat on May 22, 2008 3:51 PM EDT to parent up   0 recs

Maybe. I don’t know and neither does anyone else.

He is an extremely competitive person so he may be interested in that mark.

by gahnki on May 22, 2008 5:24 PM EDT to parent up   0 recs

So he can assure his place in Cooperstown?

by odradek on May 22, 2008 5:36 PM EDT to parent up   0 recs

For his own personal reason (s). I can only speculate on what that may be. But a 3,000 hit mark is a big F-U to people who don’t like him. He may enjoy that.

by gahnki on