Poop or fried chicken: Yankees have tentative deal with first baseman Sexson

Really? Before Bonds?

11 months ago Turkmenbashi Comment 152 comments 1 recs |

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

That was EXACTLY my comment.

The only place Bonds WOULDN’T be a distraction to the team is in NY.

by Toxicadam on Jul 17, 2008 3:24 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

Sexson’s hitting .344 against lefties this year? Holy crap.

I do hate you, sir, for sending me to that page, whereupon I was led to this image:

by FredOx on Jul 17, 2008 3:29 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

What’s the story here? I don’t even know who’s moustache that is. Buckner?

by PatBordersHelmet on Jul 17, 2008 4:05 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Why does his hat have a C on it?

by afh4 on Jul 17, 2008 4:06 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

It’s the 1982 All-Star game. Eckersley was the starter, but didn’t bring a batting helmet, so he borrowed a Cleveland one. There’s actually a long history of players wearing the wrong helmet:

More here. I love Uni Watch.

by FredOx on Jul 17, 2008 4:17 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Uni Watch is awesome

Burn on, big river, burn on...

by Turkmenbashi on Jul 17, 2008 4:21 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Fun article. Thx!

by JulioBernazard on Jul 17, 2008 5:00 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Eck?

by SuddenSam on Jul 17, 2008 4:15 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

I think NY would go crazy (in a bad way) if they signed Bonds. They’re quasi rebuilding anyway, so I wouldn’t see the purpose of the signing. The Rays, on the other hand, should totally hit that.

by Joe. on Jul 17, 2008 4:09 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

I think we can safely conclude that MLB is colluding against Barry Bonds.

by gte619n on Jul 17, 2008 4:54 PM EDT reply actions 1 recs

i disagree. i doubt they ever got together and all agreed not to sign him. i think they all had independent (and often the same) reasons not to.

if someone poops on the floor and no one eats it, it’s probably not because we all collectively decided to boycott the poop. most of us just don’t like the taste. some of us just ate and aren’t hungry. maybe others just don’t want to have to brush their teeth afterwards – but that’s not collusion, that’s just nobody wanting poop in their mouth.

by Brick. on Jul 17, 2008 5:06 PM EDT up reply actions 11 recs

OMG, I just lost it at my cubicle

recrecrecrecrec

Burn on, big river, burn on...

by Turkmenbashi on Jul 17, 2008 5:14 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

yeah, but in this case everybody’s already got poop in their mouth.

also this particular turd is very good at hitting baseballs.

by still ill on Jul 17, 2008 5:20 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

and this is an example of the media and/or fan trying to convince the rest of us that we should really be eating poop because it tastes good.

by Brick. on Jul 17, 2008 5:40 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Jason Davis is a good example of a guy who might try to make you eat poop.

by afh4 on Jul 17, 2008 5:50 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

by Brick. on Jul 17, 2008 5:53 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

eat it or i throw this at you. eat it. EAT IT!

by Brick. on Jul 17, 2008 5:54 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Nice work here, Brick. I might just pour myself a tumbler of Boodles tonight and toast ya.

by fleerdon on Jul 17, 2008 8:53 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Richie Sexon, by all possible measures, sucks at hitting baseballs. Barry Bonds, by all appreciable measures, is awesome at hitting baseballs. He’s also better defensively. Does he have some baggage? Sure, but not so much baggage that the Yankees would go, “oh well, I know there’s this guy over here with a .480 OBP and some defensive value, but shoot, let’s just take the one dimensional wind machine with at 315 instead,” unless there was collusion going on.

If anything, Richie Sexon is the poop. Barry Bonds would be like a snickers bar on the floor without the wrapper.

by gte619n on Jul 17, 2008 7:00 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

If the metaphor had been a turd in the pool instead of the floor, then a Baby Ruth would’ve been more appropriate.

by PatBordersHelmet on Jul 17, 2008 9:39 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Baby Ruth, huh? Works on so many levels.

Burn on, big river, burn on...

by Turkmenbashi on Jul 18, 2008 10:03 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

This is just a terrible metaphor. There are zero, or at least very little desirable qualities about poop. There are, however, lots of nice qualities about Mr. Bonds, most importantly, OBP. Now, I don’t think the signing of Richie Sexson necessarily proves anything, but the whole thing seems a little funny.

by ClarkM on Jul 17, 2008 7:07 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Agreed.

It’s more like, there’s a big bucket of fried chicken in the middle of the room. And one by one, 30 different guys proclaim: “That is not a bucket of fried chicken, that is a pile of poop.”

It’s fried chicken, damn it. And fried chicken is awesome, even if it isn’t all that good for you.

by Jay on Jul 17, 2008 11:24 PM EDT up reply actions 1 recs

I’m recing this too. Awesome.

Burn on, big river, burn on...

by Turkmenbashi on Jul 18, 2008 10:04 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

How many fan bases would accept a Barry signing? Exactly one—SF.

So, while this may be chicken and be awesome, it’s going to make your breath smell like shizz and cause people (aka fans) to stay well away from you.

by JulioBernazard on Jul 18, 2008 11:05 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Here’s another question: How many stadiums would sell out their play-off games with Barry on the team?

My guess: 30

Resident LGT beer kinda sewer

by mauichuck on Jul 18, 2008 12:01 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Plenty of teams don’t sell out their playoff games now. I doubt Fried Chicken Man would change that.

by FredOx on Jul 18, 2008 12:11 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Agreed. AZ had lots of trouble, didn’t they?

by JulioBernazard on Jul 18, 2008 12:51 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

I think that is just totally off-base.

Any team that signs Bonds is going to have fans that are mostly ecstatic and only a little ambivalent — and the players will be enitrely ecstatic. And very suddenly, there’s going be a dozen other teams wondering, wait a second … why didn’t we do that?

Fans rationalize. We rooted for Belle and Mesa, and Bonds is certainly no bigger a cretin than those guys. After two games with him in the lineup, 99% of fans would be totally turned around on this.

by Jay on Jul 18, 2008 12:36 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

players will be enitrely ecstatic

Have you read anything about what this dude’s like in the locker room? Don’t forget that a team has to practically live with any new guy they bring in. I’m sure that’s a big factor as to why GMs are turning away from Bonds.

Bonds is a bigger cretin nation-wide than Belle or Mesa ever were. Fans forgive cheating, ruining the game, and lying far less easily than they do bad non-baseball-related behavior.

by JulioBernazard on Jul 18, 2008 12:50 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Intentionally throwing at a guy every time you face him is non-baseball-related behavior?

Burn on, big river, burn on...

by Turkmenbashi on Jul 18, 2008 1:06 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

I was thinking more of the butt-grabbing or whatever he did, which is not excusable at all, but seems to have largely been forgotten.

by JulioBernazard on Jul 18, 2008 1:27 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

I think “fans” in general don’t see it quite the way that you do.

I think if you ask all the players if they’d like to have Bonds on their team, warts and all, well over 90%, possibly 99%, would say HELL YES RIGHT THE F NOW without hesitation. They may not like everything about him, either his reputation or his clubhouse presence, but on balance, they want him on the roster.

Lots of guys are a pain in the ass in the clubhouse, but none of the others hit like Bonds. And the players understand better than anyone that Bonds largely has been targeted and scapegoated, that he’s borne far more than his fair share of the heat for the terrified silent majority of players who engaged in one PED or another.

by Jay on Jul 18, 2008 1:46 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

We’ll never know about the players, but I think you’ve completely misread the country’s mood on Bonds. He is universally hated.

by JulioBernazard on Jul 18, 2008 1:52 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

I don’t hate him. Plus, he walked 132 times last year. A .480 OBP.

If Barry had played for the Yankees or the Red Sox, there’d be a bit more love for him. He’s at a disadvantage having played in SF and Pitt.

by odradek on Jul 18, 2008 8:37 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

yeah I dunno about fans’ attitudes towards Bonds. It’s clear that a lot of folks here wouldn’t like him, despite this being a more intelligent, stat-driven community. A quick visit to the ESPN message boards - which I think are probably pretty representative of the huddled masses of baseball fandom - and you’ll find little to no love for Bonds, and some just outright hatred.

Burn on, big river, burn on...

by Turkmenbashi on Jul 18, 2008 1:57 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

That’s part of my point: besides being hated by a large swath of the general populace, he’s also particularly hated by sports fans and baseball lovers (ya know—the folks who buy tickets).

by JulioBernazard on Jul 18, 2008 2:49 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

There’s a big difference between fans in general and fans of the team that just signed Barry Bonds.

When Mark Ecko did his vote756 thing, about a third of the voters said that the ball should be sent to the HOF with no mark on it. This may seem like an incredibly low number, but I believe that it’s quite high. Those who hate Bonds were substantially motivated to go and vote for the asterisk (“screw that guy forever”) or for shooting it into space (“I’m sick of the whole thing”). Those who don’t hate him would not be very motivated to find the site at all.

In short, the vote shows that for all the several million people who despise Bonds, half that many are motivated to defend him vehemently — and many more than either group aren’t moved all that much one way or another.

Put it to another way: Among “the folks that buy the tickets,” I believe the vast majority of them are far more concerned with having a winning team than with hating Barry Bonds. In fact, I think it’s not even close.

And one final thought: There is simply no precedent for a truly great player coming to a new team and being rejected before he even gets to play. Fan bases hate players for disappointing them on the field — and sometimes off — but Bonds would be unlikely to do either for a new team.

by Jay on Jul 18, 2008 3:57 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

here is simply no precedent for a truly great player coming to a new team and being rejected before he even gets to play.

Um, Shane Spencer ring a bell?

by Brick. on Jul 18, 2008 4:13 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Those who don’t hate him would not be very motivated to find the site at all.

Sure they were, considering that the ball’s future depended on the vote. Using your parentheses quotes, it would be something like (“gotta protect my guy and get the ball in the HoF unsullied.”)

Even though I put no stock in Internet polls whatsoever, the 10MM count does provide some legitimacy to the numbers.

by JulioBernazard on Jul 18, 2008 4:50 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

My point is that even Bonds’ fans are not vehement about it. There are far more people who are vehemently against Bonds than vehemently for him — but that doesn’t necessarily mean that most people are against him.

What’s funny is that you’re failing to grasp this point, even though you are the living embodiment of it. You are by far the most vehement person in this thread, and you can’t stand Bonds. Those who don’t care or are supportive of him aren’t giving it nearly the energy that you are.

by Jay on Jul 18, 2008 8:08 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

I’m a good example of someone who doesn’t care and isn’t participating.

Oh. Shoot.

by afh4 on Jul 18, 2008 8:13 PM EDT up reply actions 1 recs

WARNING: EXTREMELY SMALL SAMPLE SIZE
I thought we were against those around here. Of about six guys posting on this topic, one is “vehement” and the others are not. Logic (and this mini-thread) has gone off the rails.

Bonds’s defenders are not vehement (because you say so), but those against him are (because you say so). The third of voters who defended Bonds are naifs who happened to stumble on the vote756 site out of naivete, while those who voted to mark the ball are caustic crazies. Puh-leeze.

by JulioBernazard on Jul 19, 2008 9:47 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

For god’s sake, someone post a poll already.

by supermarioelia on Jul 19, 2008 11:44 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

I never said the population commenting here proves anything, only that it happens to be representative (in my view) of the overall population of baseball fans on this subject.

I’ll be blunt. You’re blind with rage on this subject.

by Jay on Jul 20, 2008 10:23 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Just trying to parse your logic, and having trouble with it. No rage here.

by JulioBernazard on Jul 21, 2008 12:04 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

I didn’t mean rage towards me, I meant rage towards Bonds.

People who are strongly emotional about an issue often vastly overestimate the percentage of other people who feel the same way.

Haven’t you ever been at a party and gotten into a conversation with someone you just met about, oh, say, abortion, or the 2000 election, and every word that comes out of his/her mouth reflects the expectation that everyone else agrees with whatever they’re saying?

Well … that’s how you are with Bonds. But unlike those two hypothetical subjects, there are very few people who strongly believe that Bonds is a great guy and should be defended to the hilt, so the conversation ends up way out of balance — like Ecko’s balloting.

This is also one of the main reasons we don’t talk politics here!

by Jay on Jul 21, 2008 4:42 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Here are examples of your making an emotional argument rather than a reasoned argument, and of your broad assumption that almost everyone agrees with your strong feelings about this.

How many fan bases would accept a Barry signing? Exactly one—SF.

“I really hate Bonds, and so does everyone else outside of SF.”

So, while this may be chicken and be awesome, it’s going to make your breath smell like shizz and cause people (aka fans) to stay well away from you.

“I really hate Bonds, and so does everyone else.”

Have you read anything about what this dude’s like in the locker room? Don’t forget that a team has to practically live with any new guy they bring in. I’m sure that’s a big factor as to why GMs are turning away from Bonds.

“Every available piece of evidence points to Bonds being a horrible person who should not be playing.”

Bonds is a bigger cretin nation-wide than Belle or Mesa ever were.

“I really hate Bonds, and so does everyone else.”

Fans forgive cheating, ruining the game, and lying far less easily than they do bad non-baseball-related behavior.

“I consider Bonds a cheater first and foremost, and I consider cheating to be the worst thing in a baseball player — except for doctoring the baseball, which is okay — and so does everyone else.”

That’s part of my point: besides being hated by a large swath of the general populace, he’s also particularly hated by sports fans and baseball lovers (ya know—the folks who buy tickets).

“I really hate Bonds, and so does everyone else.”

by Jay on Jul 21, 2008 4:51 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

The initial question was why Big Sexsy was signed ahead of Bonds. I added several real-world possibilities as to why GMs were passing on BB that did not include collusion.

Let’s smoke a peace pipe on this one and move on to other topics.

by JulioBernazard on Jul 22, 2008 11:42 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

The people who voted in defense of him did so to justify their love of him. If a crap load of people voted in a poll on Hafner being washed up and they said he was washed up, I would vote against that because I love the guy. I would have tons of motivation to go and vote. I would need to prove everyone else wrong about him with my vote.

LGT's resident beer connaisseur.

by LGT Patrick on Jul 18, 2008 7:16 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Well the whole pole would be useless, cuz the only one that can prove that Hafner is not washed up is Hafner.

Same with Bonds, if he comes out and hits like I think he can, the baseball fans in the city his playing in will love him. Every body else might hate him, but f’em – if he’s playing in Cleveland.

Resident LGT beer kinda sewer

by mauichuck on Jul 18, 2008 9:29 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

And Rocker.

by supermarioelia on Jul 18, 2008 2:13 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

the up button was helpful here.

by Brick. on Jul 18, 2008 2:21 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

I think you meant “The up button is helpful. The above post is a good example of this.”

by NickFantana on Jul 18, 2008 4:59 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

the up button is like brandon phillips.

by Brick. on Jul 18, 2008 5:08 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Perfect example. Rocker was greeted with skepticism but generally not rejected by Cleveland fans. They kept buying tickets and they cheered him — when he was good.

by Jay on Jul 18, 2008 8:09 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Even when he was terrible. He was relegated to mop up duty by the playoffs, but when he entered the game in the ninth inning of game 3 against the M’s, the crowd went berserk.

by Roger Dorn on Jul 19, 2008 2:19 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

you’re focussing on the wrong part of the metaphor. switch out poop for grilled chees sandwich you dropped in a puddle on the ground. there’s still some calories and flavor to be had. shoot, might even be on multigrain bread. piont is, you don’t need to get all the people in the bar on a conference call and agree not to eat the sandwich so that no one eats it. people will probably decide on their own they’d rather eat something else even if it means they have to have it on white bread.

by Brick. on Jul 17, 2008 11:27 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

i was thinking it was more like if someone pooped on a scrunched-up $100 bill and left the resulting conglomerate sitting on the floor. most people would leave that alone. but somebody is probably going to pick it up.

and it would seem even more likely that someone would pick it up if:
A) most of them already have poop on their hands and
B) they’re all in a contest to see which of them can field the most productive, successful wallet full of bills.

...unless everyone’s made a collective decision to get out of the poop-handling business.

obviously we’ve taken this too far, though. it’s really more like chicken.

by still ill on Jul 18, 2008 3:54 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

obviously i’m mostly having fun with this. but i really don’t think there’s collusion in the truest sense. we’ve had the discussion before, but up until recently bonds wanted more than the minimum which changed things. now no team out of contention is going to bother. to me, Barry’s a DH, so the NL is out. as is any team with an entrenched DH like say the white sox, etc. there will be teams that won’t want to mess with the circus. how many teams does that leave really, 2, 1? if that team does exists, if, i doubt they’re holding back because all the owners previsouly agreed ‘don’t touch.’

by Brick. on Jul 18, 2008 10:00 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

What do you mean by WHITE bread?!

/stephenasmith

Burn on, big river, burn on...

by Turkmenbashi on Jul 18, 2008 11:10 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Can the Yankees file this as a charitable expense and reduce their luxury-tax penalty?

by jhon on Jul 17, 2008 9:50 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

$150K would get lost in the rounding for them

by palcal on Jul 18, 2008 12:52 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

BONDS = FRIED CHICKEN.

THREAD CLOSED

by gte619n on Jul 18, 2008 8:13 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs

He may be fried chicken, but he’s a freaky genetically-modified featherless chicken.

by FredOx on Jul 18, 2008 10:23 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

I hereby rename this the “Pile of Poop” thread. Ryan or Jay, could you take care of changing that title for us?

-Erik

by drerikbrady on Jul 18, 2008 8:20 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs

Somewhat.

It would be interesting to have dynamic thread titles, so that they morph as the discussion develops.

by Jay on Jul 18, 2008 10:58 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

we’d have some doozys, that’s for sure.

by Brick. on Jul 18, 2008 11:08 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Given certain members’ personal propensity for using “POOP” I suspect every thread would become a thread of POOP.

by FredOx on Jul 18, 2008 11:20 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

I love mimizing this, and still having “Poop or fried chicken…” show up on the Taskbar.

[I work on a PC] :(

by JulioBernazard on Jul 18, 2008 2:51 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Compromise accepted.

-Erik

by drerikbrady on Jul 18, 2008 5:59 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

I wouldn’t want Bonds to be the reason my team won a championship, but I also wouldn’t want CC or any other difference maker that I picked up at the last minute to be the reason. It’s one thing to pick up a role player like Lofton, who may contribute a clutch performance, it’s a whole other thing to rent a superstar.

by elsandito on Jul 18, 2008 11:26 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs

I won’t give a hot damn who was the reason my team won a championship. Hell, we could sign Osama ben Ladin to DH and if he OPSed 1.100 and drove in the winning run offa CC in the 9th of game seven I’d be the first one to carry him around the Jake on my shoulders.

Resident LGT beer kinda sewer

by mauichuck on Jul 18, 2008 12:05 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Have to agree, I don’t care how they do it, just give me one championship. That’s all I ask

by Roger Dorn on Jul 18, 2008 12:34 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

It pains me to know this. Why not just send MLB a big check for the trophy and don’t bother to play the games? I believe we fans have to have a sense of identity to our own players. At least the marquee names.

by elsandito on Jul 18, 2008 2:34 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Earlier I proposed that MLB just auction the trophy off to the highest bidder and forego all of the angst. But then I thought better of it.

Resident LGT beer kinda sewer

by mauichuck on Jul 18, 2008 2:49 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

That would be too obvious. They just auction off playoff spots.

by Jay on Jul 18, 2008 3:58 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

In a seven-game series, anything can happen…

by odradek on Jul 18, 2008 8:41 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Payroll doesn’t guarantee championship though, but it certainly helps. I don’t think you will find any remorseful Red Sox fans over the fact that they had a high payroll contributing to their ability to win 2 World Series in the past few years.

If I were a Marlins fan would I feel cheap that my team blew it up right after beating our Tribe in 1997? Not at all, but there are Tribe fans that think it is comforting to think that we deserved it more for that reason. It doesn’t comfort me at all, second place just isn’t good enough for me.

by Roger Dorn on Jul 18, 2008 4:03 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

I never meant this to be about payroll size. My point is that when you bring in marquee players halfway through the season, it’s like bringing in a ringer. And when that marquee player is moving on at the end of the year, the example seems even more extreme.

by elsandito on Jul 18, 2008 5:20 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Sandy this is pro baseball – they’re all ringers.

Resident LGT beer kinda sewer

by mauichuck on Jul 18, 2008 9:30 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

If you were a Marlins fan, that would more than double … ah, hell, I can’t even be bothered anymore.

Lots of old-school Red Sox fans feel kind of scummy knowing that they bought their rings, but they feel like they were forced into it by the Yankees — and they’re still happy as hell about the rings.

I wasn’t entirely comfortable when we were dominating the Twins around 2001, but would it have ruined a title? No.

by Jay on Jul 18, 2008 8:12 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

which, for your sake would be much easier than if C.C. recored the last out for us and you had to carry him around the Jake on your shoulders.

by Brick. on Jul 18, 2008 12:44 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Someone with photoshopping skills better be working hard right now.

by supermarioelia on Jul 18, 2008 2:51 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

and this is how the NSA discovered our little tribe …

by Gradyforpresident on Jul 18, 2008 4:54 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

I actually would put “Not getting Barry Bonds in May 2008” as one of my top two or three gripes of all time with Shapiro & Co. Low-cost, high-reward move involving exactly the kind of player the Indians needed-either a corner OF or a DH.

It’s assinine we didn’t give him a shot. Why, to preserve character? To protect the chemistry this group is using so effectively?

I won’t go as far as saying it would’ve saved the season but, well, maybe. All we had to do was hang close.

by afh4 on Jul 18, 2008 5:53 PM EDT reply actions 3 recs

Rec. Where do we go about finding what our DH production has been this season?

by supermarioelia on Jul 18, 2008 6:06 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

And maybe a comparison of other teams’ production out of that position…

by supermarioelia on Jul 18, 2008 6:09 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Think I found it.

364 PA out of our DHs….

.219/.295/.356, an sOPS+ of 76 and a tOPS+ of 80.

Pronk had 185 PA, Dellucci with 88, Garko at 35, and the rest apparently I have to pay to see.

For reference, Barry Bonds has not had an OPS below 1000 since 1991, and has not had an OPS+ below 155 since 1989.

by supermarioelia on Jul 18, 2008 6:21 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Sweet dancing fancy Christ

by NickFantana on Jul 18, 2008 7:38 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

I was about to say something objectionable to signing Bonds, but that stat you just gave has pretty much erased it from my mind.

It’s not like it could have hurt at that point if we just signed Bonds to a one-year deal, but with Martinez out and everyone else (except Grady) doing their best to suck, I’m not sure even Bonds could have made this offense into a threat. Certainly couldn’t have hurt though.

by Pronk33 on Jul 18, 2008 11:23 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

I guess I should clarify that “at that point” meant after Hafner was officially toast for this season, so any significant action to improve the DH spot would likely have been too late. Basically, what Brick says down below about being way out of it by then.

by Pronk33 on Jul 18, 2008 11:26 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Blake’s not sucking, Peralta’s not sucking, Ben Fran’s doin’ OK, and I’ve got no complaint with Carroll and Shoppach would probably start at catcher for half a dozen other teams. Everybody else beside Grady is not sucking. Let’s not go overboard here.

Resident LGT beer kinda sewer

by mauichuck on Jul 19, 2008 10:17 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Francisco and Peralta I guess I can’t argue with too much, but Blake was horrible the first two months of the season.

by Pronk33 on Jul 19, 2008 1:04 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

I really believe that Shoppach is better than most starting catchers.

There are only about six starting catchers who have hit better than Shoppach this year, and I’m sure he’s one of the best defenders, especially if you exclude the ones who can’t really hit at all.

by Jay on Jul 19, 2008 1:04 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

is not getting frank thomas number 2?

by Brick. on Jul 18, 2008 6:18 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Dave Thomas could outhit these jokers.

by gte619n on Jul 18, 2008 6:59 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

It’s up there. I’ve hardly ever looked at something Shapiro has or hasn’t done and thought, at the time, “This is idiotic.” Even the Marte business was defensible behind a veil of secrecy-maybe they knew something about Marte that we didn’t.

But sitting on their hands when players were available for, essentially, free is idiotic.

by afh4 on Jul 18, 2008 7:30 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

I am in violent agreement with this. When I say violent I mean I just threw a desk through a window. It’s getting ugly.

by NickFantana on Jul 18, 2008 7:39 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

I am in violent indifference with this. If the Giants don’t want him back, a player who spent that many years with them, and is available to them, why should anyone else? The Giants know Bonds better than anyone else does.

by elsandito on Jul 21, 2008 9:59 AM EDT up reply actions 1 recs

rec

by JulioBernazard on Jul 21, 2008 12:04 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

You would.

by supermarioelia on Jul 21, 2008 12:12 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Because I’m “blind with rage.”

by JulioBernazard on Jul 21, 2008 1:29 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Why would the Giants spend any money on a veteran right now? They need to take a look at what they have, even if it looks terrible.

I can’t understand what this argument is supposed to be. That team’s always sign players that were on their teams because of familiarity? The Giants aren’t even close to contenders; they’re waiting until all these contracts come off or they come up with some better plan. There is literally no reason for them to sign Bonds and I wouldn’t be surprised if he actually wants to play for a contender.

The Indians, on May 25th, needed the best DH option available. They went with David Dellucci.

Are you joking? David Dellucci’s leadership is worth .400 points of OPS? Really?

Seriously. What is so terrible about Bonds? He’s just a jerk. Everyone needs to get over the idea of a jerk destroying a team and get behind the idea of the worst DH production in the league destroying a team.

by afh4 on Jul 21, 2008 3:23 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

I remember this topic came up around then. I proposed in a post around the time Hafner went down signing Bonds. I remember the response I got at the time was that he was still in court and that it was uncertain if he would be cleared to play because of his court dates. Was this not the case? If he still had legal trouble, then I think it makes more sense, but if then I agree with most of your points about Bonds

by Roger Dorn on Jul 21, 2008 4:08 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Sorry for the poor wording. It’s hard to start and stop writing these while I am working

by Roger Dorn on Jul 21, 2008 4:11 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

He’s been indicted, but my understanding is that his trial isn’t scheduled to begin until 2009. Back in May, didn’t he still want more than $10 million? He now says he’ll play for a prorated portion of the minimum, but the number of teams willing to pay even that is less in mid-July than in mid-March.

by FredOx on Jul 21, 2008 4:16 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

The salary thing I can’t speak to, except to say that I’m guessing we didn’t even ask. And no one appears to have asked.

That’s what his agent keeps saying anyway.

by afh4 on Jul 21, 2008 4:23 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

It doesn’t matter, Bonds still wouldn’t have gone to jail in an Indians uniform. He did most of his law breaking with the Giants.

by Brick. on Jul 21, 2008 4:20 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Yea, I don’t care what jersey he wears while he walks to prison, I am more concerned that we are paying him while he is in prison.

by Roger Dorn on Jul 21, 2008 4:50 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

it was my understanding that bonds didn’t lower his demands to league minimum until recently – after our DH went down. i’m also still not buying either one at anything but DH.

by Brick. on Jul 18, 2008 9:04 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

*after our DH went down and we were way out of it.

by Brick. on Jul 18, 2008 9:05 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Exactly how exorbinant do we think these demands were? We’re talking about paying him for a 130 games. He’s not Clemens. It’s been stated repeatedly that the Indians are operating under Dolan’s max budget, to leave room for acquisitions.

by afh4 on Jul 18, 2008 9:28 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

i don’t know, but if he was basically free i think they might have thought harder about it, but i just don’t think they intended to add a DH free or expensive, really, with hafner in place. by the time he was out of the picture it didn’t matter anyway.

by Brick. on Jul 18, 2008 10:17 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

I think that’s crazy. I don’t think it’s too much to ask them to contingency plan on the fly and we needed a contingency plan for Hafner pretty much from his first game this year.

by afh4 on Jul 18, 2008 11:15 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Resident LGT beer kinda sewer

by mauichuck on Jul 19, 2008 10:29 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Just hindsight. Coming into this year, Hafner was just a guy who had one bad season, and he hit very well at the end of the season.

by Jay on Jul 19, 2008 1:07 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Yeah, but Jay ya gotta admit that they souldda hadda Plan B for DH, given Hafner’s struggles.

They had a Plan B for second (Carroll) and Play B for third (Casey or Marte, depending on who you think the Plan A was) a Plan B for first (Vic with Shoppach catching) a Plan B for a fifth starter (Lee, Sowers or Laffey) Lots of Plan Bs – in fact that was supposedly our strength and the start of the season. Only they didn’t have a Plan B for DH. That’s inexcusable.

Resident LGT beer kinda sewer

by mauichuck on Jul 19, 2008 1:20 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Those “Plan B” guys you name were all necessary as defensive backups on the roster. Nobody has a Plan B for DH, and many don’t have a Plan A. A few teams have a really good DH, and the rest just put the best available bat on their roster in that slot, rotating among several players.

In other words, the Plan B for DH was your boy Garko, which puts Shoppach or Marte in the lineup and improves overall team defense.

What exactly did you have in mind for Plan B for DH? Some other above-average hitter who we would sign or acquire in a trade, just so he can sit on the bench for a month or two?

by Jay on Jul 19, 2008 1:51 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Hafner played his last game on May 25th. The Indians were 4.5 back.

4.5!

Plan B is call Barry Bonds’ agent on May 25! What does that sacrifice? If you insist they had to wait and see on Hafner, then swallow hard and cut freaking Dellucci. He was OPSing .659 on May 25th. Bonds played the OF last season. Play him out there with Franky and Grady and tell them to run hard.

I don’t see why getting Bonds on this team should’ve been hard. There’s no good reason that I can see except for the same BS everyone espouses about Bonds, which you’ve pretty effectively dispelled up thread.

by afh4 on Jul 19, 2008 3:25 PM EDT up reply actions 1 recs

I have no quarrel with this.

by Jay on Jul 19, 2008 3:43 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

what’s more, if we fell out of it we could just cut him as a sunk cost, or, if he proved his bat was still juicy, more suitors might have come knocking, and we may have been able to flip him for something. who knows.

it’s sort of perplexing.

by Gradyforpresident on Jul 19, 2008 3:50 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

I couldn’t be more convinced it’s collusion.

by afh4 on Jul 19, 2008 4:36 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

With or without collusion, Shapiro would never sign Bonds.

He’s committed to an “all character guys” clubhouse.

by Jay on Jul 19, 2008 5:18 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Puke.

by afh4 on Jul 19, 2008 6:12 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

at some point, talent matters right? bonds might be a jerk, but isn’t he an insular jerk? like, we could give him his own corner and let him do his thing, and if he wanted to hang out with grady et all when he realized how much fun RBI Baseball tournaments are, cool.

by Gradyforpresident on Jul 19, 2008 8:44 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

I am not defending Shapiro’s policy on this, although I can see that it does have some tangible competitive benefits. He hasn’t been an extremist — Michaels and Chisenhall had dubious incidents on their resumes — but it is my impression that he’s taken the concept a little too far.

by Jay on Jul 19, 2008 8:57 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Talent is essentially all that matters. ‘We are Family” was good times and all but it had very little to do with why the Pirates won. We had great chemistry last year but it was our ability to play baseball that won the games. Teams don’t win or lose because of how often they go on dinner dates together. They win or lose based on how talented they are.

Proud supporter of the Cleveland.

by fwembt on Jul 21, 2008 12:28 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

fwembt, I’m curious, did you ever play sports? And for once, I’m not trying to be a smart ass. On just about every winning team I ever played on camaraderie, along with talent, was part of the equation. I’ve played on teams who played below their talent level and one’s that played above it. The one’s that out-performed their talent always had a strong sense of solidarity.

Talent certainly mattered, but there were other insensible factors at work too.

Resident LGT beer kinda sewer

by mauichuck on Jul 21, 2008 7:09 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Chuck, you realize this can be construed as an argument against signing Bonds, right?

by JulioBernazard on Jul 21, 2008 9:07 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

That’s a fair question. Yes, I play semi-pro soccer now and I played basketball all through high school and college. I am convinced that a team that has the requisite talent can overcome a lack of chemistry.

I will say that I think that chemistry, or whatever you want to call it, can make something of a difference on a team that lacks the talent. I don’t see where poor chemistry can negate natural talent. I have seen, and played on, teams that really did not get along but still won consistently. The 70’s A’s or the 25 cabs for 25 players Red Sox are good examples of this. Liking one another is not really a key ingredient to winning.

Proud supporter of the Cleveland.

by fwembt on Jul 21, 2008 10:07 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

I can’t believe you just used the payroll-on-steroids Red Sox as an argument for bludgeoning opponents with talent. Precisely how does this have anything at all to do with the situation Cleveland has to face?

by elsandito on Jul 21, 2008 10:29 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

It’s talent, no matter how you acquire or fund it. It really has no application to the Indians, it fits really well in an argument of character v. talent.

Proud supporter of the Cleveland.

by fwembt on Jul 21, 2008 2:02 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

On just about every winning team I ever played on camaraderie, along with talent, was part of the equation. I’ve played on teams who played below their talent level and one’s that played above it. The one’s that out-performed their talent always had a strong sense of solidarity.

Selective memory, theory confirmation bias, and fundamental attribution error — all wrapped up in one!

In any group, camaraderie is always better when the group is doing well. If the group is doing well and camaraderie is still bad, it would have been even worse had the group been doing badly.

As a rule, human beings are unable to judge raw talent with our naked eyes. You may think you know what the “real talent” was of the guys on your team, but you don’t really know. You also don’t know how lucky or unlucky each team was.

This basically is nothing but a self-fulfilling theory. Teams that exceed expectations create positive feelings all-around, a sense of camaraderie and high character and over-achievement. Teams that disappoint create the opposite feelings.

It is very difficult to maintain solidarity when things are going badly — a true test of leadership. It is very easy to maintain it when things are going well. So when things are going well, the fact that the team has a strong feeling of solidarity proves nothing.

by Jay on Jul 21, 2008 5:00 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Which is exactly what the Indians have proven this year. We thought they had great chemistry last year which bred success. Well, the same group of guys were back this year….and I think Shapiro thought enough of chemistry that he didn’t really make any changes except for adding high character Jamey Carroll.

What really derailed the season had nothing to do with chemistry though, it was injuries and underperformance. Barry Bonds could have helped replace either a Travis Hafner or an underperforming Looch

by Roger Dorn on Jul 21, 2008 5:16 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Nixon > Carroll

Fultz > Kobayashi

Oldberto > Jorge Julio

etc.

by Jay on Jul 21, 2008 6:36 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

That’s a fun word to say, but I can see at least three very good reasons not to sign Bonds (in no particular order):

1. The possibility of backlash from your fan base.
2. His locker-room personality.
3. The ensuing media circus.

I can’t blame any FO that doesn’t want to bring those into the mix.

by JulioBernazard on Jul 19, 2008 9:50 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

When your team is in the tank and it’s supposed to be going to the world series, those seem like pretty minor concerns.

by afh4 on Jul 19, 2008 11:13 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

(1) Team has shown willingness to make unpopular moves (e.g., C.C.). Fan base would come around quickly once he hits a few home runs.

(2) The team has not succeeded with “character guys” and locker-room chemistry. If it’s for one season, team should be able to handle it.

(3) Good for an ailing local economy.

by odradek on Jul 19, 2008 11:45 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Seriously, I don’t understand the fear of the media circus. It’s one thing if you have a perfect thing going in the clubhouse, but c’mon, we were struggling from the get-go, a circus wasn’t going to be our undoing this year.

by supermarioelia on Jul 19, 2008 11:49 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

WE ARE A LOSING TEAM. This should be the main focus.

by supermarioelia on Jul 19, 2008 11:46 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Exactamundo. Passivity is a relative term, and often has value when it can be viewed as discretion—at least the Indians didn’t commit another Luke Scott-for-Jeriome Robertson trade—but when it became apparent sometime in mid-May that staying the course wasn’t working, something should have been done. Almost anything, for the sake of doing something.

by odradek on Jul 20, 2008 12:20 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Nuts, I’ve only got one reason to sign Bonds:

1) He’s arguably still the best hitter in baseball

So I guess your three reasons trump my one, no?

Resident LGT beer kinda sewer

by mauichuck on Jul 20, 2008 8:30 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

So far, for 30 GMs they have, yes.

by JulioBernazard on Jul 20, 2008 9:34 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Which is why this situation is rife with the sickening odours of collusion.

Proud supporter of the Cleveland.

by fwembt on Jul 21, 2008 12:30 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

I don’t think it was collusion so much as an unspoken decision that Bonds wasn’t worth the risk on April 1. Surely some contender would consider signing him now, but considering who is in contention, it just doesn’t look likely.

Suppose he is strictly a DH…
This link should go to the ESPN stats page for team batting by DH. Which contending team needs to bring in a guy who projects to about a 900 OPS?

Starting at the bottom, their is Detroit, who could surely use the upgrade but won’t bench Sheffield.
The A’s have Jack Cust and Frank Thomas.
The Rays have Cliff Floyd and his 800ish OPS.
Minnesota doesn’t sign free agents.
The Angels might make the most sense, but they have their irrational attachment to Garret Anderson.

Who else takes a risk for a minimal gain?

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

by Matt in LA on Jul 18, 2008 7:57 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs