 |
|
|
| |
« Sunday Morning Starter | Main | Odds and Ends: Crede, Rodriguez, Marlins »
Best Fit For Bonds: Atlanta?
UPDATE: Martin Johnson at The Root is taking a path-less-tread by calling for a "happy ending" to the Barry Bonds saga. He says Bonds can still hit, and where better than Pittsburgh, a city in need of attendance since Bonds left in 1992. Personally, I can't see how Bonds can be anything more than a DH, which nixes this suggestion. Further, San Fran teammate Dave Roberts was quoted saying Bonds "is going to want to be in a situation where he can win," and the Pirates are not that. Still, Martin says,
"Bonds should offer his services to his first pro team, The Pittsburgh Pirates, and offer to play for the league minimum salary... Bonds has made $188 million playing baseball; in the name of boosting his public image, he can afford a pay cut."
What better way to start your week than with a Barry Bonds update? I'll start by pointing to Tim's recent survey that the majority of MLBTR readers (60.2%) don't think Bonds will play for a Major League team in 2008.
Still, Phil Rogers of the Chicago Tribune explores the best fits for Bonds. Somehow, the Rays are still being considered an option here. We're going back and forth at this point, as Peter Gammons had last reported there was nothing there, so I'm sorry if I'm beating a dead horse.
"Last week's mini-firestorm about the Tampa Bay Rays' interest in Bonds was not a smoke screen. Despite general manager Andrew Friedman saying this was a "non-story" there's no doubt the St. Petersburg Times had it right. The Rays, especially principal owner Stuart Sternberg, are monitoring the availability of Bonds, who still might be capable of a 40-homer season at Tropicana Field."
Rogers notes payroll isn't a hurdle for Tampa Bay. And he tosses in his opinion:
"If Friedman wanted to really roll the dice, he would sign Bonds and then trade his most marketable chip, Carl Crawford, for pitching and prospects."
Rogers then explores the idea of Atlanta being the best possible destination, "The best fit of all for Bonds could be in Atlanta, however, with a hole in left field and Bobby Cox to keep him in line."
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d834515b9a69e200e550a5559a8834
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Best Fit For Bonds: Atlanta?:
Comments
Top Stories
Search MLBTR
MLBTR Features
Recent Posts
Rumors By Team
Monthly Archives
Live Chats
Tuesdays at 2 p.m. CST
Tampa needs to sign Bonds and keep Crawford. They have enough pitching to make a run this year and next. Longoria is looking strong so far this spring and that on extra power threat could make a huge difference.
Posted by: celtics464 | March 02, 2008 at 10:34 AM
As a Braves fan, I hate this idea. I recognize the skills, but he's just not a nice guy. I hope this doesn't happen.
Posted by: jlowrance | March 02, 2008 at 10:48 AM
I don't understand why Tampa Bay is interested in Bonds. With or without him, they won't get in the playoffs, and probably won't pass the Jays. A team with good chemistry is about lose it.
Posted by: Joe | March 02, 2008 at 10:49 AM
Tampa's offense with Bonds is extremely potent. Pena Bonds ranks up there with all the other tag teams in the AL. Crawford, Upton, Longoria can all hit too. Thats a strong offense. Their defense is very good. And the pitching is average. The Rays with Bonds have a legit shot if things go right to be fighting for second place. Their offense might not be as good as NY but their SP is better. Their offense is better than the Jays and TOR pitching cant stay healthy. The Rays time is just abotu here to make some noise. They are one or 2 players away. Bonds is one of them. And they have enough talent in the minors to make a deadline deal to get another if they are in the race.
Posted by: celtics464 | March 02, 2008 at 10:54 AM
As a huge Braves fan I would be EXTEMELY disappointed if Bonds ends up in Atlanta. We don't need the baggage or his below average defense in left. I would prefer Matt Diaz in left by a long shot. I would prefer Ken Griffey Jr in left even with his injury history.
Posted by: bravesfan | March 02, 2008 at 11:22 AM
What I don't understand is why everyone thinks that Bonds' has to be a DH. He's certainly a better fielder then Manny Ramirez, Adam Dunn or Josh Willingham and no worse then others like Pat Burrell or Moises Alou.
Posted by: Schlom | March 02, 2008 at 11:25 AM
after going to college in atlanta, i would be very sad for braves fans if bonds were to be picked up by the braves. after michael vick took a steamy dump on this city and the braves took a back seat to the mets/phils, they don't need any more embarrassment. besides, the braves are contenders in the east w/o bonds.
Posted by: msk86 | March 02, 2008 at 11:27 AM
thank you, i'll take a rain check. no actually, i won't even do that. i'll pass altogether. the idea of bobby keeping barry (cox not the elder bonds) in line is interesting. not sure what i think about that. the braves are fine in left though. matt diaz has been fabulous in fairly limited duty, and he may even platoon some with left-handed brandon jones. no need for bonds and all his issues. it's an interesting thought though.
Posted by: jacklaf | March 02, 2008 at 11:31 AM
I was just thinking about Bonds to Atlanta the other day, although in a completely non-serious manner. The Braves already had Ruth and Aaron, so why not Bonds?
Posted by: Kanka | March 02, 2008 at 11:31 AM
hahaha msk86 i love the description of the vick situation.
Posted by: jacklaf | March 02, 2008 at 11:33 AM
As a Braes fan, I wouldn't be against th idea of Bonds to Atlanta. I mean, we very nearly signed him after he was a free agent coming out of Pittsburgh, but instead we signed the great Greg Maddux. If we can get Bonds on a one year deal for less than 10M, I say we got for it. I don' see Matt Diaz as an everday left fielder, but if he impresses in spring, I say give him the shot. If he doesn't, sign Bonds or trade for Griffey.
Posted by: bravesrule14 | March 02, 2008 at 11:34 AM
Braves and the*, I really hate this keyboard. I think Michael Vick took a steamy dump on it...
Posted by: bravesrule14 | March 02, 2008 at 11:35 AM
Atlanta was once high on Bonds, but that was over a decade ago. They need to save any money they can to try to sign Tex to a multi year deal, to substantiate that trade. I don't think they will be singing Bonds unless they give up on signing Tex and go for it all this year. I don't think they will do that either b/c of so many uncertainties in the pitching staff. That staff has a chance to be great, but also a chance to be suspect. I would hate to see Bonds as a Brave, glad I'm not gonna.
Posted by: Atl3nta | March 02, 2008 at 11:38 AM
As a Mets fan I'd be legitimately nervous if the Braves picked up Bonds. Smoltz/Hudson is an absolutely filth 1-2, and a lineup with Chipper, Tex, and Bonds is no picnic.
Posted by: ReardenTech | March 02, 2008 at 12:00 PM
If it was Bonds from five years ago, then Braves should sign him, but now he just can't hit as good as he once could. In my mind, Dias is better then Bonds. So save money and sign Dias for maybe a three or four year deal with a club option for an extra year.
Posted by: BravesRed | March 02, 2008 at 12:39 PM
Do you Braves fans realize what he would do to our attendance? Our lineup? Sure, he has a lot of baggage, he's under a lot of legal scrutiny, and he's a complete douchebag. But you know what? I'll take him for a year if he puts butts in the seats and keeps putting up those ridiculous numbers.
Posted by: beeniez | March 02, 2008 at 12:44 PM
I guess Phil Rogers was really trying to show the world how little he knows about baseball by saying the Braves have a hole in left field. The Braves are only marching out Matt Diaz, who happens to be coming off a 2006 where he hit .327, and a 2008 where he hit .338. In 749 career MLB at bats, Diaz is a .320 hitter, and he's good for about 15 HR's over a 500+ at bat season.
Yeah, some hole. Any team would be lucky to have Diaz in their starting lineup.
Posted by: vt_Brady2705 | March 02, 2008 at 01:43 PM
Excuse me, but why does Bonds have to be relegated to crap teams like Atlanta and Tampa Bay? Look at what he did last year. If Hank Steinbrenner is so worried about the recent success of the Red Sox he should sign a guy who will give you at least a 45% OBP and 30 or more homers. Think of all the runs Bonds would accumulate with guys like A-Rod, Abreu and Giambi. Oh, but let's not forget the baggage...like he's Carrot Top or something. Here are three teams that would insanely boost their world series chances if they signed him: Angels, Tigers, and Yankees. Every one of those teams has a starting position for Bonds.
Posted by: fenderfanatic | March 02, 2008 at 02:03 PM
Well put Brady. This is only wishful thinking anyway. The Braves can't afford him. The only way that the Braves would take Bonds, is if Bonds played for the league minimum. Personally, I think he's too proud to do that. Why should he do that? What player who was a legit addition has ever played for the minimum? This is just a fantasy made interesting by one of the most controversial figures in baseball.
Posted by: TheAngelicDoctor | March 02, 2008 at 02:08 PM
Wrong fender. Angels have no place for him. Tigers are near their salary limit, and the Yankees need the DH for Giambi, Matsui, and Damon. None of those guys is going to ride the bench considering what has been invested in them.
Posted by: TheAngelicDoctor | March 02, 2008 at 02:11 PM
I’m sorry, but did I really just read something to effect of “we don’t need Bonds because we have Matt Diaz? I would equate that to something like the BoSox saying “we don’t need Manny because we have Crisp” or the Mets saying “we don’t need Beltran because we have Endy Chavez”…
Matt Diaz has one of those misleading statlines you get when a player is played solely situational. Does a career .320/.357/.473 look like a pretty good line ~ sure. But what about a .310/.349/.416 line from a corner OFer? Youre probably going to say no to that one ~ but that’s what Diaz has hit for his career vs Right Handers.
Here are last years splits as a whole:
2007 vs RH ~ .318/.350/.406 (.756 OPS) 6 2B, 3 HR in 180 PA
2007 vs LH ~ .356/.384/.580 (.964 OPS) 15 2B, 9 HR in 204 PA
…All of a sudden that 2007 line of .338/.368/.497 isnt looking that hot anymore, it was completely disproportioned to what a normal fulltime player faces.
Posted by: darkstar1661 | March 02, 2008 at 03:22 PM
And yes, I agree that Bonds in the OF is no worse than Dunn or Manny or Burrell or a few others. He still gets good reads on the balls, he still has a plus arm ~ his biggest problem is that he just isnt fast enough to cover a ton of ground anymore. So its not like he will be bobbiling a bunch of catches or running past a short fly ~ the only true problem with him in the OF means he might have to take an extra 15-20 games off to rest and that is no worse than having a OFer go on the 15Day disabled list.
What Bonds brings though? Well he hit .276/.480/.565 in one of the most pitcher friendly parks in baseball last year. His OPS+ was 170 ~ so his ability has declined to the point of him being only the 4th best hitter in the game of players with more than 400AB… (the full rankings were ARod 177, Pena 172 and Ortiz 171 with 5th being Ordonez at 167)
And Bonds splits?
RH ~ .283/.486/.587 (1.073 OPS) in 311 PA
LH ~ .265/.470/.521 (.991 OPS) in 166 PA
Since Bonds does hit a little worse against LH and that’s who Diaz really is able to hit then they would make an ideal platoon with Bonds becoming the best bench player in the history of the game on the games that Diaz starts. Oh, and Bonds is playing daily when the team actually make a Sept push for the playoffs instead of just watching Philly and NY run away from them…
Bonds in Atl = a ton of sense… I think Atl, Mil, SD, NYM, Sea, Cle, TB, and maybe a few other teams should really think about it because each of these teams has a good chance to atleast make noise (if not make almost certainly make the playoffs in the case of the Mets and Indians) ~ and since it would only be a one year deal it wouldn’t be some crippling contract that they end up getting burnt on…
Posted by: darkstar1661 | March 02, 2008 at 03:23 PM
crap teams like Tampa Bay and Atlanta? First of all, as for Tampa, their team is nothing to sneeze at this season. They are showing all of the great development signs of a young team like the 03 marlins, 07 Indians and even a young Yankees team such as the one that was built with young guys, you know back when they were actually good and not overweight, over aged, steroid pumpers. If they got Barry Bonds to fill that DH hole where Jonny Gomes shouldn't be in the first place they could be nasty and still whip up on the Yankees like they do every season. The Braves a crap team? They are in the playoff run most every year.
Posted by: TB_RAY | March 02, 2008 at 03:34 PM
players in atlanta have more pull on the free agent signings than a lot of other teams. i am sure that smoltz and chipper would say "hell no" to a bonds signing. he is in no way a plus for the ball team: clubhouse cancer, asshole, steroid using, unethical ballplayer. let him go to the yankees. matt diaz and brandon jones for less than almost every other left fielder in the majors will be just fine. plus, it would be a complete slap in the face to a big face in the braves' history: hank aaron.
Posted by: ryan c | March 02, 2008 at 07:12 PM