 |
|
|
| |
« Bucs Not Ready To Release Morris | Main | Fred Claire Q&A »
No Offers For Bonds
Jon Heyman recently spoke to Barry Bonds' agent, Jeff Borris. Borris said no team has made any kind of offer to Bonds, even at the league minimum. Borris might not take $400K for Bonds, but he'd listen.
Tony La Russa and Ron Washington pushed for Bonds for their respective teams, but management passed. Heyman notes the Rays' flirtation as well. That's it though. No front office wants anything to do with Bonds, despite the possibility of a 1.000 OPS at a bargain basement price.
I still expect Bonds to play this year. A month or two from now some team is going to crack and decide that the production outweighs the baggage.
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d834515b9a69e200e5520d49388834
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference No Offers For Bonds:
Comments
Top Stories
Search MLBTR
MLBTR Features
Recent Posts
Rumors By Team
Monthly Archives
Live Chats
Tuesdays at 2 p.m. CST
If the price isn't too high, I could see the Nats making an offer.
Posted by: thehoagster07 | April 23, 2008 at 04:22 PM
Nobody is going to look at him unless they're in contention and they have a gaping hole in their lineup. Whoever that might end up being is anyone's guess.
Posted by: FineHamAbounds | April 23, 2008 at 04:22 PM
This situation is just way too obvious. Major League Baseball has officially banned Barry Bonds. They've been wanting to do it for a while, and now they have what they believe to be the greatest excuses in the world; he's been indicted, he's clubhouse cancer, he's a distraction blah blah blah. This is not an individual decision on a team by team basis, rather an official order from a higher league executive. When Bud Selig signed on as commissioner through 2012 earlier this year you might remember he was a bit hesitant to come back. However, being well-liked by the owners, they voted him in for another four years. I will bet anything that during that meeting Selig made his personal wishes for Barry Bonds absolutely clear.
Posted by: fenderfanatic | April 23, 2008 at 04:37 PM
I can't see that ANY team will take a chance on Bonds. Did you read the Sabernomics post about Longoria? Did you read where teams (especially GMs) are risk-adverse? Do you think any GM will risk having a contending or marginally-contending team go down the tubes because of the "Bonds Effect"? If a GM had that happen, next year he will be evaluating talent for the Idaho Falls Chukars (http://www.minorleaguebaseball.com/index.jsp?sid=t444 in case you're interested)
Posted by: mharr | April 23, 2008 at 04:42 PM
Get over your love affair with Bonds.
Bonds is an (alleged) drug abusing cheat, a tax dodger and an adulterer.
Not only that but he is a troublemaker in the Clubhouse who is also surly with the media when they don't kiss his behind.
Read the article about the Giants Clubhouse this year with Bonds out of the picture. They might be losing but it is a better atmosphere in the Clubhouse without Bonds and his baggage.
Posted by: ctownboy | April 23, 2008 at 05:10 PM
mharr,
The Sabernomics post stated that teams are risk-neutral; players are risk-averse.
Bonds may have a number of problems, and he's not a fit for every team, but would anyone rather their favorite team finish a game out of the playoffs without him than win a ring with him? It's an honest question, and I'm curious.
Posted by: ryne | April 23, 2008 at 06:03 PM
I dont have any love affair with Bonds. You talking about the cliched article about the Giants' clubhouse that was basically written before the season even began?
It's silly to imply that all teams are risk averse or something. Teams waste money, teams make bad PR moves all the time.
Posted by: Tim Dierkes | April 23, 2008 at 06:24 PM
i'd rather have an egomaniac in a winning clubhouse. then a bunch of good guys, who are all friendly with each other in a losing one.
sadly, i get the 2nd one.
Posted by: bobhamelin | April 23, 2008 at 06:31 PM
jays...jays...jays...
Posted by: Guitar Hero | April 23, 2008 at 07:23 PM
Ctownboy,
The Giants as a business would take "PR nightmare" PLUS "clubhouse cancer" in a heartbeat if it meant using Bonds to pull in record crowds and keep the team competitive in the NL West. He could have been an ax-murderer and the fans would have still lapped him up like gravy. Any intelligent GM or operations guy could easily come up with a low-cost way to create an extra room for Bonds to have privacy in and hire a couple "buffer guys" to act as a barrier between Bonds and his teammates. Put an extra bat boy on the bench between Bonds and the rest of the guys. Send a signal that he's separate, and not equal. That way they can treat him like royalty (the way Bonds likes it) and he'll be physically prevented from interacting too closely with the guys.
Posted by: DoubleSteel | April 23, 2008 at 07:38 PM
Let's be real here. This whole "clubhouse" thing has been blown way out of proportion. What does everybody think the "clubhouse" is? It's just a locker room. Any team executive that would shy away from Bonds because of the alleged "clubhouse disruption/distraction" isn't interested in winning . Bonds was very sociable with this teammates in SF, so I doubt that he'd have trouble fitting in with his new team. And any exec who's afraid of Bonds distracting the younger players couldn't possibly expect much of his team. "Well, they're young, so let's a run a pre-school, not a major league ballclub." That mentality seems to be a trend amongst most teams. If I owned a team and my GM subscribed to that garbage, I would fire him before he had a chance to explain himself. Act like men and stop behaving like 13 year old girls, give the man a chance to play.
Posted by: fenderfanatic | April 23, 2008 at 08:01 PM
"All that [stuff] has been media [stuff] for years -- great chemistry, great clubhouse. That's the biggest bunch of [baloney] in the history of sports. Every time somebody wants to talk about great chemistry, [forget] the chemistry in the clubhouse. I'm interested in winning games, period. I don't know who came up with it, but the worst word ever used now is chemistry. That's something you take in school. That's a class you take." Jim Leyland
Posted by: TALL THRILL | April 24, 2008 at 02:12 AM
I know it's trendy to read a few articles and vilify a guy you've never met, but let's put this whole "ban the cheater" lynchmob in perspective.
Someone earlier said: "Bonds is an (alleged) drug abusing cheat, a tax dodger and an adulterer."
Hell, we can find all that just by pointing to the roster of "America's Team."
Andy Pettitte is currently pitching for the Yankees. He is a professed cheat who currently holds a 3-1 record, and has been let off the hook for "coming clean," even though he did not come completely clean until he was pressed on the issue and it became clear that his family would become involved.
Derek Jeter is a tax-dodger who tries to use residency rules to evade paying his dues. He is no more a friend to the IRS than Bonds.
A-Rod is an adulterer. Yet somehow, someway, the powers-that-be see fit to let him play major-league baseball -- a game that has very little to do with the devout practice of monogamy.
Posted by: DunkinDonuts | April 24, 2008 at 07:44 AM
COLLUSION LOLLLZ
Posted by: worldcupfever | April 24, 2008 at 08:46 AM