The Bonds Situation

I couldn't disagree more with your 'clubhouse chemistry' argument. When a guy takes up an entire corner of a clubhouse with a Lazy-Boy and an entourage there to cover his reality TV show, it most certainly IS a distraction and usually an unwanted one. Why do you think the Giants threw him out? It's akin to Sosa getting his boombox bashed in at the end of the 2004 season. Maybe one person couldn't be THAT big of a tumor in a clubhouse. But Barry certainly could. You really think if a team could sign him to an incentive-laden $500K contract, they would? Everything to gain on the field. But a hell of a lot to lose OFF the field as well. And not too many GM's have the 'big ones' to sign Barry and take the heat should he be that cancer.

I'm not sure I see the difference. Is it possible to be a distraction and disrupt the previous vibe and NOT taint team chemistry? I don't think so. The fact that you'd have a "pre-Barry" team and a "present-Barry" team...common sense says things would change in that clubhouse and dugout. And after awhile when the honeymoon period is over, the negativity that follows Barry around relentlessly would be too much.

I'll agree with you on two points. One, the mainstream media sucks. It's nothing more than an extension of some corporation that has something to sell to a consumer-crazed society. Two, surely Barry would have all of those impressive numbers had the media turned the other way on the whole steroid thing just like Bud, various GM's, managers and players alike. Do you know Barry personally? If so, tell us more. If not, how you do you know what he's like off the field? While I certainly don't place much faith in the media, I also don't put much faith in people who don't "know" the very people they put on the proverbial pedestal. I don't think there are too many people who truly KNOW Barry other than his immediate circle. The question was simply: Would he destroy clubhouse chemistry. And whether it's a fair or unfair judgment, I say the answer is yes.

I know the Blue Jays FO are too p u s s y to sign Bonds, but after Halladay's 3rd straight Complete game loss (!), losing 1-0 to the Sox, I'd hope they sign him and put him in a big f u c king cake in front of Halladay's locker.

As for Jeff Kent, his comments here go along with what was said by his teammates after he left in the link I posted above.

"On the field, we're fine, but off the field, I don't care about Barry and Barry doesn't care about me. Or anybody else," Kent told Reilly. "He doesn't answer questions. He palms everybody off on us, so we have to do his talking for him. But you get used to it. Barry does a lot of questionable things ... I was raised to be a team guy, and I am, but Barry's Barry. It took me two years to learn to live with it, but I learned."

Not a team player. It never ceases to amaze me how people can sit there and literally pull a Barry Bonds themselves basically saying "the media made him do it!" Why are some people so dumbfounded at why he isn't on someone's team right now? You think all the organizations in baseball are stupid and don't know who Barry Bonds is? That is exactly why he is sitting at home wishing someone wanted him; because they know what they will be bringing on their team and clubhouse by signing him.

Tim, while I somewhat agree with you, I must ask, would you want Bonds on your team (the Cubs)? Assume the Cubs had a spot for him, would you really want him? I know that I wouldn't want him in a Braves uniform.

I hear about collusion with the Barry Bonds situation. Why are major league baseball teams seemingly obligated to offer anyone a contract? He was signed to a contract and played out the terms of that deal.

It's obvious that Bond's value as a player has dropped below the risk it would be to have him on the roster. It also would seem that the decision not to sign him goes well beyond baseball operations with most clubs.

I would have to say that Bonds goes beyond being a "selfish player." If that were the case he'd fit right in. The real cancer lurking with Bonds are his legal woes.

It's obvious that Bonds wouldn't impact the bottom line nearly enough to make him worthwhile. There are some smart people in baseball that know much more than any of us. They haven't touched Barry Bonds yet.

What does it say about a player when he is beloved by the local fans and has a stadium built practically to his specifications and then team boots him to the curb when they could clearly use his offensive potential on the roster.

"What does it say about a player when he is beloved by the local fans and has a stadium built practically to his specifications and then team boots him to the curb when they could clearly use his offensive potential on the roster."

Cory, ??? The ballpark in SF that keeps changing names was built to Barry's specifications? I'm a bay area native, and this is news to me. And if you're somehow suggesting that this stadium was "easy" for Bonds to hit in, you're terribly mistaken. That ballpark KILLS left handed hitters. The gap in right center is 420 feet. Yes down the line it is 309, but it has a 25 foot wall, and drops away very quickly to that 420. Not to mention the prevailing winds off the bay. Or the heavy marine air....

"Why do you think the Giants threw him out?"

Because they already squeezed every dollar out of him they could. Plus, asking "why do you think the Giants did (insert stupid move here)?" is not really an arguement. Going by the track record of that franchise, the fact that they released him should mean every other team should be trying to sign on him. "Whatever the SF Giants do, we do the opposite". That quote is in the office of many the ML GM.

Like I said the other day, Jim Leyland was asked about clubhouse chemisty and responded.... Chemistry is a class you take in highschool, anything you hear about it in a clubhouse is bullshyt. That wasnt an exact quote, but it was something of that magnitude.

So yeah, I think I will take Jim Leyland's word over any of yours.

And to the guy who quoted Jeff Kent as evidence of Barry being a bad clubhouse guy...... HAAAA!

I bet you believed that "Max" has evidence against A-Rod in Canseco's book too.

"He could be done at any time and once he stops producing, he is completely worthless."

You can say the same thing about any professional athlete.

"What Bonds may give you in stats, he cancels out with his attitude and negative effect on the clubhouse."

Prove it.

A point about the S.F based media. With a few exceptions there is a long history of rabble rousing and poor mouthing local sport figures. Its gone on for decades. Just because it is not done as “in your face” like a lot North Easterners writers of that ilk traditionally do it does not mean it is not constant and dogged.

As for this whole one guy will nuke a club house theory. Your team either did not have much of a club house before that one player arrived or that one player was there a long, long time. Period end of discussion.

As for Mays Field ( or the what ever telecom naming rights are this year in S.F). It was build to fit an odd shape piece of land the owners could afford to buy and develop. Developing anything in S.F. is like building the pyramids with using a wheel. So no Bonds had little to no say on the dimensions etc of the field itself.

As for the Kent comments. This is the guy considered a sore tooth in N.Y & Cleveland before finally took advantage of his chance in S.F. Consider the source if you are giving weight to what others say. Just how many people have Kent gone on record to recommend? I can’t see it being a long list. And it would be interesting if someone that wants to believe Kent provide some quotes on how often is irrefutably proven correct.

Oh yes Bonds can be very sullen & very surly. He is also the only 40+ year old ,beside Frank Robinson, that I have seen that could still turn on grade “A” M.L.B fastball.

I am not ready to jump on the collusion band wagon yet. Its still early. Teams are trying out their fringe and prospect players still. There will be more injuries. But if Bonds wants to play and is in shape and still has no offers in July I will start to wonder how close his situation resemble Rice’s at the end of his career.

To the man who posted the Jeff Kent quote:

I realize Kent and Bonds didn't like each other. But in a pole in SI a couple years ago, they asked the players who they liked the least and who they liked the most. Number one most liked was Sean Casey.

3 of the top 5 least liked: A-Rod, Bonds and Jeff Kent. Given that, I would think Jeff Kent would be a less than credible opinion about who is a good or bad teammate/person.

Also, yeah, no one knows if Barry would or would not be good for the clubhouse. He would bring a media circus with him though, and there's no denying that. If he went to New York or Boston, no big deal. But anywhere else it would probably be a distraction.

My only thing is, unless Bonds really really misses the game, which I'm not sure if he does, I don't think he'd agree to come back on such a short leash. His ego is bigger than his head (which is pretty big). It's all speculation tho.

Other than that, the only thing I have to say is, I'd put him on my fantasy team. ha.

The thing about the Kent comments is that his teammates said the same kind of things about him, so are you then going to say that Winn, Walker, Zito, Bochy and Sabean are also full of it? The comments from Kent about Bonds seem to correlate with what they said and that's why I give that much of Kent's comments credibility.

As far as chemistry, I just can't go along with the argument that it is just some word that means nothing and was made up to discredit Barry Bonds by saying any team with him has none or less of it. If you have a group of guys playing like a team, looking out for and rooting for each other, moving runners over instead of trying to hit home runs and have created a situation where everyone likes everyone else and you put someone like Bonds into that, you really can't see how that would disrupt that clubhouse? Come on, Bonds is the opposite of that. He doesn't stretch with the team and has his own little "room" in the corner of the clubhouse where no one else is allowed. I can't understand how some people can't see how that could and would disrupt an tranquil clubhouse. He is supposed to be part of the team and it seems like Barry does what Barry wants.

If it was only about his stats, there would be no conversation to have here because he would have been playing in spring training. The baggage he brings with him is a distraction to the team and he is not a leader type personality and apparently, that far outweighs any stats he could put up. If it wasn't for everything else, it would be a win-win to sign him but there is just too much risk at this point and I don't fault any team for not considering his services.

Wow Tim, never seen you get in on anything like this before. :)

Well, none of those guys said anything about him until he left, then several people including the manager hint towards this. It's not that Winn is thinking about Bonds, but it changes the feel of the clubhouse and the attitude in it. We will just have to agree to disagree about production outweighing risk because I just don't see it that way. Again, if it was that obvious, we wouldn't be having this discussion right now. The only thing that is obvious at this time is no one has even looked his way and I doubt it's because all those contending teams are just being stupid when it comes to this. There has to be more to it than that.

Is it better to assume they are all making the wrong choice? Why? I guess it just depends what side of the fence you are on in this issue and we are on different sides. I just can't go with you on that.

Well if it was a good choice to sign Bonds, don't you think one of these teams you feel needs him would have at least made an offer by now? Frank Thomas was picked up almost immediately. It looks as though some of those "very few people" own major league baseball teams. An OPS+ of 170 has not been enough to even get a look so far, so why do you think that is?

When multiple teammates, a manager and a GM share the same comments about a former teammate, to me that is enough proof in this situation. What proof do you want? You have numerous formers saying the same things and you seem to be acting like it means nothing because they have to "prove it." They lived it as long as he was in San Francisco and decided to speak out about it once he left. What do you want them to do, dig up some videos of this happening in the clubhouse? If it was one or two people, then maybe you have a point, but we're talking 5-6 people here including the manager and GM and they give Kent's comments some credibility. Why would they all say these things if they weren't true? Why did no one say anything to the contrary? It seems the only ones saying Bonds is a good clubhouse guy are the fans.

The point is despite Bonds having a very good OPS, being the all time home run leader and single season home run leader, for some reason he is still sitting at home waiting for a call. There must be a reason for that, wouldn't you say? If it was obviously the wrong decision to avoid signing him, then why do all 5-8 of these teams continue to pretend he doesn't exist? Then, you have these comments from former teammates. Then, you have his baggage and looming legal issues. It just seems to me that there is more baggage than anything else here and I think it would be a clumsy oversight to just say none of that is or should factor into this situation because they didn't "prove it." Prove Jeff Kent is a bad clubhouse guy. We know he is, but prove it. What proof would you offer up for that? Bonds blamed a teammate for his failed amphetamines test, isn't that proof that he is a horrible teammate on top of the comments?

Anyways, certainly a good debate, but it doesn't seem like we'll be able to find a middle ground unfortunately. :) It's something to keep an eye on for sure.

And even if there are guys that are complaining about Bonds after he left, so what? Did they suddenly transform into a winning team? No, they still stink. Do you think David Wright's line will drop down to .260/.340/.450 because he is unhappy with the way the Bonds acts in the clubhouse? If the players dont like it, too bad, deal with it for a couple of months, because the guy can help you get to a world series, and that is what you are paid to do. Not everybody likes everybody they work with. In fact, I am sure almost everybody in this discussion has delt with a jerk-off co-worker at some point.

Jose Reyes
Luis Castillo
David Wright
Carlos Beltran
Ryan Church
Carlos Delgado
Angel Pagan
Brian Schneider

Jose Reyes
Luis Castillo
David Wright
Barry Bonds
Carlos Beltran
Ryan Church
Carlos Delgado
Brian Schneider

You are going to tell me the Mets would win more games with the first lineup then the second lineup? Because that is ultimately what you are saying. His production is outweighed by his baggage, so do you think the first lineup produces more wins then the second?

The reason is because he is a selfish player in a team sport for one. How can that not affect the mood in the clubhouse? If I am on a baseball team and there is one guy who is always late for team stretches, chooses to isolate himself away from the rest of the team in the clubhouse and can indeed chill the room just by walking into it, I can see how that would be an uncomfortable clubhouse to be in. That is intensified even more if this outcasted-by-choice player is supposed to be one of our best players and someone we are supposed to count on, but doesn't participate in things as if he was part of the actual team. It just sounds to me like it would be the team and Barry Bonds separately. Two sets of rules, one for the team and one for him. You act like numbers are the only things that make a successful team. If you have one guy on that team that feels like he is above the team, that is a problem because he would then represent an attitude detrimental to that team.

There are still other issues on top of that. I also wouldn't want all the media attention. Again, his numbers, as ridiculous as they are, have completely failed to garner even a grain of interest even from teams assumed to need him the most. I want to know why that is if numbers are the thing that is considered above all else. If his numbers were the deciding factor, it would be a no-brainer.

"Frank Thomas was picked up almost immediately."

That's because he was basically free, Bonds won't play for the minimum. And Frank isn't either because he still gets that money from the Jays.

"You have numerous formers saying the same things and you seem to be acting like it means nothing because they have to "prove it.""

He might be bad for moral in the club house, but if that effects on field perfomance or not is another question. And teams that had "club house cancers" have done just fine through out history. Talent wins, being nice does not.

"The point is despite Bonds having a very good OPS, being the all time home run leader and single season home run leader, for some reason he is still sitting at home waiting for a call. There must be a reason for that, wouldn't you say?"

Sure there is a reason, wether its a good reason or not is what we're talking about.

"If it was obviously the wrong decision to avoid signing him, then why do all 5-8 of these teams continue to pretend he doesn't exist?"

It is obvious from a production standpoint. But the problem is these GMs are scared to make the obvious move because of how they will blasted by the media and *some* fans.

"Then, you have his baggage and looming legal issues."

Legal issues really aren't a problem at all, his trail likely won't start tell 2009.

"Prove Jeff Kent is a bad clubhouse guy. We know he is, but prove it. "

No, your confused don't prove he's a bad club house guy, prove that bad club house guys negatively effect W% of the team. Ie. they have to be such bad people that when it time FOR PROFESSIONAL ATHLETES to preform they do worse just being around this guy. That pal is what you need to prove, and that is what NO ONE has ever been able to prove.

".....chooses to isolate himself away from the rest of the team in the clubhouse and can indeed chill the room just by walking into it, I can see how that would be an uncomfortable clubhouse to be in."

Agreed, but your job as professional athlete is to preform on the field. Not be happy in the club house. Max just said it best, "Once the game starts its your teamate and all about winning, if you are any sort of competitor then you will do anything to win even if you have to work alongside with a guy that you absolutely hate."

Exactly, your job, what these people are getting payed millions to do, is preform ON THE FIELD. I highly doubt having a jerk with his own chair in the locker room would make Jose Reyes run slower, or drop a double play ball, or swing and miss on an extra splitter.

Well if Visquel was so distracted why didn't it show up in his performance? By OPS+ his last 4 years with the Indians: 75, 104, 78, 99
Then with the Giants 82 and 93. That's pretty much the same player with and without Bonds. It may have been distracting at times, but does it actually show up on the field? Until someone actually proves that answer to be yes, we have to assume no.

AA, but the point is, not what the stat tells about Vizquel, just the fact that Vizquel had a performance level that was pretty similar all the way from Cleveland through his SF years, meaning even if he might have felt a little bit uncomfortble with Barry in the clubhouse, it didnt negatively effect his performance on the field. He wasnt making any sort of case against Vizquel, just showing that he put up pretty consistent numbers year after year. I dont think the actual OPS+ number matters in this case though. It really wasnt about trying to gauge Omar's numbers.