 |
|
|
| |
« Sherman's Latest: Bay, Nady, Holliday, Fuentes, Blake | Main | Phillies Looking At Joe Blanton »
Bonds Rumors
6:18pm: Hideki Matsui had a setback, and a reporter asked Yankees GM Brian Cashman about Bonds. I'll let you click the link and read Cash's somewhat rambling answer.
5:44pm: More on Bonds: MLB officials denied any collusion regarding his lack of employment. By the way, Borris wouldn't comment on whether Bonds would consider playing outside of the Majors (Japan, for example).
8:57am: Last month, Barry Bonds' agent Jeff Borris told the AP that he had offered his client's services to all 30 teams for the league minimum. Borris said just yesterday that he "talked to every club numerous times." Not true, according to Joe Posnanski of the Kansas City Star. Posnanski spoke to Royals GM Dayton Moore, who said the Royals had not been called about Bonds or offered his services.
It is probably a moot point - no team wants to go anywhere near Bonds. Borris has acknowledged that Bonds is highly unlikely to play this year.
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d834515b9a69e200e5539f61ba8833
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Bonds Rumors:
Comments
Verify your Comment
Previewing your Comment
This is only a preview. Your comment has not yet been posted.
As a final step before posting your comment, enter the letters and numbers you see in the image below. This prevents automated programs from posting comments.
Having trouble reading this image? View an alternate.
Top Stories
Search MLBTR
MLBTR Features
Recent Posts
Rumors By Team
Monthly Archives
Live Chats
Tuesdays at 2 p.m. CST
Well, the bad news is the Royals are 12 games behind the White Sox and 13 games back in the wild card. That being said, what do the Royals have to lose by picking up Bonds for the minimum? If anything he'll boost the bleak attendance numbers at Kauffman, plus he'll help them win some games. I could understand Barry not wanting to play in KC, but he could use this as an opportunity to reach some milestones and advertise his services in case he's available to play next season.
Posted by: fenderfanatic | July 15, 2008 at 01:50 PM
SCREW THE ROYALS!!! THE METS NEED TO SIGN BONDS!!!
K ~
Posted by: Kherub | July 15, 2008 at 02:47 PM
Bud Selig needs to stop pretending that he has ANY credibility!
Posted by: 55saveslives | July 15, 2008 at 06:18 PM
Game is fixed for the yankays...of course they'll sign Bonds...and Bonds now forced to believe the yankays are his only option to play will sign...fn bogus.
K ~
Posted by: Kherub | July 15, 2008 at 06:24 PM
Crazy Idea:
Atlanta signs Bonds, he gets off to a hot start, and they trade him before the deadline!
Posted by: Land-Man | July 15, 2008 at 06:54 PM
This whole Bonds exclusion is very simply explained. The bottom line is that NO team will ever sign Barry Bonds because they all agree in one basic thing. That idea is that A-Rod passing his record is the best for baseball. Do not expect some team to go adding Bonds no matter what because no team wants Bonds adding HR to A-Rod's workload. Lastly if Barry were to be signed he would have been already, he is offering himself up at base salary which is laughable. Every team in the league realizes that if they do sign him that they would be hurting baseball.
In response to the article which said we want Bonds back, oh let me think your wrong! Nobody wants to see a cheat who soiled Hank Aarons record, as far as I am concerned Hank is still the HR king.
Posted by: manny24 | July 15, 2008 at 09:50 PM
This whole Bonds exclusion is very simply explained. The bottom line is that NO team will ever sign Barry Bonds because they all agree in one basic thing. That idea is that A-Rod passing his record is the best for baseball. Do not expect some team to go adding Bonds no matter what because no team wants Bonds adding HR to A-Rod's workload. Lastly if Barry were to be signed he would have been already, he is offering himself up at base salary which is laughable. Every team in the league realizes that if they do sign him that they would be hurting baseball.
In response to the article which said we want Bonds back, oh let me think your wrong! Nobody wants to see a cheat who soiled Hank Aarons record, as far as I am concerned Hank is still the HR king.
Posted by: manny24 | July 15, 2008 at 09:51 PM
This whole Bonds exclusion is very simply explained. The bottom line is that NO team will ever sign Barry Bonds because they all agree in one basic thing. That idea is that A-Rod passing his record is the best for baseball. Do not expect some team to go adding Bonds no matter what because no team wants Bonds adding HR to A-Rod's workload. Lastly if Barry were to be signed he would have been already, he is offering himself up at base salary which is laughable. Every team in the league realizes that if they do sign him that they would be hurting baseball.
In response to the article which said we want Bonds back, oh let me think your wrong! Nobody wants to see a cheat who soiled Hank Aarons record, as far as I am concerned Hank is still the HR king.
Posted by: manny24 | July 15, 2008 at 09:51 PM
I read your post three times, and it was silly all three times.
I find it unlikely that teams that ignore the Commissioner's Office's wishes regarding free-agent spending and draft slotting to serve their own best interests would suddenly and inexplicably unite in 2008 out of deference to Alex Rodriguez, heir to the homerun throne, in... oh, say, eight years.
You're wrong that nobody wants to see "a cheat who soiled Hank Aaron's record." Because I do. I'm sure there are others.
If I tell you that Hank Aaron admitted to taking amphetamines during his run at the record, is he no longer your homerun king? Or does selective prosecution make those particular performance enhancers O.K.?
Posted by: DunkinDonuts | July 15, 2008 at 10:58 PM
Whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa!!!! I've been doing some reading around the internet, and if my eyes are correct it seems that the word is the Yanks are more interested in Richie Sexson filling Matsui's role than Barry Bonds. That stinks bro.
Posted by: fenderfanatic | July 16, 2008 at 12:24 AM
DunkinDonuts wins the best one liner of the week!
"I read your post three times, and it was silly all three times." Absolutely classic.
Posted by: bjsguess | July 16, 2008 at 01:04 AM
haha, yeah, well done DunkinDonuts.
Sorry Manny24, but I think your logic is a bit off. I'm more inclined to believe teams don't want to mess with team chemistry by bringing in a notoriously selfish teammate, one who has a federal indictment on his shoulders and at best average defense in left. The media scrutiny would be ridiculous if any team brought Bonds in and I just can't see a team like the Red Sox, for example, worrying about A-Rods home run chase.
Posted by: Papelboner | July 16, 2008 at 09:34 AM
Barry Bonds in the Bronx? The only player on that team who wants that is A-Rod. Then he can go back to banging MILFs and not have the tabloids on his tail every step of the way. They'll all be too busy poking the Bonds bear cage and being shocked when he bites back.
Posted by: cmac1973 | July 16, 2008 at 11:28 AM
We all know that watching a Barry Bonds at bat is one of the most exciting things in sports. Why not let it happen in Yankee Stadium in its last year. He is still the most feared hitter in the game. Not to mention he would be as good or better in left field than Matsui. Hail to the KING!!!!!!
Posted by: McBrideTrips | July 16, 2008 at 07:48 PM
http://www.mlbnewsonline.com/2008/07/source-bonds-yankees-deal-imminent.html
Posted by: cmac1973 | July 17, 2008 at 01:01 PM