Gee, think Baggarly is biased much? Yes, it's a bad thing that Bonds had taken off his uniform, but if Alfonzo hit into a game-ending double play, then so what? What's to talk about? Game is over.

As far as the paragraph concerning the game on 4/20, he writes that Alou "was forced to move third baseman Pedro Feliz to the outfield, where he hadn't played all season." What? It was only the 3rd week of the season; and Feliz played plenty of left field last season.

Then he writes about the 9th inning of another game, where Alou only saw Bonds "with a bat in the tunnel" after the game. I don't get it - top of the 9th, down by 3 runs, and knowing Bonds might be needed, Alou or anyone else can't take a peak around the corner to see that Bonds is there? Maybe if Alou actually says out loud, "Where's Bonds?" instead of mumbling to himself, one of the players says, "he's right over here coach". Poor attempt to characterize Alou's mistake and an example of one of his many mis-communications as Bonds' fault.

Not making any apologies for Bonds- he's not gonna have the fire in his belly like some hungry rookie. But why does every writer look to blame everything on him? Oh right. Makes for great gossip. The SF Chronicle has long turned into a tabloid. Guess the Contra Costa Times is just following suit.

They could punish him by not giving him an off day when he requests one so that he wears down quicker by not following orders..

Spoken like true Barroid nut huggers.

Team play,in ANY sport, or the attitude of being self sacrificing for the betterment of the TEAM, is obviously a concept missed by Bonds. Sure he's played a long time and has multiple accomplishments, but the fact remains that he's not well liked by team mates, the public, a lot of the media,etc,etc, for a good reason.....he's selfish and makes no effort to hide that fact.
It's that selfishness that makes him stick around to up his homer total. It's his selfishness and vanity that consumed him so much that he *ahem*, "allegedly" took performing enhancing supplements.It's that ego that won't let him retire after stating last year that the home run record was safe. It's his selfishness that allows him to see nothing but the world he lives in.

Sven posting that he's not making excuses for Bonds,sorry, but not only did you not smell it...you stepped in it .
Saying that he's not hungry like a rookie belays the fact that he thinks because of his journeyman status or whatever, gives him a free pass.That's BS.
There's plenty people around, that after many years in their chosen trade that are hungry after more years than Bonds has played a game,myself included.

The fact remains, he's a Prima Donna that thinks the rules don't apply to him and the world should subscribe to his outlook.What makes that even more obvious is the fact that he's a basically an unpleasant person.

"Making his children cry".............oh puhleeeeeeze!

'61 is a number that will live on in most fans minds long after the Monsanto Monster has retired.

Is that clear?

Or cream?

"Gee, think Baggarly is biased much? Yes, it's a bad thing that Bonds had taken off his uniform, but if Alfonzo hit into a game-ending double play, then so what? What's to talk about? Game is over."

Uhh, Bonds should have been pinch-hitting for Alfonzo, except he'd already changed clothes. I thought that was pretty clear.

No, if you look back at the play-by-play, it was the pitcher's spot right after Alfonzo where Bonds would've hit. Alfonzo was already 2 for 3 that game, so they weren't gonna take him out.

Then it was a judgment call. I am looking at the play by play, and the Giants had the bases loaded with one out. That's EXACTLY the situation you bat Bonds in; I don't care who else was left on the bench to hit for the pitcher. And I don't care about Alfonzo's good day; that's a terrible reason to leave an inferior hitter in in that situation. And besides...Bonds didn't give his manager any choice. His uniform was off. And that's indefensible.

You also defend Bonds' refusal to obey his manager and take the field? What? That should be grounds for a suspension or at least a lofty fine; but of course, Bonds never faces repercussions for his actions.

Did that article need to be written? Umm...yes? Bonds' free agency is sort of a big deal, and if the biggest thing keeping him from resigning with the Giants is his behavior, then it's worth writing about.

There's one and only one reason for the Giants to re-sign Bonds: box office. They'll be a mediocre team again next year, and Barry's pursuit of the home run record will sell tickets.

If you're talking pure baseball, the move would not make sense. The G's need to move into rebuilding mode, start seriously reshaping the team for the future. Bonds might make a positive difference for some teams -- say an AL team short on power, where he could DH. But not for the Giants.

That's considering only on-field performance. If you add the off-field stuff, then Bonds is even worse for the Giants. If you want to build a team, do you want him and his La-Z-Boy and his attitude in the middle of the locker room? I don't.

Josh,
Alfonzo is the starting catcher. You're not going to show him up by replacing him w/ Bonds in that situation. There's no way Bonds would've batted anywhere but in the pitcher's spot in that situation.

As far as the second part, refusing to take the field is indefensible. I just don't like the way Baggarly characterized the Feliz sitiuation to make it sound like it was worse than it actually was.

I'm not apologizing for the guy, just trying to point out the anti-Bonds spin every author has when something's written about barry.

Fair enough. You have a point about the Feliz thing, I guess he did spin it more then he had to. But again, I don't see anything wrong with pinch hitting Bonds for Alfonzo. He was the starting catcher, but only because Mike Matheny went down early in the season. He wasn't a very good hitter, and I don't think anyone batting in the .250's from the 8-hole has a right to complain when the manager decides to pinch-hit a Bonds-caliber hitter in a key late-inning situation. I dunno, in the same situation I would have used Bonds instead of Alfonzo. But maybe you're right and Alou wouldn't have. Who knows.

Giants fan here: that is the exact situation you bring Bonds in, bases loaded, why would any manager decide to bat a slow catcher where he can hit into a game ending double play when they have Barry Bonds on the bench?

And while Alfonzo was the "starting" catcher, it was clear by then that he is no starting catcher, he had been cold for over a month (maybe two) by the time this happened, this was the exact time he should have been pinched hit for with Bonds.

The thing about Feliz is that while he did play LF much of 2005, the goal for 2006 was to see how he played full time at 3B, particularly since he felt most comfortable at 3B, his natural position. Alou stated in spring training, really soon after the off-season started, that he wanted to play Feliz full-time at 3B and not jerk him around the field so much. And after a few weeks, he put him in LF...

I personally like Baggarly's writing most of the time, I have not found him to be overly biased, but I can see why the points made here. I would give Baggarly the benefit of the doubt, if I ran into anything regarding him. However, the guy on sfgiants.com, now that's a biased writer!

And I disagree with the Bonds being disliked by his teammates slant, that's biased. There have been plenty of players who have spoken up over the past few years who talked about their positive experiences with Bonds and how good a teammate he is. But the average baseball fan isn't always going to see that, as some of these only showed up on sfgiants.com or in the local SF Bay Area newspapers, not the national media, which is decidedly biased against Bonds.

The national media delights in showing Bonds flaws and thus malcontents like Kent will get his day with the media, especially a media hound like Kent. This bias was shown in the World Series when most of the media characterized Bonds as a mad, angry person after the seventh game, snapping at them, when what happened was that the media was crowding him so much that they were threatening to stomp on his son and that's why he snapped at them.

It was also show in his "Forget about Babe Ruth" quote. The media had a field day with that quote, but a local reporter who was there noted that Bonds was CLEARLY talking in a joking tone when he said that, it was clear to her that Bonds respected Ruth and was giving him a compliment, not dissing Ruth.

In neither case, when it was made known what actually happened, did any of the media who blasted him come back and apologize for making that mistake. That seems to be the way of the newspapers, when they make an error, it gets buried somewhere instead of getting the same real estate as the original article.

This is an article that needs context and has got to be the pettiest article I've ever read. What Giant presented this information? What reason would they have?

On April 20, Bonds was on one leg and in pain. He had just been walked and run the bases (and scored). He probably hurt.

No one knows what happened in July in Washington.

The season was OVER by September 24. Bonds had a painful elbow that would receive surgery the day after the season is over. The Giants were on the last game of a road trip where their pitchers had allowed something like 9 runs a game, and had wasted a late inning by 3-run go ahead homer by Bonds the previous night. He probably requires considerable limbering up and stretching before he pinch hits. He made a bad decision to get dressed.

Napping in the Dodgers game, the season was OVER. They had 40 men or so on the roster.

He will behave the same when the season is over next year.

The fine for being unavailable if uninjured should be a game's salary. But I don't see Bonds playing the field if he can't walk and I don't see him caring once the season is over.

This article was either written to devalue Bonds on the market and give the Giants a better chance at resigning him, or to justify not resigning him. Why do you think the Giants leaked this information now, right before Barry hits the open market?

Is there any fan in America (who isn't a Giants) fan who wants to see Bonds in their uniform? I am a Padres fan, and while the Padres have a vacancy for both a left fielder and a power hitter, I would rather switch allegiances than root for Barry Bonds. Signing him would be like signing Terrell Owens... yes, it might make the team better in the win column, but at what cost? I hope every GM with a similar vacancy thinks long and hard about this before signing Mr. Bonds.

Bonds has always been an a**hole--plain and simple. No lack of evidence there. There is no reason to make excuses for him or to attack those that slam him in the press--he lost any right to be defended years ago, so let them pile on I say. One of the saddest days in the history of baseball will be when that SOB comes to the plate and hits the homerun that passes Aaron. If anyone stands and cheers for that they ought to never be allowed near a ballpark again.

If Sabean re-signs him, the Giants will get everything they deserve.

Addiction is an ugly thing.

"One of the saddest days in the history of baseball will be when that SOB comes to the plate and hits the homerun that passes Aaron. If anyone stands and cheers for that they ought to never be allowed near a ballpark again."

Exchange Bonds for Aaron and Aaron for Ruth and you're just like the dicks from 1974.

That's not right at all. You're equating hating a guy for breaking a record while USING STEROIDS and generally being an all around asshole with hating a guy for breaking a record while being black. That's messed up.

Back to David's point... I don't think that any team is going to get Barry to change. I don't think it will be too hard for him to find a job and the team is going to have to accept him for what he is.

He's not the greatest guy in the world, but he's terribly misunderstood and picked on, but the press and by baseball fans everywhere. And only some of it is fair.

Larry

Yeah, Chris, I gotta disagree. People hated Aaron because he was black. People hate Bonds because he's a selfish steroid-pumped jerk. His selfish, steroid-pumped jerkitude transcends race. To equate Bonds-hatred with Aaron-hatred is an injustice to Aaron.

Aaron was an amphetamines user and a bitter drunk during his later years. It seems as though Aaron's legacy is becoming more of a fairy tale now.

The same thing happened to Ruth. These men were no different than Bonds, and are now suddenly viewed as flawless people.

People hate Bonds because he's black. A "selfish steroid-pumped jerk" who just HAPPENS to be black? I don't think so. I bet you think Jeff Kent is just misunderstood... Milton Bradley, he's a problem, though... And David Eckstein is the hardest working player in the game. The game's a little subtler these days, but not by much.

What's more interesting to me is Barry Bloom is quite peeved at Baggarly. Bloom was on the tail end of Charley Steiner's XM show today a few minutes before 3. He didn't get to finish what he wanted to say, so Charley asked him (Bloom) if he'd come back tomorrow (Tues.).
He said yes, so we'll see if they can hook up again. Mainly, Baggarly is now with San Jose Merc., Bloom isn't keen on hearing any bad stuff about Bonds & thinks Baggarly has a bug about Bonds and MLB.com writers as well. This is an important topic for a variety of reasons.