Baseball Musings
Baseball Musings
May 08, 2008
Signing Bonds

I have to agree with Childs Walker:

I hope some club signs Barry Bonds this summer. And I hope he leads that team to the playoffs with a fusillade of walks and 450-foot homers.

I don't wish for this because I have any rooting interest in Bonds. Whether he never homers again or hits 50 more, my opinion of him won't change.

No, what I'm rooting for is the unconventional, a general manager who doesn't give a hoot about disapproving scrutiny as long as Bonds can help his team win. If we're going to create entertainment markets in which we reward those who win at all costs, then by Job, I want some executive to stick his neck out and make this move.

Bud Selig stated publicly that he's not stopping any team from signing Bonds. Someone should take him up on the offer.


Posted by David Pinto at 12:06 PM | Free Agents | TrackBack (0)
Comments

There may indeed be some hint of collusion here, or to put it more politely, group decision-making. But really, there aren't very many teams that have an opening for Bonds. It's reasonable to assume that he's purely a DH at this point, so the NL is out. What you need is an AL team that's (a) in contention, and (b) needs a DH.

I think it's too early to tell if there's collusion. In another month or two, we'll have a better read on which teams are in contention but can use more offense. If, say, Toronto or Seattle have a viable shot at the playoffs, they'd be good candidates for a Bonds signing.


Posted by: jvwalt at May 8, 2008 12:42 PM

I think it has been noted before that the Tigers were in need of a left fielder, and left handed bat. They still are. They have Sheff in left, and his health is a serious issue. They have a rookie in right to get Maggs in as a DH.
Sign Bonds now. Let him play some left field splitting time with Sheff, he could probably play it with in a leather recliner and still help the team. Those two could then alternate between left and DH, and provide insurance against injury since they both have AARP cards.

Posted by: Neal at May 8, 2008 01:25 PM

It doesn't make sense, from a job security standpoint, for any general manager to sign Bonds right now. If your club has a shot at the postseason and at this point in the season signed Bonds, and did not make the playoffs, the criticism of the move would be tremendous. However, I can't see any general managers getting fired for not signing Bonds. I can imagine a scenario where later in the season, a team that appears to be somewhat of a longshot but is still in the hunt signing him, because if they didn't make the playoffs, there would be less blame assigned to the decision to sign Bonds. But can you imagine if you were a GM and signed Bonds and your team subsequently underperformed? How many GMs have the job security to survive that?

Posted by: David at May 8, 2008 01:54 PM

From a team philosophy standpoint and for geographic reasons Oakland would be the best choice. However, Oakland has five or six DH's already.
If money wasn't a factor Cleveland would make some sense since Hafner is doing awful. However, the Tribe has committed to Hafner time and $$$ so they aren't going to write him off as dead weight for quite a while.

Seattle may have interest.

Beyond that, I don't see much interest in Bonds (or Piazza).

Posted by: largebill at May 8, 2008 02:01 PM

Wherever he signs, he instantly becomes the epicenter of the team. His attitude. His entourage. His legal problems. His LA-Z-BOY, widescreen tv and headphones.

That's why any GM who is interested in the health and cohesiveness of his "team" would use his dollars elsewhere.

Posted by: Dave S at May 8, 2008 02:08 PM

I understand that Bonds would probably be better than a decent amount of the hitters being employed as DHs, but I do not believe that he is worth it, in the long run.
He's got to be one of the two most despised players in the game (thanks to the past couple of months, Clemens might be giving him a run for his money). Say my beloved Indians sign him. Will they get significantly better? How much will they pay per statistical improvement?

I don't believe that he will come cheaply, and I don't believe that whatever he might bring (say, a couple of win shares, or whatever your preferred statistic is) is worth it, either in money or in the damage it would do to general fan support.

Really, it's not collusion that these teams aren't hiring him. He's made himself into a giant cautionary tale.

Posted by: Andrew C at May 8, 2008 02:52 PM

...and here we go with the conventional answers that likely prompted Childs Walker to post for the unconventional in the first place. And, while the expense of Bonds (and his apparent unwillingness to go all incentive-laden) is an argument that I understand, the personality and media-driven arguments are just silly to me. Does he have value to help to an MLB team win? Yes, yes he does. (By the way, he's probably also not desperate enough [right now] to go very far from the West Coast.)

Posted by: Kent at May 8, 2008 03:17 PM

Many are supposing that he's indicated any willingness to sign anything other than a Clemens contract - I don't know one way or the other but I suspect he's not giving any bargains away.

Posted by: Bandit at May 8, 2008 04:13 PM

To focus just on the ABs and not on the other qualities a player brings to a team is just silly, IMO.

After skills, any given team is also comprised of personalities, boundaries, egos, implicit or explicit leaders, even a certain ethic. A savvy GM doesn't plunk a player down into that little universe without considering the ways that the player will have a negative impact.

Having 3 dozen reporters swarming night after night around one locker, and most questions posed to teammates end up being about Bonds, would get old real fast.

Watching your manager kowtow to every whim and demand that Bonds levies would get infuriating real fast.

Moreover, focusing just on the ABs ignores the fact that Bonds' season might be cut short by his legal circumstances. He was the fool that dared the US Attorney's Office to come after him, after all.

Bonds can only contribute 4 ABs. He would be a negative on the field and on the basepaths (ever moreso if his knees are not healthy). Is the bump in win shares between Bonds and another player taking those ABs worth all that?

Posted by: Dave S at May 8, 2008 04:45 PM

Keep in mind also that we are not talking about the .360/45/110 Bonds. We're talking about the .270/24/70 Bonds.

Finding someone that approximates that output is not hard. Almost anyone who can will almost certainly not have the choking amount of baggage.

Posted by: Dave S at May 8, 2008 04:57 PM

As long as Milton Bradley, Jeff Kent, and Scott Rolen still have Major League jobs, I will be more than a little skeptical about any purported clubhouse reasons for keeping Bonds out of baseball. There is also no indication that he is making inordinate salary demands, and some that he is not.

I am just guessing, but the only explanations that make sense to me are collusion and principal agent problems (GM's not wanting to accept responsibility if Bonds does poorly). I suspect it is some combination of the two. Of course, neither of these reasons are good reasons from a fans perspective, which is why so many other spurious reasons have been offered.

Posted by: Blackadder at May 8, 2008 05:01 PM

RE:
"Keep in mind also that we are not talking about the .360/45/110 Bonds. We're talking about the .270/24/70 Bonds.

Finding someone that approximates that output is not hard. Almost anyone who can will almost certainly not have the choking amount of baggage."

Given that Bonds hit .276/.480/.565 last year, there are only a handful of teams that wouldn't be instantly better with him in the lineup. This is clearly not a performance issue. That production places him in the top 10-15 hitters in baseball.

Posted by: MrIncognito at May 8, 2008 05:11 PM

That would be a good point if the orders of magnitude were similar. Kent, Bradley and Rolen are a-holes to one extent or another, but none of them were ever in the same universe as Bonds, as a player or as a self-possessed egomaniac.

For my part, I would be skeptical of collusion if there was a justification for it. Bonds already has the HR record. The arguments for and against his HOF selection are already established (and he doesn't need the 3000 hits to seal that deal).

What would GMs collectively accomplish by agreeing to shun Bonds?

Posted by: Dave S at May 8, 2008 05:17 PM

RE:Given that Bonds hit .276/.480/.565 last year...

Hmm...

.276 is pretty pedestrian by today's standards.

.480? - teams pitch around or pass Bonds. Old news. That simply puts Bonds on first to clog the paths, or out of the game with a pinch-runner. That's not a bonus.

.565? - are you suggesting that that SA is in the ML top 10-15 last year?

The fact is that Bonds' production has slipped markedly in almost every statistical category over the past 3 years. That's not a trend that will be reversed. He cannot play the field. He cannot run. He is injury-prone.

Those are some meaningful production-related deficits that do not go unnoticed by a GM.

Posted by: Dave S at May 8, 2008 05:31 PM

Update: Had he the minimum 3.1 PAs/TeamG, Bonds would indeed have finished in the top 15 - tied at 11th with Miggy.

Posted by: Dave S at May 8, 2008 05:43 PM

We have a clogging up the bases reference! Bonds was only slightly below average on the bases last year, costing his team at most 2-3 runs compared to an average baserunner. A .480 OBP is magnificent, the best non-Bonds total since Mickey Mantle in 1962. And a .565 SLG, in one of the toughest pitchers parks in baseball, while not as singular as his OBP, is still awesome (and would have been 8'th in the NL, by the way).

Bonds may be declining, but there is not evidence for it. His 2007 was better than his 2006, and his 2006 was better than his 2005 (when he missed most of the year). Yes, he is obviously not the hitter he was in 2004, but Bonds' 2004 is arguably the greatest offensive season in baseball history; you can fall a long way and still be great.

I actually mentioned Bradley, Kent, and Rolen because everything I have seen indicates that they are MORE disruptive in the clubhouse than Bonds. I obviously don't know, and neither do you, but those guys seem to have had more serious clubhouse problems than Bonds.

Posted by: Blackadder at May 8, 2008 05:51 PM

Wow, great job working in all those superlatives!

First things first:
+ Bonds was a joke on the basepaths. On the SF games I watched alone, I remember a few instances where on a routine DP ball, he trotted halfway down to second, then stepped out of the basepath to avoid the throw down to first.
+ Since when has Bonds been limited by home park factor (I'm thinking SplashDowns here)?
+ A .480 OBA is a joke when 43 of his 132 BBs came by IBB.

Now to the matter of declining numbers (and throwing out his injury shortened 2005).
+ Games have fallen from 147 to 130 to 126 (and why is that, BTW?)
+ Hits fell from 135 to 99 to 94.
+ Doubles fell from 27 to 23 to 14 (and why is that BTW? Hint - goes back to the baserunning point)
+ RBIs fell from 101 to 77 to 66.
+ TBs fell from 303 to 200 to 192.
+ Slight bump on HRs, OBA (separately addressed), and therefore OPS. But the overall trend is down and inevitably going lower.

Posted by: Dave S at May 8, 2008 06:09 PM

FWIW, I ignored your response about Kent et al. because you offered only your own impressions. Bonds' affect on the SF clubhouse are well-documented and even well published - and goes all the way back to ASU.

Posted by: Dave S at May 8, 2008 06:14 PM

Should a team sign Barry Bonds? Absolutely. Which team should try to sign him? Any one of the 30 teams that can. Is "collusion" the reason no one has sighed him, no doubt!! I also think it's ego. The Owners & GM's are so egotistical, and arrogant, for some reason the feel they're the reason for their teams success! (see "Big Pappy", "Manny", "Youkliss", "Pitching", Role Players", "Coaches" etc.....not "Theo Epstein"). It's what happends on the field, and Bonds still produces on the field....regardless!! If they sign Bonds and the team wins, they will say "it was because of Bonds"!. If attendance goes up, they will say "it was because of Bonds"! They want to take all the credit themselves. The Players Association should take a stand behind Bonds, and Bud Selig should do more than just say "he's not stopping teams from signing him", he should take a stance, and stand behind the test results that say he didn't use, publicize the results and play ball!!! They're using Bonds to "prove a point", and "make him an example". There are players using and "not testing positive" in the game today, go figure? If I were Bonds, I'd want to play ball, but I'd also want to sue the league, just as bad. He should be "playing ball right now" and "already on a team"!! Goody, CA

Posted by: Goody, CA at May 8, 2008 06:59 PM

Dave S,

Players with a better OBP than Bonds' .480 in '07:
* Ted Williams
* John McGraw
* Babe Ruth
* Mickey Mantle
* Rogers Hornsby
* Joe Kelley
* Hugh Duffy
* Ed Delanhanty
* Bill Joyce
* Arky Vaughan
* Billy Hamilton
* Tip O'Neil
* Frank Thomas
* Norm Cash
* Ty Cobb
* Jesse Burkett
* Fred Carroll

These are single SEASONS better than that total. Not careers. All but 3 of these players are in the Hall, and one of them will be (Frank Thomas). These are their best seasons. Bonds was running with them into his 40's.

He is one of the best players in baseball, regardless of the issues he brings. He helps his teams win. He is intentionally walked because he has immense power to hurt you if you make a bad pitch to him.

Clogging up the basepaths is bunk. Thomas is also a clubhouse cancer, and he's gainfully employed. The argument about character is bunk.

You hate Bonds. Fine. Most of us don't think he's a very nice person. But if he could help my team win, then by God I want to see someone give him a contract. It can be league minimum -- I don't care -- I just want to see someone try.

If your team got to the playoffs because of Bonds, you wouldn't be singing the same tune.

Posted by: Sal Paradise at May 8, 2008 07:57 PM

"...you wouldn't be singing the same tune."

Actually, I think I would. Mind you, as I said earlier, I like the Indians. I'm used to not making the playoffs. I'm used to disappointment. The one thing I *would* like, however, is to win clean. It doesn't always happen, but when it does, I'd like it. I didn't like Albert Belle, and I wouldn't like Bonds. He is a fantastic player, sure, but what would serve a team better--paying him a big contract, or taking those millions (what, maybe $10 million? I have no idea, just speculating, so please correct me) and, say, pouring them into scouting, especially in Latin America.
I guarantee you'll get a bigger return on investment, and you won't have to grimace every time your team takes the field.

Posted by: Andrew C at May 8, 2008 08:30 PM

Personal foul, Sal. Don't put words in my mouth; I never said I hate Bonds. That's also a fact - I don't.

Speaking of facts, that's what I have given. And I stand by them as the basis for a GM not signing Bonds. I sure wouldn't. You disagree; that's cool with me.

Equally, your supposition that my honest appraisal of Bonds has no conviction behind it is equally foul. I would in fact be upset if my team signed Bonds (and I will bet you cash money that they never ever would).

And, please - comparing Bonds to Ted Williams?! Again with the .480? What part of IBB did you not get?

+ Williams had 10 .480+ OBA seasons, including 5 .500+ seasons. The most IBBs he ever had in a season was 33. The stat only existed in his last 6 seasons. But his average IBBs over that period were 14. He earned his OBAs.
+ The most IBBs Mantle got was 23 and his average in the tracking period was 9.
+ The most IBBs Thomas got was 29, and his career average is 8.
+ The other players played before IBBs were tracked as a stat.

+ The most IBBs Bonds got were 120; his career average is 31. The IBBs gave Bonds his inflated OBA.

Next, you're going to tell me that the difference in IBBs indicates Bonds was as better hitter than Williams.

Posted by: Dave S at May 8, 2008 10:12 PM

For the record, and not that anyone should care, here's how I regard Bonds.

He is a jack-ass of the first order who EARNED the enmity heaped upon him. Going back to ASU, he was placed on a pedestal, given privelages and concessions that no other player on his teams received. He went out of his way to alienate teammates and fans alike. Not at all unlike his father and his cousin. These are facts.

Bonds was also a special player, the quintessential 5-tools guy. A first round HOFer had he simply played out his career through his normally diminishing skills. Like Williams, Musial, Mays, Mantle, and Ruth, etc. Review his stats outside of his "steroid period" of 2001-04 and you will see that Bonds' career was indeed on a trajectory that followed Williams et. al.

But Bonds understood that McGwire, Clemens, Caminiti etc. were juicing and putting up monster numbers. His ego wouldn't allow him to miss that train. Regardless of the fact that the most liberal assessment puts the MLB population that was juicing at @20% - the Mitchell report put it somewhere around 13% IIRC - which obviously means that the vast majority of players were choosing NOT to juice. (So much for the "everyone was doing it"/level playing field generalization thrown about as a justification for Bonds.)

The spikes within his steroid period - with Bonds in his late 30s - defies the historical performance of EVERY OTHER player in the history of baseball. Was Bonds THAT MUCH a better player? Please.

Had Bonds done the right thing regarding steroids, I would've absolutely respected him. Similarly, were it to come out that players I do admire - eg, Ripken, Griffey - took steroids, I would lose all respect for them.

I don't hold Bonds responsible for the steroids scandal. Nor McGwire or Clemens or Canseco, or any other player. I do think they deliberately exploited the "we're not looking" permissibility implicitly imparted by GMs, managers, beat reporters, and agents. Collectively, they almost destroyed baseball in 1994...and HRs put butts in seats. But illegal behavior cannot justify more illegal behavior. 80-something % of the MLB population understood and respected that point.

Bonds is a cautionary tale, and needs to be. As is McGwire, who will not leave his enclave to go to the grocery store. And Clemens, who is swimming against the rip-tide to prevent his legacy from swirling down the toilet. But they made their deals with the devil, and the devil always gets his due.

Posted by: Dave S at May 8, 2008 11:05 PM

One last point, Sal:

Re: "Clogging up the basepaths is bunk..."

What would you think of Bonds when:

You are the guy hitting behind Bonds who bounces one to short. As you fly down the baseline, you watch Bonds half-ass his way to second, then midway simply step out of the basepath - allowing the secondbaseman plenty of time and room to nail you at first. Would you:

A. Shrug, smile and say, "that's good ole Barry!"
B. Be upset that Barry didn't work into the secondbaseman, saving you a GIDP at the most, and at the least being a good teammate.

I don't care what you call it, bunk or otherwise. If a baserunner is THAT non-ambulatory, I call it CLOGGING the basepaths.

Posted by: Dave S at May 8, 2008 11:20 PM

I tried to resist, but I just couldn't. Here are Bonds' baserunning numbers for his career:

http://www.baseballprospectus.com/unfiltered/?p=727

He was 1.7 runs below average for 2007, hardly anything to get worked up about.

Posted by: Blackadder at May 8, 2008 11:57 PM

Thanks Adder for not resisting. That proves my point. I wasn't talking about his career - I already wrote my belief that he was the quintessential 5-tools player. I'm talking about now, and about how his skills are increasingly diminishing.

The chart shows this:
2005: -0.1
2006: -0.6
2007: -1.7

I will say though that I was surprised that his last BRR above 0 was in 2000. He was largely a plus baserunner thru 2000. He has been a minus baserunner since. Increasingly so.

(For those unfamiliar with the eqBRR, a point below zero might not seem like much. But note that Bonds' best BRR was 5.3. - in 1992.)

Posted by: Dave S at May 9, 2008 12:17 AM

From 2000, I took his actual line, removed the IBB, and distributed those PA at his actual rate stats for his non-IBB performance. For instance, in 2004 he hit a home run in 7.29% of his (non-IBB) PA. I therefore assume that 7.29% of his IBB would be home runs (an extra 9 home runs on the season).

2000: Actual OPS: 1.128 / Adjusted OPS: 1.105
2001: Actual OPS: 1.378 / Adjusted OPS: 1.347
2002: Actual OPS: 1.381 / Adjusted OPS: 1.309
2003: Actual OPS: 1.278 / Adjusted OPS: 1.202
2004: Actual OPS: 1.421 / Adjusted OPS: 1.267
2005: Actual OPS: 1.071 / Adjusted OPS: 1.024
2006: Actual OPS: 0.999 / Adjusted OPS: 0.948
2007: Actual OPS: 1.045 / Adjusted OPS: 0.983

Now I'm no rocket scientist, but a .983 OPS in 2007 just isn't that bad, and his slugging more or less makes up for the decreased OBP (in the OPS calculations, at any rate, not going into the discussion of which is more valuable) in all years save 2004, which was really absurd on so many levels.

My point here is that we can talk about what he 'deserves' or what he 'earned' all day. For all we know, he'd be even better if those people were pitching to him (for instance, we may find, were we to actually go through all the data, that he was more often intentionally walked by poor pitchers than tough pitchers, meaning that he had more 'real' at-bats against live arms that batting practice pitchers).

Regardless of how you look at it, even removing all the IBB, his adjusted OPS for 2007 was higher than all but 11 players in all MLB so far in 2008.

Unfortunately, I can't compare his baserunning statistics to anyone else because I don't have the hardballtimes manual (too much to ship to Japan). However, I would wager that he has a fair bit of speed on many players who are far far far far far worse with the bat than he is.

I also don't recall people criticizing Ortiz for being slow as molasses last year when he was dinging doubles all over the place.

But I'm sure Ryan Howard (.976 OPS), Jim Thome (.973 OPS) and Jorge Posada (.970) all run the bases far far superior to Bonds. Honest. Really. Either that or they get teased in their dugouts for 'clogging the basepaths' (possible only in the case of Thome, because Carlos Guillen is a moron).

Thomas just got signed, and is equally slow, and a worse hitter than Bonds. He's also a clubhouse cancer.

This is absolutely unacceptable, and all I hear from supporters of the collusion (or should I say people who believe there isn't collusion because an offensive monster clogs up the basepaths like many other less valuable players, and poisons clubhouse like many worse hitters) are excuses about how he shouldn't be hired.

Absurdity.

Posted by: Sal Paradise at May 9, 2008 11:54 AM

IBBs:

Intentionally walked by poor pitchers? Huh?!! The manager puts up the 4 fingers, Sal. But since you brought it back up, Bonds' insane IBBs have little to do with 'BP quality pitchers.' It has everything to do with Bonds' insane 4.something HR/AB ratio and the fact that he had no protection. He was the only hitter that had the probabilty (as opposed to the possibilty) of hurting you. Further, we're not counting the walks he EARNED when he was being pitched around - for the same reason. But same outcome, nonetheless.

COLLUSION:

Again....what are owners and GMs collectively accomplishing by shunning Bonds? Preventing him from getting 3000 H (which he certainly doesn't need to get HOF votes)? There's nothing left for Bonds to prove. Until you can reasonably answer that, then contemplation of collusion is absurd.

Your "who's the bigger - albeit employed - ass" argument for collusion also strikes me as absurd. I wouldn't have signed Thomas, Bradley, Kent or Rolen. But that's neither here nor there. What is relevant is that they are all significantly younger than Bonds, and already had current contracts. With the exception of Thomas of course, whom I suspect has a job because of what he accomplished for Beane on 2006. Thomas is also a widely regarded as a gamble at this point, and he is making around $5M.

FWIW, there are enough maverick GMs around now that I greatly suspect that collusion in contemporary baseball is impossible. It isn't the old boys club it once was.

Bonds, his $10M-ish (if he would go down that far) salary and his baggage, his age, and the unknown quantifiability of his current skills one year on, are too steep a price tag. Piazza is also unemployed, and he has less debits to weigh. Add to that the fact that teams are predominantly rebuilding, getting younger. Even the Yankees to some extent. Cutting costs.

BASEPATHS:

How many SF games did you catch last year? Between 06-07, Bonds' doubles dropped by half - to 14 - with the same ABs. He couldn't leg out doubles or break up double plays. He often couldn't score from second on a single. He had little mobility in left.

You've misinterpretted my point with your Howard/Thome/Ortiz examples, which center around player weight and slowness. I attribute Bonds' baserunning not to attitude or weight but to inability - his knees were balky. Obviously, unlike Ortiz, Bonds WASN'T "dinging doubles all over the place" (as you say, since Ortiz hit 52, Bonds only 14 while playing his home games in a relative pasture). As a GM, that would certainly concern me today if I am about to hand $10M-ish to Bonds.

And for the record, I am not saying that Bonds is a bag of baking flour at this point in his career. My main point (besides the collusion conspiracy theory being foolish) is the....

BOTTOM LINE:

(Pun intended). If Bonds were to say he'd play for $5M (Thomas' approximate salary), and hose out the dugouts before cranking off the lights, he'd be signed. The gamble would be minimized. It's a simple risk-reward calculation, and opportunity cost for where Bonds' current salary demands (certainly known, if only between his agents and GMs) could be better spent.

Posted by: Dave S at May 9, 2008 01:24 PM

Dave S, please don't ever use the term clogging the bathpaths again.

It is bunk. Go check out bjays.wordpress.com and scroll down and find the article halejon did on it. Then apply that analysis to Bonds and realize how ridiculous it is to say someone is clogging the bases.

Now, you can say that he doesn't run out ground outs or hustle down to 2B to break up that DP and that is fine and absolutely dandy. But please, do not say clogging the basepaths.

And interviews with players say he's a OK enough teammate. It's the media and others that he directs the majority of his asshole towards, not so much his teammates.

Posted by: zeppelinkm at May 9, 2008 02:41 PM

Zep,

To save further brain damage, could you please provide for me a list of the other words you have a pet peeve against?

Clogging is just a word. What I have been saying is exactly what you wrote. Not legging out doubles, not breaking up DPs. Is that not correct?

So then, I'm glad we can agree that it is "absolutely dandy" for me to make my point. "Clogging" notwithstanding.

Did you happen to read what many SF players said about Bonds AFTER he left the Giants. They didn't throw him under the bus, but they also made it clear that they were more relaxed and cohesive without Bonds. And it isn't just Bonds - it was his entourage in the locker room, the press, etc.

It was the singular focus on what Bonds was doing or not doing, on the field or off it, to the exclusion of the accomplishments of the other players. That is, unless Bonds was throwing teammates of his own under the bus (Sweeney, anyone? Yeah, right...swell teammate).

But I'm sure clubhouses around the majors are very much looking forward to the All Bonds All The Time Show.

Posted by: Dave S at May 9, 2008 03:34 PM

On IBBs:
To state with certainty that the quality of pitchers was the same is an assumption I am not willing to take on its face. I've already showed you that even removing the IBBs, Bonds was an absolutely insane hitter. You acted as if he was significantly worse without those IBBs, but the numbers simply don't show it. Be a gentleman and at least concede that you overstated the impact of those IBBs on his bottom line.

On the basepaths:
As Zeppelinkm pointed out, 'clogging the bases' is an absurd notion to begin with. You have failed to point out baserunning numbers for the league (so that we can see Bonds' numbers in context), or failed to explain the impact of those baserunning numbers on his bottom lines in benefit to a team. He's also not a very good defender, but then again neither is David Ortiz or Alfonso Soriano.

Nobody is going to argue that he's Jacoby Ellsbury or Brian Roberts or Ichiro. But if you're going to argue that his baserunning is enough to prevent him from being signed, then it is your duty to provide evidence to support that assertion. -1.7 runs per season is far from enough to offset a .950+ OPS (most likely 1.000+).

Bonds' Salary/Signing Bonds:
You have absolutely no idea what Bonds will or won't sign for. Nobody does. You know why? Because nobody's offered him a contract yet. He may sign for $5 million. If $5 million is considered fair by GMs, then they should offer him $5 million. As they haven't, that's rather telling, is it not?

You say that he's a bigger risk than Frank Thomas (2005: .905 OPS, 2006: .926 OPS, 2007: .857 OPS) despite the fact that Bonds played the field those three seasons, while Thomas did/can not.

You say that it's a 'simple risk-reward calculation'.

Ortiz: 13 million
A-Rod: 22 million
Carlos Pena: $800,000 (now THAT's a bargain)
Chipper Jones: 12 million
Ordonez: 13 million
Prince Fielder: $415,000 (not arbitration eligible)
Matt Holliday: 4.4 million (arbitration eligible)
Pujols: 13 million
Utley: 4.5 million (arbitration eligible)
Ryan Howard: 900,000 (not arbitration eligible)
Jim Thome: 15 million

You're putting a $5 million price tag on a Bonds season when every single player (save Pena) with a similar OPS in 2007 is getting paid far far more (or will when they reach free agency). Even those in arbitration are making close to $5 million.

Richie Sexson is being paid 15.5 million dollars.

The fact that nobody has even offered him a contract at any price is very very very very telling. He is still one of the best hitters in the game in his mid-40's, yet because of people like you making faulty excuses and trying to justify away what's obviously a serious effort to keep him out of baseball, the owners can get away with making those same excuses and you'll eat them up.

Posted by: Sal Paradise at May 9, 2008 07:37 PM

People like me, eh Sal? How's the weather up there in your ivory tower, arrogant and derisive (read: defensive and intimidated) of people who might have a view that differs from yours? It is clear that you are emotionally invested in Bonds, Sal. It's also surely clear that I am not.

What - did you waste a first round draft pick on him in your 6x6 league? Berkman was sitting there, but you went with your emotions? Each week passes, that empty slot glares back at you, but you just can't bring yourself to drop him for someone that might help?

Keep telling yourself that Bonds would look great in a Sox uni, pulling for that sweet 310 in right. You'd climb right out of the second division in no time. Too bad little Theo refuses to be his own man and defy his betters, just cannot make his own moves for once instead of kowtowing to the Steinbrenners and the Angeloses, et. al. Maybe try focusing your anger on Epstein. That might work.

Or not. Whatever.

But, it's been a slice of heaven trying to have a discussion with someone whose debating skill is the METAPHORICAL equivalent of screaming epithets and then covering your ears and saying "Nah nah nah - I can't HEAR you!" (I capitalized "metaphorical" so you won't allege that I am invoking a curse of Tourrets unto you.)

I've enjoyed your conflating (when you were not outright misconstruing) my points. Well, by enjoying I mean in that bemused but slighty unsettled way one gets watching a toddler experimenting with the taste of mud for the first time.

I never "put a price tag" on Bonds' season. I used $5M as an example to demonstrate a minimizing of risk that would make Bonds an attractive acquisition. If you are half as intelligent as I suspect you are from your writing, you knew that.

I never wrote that I used baserunning as the sole reason for clubs not siging Bonds. Nor solely his plate production. My point in my Bottom Line (but scattered less specifically in my other posts as well) was obvious to anyone who can type a URL, and I need not repeat it. You can parse it in a thousand more ways in your free time. You can add the names and salaries of every player on each 40-man roster. Throw in the northern teams in the Mexican League.

That won't change my view of why Bonds has not been signed, nor could you bully me out of it. It might give you a raging case of the hives that "people like me" exist, but I also believe that Oswald acted alone, that man did land on the moon, and that the Roswell affair is little more than a bunch of locals trying to scratch out a living in their little patch of baked-over desert.

And I do not believe that GMs and owners are convening secretly in smokey cigar bars and Mason Halls scrawling their names in blood across their "Triple Secret Plan to Screw Barry Bonds." I'm pretty sure Barry believes that. Oh, and of course, you. But here's why I know you are full of crap, Sal. After me asking 3 times, you could never tell me why they would. You didn't because you couldn't. But then, that's how conspiracy theories work.

Anywhooo...I'll let you get back to your mental masturbation now, Sal. I wish you knew more about baseball and its history - if you did you would have been better armed for a positive discussion. But rest your weary head - you need not fear further emasculation from my next post. And I certainly won't stick around to trip over another buzzword to which the tin ears here are tuned to react like disrupted hens. ("OH.MY.GOD! - a "clogged basepath" reference! DO. NOT. USE. THAT. WORD! OHMYGOD!!!)

Good luck with your "9/11 Was a Hoax" video.

Posted by: Dave S at May 10, 2008 12:31 AM

People like me, eh Sal? How's the weather up there in your ivory tower, arrogant and derisive (read: defensive and intimidated) of people who might have a view that differs from the party line here? It is clear that you are emotionally invested in Bonds, Sal. It's also surely clear that I am not.

What - did you waste a first round draft pick on him in your 6x6 league? Berkman was sitting there, but you went with your emotions? Each week passes, that empty slot glares back at you, but you just can't bring yourself to drop him for someone that might help?

Keep telling yourself that Bonds would look great in a Sox uni, pulling for that sweet 310 in right. You'd climb right out of the second division in no time. Too bad little Theo refuses to be his own man and defy his betters, just cannot make his own moves for once instead of kowtowing to the Steinbrenners and the Angeloses, et. al. Maybe try focusing your anger on Epstein. That might work.

Or not. Whatever.

But, it's been a slice of heaven trying to have a discussion with someone whose debating skill is the METAPHORICAL equivalent of screaming epithets and then covering your ears and saying "Nah nah nah - I can't HEAR you!" (I capitalized "metaphorical" so you won't allege that I am invoking a curse of Tourrets unto you.)

I've enjoyed your conflating (when you were not outright misconstruing) my points. Well, by enjoying I mean in that bemused but slighty unsettled way one gets watching a toddler experimenting with the taste of mud for the first time.

I never "put a price tag" on Bonds' season. I used $5M as an example to demonstrate a minimizing of risk that would make Bonds an attractive acquisition. If you are half as intelligent as I suspect you are from your writing, you knew that.

I never wrote that I used baserunning as the sole reason for clubs not siging Bonds. Nor solely his plate production. My point in my Bottom Line (but scattered less specifically in my other posts as well) was obvious to anyone who can type a URL, and I need not repeat it. You can parse it in a thousand more ways in your free time. You can add the names and salaries of every player on each 40-man roster (and gosh - do you think that just maybe they will all have an existing contract that has to be paid, including Sexson's 15.5M - don'cha just think?). Throw in the northern teams in the Mexican League.

That won't change my view of why Bonds has not been signed, nor could you bully me out of it. It might give you a raging case of the hives that "people like me" exist, but I also believe that Oswald acted alone, that man did land on the moon, and that the Roswell affair is little more than a bunch of locals trying to scratch out a living in their little patch of baked-over desert.

And I do not believe that GMs and owners are convening secretly in smokey cigar bars and Mason Halls scrawling their names in blood across their "Triple Secret Plan to Screw Barry Bonds." I'm pretty sure Barry believes that. Oh, and of course, you. But here's why I know you are full of crap, Sal. After me asking 3 times, you could never tell me why they would. You didn't because you couldn't. But then, that's how conspiracy theories work.

Anywhooo...I'll let you get back to your mental masturbation now, Sal. I wish you knew more about baseball and its history - if you did you would have been better armed for a positive discussion. But rest your weary head - you need not fear further emasculation from my next post. And I certainly won't stick around to trip over another buzzword to which the tin ears here are tuned to react like wet hens. ("OH.MY.GOD! - A "clogged basepath" reference! DO. NOT. USE. THAT. WORD! OHMYGOD!!!)

Good luck with your "9/11 Was a Hoax" video.

Posted by: Dave S at May 10, 2008 12:43 AM

People like me, eh Sal? How's the weather up there in your ivory tower, arrogant and derisive (read: defensive and intimidated) of people who might have a view that differs from the party line here? It is clear that you are emotionally invested in Bonds, Sal. It's also surely clear that I am not.

What - did you waste a first round draft pick on him in your 6x6 league? Berkman was sitting there, but you went with your emotions? Each week passes, that empty slot glares back at you, but you just can't bring yourself to drop him for someone that might help?

Keep telling yourself that Bonds would look great in a Sox uni, pulling for that sweet 310 in right. You'd climb right out of the second division in no time. Too bad little Theo refuses to be his own man and defy his betters, just cannot make his own moves for once instead of kowtowing to the Steinbrenners and the Angeloses, et. al. Maybe try focusing your anger on Epstein. That might work.

Or not. Whatever.

But, it's been a slice of heaven trying to have a discussion with someone whose debating skill is the METAPHORICAL equivalent of screaming epithets and then covering your ears and saying "Nah nah nah - I can't HEAR you!" (I capitalized "metaphorical" so you won't allege that I am invoking a curse of Tourrets unto you.)

I've enjoyed your conflating (when you were not outright misconstruing) my points. Well, by enjoying I mean in that bemused but slighty unsettled way one gets watching a toddler experimenting with the taste of mud for the first time.

I never "put a price tag" on Bonds' season. I used $5M as an example to demonstrate a minimizing of risk that would make Bonds an attractive acquisition. If you are half as intelligent as I suspect you are from your writing, you knew that.

I never wrote that I used baserunning as the sole reason for clubs not siging Bonds. Nor solely his plate production. My point in my Bottom Line (but scattered less specifically in my other posts as well) was obvious to anyone who can type a URL, and I need not repeat it. You can parse it in a thousand more ways in your free time. You can add the names and salaries of every player on each 40-man roster (and gosh - do you think that just maybe they will all have an existing contract that has to be paid, including Sexson's 15.5M - don'cha just think?). Throw in the northern teams in the Mexican League.

That won't change my view of why Bonds has not been signed, nor could you bully me out of it. It might give you a raging case of the hives that "people like me" exist, but I also believe that Oswald acted alone, that man did land on the moon, and that the Roswell affair is little more than a bunch of locals trying to scratch out a living in their little patch of baked-over desert.

And I do not believe that GMs and owners are convening secretly in smokey cigar bars and Mason Halls scrawling their names in blood across their "Triple Secret Plan to Screw Barry Bonds." I'm pretty sure Barry believes that. Oh, and of course, you. But here's why I know you are full of crap, Sal. After me asking 3 times, you could never tell me why they would. You didn't because you couldn't. But then, that's how conspiracy theories work.

Anywhooo...I'll let you get back to your mental masturbation now, Sal. I wish you knew more about baseball and its history - if you did you would have been better armed for a positive discussion. But rest your weary head - you need not fear further emasculation from my next post. And I certainly won't stick around to trip over another buzzword to which the tin ears here are tuned to react like wet hens. ("OH.MY.GOD! - A "clogged basepath" reference! DO. NOT. USE. THAT. WORD! OHMYGOD!!!)

Good luck with your "9/11 Was a Hoax" video.

Posted by: Dave S at May 10, 2008 12:43 AM


It really cracks me up when people repeat what sportwriters put into print like it's their own personal observation. We really only know
what we read. We're not in the clubhouse.

Bonds made an enemy of the media many years
ago. That's clear. The sportwriters did what they
always do when they get dissed. They retaliated
when they got the chance.

Many people thought McGwire could have been juicing. Everyone liked Mac. It was barely brought
up. Many players, both hitters and pitchers were
mentioned in the Mitchell report. In my town,
our team signed Gagne for 10 million. And, the
media loved him when he came in, until he started
blowing saves regularly. (Great risk reward there.
They must of went off of his sterling performance in Boston)

Every year, I hear of players who start fights with
their teamates....shove their managers....get into
drunken driving crashes the night before a game.
But somehow, these are not the clubhouse cancers. Bonds is. Somehow, starting a fight with
the media makes you a clubhouse cancer.

I don't buy every bit of information coming
from the media, when they clearly have a
grudge about the person their reporting about.
I also don't take as gospel that they really know
what's going on in a lockeroom.

The best recent example of the media totally
missing the boat on lockeroom chemistry came
in a different league, the NBA. A few years back,
the L.A. Lakers had a team that everyone thought
might be the best ever. They had Shaq, Kobe,
Gary Payton, Karl Malone.
During the playoffs, this team had the full package
of local and national media following them. And, all
the media reported the same thing. The Lakers were a team that was totally together, reaching for
history.
The capper of the story wasn't when this team got
creamed by the Pistons in the Finals.
The capper was a few years later. If I remember right, Coach Pat Riley wrote a book. I remember
reading the details in (yep) the newspaper.
It turns out that there was a major revolt on the
team during the season. It was bad enough that,
midyear, Riley said either he or Kobe had to go.
This was one of the most followed teams in one of the biggest media markets. And, for whatever
reason, no one in the media had it near right
what was going on in their lockeroom.

But, I'm supposed to believe they got it all right
on Bonds?
Please.
Their writting was a feeding frenzy.
Bonds may have started the problem. But, these
guys haven't seemed motivated to write one positive thing about him in years.

I'll go by what happens on the field.
The Giants are clearly not any better without him.
He put up excellent numbers last year. He walked,
hit home runs, and played a bad OF. Sounds like
Adam Dunn, with a higher OBP, less strikeouts,
less homers. If someone trades for Dunn, with
his 13 mil salary, as a one year rent a player, and no one signs Bonds, that'll be interesting.

btw....if intentional walks are so undesirable,
why don't mangers intentionally walk the lesser
hitters, too? For that matter, why is a guy like
Pujols drawing an intentional walk seen as
a good thing for the Cardinals? Lastly, how many
game situations are there where it is smart to
put a guy on first base to set up the double play?
There sure as heck aren't enough of those to
get a hitters OBP over .480! You need some of
those, 'We're scared to death of a great hitter,
regardless' intentional walks to get to that level.

The Hardball Times, in their 2006 Annual, compiled
a table for the expected runs score in every
game situation. Dan Fox used ALL the play by
play dats from the 2005 season
(Kinda awesome, I thought)
With no out and no one on, the average runs
scored that inning in the NL over the 2005 season was .528
Add a man on first, that number becomes .887
With one out and a guy on second,
(The double play situation)
walking a batter moved their run expectancy
from .690 to .916
I guess their charts didn't include Barry clogging
the basebaths, cause a gain of more than a fifth
of a run every walk sounds like it adds up.

Anyway, on the field, Bonds produces more runs
than most players, unless he hit the wall in the last
6 months.
In the clubhouse, who really knows. All we ever
know is what the writers tell us. And, both the
writers and Bonds admit there has been bad blood
between them for years.
The only thing that makes sense to me is that,
if a team signs Bonds, there will be many negative
articles, from day one, in the press. This may
produce a bit of a negative impact at the gate.
And, fans, following what they read in the press,
may come to the game and start booing.
If that's what management is scared of, they
shouldn't be. Booing tends to end after a home
run.

Posted by: cbuster at May 10, 2008 11:26 PM

Dave S,

How long will you simple ones love your simple ways? How long will mockers delight in mockery and fools hate knowledge?
Proverbs 1:22

He who conceals his hatred has lying lips, and whoever spreads slander is a fool.
Proverbs 10:18

A fool shows his annoyance at once, but a prudent man overlooks an insult.
Proverbs 12:16

Every prudent man acts out of knowledge, but a fool exposes his folly.
Proverbs 13:16

A fool's talk brings a rod to his back, but the lips of the wise protect them.
Proverbs 14:3
(if only, if only)

A quick-tempered man does foolish things, and a crafty man is hated.
Proverbs 14:17

Arrogant lips are unsuited to a fool-- how much worse lying lips to a ruler!
Proverbs 17:7

A rebuke impresses a man of discernment more than a hundred lashes a fool.
Proverbs 17:10

Better to meet a bear robbed of her cubs than a fool in his folly.
Proverbs 17:12

Even a fool is thought wise if he keeps silent, and discerning if he holds his tongue.
Proverbs 17:28

A fool finds no pleasure in understanding but delights in airing his own opinions.
Proverbs 18:2

Do not speak to a fool, for he will scorn the wisdom of your words.
Proverbs 23:9

Answer a fool according to his folly, or he will be wise in his own eyes.
Proverbs 26:5

Though you grind a fool in a mortar, grinding him like grain with a pestle, you will not remove his folly from him.
Proverbs 27:22

Bonds is an elite player according to any objective metric you use. If you think he shouldn't be hired, it's your responsibility to back that up with fact. You have entirely failed to do that.

Instead, you've decided to post an invective-loaded diatribe three times and make yourself look far far worse than I have. Congratulations.

Posted by: Sal Paradise at May 11, 2008 08:08 PM
Post a comment









Remember personal info?