The Royals run production woes, No Bonds and hope for the future

by Billybutlerformvp on May 2, 2008 9:13 PM EDT

[Editor's note: Remember, guys, it's quite legal to post an entire story from somewhere else, especially not without a link.]

I dont remember where I found this link but its a great read which I fully agree with and I hope you do to, its written by a Mr. Baron von Snakin.

___________________________________________________________

Kansas City is a great city — a city of barbecue, jazz, and fountains. You should visit sometime.

Sure, we may not have much of a public school system or road maintenance or mass transit or any semblance of racial diversity, but we love what we do have. That includes the Royals, who haven't made the playoffs in 23 years and have been on the winning side of .500 just once in the past 13.

And we don't need Barry Bonds coming in here and messing it all up.

Quite frankly, winning streaks and full stadiums hold no allure for us (let this be the first of many gross generalizations about what "we" Kansas Citians like and don't like). We like buying inexpensive seats and sitting in expensive seats instead, parking 200 feet from the stadium entrance, helmet sundaes, and having Sluggerr — our cheerful, hugtastic mascot — shoot free hot dogs into the upper deck with his military-issue air cannon.

You see, being a Royals fan is an easy and even existence. We expect very little and always get what we expect. By May 1 we've already switched from "Whad'ya think the boys in blue will do this year?" to "At this pace, they'll set a modern-era record for the least amount of _____" (This year it's run production).

Sure, you can make a pretty good quantitative case for signing Bonds, pointing to the potential for increased ticket and merchandise sales. You could point to his efficiency at the plate. You could probably even prove that his once-mighty bat could still win some games.

If the Royals sign Bonds, though, there will be people in this city who get hopeful. And Kansas City isn't about hope; it's about comfort. It's about putting on a fresh pair of Zubaz, getting in your Bonneville and driving from your $200,000 mansion to the neighborhood Red Lobster for a dinner of cheddar biscuits and deep-fried shellfish. Signing Barry Bonds would bring hope, which would inevitably lead to expectation, which would inevitably lead to disappointment.

For the rest of the article, click here .

0 recs | Comment 16 comments

Read Related

Story-email Email | Print |

Comments

legality smality lol. But thanks for finding

the link for me otherwise I wouldent have posted the whole thing

by Billybutlerformvp on May 2, 2008 9:49 PM EDT 0 recs

It's fun to pretend that adding Barry Bonds would fix everything and get us into contention

For the record, it wouldn’t.

I probably disagree with you.

by NYRoyal on May 3, 2008 12:12 AM EDT 0 recs

Okay how does this sound though

By getting bonds, maybe we wont win this year but we would hopefully be putting asses in the seats.. making more money for the owner soo GMDM can pursue FA’s like Mark Teixiera (or however ya spell it) because its stupid when people bitch about us overpaying people like Gil Meche and Jose Guillen because hey, thats what we have to do because this franchise is bad.. and once we get people in here that are good, at the expense of overpaying them, then we can start getting FA’s at a reasonable price..

A lot of you wont like me... by I assure you my opinion will be voiced GO ROYALS!

by focs on May 3, 2008 2:06 AM EDT up 0 recs

Money

Do you think that Bonds would greatly increase attendance? It would increase some, but I don’t think he’d make a huge difference. Certainly not enough to make Teixiera affordable. This is particularly true when you consider that Bonds isn’t coming for league minimum. He’s going to want some millions. I don’t know that the attendance increase would even pay for his salary. Do you think that the Bonds net revenue increase (if there is any) would make us able to outbid the Yankees? No way. Not even close.

But, as I’ve said many times. This incessant Bonds discussion is entirely moot because it is extremely unlikely that Bonds would play for a non-contending team.

I probably disagree with you.

by NYRoyal on May 3, 2008 11:33 AM EDT up 0 recs

yes it would

by Billybutlerformvp on May 3, 2008 7:10 AM EDT up 0 recs

There's absolutely no reason to believe this

I still think this is maybe an 80 win team right now. If you think Bonds adds more than 5 wins to this team, then you need to re-check your math. He doesn’t. And that’s if he stays healthy all season. Do you think 85 wins gives the Royals any chance of getting to the playoffs? Nope.

You know what, for all we know, the Royals may have contacted Bonds agent early in the offseason when many other teams did. The rumor was that Bonds agent told a bunch of teams that he wasn’t interested in them because he only wanted to play for contenders and/or didn’t want to DH. I’m not saying the Royals made a contract offer, but I wouldn’t be surprised if they talked to his agent a little to figure out if he had any interest. If so, I’m sure Bonds agent said “no thanks.” There is absolutely no reason to believe that Bonds is interested in playing for the Royals for any price. So why do we keep incessantly complaining about not having Bonds on this team?

I probably disagree with you.

by NYRoyal on May 3, 2008 11:37 AM EDT up 0 recs

Because the pro-Bonds portion of the media

keeps harping about “nobody will sign him”. I have no doubt that some teams have contacted him and been rebuffed, but certain journalists are making a point of trying to sell the idea that nobody has.

Sarcasm™. It's the new gravy.

by jonfmorse on May 3, 2008 11:54 AM EDT up 0 recs

Yes, I think he would like to play baseball this year

...but only under certain circumstances and certain conditions. I think there are some teams he’d like to play for and many teams he would not. I think the former group is smaller than the latter. He might also not be interested in DHing. Regardless, I highly doubt that the Royals are on Bonds list of teams he’d consider playing for.

I probably disagree with you.

by NYRoyal on May 3, 2008 11:57 AM EDT up 0 recs

I agree with you.

I was just pointing out why you have fans of every team that could use him bitching “why don’t we sign Bonds?”

Sarcasm™. It's the new gravy.

by jonfmorse on May 4, 2008 1:59 PM EDT up 0 recs

for the record, his agent says no one has made any offer at any price.

by 390 on May 4, 2008 3:29 PM EDT up 0 recs

A couple things on that

1. Bonds agent is under no obligation to tell the truth to the media. His job is to act in the interest of his client, not in the interest of honest and accurate information.

2. It is quite possible that no team has made an offer. The rumor (and it is a rumor that I believe is likely to be true) was that multiple teams contacted his agent early in the offseason to find out if Bonds was interested in playing for their team, and in what role and under which circumstances. My feeling is that Bonds agent made it clear that he was only interested in playing for a contender and he might want/require significant PT in LF. If those things are true, no wonder no team has made a contract offer.

I probably disagree with you.

by NYRoyal on May 4, 2008 4:01 PM EDT up 0 recs

a lot of assumptions there.

i don’t think you’d tolerate that level of speculation on other subjects.

what we know is – no team has made an offer, or expressed overt interest. bond’s agent isn’t under oath (or indictment), but i don’t see the motivation for saying there is no interest in his client.

by 390 on May 4, 2008 4:31 PM EDT up 0 recs

I stated very openly what was rumor, what was opinion and what was "my feeling"

There’s nothing wrong with sharing opinions. I didn’t pretend that my opinion is fact. Bonds agent is supporting the meme that Bonds is being blackballed. He wants to make it seem like it isn’t anything substantive about Bonds. It isn’t about the limitations that Bonds has put on any potential signing. It is irrational, moralistic collusion by MLB teams. That is his motivation. Agents don’t tell the truth publicly. They tell the story they want to tell about their client. They have no reason to do otherwise.

Do you really think that Bonds is willing to play for any team that meets his price? Do you think that Bonds doesn’t care where he plays or which position or how much PT he gets? If you don’t think that he has put restrictions on who he’d play for and under which circumstances, then I think you are far out of touch with Bonds reality.

I probably disagree with you.

by NYRoyal on May 4, 2008 4:54 PM EDT up 0 recs

And what we knew last year was

Scott Boras talking about teams making offers to A-Rod before A-Rod finally told Scott to go piss up a rope and worked out his own deal.

Agents skirt the truth or even outright lie all the time, either to try and drive up the market for their player, or to “handle” public relations situations. Jeff Borris is quite possibly doing the latter.

Sarcasm™. It's the new gravy.

by jonfmorse on May 4, 2008 6:40 PM EDT up 0 recs