Petition to (at least try to) Sign Barry Bonds

by playingwithfire on Jun 7, 2008 12:46 PM EDT Comment 20 comments

I mean I know all of the steroid/bad teammate/not good for news yada yada. But hey, look at it this way.

Steroid list include guys like Giambi, Paul Byrd, whoever that good RP for the Indians is who keeps trying to kill baby Jesus, Miguel Tejada... they are all still in the league

Bad teammate include guys like Milton Bradley/Gary Sheffield/Jose Guillen, they are all still in the league

Not good for the press crew include any international player that don't speak good English, the rare white guy that's too shy to speak(looking at you Greinke) and the "you know" crew, you know? They all still have a job.

Now, counting out low PA folks like Tupman(2.000 OPS!), Greinke(1.667 OPS), Aviles and Bannister(1.000OPS). Our team leader in OPS is Miguel Olivo(who I'd argue to this point hasn't been a consistent regular) at .299/.326/.555. If you want to set a AB limit to 150 or above, it goes all the way down to Teahen at .258/.339/.409. Which is (cough) below league average for a corner OF.

Now Bonds' LOWEST OPS tracing back all the way to his last year with the Pirates(1992) was .999 in 2006 when he hits 26 HRs in less than 400 ab. And you know even with a little regression, he can still get on base quite a bit. And if he can handle 110 games last year at LF, I'll be darned if he can't handle 120-130 at DH for the Royals when he doesn't have to run on what used to be his legs half the game.

Now I know all the negative press we could be getting. But Bonds will 1. help the team win more games 2. draw more fans. And if he's desperate, he might sign for the rest of the year for about 5-7 millions, and that's tremendous value. And it's not like he's blocking anybody at DH.

Discuss?

0 recs | Comment 20 comments

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

I think it'd be great

It just is very unlikely. If we were in contention or something, then I guess there would be a very small chance. But with the team showing who they probably are this month, it just wouldn’t make sense for the future. That’d be a lot of fun to see Bonds in a Royals jersey, though.

by I need more Esteban on Jun 7, 2008 12:55 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

Conspiracy Theory #5346:

Dayton shipped off Berroa’s contract so he’d have money to offer Bonds.

Sarcasm™. It's the new gravy.

by jonfmorse on Jun 7, 2008 1:16 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

except we still pay most of the contract...

by ZeppelinDZ on Jun 7, 2008 6:44 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

NO, WE DON'T.

I wish people would stop making this claim. It’s untrue. The Dodgers are eating the contract rather than give us actual prospects.

Sarcasm™. It's the new gravy.

by jonfmorse on Jun 7, 2008 6:50 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

I don't know what is going on

An LA paper and the KC Star (at least the story I read) are saying that the Royals are paying all or most of it. And the Dodgers website says they are paying almost all of it. Where lies the truth?

This is just my opinion. I could easily be wrong.

by NYRoyal on Jun 7, 2008 7:15 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Keep in mind

the LA paper and the Star may be “the same source” (AP). I am more inclined to believe the Dodgers on this matter, at least until some compelling counter-argument comes to light.

Sarcasm™. It's the new gravy.

by jonfmorse on Jun 7, 2008 7:25 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

(But regardless, people need to stop stating EITHER case as fact and screaming bloody blue murder over it as a result.)

Sarcasm™. It's the new gravy.

by jonfmorse on Jun 7, 2008 7:25 PM EDT up reply actions 1 recs

+1

We don’t quite know what is going on with the money. But I’m sure the Dodgers are at least on the hook for the $500K buyout. So this is a win for the Royals.

This is just my opinion. I could easily be wrong.

by NYRoyal on Jun 7, 2008 7:29 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

No Bonds

1) We would not see the same guy who put up those numbers before here, partly because of the K and partly because of his age.
2) Even if Glass is willing to cough up the dough, I’d rather see it spent on a FA in the offseason (even Adam Freaking Dunn, groan) than on Bonds.
3) The Royals aren’t going to win 81+ games this year either way at this point.
4) The worse the Royals do, the better the draft position. Why pay more to ruin that?
5) Nobody will trade for Bonds.
6) Worst of all, I’d hate to credit Bonds more than the rest of our favorite team if lightning happened in a bottle after all.
7) Bonds at DH would probably mean Gload at 1B and Butler in the minors. Useless.

by Stat Ninja on Jun 8, 2008 12:23 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs

em

1)He hit just fine last year, account for some regression he’s still an awesome hitter. The K? really? I mean have you seen the park factor of AT&T, Petco and Dodger Stadium? I mean DBacks and Rockies play in hitter friendly park but NL west has a lot of pitcher’s parks
2)We are under the budget
3)we might not lose 90 this year
4)that is just against sports etiquette or something
5)but he will sell tickets and possibly give me a few souvenirs on my trip to the K(That my son, was a foul ball by the MLB career HR king)
6)...
7)or it can mean Butler at 1B and Gload wins a trip to the bench!

by playingwithfire on Jun 8, 2008 2:00 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Really, no Bonds

Look up as many park factors as you want. Then, I suggest that you review other free agent hitters who have come to KC. They almost always decline more than the factors suggest. The data for KC’s park factor has been skewed for a long time by the fact that KC pitching has been AWFUL and allowed way more HRs, especially to much better teams, which was every team. With all of the walks issued to him out of spite, Bonds would be lucky to hit 20-25 HR here, especially in less than 2/3 of a season.

The Royals are currently 24-38. That is on pace for 100 losses. Signing Bonds will not give KC a 14-game winning streak. Somewhere I’d read that the longest one since 2003 is a 5-game winning streak. This team needs to find itself and add players which will help it compete in 2009-2012. Bonds is not a piece of that puzzle.

I don’t think Bonds will sell many tickets here. SF fans loved him, but he was hated by most other baseball fans. KC has more purist fans than most places, and they’re not going to change their minds. Perhaps it would be different if there was enough time left this season for Bonds to record his 3,000th hit, but that’s unlikely.

The Royals will be lucky to have one of Tomko, Hochevar, and Davies perform as above-average starters this year. Tomko is probably the most likely to do that, but the FO has correctly decided that giving the opportunity to Hoch and Hiram is more important in the big picture. 2008 is audition time for those who may be able to help the team be competitive later. Every losing MLB team sacrifices a few wins they may have been able to get to audition and promote talent within the organization. It’s not really a matter of etiquette in MLB, it’s about what’s good for future business.

by Stat Ninja on Jun 8, 2008 2:29 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Except the losing has to end some place. . .

I’m tired of building for a future that never comes. At least Bonds would bring some excitement!

by jbrocato on Jun 8, 2008 9:14 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

How excited were you when Roberto Hernandez got his 300th save

...in a Royals uni?

Seriously, I was at that game, and I can’t answer that question.

Bonds would bring several times the salary burden and drama of Roberto Hernandez. I can’t believe that anybody really wants that, but we may have to agree to disagree on this matter.

Look at the Marlins and Rays and Twins. Building primarily from within can be done successfully. The Marlins have done it twice. Even the Yankees’ run in the past 15 years mostly depended upon developing their own players: Pettitte, Mo Rivera, Jeter, Bernie Williams, Jorge Posada. Ted Lilly made his MLB debut in a Yankees uni. Jose Contreras almost counts, and if the Royals sign Melville, it will be a slightly similar deal (in terms of committing megabucks to an unproven prospect thought to have lots of upside). Later, there has been Melky Cabrera and Robinson Cano and Joba Chamberlain and Phil Hughes and others. The Red Sox developed Nomar (which justified the FA signings of Ramirez and Ortiz), Varitek, Youkilis, Ellsbury, Pedroia, Lester, etc. None of the winners got there by buying all of their talent.

David Glass must be willing to raise the payroll a few times as long as a nucleus of players who are homegrown and/or acquired as prospects are entering or nearing their prime. I think he is willing to listen to GMDM and do his part now. I share your concern that the Royals’ future may not be that bright (i.e., Moustakas and H. and other prospects may not succeed in the majors or live up to their hype), but Barry Lamar Bonds is not at all a band-aid to that problem.

by Stat Ninja on Jun 9, 2008 1:00 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

2

If we sign him just for the rest of this season it doesn’t change what we do in the offseason!

Sign Alex Gordon to a life time contract!!!

by eboston on Jun 9, 2008 11:44 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

No Bonds

If I am going to cheer for the Royals, they just cannot have Bonds on the roster. The fans have to factor in somewhere.

www.rockchalktalk.com for pretty good KU baseball coverage

by James Quinn on Jun 8, 2008 12:38 AM EDT reply actions 1 recs

a lot of fans

not saying you

will change their mind after Bonds start mashing

by playingwithfire on Jun 8, 2008 2:00 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Actually, production goes a long way with me!

I am even thinking more positively about the Guillen contract over the last few weeks.

But there is a line. Even if Bonds hit like an MVP I still wouldn’t warm to him. And I couldn’t enjoy wins that he delivered. Bonds is the definition of asshole.

Everyone knows I am a bit cool towards Guillen, but I’ve always said that as long as Guillen hits well I’ll cheer for him. Now Bonds, the guy has been so harmful to the sport and is so despicable as a human being I don’t think I could ever cheer for him no matter what he did on the field.

I don’t follow baseball because I love winning. I follow baseball because I love the game and cheering for my home team. I wouldn’t trade the later for the former.

www.rockchalktalk.com for pretty good KU baseball coverage

by James Quinn on Jun 9, 2008 6:52 PM EDT up reply actions 1 recs

I'm starting a petition to sign Rafael Palmeiro

We need a first baseman. Sign my petition!!!!!!!!!!!!111

This is just my opinion. I could easily be wrong.

by NYRoyal on Jun 9, 2008 2:31 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs

NO! Sign mine for Fred McGriff!!1 1!!1!

OMG Banny. FWIW I am only crdtng u w/3 runs allwd bc of DDJ OMFG

by devil_fingers on Jun 9, 2008 8:31 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Three words

He’s.not.interested.

It’s ok to want Bonds on the team. But let’s not pretend that he’s willing to come play for a last place team. There’s absolutely no reason to believe that he’d come for $5M or even $10M.

This is just my opinion. I could easily be wrong.

by NYRoyal on Jun 9, 2008 12:00 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs