I'd say: 1. Bartman 2. Billy Goat Curse 3. And how does one and done in the playoffs feel from last year? Cheating, beating up a fan; they both suck. But I would never let something like that bother me to the extent that I would feel ashamed. Life is a waaaayyyyyy to short to let something so little bother you. You'll probably live to be 80+ years. Six weeks of Bonds at a minimun shouldn't do that do for the rest of your life.
Dude, if a transaction from a baseball team can effect you to the point where you feel ashamed and embarrassed of yourself, you might need some help. It's just sports!! Here you are contemplating on what response you would make if a Cubs fans started making fun of you. Like their opinion of you mattered so much that this was a life or death situation. All this for what? Because the hometown baseball team took a chance and signed a steroid user? Give me a break. You say Artest is not a criminal but while with the Kings, he was arrested for Domestic Violence. Honestly, I think a wife beater is much more serious than a steroid abuser. If you won't stand by a team that signs a steriod abuser, I'm almost positive you won't stand by a team who traded for a wife abuser.
If Lance Berkman wants Drayton to pursue Barry Bonds, will Drayton do it? I jsut don't know the negatives of bringing in Bonds, excpet Steroid Issue affect. I'm sure the Astros will sell more tickets, and that's even out Bonds' two month salaries.......yes, the Astros might not even have a chance to contend for the playoffs, but hey, if they made a trade for Randy Wolf and Latroy Hawkins, why not do this........... Come on.. explain it to me....
Bonds negatives: 1. Steroid issue 2. Media circus 3. Hasn't played all year 4. Worse defensively in left field than Carlos Lee 5. Would probably take at least 2 weeks to get into "game shape" 6. Polarizing figure
1. steroid issue = same as Tejada, it's always going to be there 2. media circus = we have no control of what the media says, so why bother 3. hasn't played all year = we're not asking him to be a impact player right away, even though he haas not played all season, but he could still earn some walks 4. Worse defensively than Carlos Lee = DUDE.. LEE IS OUT OF THE SEASON.. why are you comparing Bonds and Lee at this point. ARE YOU THAT DUMB 5. I would have to agree with you on this.. like i said he might not be out of shape.. 6. Polarizing figure.. we might not have to offer too much money... At least we have to check with him to see if he wants reasonable money
By Don McKee Inquirer Staff Writer Take that! Houston manager Cecil Cooper, reacting to an Internet report that the Astros were going to sign career home-run leader Barry Bonds as a free agent, told the Associated Press: "Bonds is not a fit for us. If he would come, I would go. I wouldn't want to deal with it."
If we signed him you are saying we WOULD NOT be asking him to make an impact right away??? I thought that would be the whole point of this hypothetical scenario. How much time would we be giving him to make an impact? 2, 3, 4 weeks? The season ends in 6 weeks.
I'd suggest checking your spelling and grammar before asking if someone is dumb. Beyond that, Bonds is a bad defensive outfielder. Folks complain about Lee's defense so I was using that as a comparitive tool. Based on your answer to #6, I assume you don't know what a "polarizing" figure is.
You were asking for negatives concerning Bonds. Here is one... Bonds is a very, very, very, very bad defensive outfielder. For every walk he would draw the rest of the season, he would give up an extra base or an out in the outfield.
By all metrics, Bonds and Lee are comparable defensive outfielders -- if not slight advantage Bonds. Plus, LF defense isn't all that important anyway, especially in MMP. The most valid argument against Bonds, and bobrek made it, is the timeline. You'd probably need at least 2 weeks after the day he's signed for him to be in game shape, and then another week or two of ABs against live pitching for him to get back to being himself. So, even if you signed him today (seems unlikely for Wade to go back on his word this soon), you still wouldn't really reap the intended rewards until early September, imo. For the Astros, that's probably too late. But for a team that went out and traded for Wolf and Hawkins when they were 8 games under .500 and 12-14 games out, it's questionable if they can logically make that argument.
If you are trying to replace a player on a team who's out for the season, generally you're gonna want to find a player(s)that is comparable in value. In terms of offense, no guy is gonna replace the production Lee had been providing. I guess the thinking here is that a number of players on the team (Ty, Erstad, Loretta, Blum being the ones that will see increased playing time) will together pick up the slack; maybe Berkman gets hot again and starts producing more runs; maybe Q starts to produce more as well. Then you look at how to replace his defense in the field...well that's not a tall order considering how slow Lee already was out in left field; so an Erstad or even Ty could equal or surpass his value as a fielder. The point is, you certainly do need to compare whatever player replaces Lee. If Bonds cannot give you (or come close to it) what Lee provided, then what on earth is the point in signing him. If you think he can, then it might be wise to entertain the idea.
I have seen this argument a few times and the logical response to it (whether the thinking is right or wrong is another matter), is that the Astros think that Wolf and Hawkins will contribute to winning and there are other players out there (Bonds included) who they don't think will contribute to winning, therefore there is no reason to sign him.
Eh, I'm definitely going to question their sanity if they don't think Barry Bonds will contribute more wins than Darin Erstad/Mark Loretta/Geoff Blum. Of course, it might not be entirely their choice. The more days pass, the more I think the collusion rumor might have some substance.
Personally, I think the timeline to get him ready, not knowing how healthy he is, the media circus that would ensue and the unavoidable distractions outweigh the potential winning impact he may have the rest of this season. If it were June, I'd rethink my position.
where are distractions coming from if the team is not going anywhere? I'd signing Bonds would bring more positves than negatives to the Astros. that is the bottom line
