Will the indictment affect Barry Bonds' contract situation for next season?

[Richmond Hill Phoenix]

With Barry's recent indictment, do you think he still plays next season?

That deal from the team in the Frontier League might start to look pretty good if none of the MLB teams are interested... :rofl:

[Mattingly]

Since the Giants were, to my knowledge, his only suitor last winter when he ws a free agent, I don't see why there would be any more interest in him now. I mean if you're an FA and on the doorsteps of breaking the most vaunted record in all of sports history, then you are only courted by one team, that says quite a bit about you on a very historic level.

If he had any takers or teams talking daily to his agent about his salary demands and expectations, I could understand. If no teams have expressed interest, guaranteeing them tons of attention (for better or worse), I don't see the market being fierce in favor of wooing him someplace.

The only orange he may be wearing could be a standard issue prison jumpsuit. If he spends time in jail, hopefully he'll be nicer to the fellow inmates than he was to the media.

http://stopmikelupica.com/images/BarryBonds.jpg

[rockin500]

i say no it wont affect it because i dont think he was going to be signed anyways.

[Richmond Hill Phoenix]

Really? I definitley thought that a team would sign him for a few million to a one-year contract. And I still think that a team will sign him for 2 or 3 mil.

[rockin500]

the problem is there are hardly any teams that have openings for him

[NightHawks2007]

As much as I support Bonds, nobody will want to sign somebody who will more than likely be on trial in the first half of the season.

[brett]

As much as I support Bonds, nobody will want to sign somebody who will more than likely be on trial in the first half of the season.


I think a team will sign him prorated for how many games he is available to play. If he is unable to appear half way into the season, the team doesn't have to pay him. Then they get the great benefit of getting to evaluate. If they are out of the race, they cut 8 mil off their payroll. If they are in it, they can look for somebody.

He would be a very valuable addition to the right team as a DH, expecially if he can play 130 games.

My bet right now is LA Angels. I think A-Rod goes to the Mets or

[zemtech]

Bonds new team next year will be San Quentin!!!

[KCGHOST]

I just can't see anyone signing Bonds. They saw what an awful media circus it was in SF and won't want any part of him.

[Mattingly]

the problem is there are hardly any teams that have openings for him
I think that quite a few teams could use his talent. At age 42, he may have only had a .276 BA, 340 ABs in 126 games, but you're talking about 132 walks (43 IBBs), only 13 GIDPs (phenomenal), and a 1.045 OPS. To me, that's beyond awesome.

http://www.baseball-reference.com/b/bondsba01.shtml

However, there's the baggage and the wonder about how many days he'd actually be available.

Any team signing him would be guaranteed instant press coverage, whether for better or for worse. I think that all the distraction he would cause for any team (even the Giants, if pretending he'd returned to them) would be far more than would be worth it.

He may just consider retirement, since I don't think that the MLBPA can talk about collusion of any kind if teams simply don't feel like dealing with the 3-ring circus complete with all the bizarre shows & acts, that would be staged daily and nightly in front of a large national & international TV audience.

Would there ever be any non-Barry Bonds information on ESPN or Fox Sports? For a few minutes a day, I suppose we'd catch a break.

[Mattingly]

I think a team will sign him prorated for how many games he is available to play. If he is unable to appear half way into the season, the team doesn't have to pay him. Then they get the great benefit of getting to evaluate. If they are out of the race, they cut 8 mil off their payroll. If they are in it, they can look for somebody.

He would be a very valuable addition to the right team as a DH, expecially if he can play 130 games.

My bet right now is LA Angels. I think A-Rod goes to the Mets or
You've just brought up an interesting point. What do the baseball rules allow? I know that in the case of Roger Clemens, the most recent player (to my knowledge) to receive a pro-rated salary, since he started the 2006 & 2007 seasons after April 1st (June & May, respectively). What are the rules in the case of a player on trial? Can the salary be pro-rated since the player is not legally eligible to play during his criminial trial?

The only athlete I know of who played during a trial was the Lakers' Kobe Bryant, who'd played in the NBA Finals (or at least playoffs) when he was on trial in Colorado for a sexual assault against a female hotel employee.

In the case of an ongoing criminal trial, is there any precedence of this in baseball if it went on during the season?

[DownUnderDodger]

It is really a mute question until the result of the indictment/case are resolved. If he is exonerated he would be worth a lot more than if he is found guilty in any way but not imprisoned. Obviously if he is imprisoned he will be only available for the prison team :cap: under contract to USA Government.

[rockin500]

I think that quite a few teams could use his talent. At age 42, he may have only had a .276 BA, 340 ABs in 126 games, but you're talking about 132 walks (43 IBBs), only 13 GIDPs (phenomenal), and a 1.045 OPS. To me, that's beyond awesome.

http://www.baseball-reference.com/b/bondsba01.shtml

However, there's the baggage and the wonder about how many days he'd actually be available.

Any team signing him would be guaranteed instant press coverage, whether for better or for worse. I think that all the distraction he would cause for any team (even the Giants, if pretending he'd returned to them) would be far more than would be worth it.

He may just consider retirement, since I don't think that the MLBPA can talk about collusion of any kind if teams simply don't feel like dealing with the 3-ring circus complete with all the bizarre shows & acts, that would be staged daily and nightly in front of a large national & international TV audience.

Would there ever be any non-Barry Bonds information on ESPN or Fox Sports? For a few minutes a day, I suppose we'd catch a break.
the problem is his fielding. he pretty much HAS to be a DH nowadays. so that takes out 16 teams. of the 14 AL teams, how many are looking for a DH? (less than 5 i would think). out of those looking, how many are willing to take that baggage and the amount of money he will want?

[Mattingly]

the problem is his fielding. he pretty much HAS to be a DH nowadays. so that takes out 16 teams. of the 14 AL teams, how many are looking for a DH? (less than 5 i would think). out of those looking, how many are willing to take that baggage and the amount of money he will want?
After the former gold glover had dropped some routine ball in the 2002 WS, I figure that he'd lost a few steps on the field.

Just as the Padres got Mike Piazza, figuring he could still hit, I feel that Barry's most likely AL team wouldn't be too far away. From another side of the Bay, the A's have Jack Cust (http://oakland.athletics.mlb.com/team/player.jsp?player_id=400091), who had a .912 OPS, 256 BA, 26 jacks and 82 rbi last season. I'm not sure if the A's would really spend to get the offensive improvement, coupled with the baggage.

Anaheim, which had been said to have been interested in A-Rod, could be a potential suitor. Same state, team's tired of playing "kid brother" to the LA Dodgers, that may be the big name they need. Would they be willing to pay him $12-15m?

Barry refused the Yanks offer in 1993, and the Yanks didn't bite when Bora$ (then his agent) offered for $100m/4 yrs. After the steroids headlines with Jason Giambi and Gary Sheffield, I doubt they'd want to spend that money on an aging DH, especially when they're paying Giambi to be a part-time DH.

There's already a great number of Yankee haters, and having Barry on the team would only make their passions much stronger and attract casual sports fans against them.

I don't see Boston going along with this. Other than Schilling, I haven't known them to recently sign any older players, and even Schilling isn't that old now. His 1-year deal is after 4 years there. I guess that wipes out the AL East, since Baltimore and Toronto would be hard-pressed to afford him.

I think that when Cleveland signed Kenny Lofton, it was partly because he was a reminder of the days when Manny, Robby Alomar, Jim Thome and others were still there. I don't see Bonds having any ties over there.

Would the White Sox or Motown sign him? Would they want the 1-man sideshow?

Texas and their very hot & dry bandbox may have a place for him. If Tom Hicks can be convinced, he could at least have a productive season over there. Without a supporting case, his last game there would be played by Sep 30th.

I don't think that a slowing slugger would be the way to go for Seattle, since if they're trying to make the playoffs, why would you need him without speed? 5 steals, 14 doubles and no triples seems well below his regular numbers, despite still having a great bat in much fewer ABs.

I think that Texas and Oakland are worth asking if they'd be interested. Of course, if they either pleasantly decline his offer or just laugh it off, in either case Bonds may need to decide whether his baseball career has suddenly come to a grinding halt.

[Ursa Major]

The subtitle of Ray Ratto's article in the San Francisco Chronicle (http://www.sfgate.com/columnists/ratto/) on Friday said it all: "One thing seems clear, consider the man retired"


Any team that hires him now is essentially saying, "We're so far away from contending for a pennant, we're just going to make this a freak show to put bodies in the seats, and we just discovered that Eddie Gaedel is dead."


((Gaedel was the midget hired by St. Louis Browns' GM Bill Veeck to come to bat in a game.))

[RubeBaker]

Well, I put yes because I don't think he'll get signed, but it really doesn't change things much for him. I thought even before this that he was unlikely to get signed.

He'll put up numbers as a DH, but he's a bonafide clubhouse cancer and its not like he's going to help the younger guys any. This just improves the likelihood that he won't get signed.

[plask_stirlac]

If he wants a reasonable $5M rather than his $10-15 I'd take him on the Twins to DH. He would probably double the OBP there.

[brewers96]

I voted the last one. If Bonds plays he will be in the fronrier leauge proboly. There is no way that Bud Selig will let him play in th Majors. Chances are he'll proboly go to jail.

[Fuzzy Bear]

It's amazing that people are unable to discuss Barry Bonds rationally. If I were to tell you that there was a player available who led the league in OBP, was 6th in OPS, and had a .782 Offensive Winning Percentage that could be had for an incentive-laden contract with loads of special conditions, most of you here would be drooling over the possibility that YOUR fave team would sign this guy.

Barry has done nothing for which he could be suspended as of now. His trial could well not come about until after the season. He could well be acquitted; the indictment could even be quashed. The indictment reads as the work of a prosecutor who spent a boatload of money on investigation designed to bring in a star scalp, but could only get table scraps of evidence. There is no mention of tax evasion, the charge for which the Feds were supposed to be indicting Bonds on last year.

Lots of teams might take chances. The Oakland A's would, if the price was right. The Yankees might. Bonds can be had cheap now, and he needs the money. People are writing Bonds off prematurely now. He's going to try to prove everyone wrong and stick it to his detractors. I'll bet Bonds' mind is obsessing over 800 career HRs right now; he could POSSIBLY do it next year.

You watch. Bonds is not done.

[Fuzzy Bear]

Chances are he'll proboly go to jail.

If you read the indictment, you probably wouldn't think he'll be going to jail.

There will be a backlash when it is revealed how much money was spent to investigate a guy who lied about his own steroid use.

[Brian McKenna]

There will be a backlash when it is revealed how much money was spent to investigate a guy who lied about his own steroid use.

I hope they get more out of it than just some guy who lied.

I'm not a Bonds' fan but it's not unheard of that people lie when they are trying to cover something up - be it steroid use or an affair or whatever. I image it happens in the media, in court and in front of the grand jury on a daily basis.

[ElHalo]

There will be a backlash when it is revealed how much money was spent to investigate a guy who lied about his own steroid use.

That's the thing; it wasn't just that.

They spent lots of money investigating steroid use in pro sports, as a whole. From what I understand, everybody else either testified reasonably truthfully, or refused to testify (look at Giambi or McGwire). When you're doing a hardcore, serious Federal investigation into something, and take testimony from dozens of people... only one of whom blatantly lies to you... it makes it very hard to continue the investigation, and it's understandable that they'd want to go after him for purjury charges for interfering with the investigation.

It's one thing if they had gone out with the sole purpose of invetigating Bonds' steroid use and he lied about it. Then it could reasonably be called a witch hunt. But when they investigated the entire sport, and only one guy blatantly lied... well, I think it's halfway legitimate.

[Brian McKenna]

When you're doing a hardcore, serious Federal investigation into something, and take testimony from dozens of people... only one of whom blatantly lies to you... it makes it very hard to continue the investigation, and it's understandable that they'd want to go after him for purjury charges for interfering with the investigation.


Especially when that guy was given immunity for his testimony.

[MudvilleMike]

I think that quite a few teams could use his talent. At age 42, he may have only had a .276 BA, 340 ABs in 126 games, but you're talking about 132 walks (43 IBBs), only 13 GIDPs (phenomenal), and a 1.045 OPS. To me, that's beyond awesome.


Yeah, he still has enormous value. Beyond awesome is a great description.

Whether he'll ever play again, I have no idea.

[Mattingly]

Yeah, he still has enormous value. Beyond awesome is a great description.

Whether he'll ever play again, I have no idea.
He can still play. Since the only team that ever wanted him the last two times he's been a free agent, no longer wants him, I think that would be serious trouble for him.

When Bora$ offered him for $100m/4 years, not one single team took him up on that offer. I think he'd just re-signed with the Giants for about $18m/yr for about 3 years. In 2007, he was given a 1-year contract.

Here's the big thing: when the Giants refused to offer him arbitration, perhaps in hope that they could have him test the free agency market and sign elsewhere, his agent immediate decried this as the team's showing their unfaithfulness to perhaps their biggest draw. In the end, I guess after quite a few "Is he worth it, or is he not?" types of meetings, they finally re-signed him.

Now then, why wouldn't another team have picked him up? Clemens got picked up and he's 2 years older than Bonds. Heck, even Boomer got picked up.

I think that when only 1 out of 30 teams in MLB has any use for your services, and once that team has tired of you and sent you upon your way, that it's reasonable to believe that he won't be playing anywhere else. If another team wishes to be front-row & center for all the attention, then can be my guest. I just hope that if he doesn't play in 2008, we can hear less and less of him.

You never know, perhaps in 2010 or 2011, we can have one of those "What are they doing now?" types of things and then focus upon him. Hopefully, he'll have been largely forgotten about by then. Very much unlike Ruth, who seemed very much beloved by those he'd met along the way.

In the end, he still has quite a bit of usefulness for himself. However, it's almost like he'd signed a contract with some guy with a pointy red tail: you inject these down there, don't tell anyone, don't be too nice to people, and I'll make you the single-season and career HR leader. Pitchers will and managers will absolutely fear you to no end, even IBB you with bases empty, two outs, they're up by a few runs late in the game.

However, not many people will like you and even when you've still got strong skills, few teams will wish to associate with you.

So much more on the plus side for Bonds has come about, including offensive numbers beyond anyone's wildest dreams. Look at the 2002 WS as a example: .471 BA, .700 OBP, 1.294 SLG for a 1.994 OPS. Absolutely beyond insane. Compare this to the .176 BA, .300 OBP, .353 SLG he'd gotten in the 2000 NLDS vs Mets.

To me, the indictment is just a start of what many people have felt all along: that his achievements weren't pure, he didn't attain this numbers honestly. Right now, I just hope that he goes away, and he and Pete Rose can become good friends in lack of wise discretion for personal gain. Hopefully, there is enough evidence out there against him that will be presented.

In the end, Bonds can talk about whatever happened, but if he'd never supposedly done this to himself, he'd be known as such a super talented guy, it wouldn't have been funny.