Would you want Barry Bonds as a Giants-Fan?

[Jose Reyes]

I think it would be a bad baseball move to sign him regardless of whether or not he cares about winning anymore. It would just be a bad move for the future to pay a ton of money for a 40+ year old who can barely run anymore just because he's approaching a record.

[Richmond Hill Phoenix]

Why not make him player-manager, and let him pull another Pete Rose?

[Charger567]

Originally Posted by SwissRedSoxFan

Would you like to have this guy who is likely hitting below .250 in 2007, because he will be looking Homerun every single at bat. He won't care about the team. Thats my opinion, what is yours?

Thats retarded.. You don't need to have a low average to hit home runs.

He batted .328 the year he hit 73 home runs.

[SwissRedSoxFan]

Originally Posted by Charger567

Thats retarded.. You don't need to have a low average to hit home runs.

He batted .328 the year he hit 73 home runs.

Thats not what I'm saying.

I say. If you look consequently for HR every at bat, also with 2 outs, runner on second and third, 9th inning and your team is one run behind, you are not a teamplayer but selfish and pitcher will know very fast if you are looking HR every at bat and they will pitch to you differently and you also approach an at bat very differently if you are looking homerun every AB.

You don't want to go the other way and just looking on inside pitches. This will drop your average, because you won't use the whole field.

[SwissRedSoxFan]

Would you like to have this guy who is likely hitting below .250 in 2007, because he will be looking Homerun every single at bat. He won't care about the team. Thats my opinion, what is yours?

[SwissRedSoxFan]

I'm also very surprised hearing that he could go to the Padres. That wont happen.

Bonds wants to hit HR not flyballs...

[Dodgerfan1]

The fact is Bonds is going to pass Aaron. Barring something dramatic, it's going to happen. I think the record will always be tainted, so only time will tell how seriously future fans take it. When Ruth played the game, home runs were not very common occurences (at least not the first few years he played), and he hit more home runs than many TEAMS did, much less individual players. Bonds' huge single-season home run totals have been hit in an era of absurd home run totals, so taken into context, it's not nearly so impressive. Another way to look at it is if you were to adjust the league's homer totals in Ruth's day to mirror modern home run totals, and give him the 8 extra games a season that the current schedule allows, Ruth would have had an equivalent of around 100, or so, in 1927.

Anyway, that's all 'what if' stuff, and this is reality. Bonds will get the record and only a small percentage of true baseball fans will ever acknowledge that he deserves it. The vast majority of people who accept the record as being legitimate will be Giant fans and kids who worship Bonds as a hero (that line of distinction isn't as big as it should be, unfortunately. I live in the SF Bay Area and have talked to Giants fans as opposed to other baseball fans, and I'm not exaggerating).

[Astro]

Originally Posted by Dodgerfan1

The fact is Bonds is going to pass Aaron. Barring something dramatic, it's going to happen. I think the record will always be tainted, so only time will tell how seriously future fans take it. When Ruth played the game, home runs were not very common occurences (at least not the first few years he played), and he hit more home runs than many TEAMS did, much less individual players. Bonds' huge single-season home run totals have been hit in an era of absurd home run totals, so taken into context, it's not nearly so impressive. Another way to look at it is if you were to adjust the league's homer totals in Ruth's day to mirror modern home run totals, and give him the 8 extra games a season that the current schedule allows, Ruth would have had an equivalent of around 100, or so, in 1927.

Anyway, that's all 'what if' stuff, and this is reality. Bonds will get the record and only a small percentage of true baseball fans will ever acknowledge that he deserves it. The vast majority of people who accept the record as being legitimate will be Giant fans and kids who worship Bonds as a hero (that line of distinction isn't as big as it should be, unfortunately. I live in the SF Bay Area and have talked to Giants fans as opposed to other baseball fans, and I'm not exaggerating).

You forgot people who are sick and tired of all of the whinning and crying... I hope he breaks the record just because I'm sick of hearing about how he took steroids...

And if you brought Ruth to this era, he'd get hurt and/or hit only 25 or 30 homeruns a season... plus the media would tear into him for his poor exercise habits

[SwissRedSoxFan]

Originally Posted by Dodgerfan1

The fact is Bonds is going to pass Aaron. Barring something dramatic, it's going to happen. I think the record will always be tainted, so only time will tell how seriously future fans take it. When Ruth played the game, home runs were not very common occurences (at least not the first few years he played), and he hit more home runs than many TEAMS did, much less individual players. Bonds' huge single-season home run totals have been hit in an era of absurd home run totals, so taken into context, it's not nearly so impressive. Another way to look at it is if you were to adjust the league's homer totals in Ruth's day to mirror modern home run totals, and give him the 8 extra games a season that the current schedule allows, Ruth would have had an equivalent of around 100, or so, in 1927.

Anyway, that's all 'what if' stuff, and this is reality. Bonds will get the record and only a small percentage of true baseball fans will ever acknowledge that he deserves it. The vast majority of people who accept the record as being legitimate will be Giant fans and kids who worship Bonds as a hero (that line of distinction isn't as big as it should be, unfortunately. I live in the SF Bay Area and have talked to Giants fans as opposed to other baseball fans, and I'm not exaggerating).

I'm not a Barry Bonds fan, neither a hater, but I'm sure Hank Aaron also took substances who are today known as doping.

Just to increase his strength.

[cardsfanatic]

I wouldn't mind Barry in St. Louis. Then again, I don't typically "hate" and "dislike" athletes over petty things.

[cardsfanatic]

Originally Posted by Astro

You forgot people who are sick and tired of all of the whinning and crying... I hope he breaks the record just because I'm sick of hearing about how he took steroids...

And if you brought Ruth to this era, he'd get hurt and/or hit only 25 or 30 homeruns a season... plus the media would tear into him for his poor exercise habits

I disagree with that Ruth assessment. It's no secret he wasn't as fit as any of hese guys today but who in his era was? If you gave the players of yesteryear access to all of the supplements and weights and such as they have today, then I'm sure a lot of them -- including Ruth -- would be in a lot better shape. Ruth, just like all players, was a product of his time. It was perfectly acceptable for an athlete to do what he did and still go to the park the next day and play baseball. If he was born in _this_ era and raised in _this_ era, all of the influences would be different and he wouldn't be the 300lb man on a pair of chicken legs out there playing with a hangover.

That's why I dislike all of the generation comparisons. It's not like in the 1920's they has modern science dabbling in supplements and gyms on every block of each major city. There was no weight training, treadmills, eliptical machines and stationary bikes. There were no fly machines and lat/row machines. So how can you discredit a generation for not being as fit as today's generation of ballplayers when they didn't have access to all of the same equipment?

[W_Marone]

I didnt vote, didnt like the choices I was giving to be honest, I think Bond's mind is on the record, but at the same time I dont think his average and other stuff is going to suffer, Bonds still knows how to hit, he's not just going to be flailing at any pitch he sees just to get a homerun...I think I'd take him, and althought I dont think he would get teh Giants to the playoffs I think he would be a helping factor in getting them there.

[Astro]

Originally Posted by cardsfanatic

I disagree with that Ruth assessment. It's no secret he wasn't as fit as any of hese guys today but who in his era was? If you gave the players of yesteryear access to all of the supplements and weights and such as they have today, then I'm sure a lot of them -- including Ruth -- would be in a lot better shape. Ruth, just like all players, was a product of his time. It was perfectly acceptable for an athlete to do what he did and still go to the park the next day and play baseball. If he was born in _this_ era and raised in _this_ era, all of the influences would be different and he wouldn't be the 300lb man on a pair of chicken legs out there playing with a hangover.

That's why I dislike all of the generation comparisons. It's not like in the 1920's they has modern science dabbling in supplements and gyms on every block of each major city. There was no weight training, treadmills, eliptical machines and stationary bikes. There were no fly machines and lat/row machines. So how can you discredit a generation for not being as fit as today's generation of ballplayers when they didn't have access to all of the same equipment?

You place Ruth into this era, the same way he played, he would not be very good... point blank

[cardsfanatic]

Originally Posted by Astro

You place Ruth into this era, the same way he played, he would not be very good... point blank

Ok... put Jim Brown in today's NFL and he sucks, where DL run 4.7 40's. The point that proves? If Babe Ruth were born at a later date he would have grown up with access to weights and dieticians and this and that. If you go changing the era he plays in you also change the era he grows up in.

But, you seem to know exactly how it'd workout and Ruth would suck in today's baseball. So, when you want to rent out your "alternate reality machine" just let me know.

[Brannu]

Naturally, as I'm not a Giant fan and will never be, I'm not voting on this poll, yet it seems a bit strange that one of the "no" answers is that Bonds doesn't care about winning and all he wants to do is break the record. I say that it is strange because there isn't a professional athlete in any sport that "doesn't care about winning."

[Brannu]

Originally Posted by SwissRedSoxFan

Would you like to have this guy who is likely hitting below .250 in 2007, because he will be looking Homerun every single at bat. He won't care about the team. Thats my opinion, what is yours?

Barry, if playing a full season, will not have to be "looking homerun every single at bat" to pass the record. It's not a matter of "if" for next season, it is a matter of when. He will not be hitting less than .250 either. I'll place a hefty wager on that. And, if he plays for Oakland, at DH ... he may have the record by the all-star break.

However, there is this relevant article. Sabean wants Bonds back.

http://mlb.mlb.com/NASApp/mlb/news/a...2006&fext=.jsp

[Brannu]

Originally Posted by Jose Reyes

I think it would be a bad baseball move to sign him regardless of whether or not he cares about winning anymore. It would just be a bad move for the future to pay a ton of money for a 40+ year old who can barely run anymore just because he's approaching a record.

Do you really believe that people will sign him "just because he's approaching a record"?

Bonds did bat .292 in the second half ... showing that maybe his knees were getting stronger, and if that's the case, he will bring in lots of revenue for any team that is willing to pay.

However, it appears to me that San Francisco would be wise to shore up their pitching before Manny, Barry or anyone is signed. But, that's just me.

[DoubleX]

Originally Posted by Brannu

Do you really believe that people will sign him "just because he's approaching a record"?

Bonds did bat .292 in the second half ... showing that maybe his knees were getting stronger, and if that's the case, he will bring in lots of revenue for any team that is willing to pay.

However, it appears to me that San Francisco would be wise to shore up their pitching before Manny, Barry or anyone is signed. But, that's just me.

There's also the financial aspect - Barry will put people in seats, especially as he gets closer to Aaron's record. Most of the country dislikes Barry, but from my understanding, he remains popular in San Francisco and is the face of the franchise. Losing something like that can be difficult to recover from, especially if the team goes on to struggle. Cal Ripken's retirement is a good example. His departure combined with the Orioles struggles resulted in less fans attending that great park that seemingly sold out all the time throughout the 90s.

[Astro]

Originally Posted by cardsfanatic

Ok... put Jim Brown in today's NFL and he sucks, where DL run 4.7 40's. The point that proves? If Babe Ruth were born at a later date he would have grown up with access to weights and dieticians and this and that. If you go changing the era he plays in you also change the era he grows up in.

But, you seem to know exactly how it'd workout and Ruth would suck in today's baseball. So, when you want to rent out your "alternate reality machine" just let me know.

I'll rent it out now if you want?

[SHOELESSJOE3]

Originally Posted by cardsfanatic

I disagree with that Ruth assessment. It's no secret he wasn't as fit as any of hese guys today but who in his era was? If you gave the players of yesteryear access to all of the supplements and weights and such as they have today, then I'm sure a lot of them -- including Ruth -- would be in a lot better shape. Ruth, just like all players, was a product of his time. It was perfectly acceptable for an athlete to do what he did and still go to the park the next day and play baseball. If he was born in _this_ era and raised in _this_ era, all of the influences would be different and he wouldn't be the 300lb man on a pair of chicken legs out there playing with a hangover.

That's why I dislike all of the generation comparisons. It's not like in the 1920's they has modern science dabbling in supplements and gyms on every block of each major city. There was no weight training, treadmills, eliptical machines and stationary bikes. There were no fly machines and lat/row machines. So how can you discredit a generation for not being as fit as today's generation of ballplayers when they didn't have access to all of the same equipment?

Thats always been my view on the subject, past stars and how they might perform in todays game. If we were to project how a past star would perform in todays game it's foolish to move them to a later era "as is". We would have to factor in the conditions of the time they would be living in today. It's for sure many would benefit from the advancements over the years.

Lets can the "as is" and use some common sense, they would be using the same training methods, advancements in physical therapy, better nutrition and any other improvements available over the years.

[538280]

Originally Posted by Jose Reyes

I think it would be a bad baseball move to sign him regardless of whether or not he cares about winning anymore. It would just be a bad move for the future to pay a ton of money for a 40+ year old who can barely run anymore just because he's approaching a record.

Actually Barry Bonds was still one of the top 10 hitters in the NL this past season. His .454 OBP led the league and he had a very good .545 SLG. He can't run anymore, but he still will do alot for the team in the batter's box.

[cardsfanatic]

http://www.baseballprospectus.com/un...666e24fa160b53

It's mainly an opinion piece so take it for what you will. Just figured it fit in this thread.

[sschirmer]

What can I say? Maybe I'm full of hate.

[ReignInBlood]

Of course I would want him on my team, he's still a big contributer and can win many games for you with his bat.

[Dodgerfan1]

Originally Posted by ReignInBlood

Of course I would want him on my team, he's still a big contributer and can win many games for you with his bat.

And I wholeheartedly would not. He's only an above-average contributor at this point, and that's only when he's not injured. Then there is the distraction factor. This grand jury thing isn't going away any time soon, and that will be a huge distraction. If you think the guy is surly and aloof now, look out. Even at a discounted rate, he will still cost more than I believe he will be worth in the long run. Plus, I just don't like the dude.

No, I wouldn't want him on my team.