1. Welcome to SportsJournalists.com, a friendly forum for discussing all things sports and journalism.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register for a free account to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Access to private conversations with other members.
    • Fewer ads.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Barry - 1 more year? What's your take? (+ some commentary)

Discussion in 'Sports and News' started by rokski2, Jul 11, 2007.


Will Barry Bonds play 1 more year following the 2007 season?

  1. Yes

    8 vote(s)
  2. No

    2 vote(s)
  3. Don't know

    0 vote(s)
  4. Don't care

    2 vote(s)
  5. I hate Barroid

    11 vote(s)
  1. rokski2

    rokski2 New Member

    Ok, Barry's said that he's not quitting following this year. Now, this might just be typical Bonds-speak, but it might not be. In fact, I don't think it is just empty words. It's too early for me to look it up, but isn't his deal with the San Francisco baseball Giants only for 1 year? Would he have to re-up with them if he wants to continue playing with the Gints?

    Anyway, the main question is this: Will he come back? At all, for any team?

    I've thought for awhile that if he stays healthy all year that he would come back, both to: a) pad his HR total and b) try to get to 3,000 hits (he's about 100 short right now). If I were him, I would try to go to the AL, so I didn't have to play the field. In the AL, as just a hitter, he could possibly last even longer than 1 year more.

    He wanted to get the HR record in the NL, I know he's said that. But the guy who has the best chance to catch him, A-Rod, has played his whole career in the AL (though I'm not sure how many times he's actually DH'd in that time). If you're Bonds, you have to be thinking: "Hey, if this guy is going to pass me, I'm going to puff up the number some by going to the AL like he's been in his whole career. I proved my point, and passed Hank in the NL, all the while playing the field. Now that it's my record, I'm going to do it my way."

    Your thoughts:

    - Will he come back?

    - If so, NL or AL?

    - Which team?

    - How far can he push the HR record if he comes back?

    - How many more years could he play? In the NL? In the AL?

    - - - - - - - -

    Of course, all of this depends on the results of both the potential legal action against Bonds and the results of the Mitchell MLB investigation, both of which were spurred by the alleged, possibly-obtained-by-suborning-a-federal-crime grand jury testimony presented, for-profit1 (x2 - in the Chron and other outlets (e.g., excerpts at SI.com, ...) as well as the book itself), in the "Game of Shadows" publication. I say 'alleged' because, seeing as how the grand jury testimony of Barry Bonds is still sealed under penalty of being prosecuted for committing a felony for leaking it, we cannot concretely verify it's validity. It's important to keep that in mind, as many have failed to do in various fora over the past few days. That is, it is not acceptable to say "Barry has admitted to using steroids." He has not, at least not as far as we can verify with any certainty. He allegedly said that trainers provided him with 'the cream' and 'the clear,' I believe, under the auspices that they were a pain-relieving balm and flaxseed oil. Allegedly. Huge difference. Don't be irresponsible, people. No matter how much you might want to be.

    Also, as creamora brought up in another SportsJournalists.com thread about Bonds, apparently "Game of Shadows" contains at least one example of uncorroborated sourcing which has since been shown/argued to be untrue (something about a supposedly signed picture of Bonds that Victor Conte (?) was allegedly looking to sell for like $10K or so. Can't recall the pertinent thread on this, sorry; I'll look it up later). If such a minor piece of reporting can be demonstrated/well-argued to be faulty, why in the world would sports media: a) continue to refer to GOS's 'well researched,' 'excellently reported' contents?, and b) believe that the authors could be trusted to get correct far more important details, such as (potentially suborned in order to have leaked) transcribing/interpreting grand jury testimony? One would assume such a gaffe, if correct, would serve to impugn the credibility of the tome containing it. And again, at best, we cannot verify the grand jury testimony ourselves. At least not yet. So we're already taking things on faith. But now we're supposed to take things on faith when details such as this picture (painting, whatever it is) and the information about it in GOS are supposedly untrue?

    That's two leaps of faith. The 'indict Barry/sic him, Mitchell' branch isn't getting any sturdier, at least not yet.
    * * * * *

    1 - It should be noted that a judge recently denied the release of the unredacted versions of the "Grimsley names" documents. Something about the names only being wanted for profit reasons by news agencies, and not serving the public's interests, etc. Wonder where that ruling came from, you know, what the judge possibly could have been thinking about when he/she made that ruling? Not BALCO, the grand jury testimony, the Chron Gang, and GOS, right? Nawwwww. Judges love it when the law, and their (i.e., legally-trained and experienced) interpretations of it, are flouted in front of their faces by non-lawyers, kind of like how MFW+ did in the BALCO case, for example, when the judge ordered all parties involved in the case to NOT "disseminate the grand jury information to the media or for economic gain." (see:http://sports.yahoo.com/top/news?slug=jo-balco021407&prov=yhoo&type=lgns)
    Uh, yeah, that was before the info was, um, 'obtained,' by MFW+. So you're already dealing with ethically suspect forces here, particularly when Ellerman was doing what he was doing to try to frame the government. Not good; not solid moral ground, if you know what I'm saying.

    - - - - - - - -

    Anyway, as I said, I think Bonds will play next year, barring either poor health and/or legal/Mitchell investigation action against Bonds.
  2. rokski2

    rokski2 New Member

    In light of the recent ruling on the "Grimsely names" not being released, I felt it relevant to add some commentary to the first post.
  3. slappy4428

    slappy4428 Active Member

    Let's hope he doesn't.
    But even if he decides to, it won't be in San Fran... the human growth freak better like Tampa...
  4. rokski2

    rokski2 New Member

    If I were him, I would think seriously about the Yankees - huge market, plenty of $$$, and above all else, that little-league-esque short rightfield porch. That's almost a guaranteed 35+ homers for him if he stays healthy.

    Plus, the Yanks are going to need some pop in the lineup after A-Rod bolts.

    Those fans that kill him now? Yeah, they killed Giambi, too.
  5. rokski2

    rokski2 New Member

    A-Rod, for one, thinks Barry would fit in well with the NYY (near the end of the section on A-Rod):

  6. The Big Ragu

    The Big Ragu Moderator Staff Member

    I didn't read that whole first post. If the question is, "Is there a market for Bonds after this season?" it could have been asked in one sentence.

    He is not going anywhere. He's unliked everywhere but SF and he has played the "SF is my home" card to the hilt.

    The Yankees aren't signing him. That kind of opinion really should be left to the bad sports radio call-in yahoos.

    There will be little, or no, market for him next season, if he really wants to play. There was no market outside of SF for him before this season, and he was poised to break the HR record. It demonstrates how much of a lightning rod he is. It took a lot for SF to finally sign him, with all the wrangling over the language about promotional appearances and what happens if he is indicted. No other team even expressed any interest. With the record already broken, the Giants probably won't touch him for the kind of money he demands. Their team is a mess and they need to start young and start building. He's not worth it, in terms of the salary he wants, the rancor he brings to a clubhouse and the potential hammer that might fall at any moment with the steroid accusations.

    Thanks for all of the "commentary," though.
  7. Big Buckin' agate_monkey

    Big Buckin' agate_monkey Active Member

    What he said. Furthermore, if he were to go to an AL team (He might be able to get away with Oakland the way he's played the "SF is my home" car), he certainly wouldn't be anything more than a DH.
  8. F8vortex

    F8vortex Member

    He'd have to significantly lower his asking price if he wants to play again. Not even SF is going to pay him top dollar.
  9. rokski2

    rokski2 New Member

    That's as far as I got on yours. No need to go any further, as anything you say will necessarily be insufficient to address my more well-considered post. Next time, if you feel the need to participate, maybe just voting in the poll would be a viable alternative? That might be better suited for someone who doesn't bother to educate himself on the thread at hand. There were 5 posts and less than one page to navigate, which is a lot to ask of anyone. I understand, you're busy; you have a board to co-mod. Not a problem.

    This thread, however, will hopefully evolve into a 'big boy' conversation, and as someone who would likely be properly viewed as having repeatedly disqualified himself on this subject (that is, as someone who does not respect laws or thinks laws are malleable based on his legally-uneducated interpretation of them), I think you might want to wade in the metaphorical shallow end of the pool that is the SportsJournalists.com boards. Or at least when concerning topics involving legal discussions and/or which require comprehension of legal principles or legal philosophy. From all discernible evidence, the further you 'dig in' to the BACLO discussion, the deeper the hole under your feet appears to grow. I would suggest, perhaps, your participation on whatever is passing for the 'Random Thoughts' thread these days. I'm sure that the posts contained therein will be sufficiently short to maintain your interests and/or attention span limitations.

    But, as always, thanks for posting. Far be it from me to prevent the string of words I offer up for discussion from being used as a noose around one's neck, such as the case may be. Hey -- it's your string.

    I'm very much looking forward to your next 'random thought,' if you do choose to post on whichever of your board's threads is vicariously fulfilling the function of housing such writings.


  10. Chi City 81

    Chi City 81 Guest

    Dude, it took you 500 words to call Ragu stupid. Not a real economic use of your time, or your two handles on which you're posting at the same time now, apparently.


  11. zeke12

    zeke12 Guest

    Longer does not equal better.

    Papa made that abundantly clear sixty years ago.
  12. crusoes

    crusoes Active Member

    The sooner Barry Bonds retires, the better. I'm sick of him and his act. If he goes anywhere, it's Anaheim or Oakland. My money's on Anaheim.
Draft saved Draft deleted

Share This Page