Why do people dislike Barry Bonds? A Rick Reilly/Jeff Kent conspiracy!

I read it. Color me unconvinced if the best you can come up with is that he didn't contribute memorabilia to a newspaper photographer who was doing a fund-raiser for the families of groundskeepers who died in an accident.

In fact, that's a better example of how far people stretch to find crap to write about Bonds.

 

"Never argue with a man whose job message board 'reputation' depends on not being convinced."

--H.L. Mencken

 

Yet your vague "I've seen him do good things" posts are supposed to be good enough for everybody. :

 

Or, you know, since you wanted to play that game you could come up with a good example to start.

So, to recap, the best "Barry is awful" story we have so far is that he didn't sign something for a newspaper photographer's charity fund-raiser.

 

I dislike Barry Bonds because, basically, I'm an equal opportunity disser. I don't like people! And yes, I know that soylent green is people.

 

And still not admitting that you are switching arguments in mid-stride.

 

One piece of cranberry's diatribe (yeah, I got enough posts to use "diatribe") rings absolutely true.

Bashing Barry Bonds has been a favorite game of the media for several years. And after a while, it's bound to become self-fulfilling prophecy. You expect a guy to be a jerk, he's eventually going to be a jerk to you because of the way you treat him.

And for every one of you who has a personal reason to believe Bonds is a jerk, there are three of you who are following the cool kids. (A favorite SportsJournalists.com pastime.)

 

I probably dealt with Bonds 10-12 times during his young Pirates career.
I fould him to be far more agreeable than players esteemed by the media, including Mike Lavalliere and John Smiley.
I never once had him fail to cooperate with an interview or a question.
I'm sure he knows about some things that went on with that team involving other players who got the kind of treatment from the media to which he would not have been entitled. And I'm sure he was bitter about it, given how the media reacted with him.

 

Of course, you can question the validity of the other side of the argument as well.

cranberry is an apologist for Bonds. We've seen it many times. He is incapable of even considering the other side in these discussions.

All due respect to twoback, he has a tendency to defend Pittsburgh athletes, even former ones, at all costs.

There are two different points here. One is whether Bonds has been treated unfairly by the media or not. It's a good question. I think he has been treated unfairly, but he brought some of it on himself.

The other point is this idea that Kent and Reilly somehow created this image of Bonds as a bad guy, or at least brought it to the national consciousness, which is ridiculous. Bonds had that image before he left Pittsburgh. Fair or not, it was firmly in place before he and Kent became teammates.

 

All due respect to OOP, but John Smiley is a former Pittsburgh athlete and one of the real jerks I've met in this business.
Andy Van Slyke was a full-time phony.
Joe Greene was arrogant and self-absorbed.
You're wrong, buddy.

 

OK, I dealt with Bonds briefly in his Pittsburgh days. He was no better or worse than most baseball players, whom I generally consider a lower form of algae in terms of their general personalities. And twob' is dead on about Van Slyke.

 

Fair enough. Sorry if I was out of line there. I was thinking of your recent defense of James Harrison, who is a fantastic football player with some real issues as a human being.