rokski2
New Member
- Joined
- May 13, 2007
- Messages
- 387
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 pash 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 pashed 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 ashume 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.
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 pash 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 pashed 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 ashume 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.
