Interesting article on Barry in Merc today:

http://www.mercurynews.com/mld/mercurynews/sports/baseball/mlb/san_francisco_giants/15907695.htm?sou rce=rss&channel=mercurynews_san_francisco_giants

According to the agent, there are "plenty of interest in Bonds."  "Teams are interested in him," one of which was from the National League (LA?).

But what I found interesting was this:  the agent, when asked by the reporter for clarification, "declined to say whether he's receiving the calls, or placing them."

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

I can just picture the calls:  "Hi GM!  Any interest at all in signing Barry Bonds?"  "Over my dead body."  "So you are saying you are interested under certain circumstances; great, keep in touch!";  

"Hi GM!..." "Well, I think we'll be able to get what we need from other free agents, but sure, if we end up with nothing among the other free agents, we might consider Bonds."  "So you are interested too, excellent, give us a call when you get closer to a decision!"

Say, if that works, I can call all the MLB teams and let Sabean know that I've had contact with all of them, so the Giants should hire me as assistant GM because I'm in demand.  :^)

Some more interesting stuff:  "Major league sources expect the market for Bonds to develop very slowly, if at all. Two American League clubs that need a left-handed hitter consider Bonds an emergency name to revisit if all other strategies fail to pan out."

That the closest I've seen that there could be some interest in Bonds, as a last gasp option if other options fail.  Still a lot of Hot Stove action to go before we get there so I still don't think Bonds will get much interest from other teams, seems like the teams will have to pretty much be scraping the bottom of the barrel before they turn to Bonds as an option, and I think Bonds could be insulted if it publicly looks like that ("Team couldn't get Craig Wilson or Jeromy Burnitz, so they settle for Bonds").

Also interesting was a quote from an AL team official:  "I'm not sure he's a guy our GM could just sign without clearing through ownership.  We'd have to be in agreement at every level.  That kind of thing wouldn't happen in November.  More like January."

What an understatement!  Any GM who hires Bonds without going through the owner first will probably be fired immediately or, at minimum, be severely under the gun after that, losing all assistant personnel who helped do the signing, and be placed on probation for the rest of the season.

He's thinks he's Boras, but he's off by two letters:  Bonds's agent, Jeff Borris, had the gall to say in the interview that "he still considers the 42-year-old a capable left fielder," noting, "if you look at his defensive stats from last season and compare them to 1994, when he won a Gold Glove, they're very similar."  That's why he believes interest in Bonds will come from both leagues.  I guess that's why Bonds fired him before his last contract and took on Boras while negotiating, then quieting returning to Borris, a short while after that.  How anyone can argue, seriously, that Bonds is fielding on the level that he was in 1994 is beyond me.

I still think no team will seriously want to sign Bonds to the money that he is accustomed to and if he wants to play in 2007, he will have to work within the Giants payroll.  And the longer he waits, the greater the chance that the Giants could spend "his" money on other players, if he is too recalcitrant in his negotiations and stretch things out to January so that other teams might enter the bidding.  I-Rod was embarrassed by that whole ordeal, I don't see Bonds being any different given how sensitive he is to slights in the media.