SF trying to get out of Bonds Agreement?

Re: SF trying to get out of Bonds Agreement?

Bonds will eventually cave on the missing time b/c of indictment issue. He needs the Giants more than they need him (barely, though). I think they finally realize it, as does Bonds, which is why he backed down on the entourage issue.

They'd be stupid to use the greenie issue as a pretext to back out of the deal. There isn't anyone out there available to play left that is even close to Bonds in terms of production or gate draw. He's still worth having.

We'd be pretty good if we didn't suck so bad.

by nostocksjustbonds on Jan 17, 2007 11:27 AM PST reply actions

Re: SF trying to get out of Bonds Agreement?

The Giants would be better off signing Bonds then trying to make some desperation trade. They should let him have his entourage too..

by Sinister Dick on Jan 17, 2007 11:39 AM PST reply actions

Re: SF trying to get out of Bonds Agreement?

Interesting Times article, although I'm surprised that it didn't mention the fact that none of our free agents had signed contracts as of last week. I expect the Bonds issue to be resolved, although it wouldn't shock me if it lingered for a little while. I would be shocked if the Giants open camp with Molina, Aurilia, Durham, Feliz, Klesko, Roberts, Zito and Kline unsigned... it remains to be seen how these signings will affect the Bonds situation.

"Robb Nen is going to get you" - Benito Santiago to Chipper Jones, 10/7/02

by Pants Man on Jan 17, 2007 11:44 AM PST reply actions

Go Ahead Peter

Every now and then in life we get a chance to make things right. Peter now is your chance to take a pass and move on. The Giants, both NY and SF, have a long proud history. Do not let the team I love be ran by an aging ballplayer who has no regard for the game, his teammates and the fans.

Move on Pete, the Giants do not need Bonds to compete. With Bonds the Giants have not been winners. Time to move forward. You already have another Barry.

by wilriv21 on Jan 17, 2007 12:01 PM PST reply actions

Re: Go Ahead Peter

I'm coming to learn that we'll just always be on different sides of this line of thought, you and me.

Coming to you by proxy

by howtheyscored on Jan 17, 2007 1:00 PM PST up reply actions

Re: Go Ahead Peter

With Bonds the Giants have not been winners.

What is your criteria for "winners"?

by otis29 on Jan 17, 2007 1:57 PM PST up reply actions

Good Question

Lately, of anything. Even a .500 record. A division, play-off round victory. World Series win. The way the faithful bow at his feet you would think he was delivering a World Series berth annually.

by wilriv21 on Jan 17, 2007 2:10 PM PST up reply actions

Re: Good Question

I wouldn't go that far. I'd guess in general, the Bonds faithful would say that it's not so much Bonds that they want as much as it's imagining the current roster without him. Bonds represented the lone remaining offensive threat available that doesn't cost them anything but money and pride.

Biggest mankinder in the history of no brain.

by Goofus on Jan 17, 2007 2:19 PM PST up reply actions

Hey, has LT quit crying and complaining yet?

by wilriv21 on Jan 17, 2007 2:26 PM PST up reply actions

Re: Hey, has LT quit crying and complaining yet?

I just got back from a ski trip. Saw the game but haven't read articles about it yet. Didn't know he was whining and complaining. He certainly looked none-too-pleased with the way things went down Sunday.

Biggest mankinder in the history of no brain.

by Goofus on Jan 17, 2007 2:34 PM PST up reply actions

Re: Good Question

is it Bonds's fault the team has lacked more power hitters, more solid starting pitching, a deeper bench, better relievers and Hall of Fame managers? No. it isn't and it isn't his fault his owners are on a tight budget.

The guy has won 5 MVP's for us, gold gloves, silver sluggers, set numerous season and career records and generally been the best player EVER while he's been with us. More than any other player, he's responsible for filling the stands at a ballpark built because of him, and he's done it all while being constantly hounded by a national and local media out to get him because he doesn't want to play their "give me quotes or I'll bury you" game.

And winning? With Bonds we've had 9 winning seasons and only 4 losing seasons, including 2005 when he only played 14 games and 1994 when there was a strike, so who knows how we'd have done. We've had 2 100 win seasons. We won our division 3 times, a wild card once, reached a play-in game once and an NL pennant once. (Who knows what would have happened in 1993 if there had been a wild card?) We would have won the World Series mostly because of him, but Dusty Baker is an idiot.

If you want to say we're not winners because we didn't win last year, fine, but it wasn't his fault that we didn't win when our bullpen was awful, we couldn't bunt to save our lives, we had no first baseman, our third baseman is a retard, our CF is a light-hitting RF, our RF was disabled, our catcher couldn't stand up without passing out and our manager was long past his expiration date.

We'd be pretty good if we didn't suck so bad.

by nostocksjustbonds on Jan 17, 2007 3:46 PM PST up reply actions

Move on Peter

Bonds was a great player. He is no longer. Giants can compete without him. After juicing and cheating he became Ruthian.

by wilriv21 on Jan 17, 2007 3:57 PM PST up reply actions

Re: Move on Peter

Is there anything that you have actually seen or have first hand knowledge of. I dont' mean to be picking on you, but you are one of the most egregious Bonds trashers here and I can't seem to recall anything that you add to the discussion in terms in of new facts, or even fact based opinion, that has already been beaten into the ground by Mike Lupica, Tom Verducci, the talk shows and Bruce Jenkins.

We get it. You don't like him.

Save The Pitcher. Save The World

by E Ticket on Jan 17, 2007 4:57 PM PST up reply actions

Re: Move on Peter

Wilriv, you Nasty Eel.

by Moggeee on Jan 19, 2007 12:11 AM PST up reply actions

Re: Move on Peter

A rudimentary knowledge of statistics would completely change your view of the world, dude.

I play baseball, You play playdoh; Kill your family, I'm KEVIN FRANDSEN; Coast to Coast, New York to San Diego; Eat some dicks, I'm KEVEN FRANDSEN

by elduderino on Jan 19, 2007 2:25 PM PST up reply actions

Re: Good Question

Let's see, one year below .500 BECAUSE Bonds was out with injury, and one year below .500 as he recuperated among other aging stars in a roster designed to win the year before. Previous to that, one of the best runs in baseball in terms of winning percentage, with four play off appearances and one World Series appearance. Yes, I'd call that winning with Bonds. Unless you want to also include every star the Giants have had since 1954 as being on "losing" teams because they haven't won it all. Love him or hate him, Barry Bonds helped the Giants win a hell of a lot of games.

yob

by Sayhey on Jan 17, 2007 9:21 PM PST up reply actions

Re: SF trying to get out of Bonds Agreement?

I'm fine either way. I'm fine if the Giants back out, and I'm fine if they sign on the dotted line.

Someday the Giants will be more about the baseball between the lines than the crap outside it. I'm looking forward to that.

by Skaldheim on Jan 17, 2007 12:12 PM PST reply actions

Re: SF trying to get out of Bonds Agreement?

I hear ya, Skald. Every once in awhile I have to remind myself that Giants baseball is about whatever the hell I want it to be about, and not necessarily what's on the front page of the paper. When I'm watching a game, BALCO and Bruce Jenkins are the furthest things from my mind, and that won't be any different this year.

This stuff does get pretty old every January, though, when there are no games to watch. But January sucks for a baseball fan anyway... it's not like I'd rather read more about Shea Hillenbrand's petting zoo or anything.

"Robb Nen is going to get you" - Benito Santiago to Chipper Jones, 10/7/02

by Pants Man on Jan 17, 2007 12:30 PM PST up reply actions

Re: SF trying to get out of Bonds Agreement?

I remember that the Giants took a hardline approach on the LeMaster entourage during those infamous 1980 negotiations. Remember...Lurie and Co. were threatening to sever LeMaster's jet privileges if an accord couldn't be reached on the issue. Luckily for the Giants, their fans, and Johnnie Lee's Assistant Sous Chef, the matter was settled without too much friction being generated.

by biff pocoroba on Jan 17, 2007 12:58 PM PST reply actions

Re: SF trying to get out of Bonds Agreement?

Bisquick, this:

But one unnamed lawyer on Bonds' team said Tuesday they think the Giants, affected by the reports of Bonds' positive test for amphetamines, are looking for ways to get out of the deal, the Times reported.

is total posturing, and anyone who doesn't recognize it as such doesn't know business. One of Bonds' own guys, standing behind a curtain of anonymity, found a way to plant a little seed in the press that applies pressure to the Giants. This tactic makes business sense, because the Bonds team (of lawyers, not baseball players) just lost a whole load of leverage with the Greenies thing. By posting this here, with this title, you are doing exactly what they want.

I own my own business and I'm a giants fan; being a Giants fan is harder.

by hairball on Jan 17, 2007 1:44 PM PST reply actions

Re: SF trying to get out of Bonds Agreement?

I agree. Well, not about Bisquick being a pawn in a complex game and Barry's lawyers celebrating the content of a McCovey Chronicles diary. That's just silly. But, yeah, this sounds a lot like posturing to me.

"Robb Nen is going to get you" - Benito Santiago to Chipper Jones, 10/7/02

by Pants Man on Jan 17, 2007 1:50 PM PST up reply actions

Re: SF trying to get out of Bonds Agreement?

Because of the latest news, I think the Giants now have the upper hand in the leverage department. Any possible interest around the league in Bonds has probably lessened.

The public reaction to the orginal Bonds agreement (too much money or they shouldn't have signed him) allows them to play a little hardball with Bonds. If things fall apart and Bonds is not a Giant, the team now knows the general public won't freak out and now they have one more excuse.

Biggest mankinder in the history of no brain.

by Goofus on Jan 17, 2007 2:01 PM PST up reply actions

Re: SF trying to get out of Bonds Agreement?

Hairball--weird post...was that directed at me? I don't think my entry was that far off from your sentence from the story.

by bisquik on Jan 17, 2007 2:17 PM PST up reply actions

Re: SF trying to get out of Bonds Agreement?

I agree. Sorry for the 'tude.

I own my own business and I'm a giants fan; being a Giants fan is harder.

by hairball on Jan 17, 2007 3:46 PM PST up reply actions

Straight from the mouth of knowledge

"It'll all be sorted out. He'll be a Giant." -Draper 1/17/07

Here's to a good 2007. Or 2008. Or 2009. Or 2010. Or...

by WalrusMan on Jan 17, 2007 2:16 PM PST reply actions

Take it to the bank

He also said "Yes", the Giants will win a world series.

by wilriv21 on Jan 17, 2007 2:22 PM PST up reply actions

Re: Take it to the bank

And he seems to think Kevin Frandsen is 22 years old.

by Roger on Jan 17, 2007 2:41 PM PST up reply actions

two out of three ain't bad

by wilriv21 on Jan 17, 2007 2:43 PM PST up reply actions

Re: two out of three ain't bad

Draper is a Nasty, Ignorant Grouper.

by Moggeee on Jan 19, 2007 12:15 AM PST up reply actions

Re: Straight from the mouth of knowledge

"...heads-up baserunning will cause a drop in double plays"

How?

I thought you reduced double plays by not giving fat contracts to slow, crappy, undisciplined players who hit into them.

Mighty Casey would have taken Armando Benitez deep.

by Stuttering John Tamargo on Jan 17, 2007 2:51 PM PST up reply actions

Re: SF trying to get out of Bonds Agreement?

Maybe the Giants are just trying to talk him down to 15 and one half million dollers.

With Barry back, what could go wrong?

by Rusty the Mechanical Man on Jan 17, 2007 3:35 PM PST reply actions

Re: SF trying to get out of Bonds Agreement?

Can the Giants go back now and try to offer Bonds less money? I would think he would have to accept because no one else would be willing to sign him.

by huro1010 on Jan 17, 2007 4:12 PM PST reply actions

Just Pass

Past transgressions aside, what have we learned this winter:

He is insubordinate to manager
He cheats with amphetamines
Throws teammates under the bus

Enough Basta

by wilriv21 on Jan 17, 2007 4:18 PM PST up reply actions

Re: Just Pass

First of all, the amphetamine thing shouldn't be held against Bonds (from a theoretical standpoint) more than it should against any other player. I've heard estimates of 80% of players using - but even if it's a lot less than that, you can't all of a sudden dismiss Bonds as having 'cheated' more so than other players just because his, and only his, name was leaked. If you didn't like Bonds before, that's fine, but I don't see why everyone is all up in arms over a few greenies considering everything else that's happened.

And with the Sweeney thing, who knows what actually happened. Either way, I just don't see how it can be argued that the Giants could come close to competing this season without Bonds. Who could we sign that could even come close to matching his production? Considering the contracts given out this offseason, we're not gonna get anywhere near as good a deal as we're getting with Barry. I don't even care about him breaking the record as a Giant any more; I just want the Giants to field the best team possible this season, and there's no way I see that happening without Barry.

by stress on Jan 17, 2007 4:36 PM PST up reply actions

Re: Just Pass

Actually we have only learned that he failed an amphetamines test. As Will Carroll of Baseball Prospectus said it is far more likely that he just used some diet pills that he didn't realize would cause he to test positive for amphetamines (many perfectly legal diet pills do contain amphetamines). This amongst many other equally perfectly innocent explanations is afterall why there is no penalty for testing positive for the first time and why the names of those that test postive for the first time were supose to be kept private.

But, of course we all understand that to you Barry just doesn't deserve the same assumptions of innocence and the same rights that the rest of us do. You are blinded by your hatred. If Barry doesn't have a right to privacy then none of us do. If Barry doesn't have a right to be presumed innocent then none of us do.

As for your other two claims of what we have learned all we have is annoymous sources and the opinions of clearly biased media. Alou has not claimed that Barry was insubordinate to him and neither has Sweeney claimed that Barry threw him under the bus. The only reason you believe the spin of the this clearly biased media is because you want to. As for me, I need facts, not the opinion and spin of the media driven by their hatred for one Barry Lamar Bonds.

by giantsrainman on Jan 17, 2007 6:01 PM PST up reply actions

Self-proclaimed Anti-Bonds fella

Yes, I William admit to being Anti-Bonds. He is a liar, cheat and brings much shame to a game and organization I love.

I despise players who treat their team or teammates without respect. Place themselves above that of the team. I loathe cheaters.

I will not enable nor idolize those that do.

by wilriv21 on Jan 17, 2007 6:55 PM PST up reply actions

Re: Self-proclaimed Anti-Bonds fella

Even if Barry Bonds used steroids (which is yet to be proven to my satisfaction) from after the 1998 season thru the 2003 season (as claimed by Game of Shadows) I do not consider this cheating. I consider this competing by the rules and accepted practices that were in place at that time.

To go back now and pretend we did not know and accept then that many were doing this and to further try to apply our new current rules and practices to this past behavior to me is the very essense of hypocricy. I do not consider any baseball player that used steroids prior to their being enforced penalties within MLB for their use to be cheaters. I find absolutely no shame in the behavior of these players that used then but rather much shame in the behavior of moralists like you that want to condemn then now for what we all accepted when it happend.

I further find little real evidance to support your positon that Barry has treated either his team or his teammates with disrespect. To the contrary I think the evidance of Barry's work ethic shows him to be one who gives his all for both to both his team and his teammates.

If Barry lied to the Grand Jury I for one fully understand why. If he lied it was because he knew the promise to protect his privacy was a lie and thus he felt he had no choice. I not only admire Barry as a baseball player but I also admire both his and Greg Anderson's fight to tell you and the rest of the witch hunter's that are seeking to lynch him to go to hell. I find your behavior to be far more morally repulsive then anything Barry has been accused of.

by giantsrainman on Jan 17, 2007 7:22 PM PST up reply actions

Re: Self-proclaimed Anti-Bonds fella

Are you personally going to substantiate any of this or are you just going to continue extrapolating as fact, inferences you are making without any real knowledge?

Fine, be that way. Its your opinion and you are entitled to hold that opinion. But remember, just because you repeat something over and over again doesn't necessarily make it a fact.

Save The Pitcher. Save The World

by E Ticket on Jan 17, 2007 7:43 PM PST up reply actions

Free Kool-Aid for enablers

And stating denials and excuses does not change the fact that he juiced, cheated, lied and disrepected his team.

by wilriv21 on Jan 17, 2007 10:09 PM PST up reply actions

No Kool-Aid for enablers - haters have drunk all

Wow, I guess that settle's it wilriv21 say's it so it must be so.

by giantsrainman on Jan 17, 2007 10:33 PM PST up reply actions

Re: Free Kool-Aid for enablers

So let me get this straight

Barry Bonds is detestable because he juiced, broke federal steroid laws, used illegal drugs, accepted and took PEDs, cheated, chemically gave himself an unfair advantage, <b>and</b> took steroids?

And on top of that he misled, bamboozled, untruthed, perjured, lied by ommission, was less than forthcoming, offered incorrect details as fact, fibbed, deceived, was dishonest, <b>and</b> lied?

All at the same time. Christ, that's a lot. Allow me to change my mind.

Coming to you by proxy

by howtheyscored on Jan 17, 2007 11:09 PM PST up reply actions

Re: Free Kool-Aid for enablers

I can't stand when I forget to change back from plain text.

I'm sorry, Wil. I'm not trying to be antagonistic. I mean, I am insofar as having an opposing opinion is naturally an antagonistic point of view to your own, but I don't mean to be distasteful about it.

I'm just not sure what you're trying to accomplish if, like E's been saying, you're not willing to make your ideas a little more reasoned for the rest of us.

Some of us disagree with your straightforward points on a basic level. Not the idea that Barry cheated, or that he lied, but the idea that these things somehow single him out from an entire era as The King of Evil to be crucified after the next hanging.

Because of that basic difference of opinion, these arguments become little more than a tired ritual accomplished thusly: Ingredients = Head, Wall; Instructions = Apply one to the other liberally.

And that gets frustrating, and then I get annoyed when I'm frustrated. And then, well, distaste follows. That's all.

Coming to you by proxy

by howtheyscored on Jan 17, 2007 11:21 PM PST up reply actions

Re: Free Kool-Aid for enablers

It'll be really interesting to me to see where all this stands say 40 years from now (and I'd very much like to live to see that). How many people here are old enough to remember how truly reviled and hated Ted Williams was at the end of his career -- the spitting on fans, the cursing out his beat reporters daily, the famous story of his absolute refusal to come out of the dugout and acknowledge the fans after homering in his final AB, despite his teammates, manager and even the umps begging him to take a bow. He was a man who played in a rage at everyone and everything and was trashed in the press for it daily.

I remember the glee with which the press treated his ill-fated managerial career. And long after he'd hung 'em up you'd read things in the baseball press about how overrated he was because, get this, he walked too damn much (Selfish!).

Of course, time turned it all around. The next generation hadn't ever been spit on or cursed by Teddie and they venerated him. The beloved Dimaggio came to be seen as stiff and cold, while Teddie's passionate intensity fit the times. Nobody knows where science or medicine are going, and nobody today can say what baseball fans not yet born will feel about all this. Will there come a day when a dying Bonds is wheeled out in front of All Star game crowd to a standing ovation from hoarse cheering fans? Who's to say?

by Roger on Jan 18, 2007 5:13 AM PST up reply actions

Re: Free Kool-Aid for enablers

Very astute observations, Roger.

Waiting for Nate, Tim, Billy, & Emmanuel

by Lyle @ McCovey Chronicles on Jan 18, 2007 6:47 AM PST up reply actions

Re: Free Kool-Aid for enablers

And if I may, I would like to second that, because I remember when Ted Did everything Roger spoke about and Ted was one of my favorite players despite his ogre like behavior

by Buzzword on Jan 18, 2007 7:01 AM PST up reply actions

Re: Free Kool-Aid for enablers

Wasn't Willie Mays kind of disliked at the time as well? It seems as though he's another who's more appreciated/beloved long after his career ended.

Biggest mankinder in the history of no brain.

by Goofus on Jan 18, 2007 10:16 AM PST up reply actions

Re: Free Kool-Aid for enablers

Mays, like a lot of starts, had a thin skin, and always felt the San Francisco fans didn't appreciate or love him enough. There were always tensions between him and McCovey because the fans here showed a little more love for Stretch -- he was "theirs" as opposed to Mays who was a "New York star".

Later (in the late 70s) McCovey had an autobio ghosted for him in which he outed Mays for faking his "dizzy spells" in order to take games off during the season (a relic of the days when stars were expected to play every game). That apparently renewed some of Mays' bitterness and I don't know if, even today, they speak at all.

by Roger on Jan 18, 2007 10:25 AM PST up reply actions

Re: Free Kool-Aid for enablers

It was more than kind of disliked; As a kid, I heard the N word applied to Willie more than a few times. By people who actually should have known better.

One of the things used against him, was that he wouldn't sign autographs for kids, wouldn't show up for engagements, was aloof, had a mistress and thats why he got divorced from his first wife, and was a hot dog.

Which is a lot of the stuff that is being repeated by the next generation of idiots about Bonds. They just don't use the N word while they're doing it.

Which is ironic. For Willie it was called being a philanderer and a hot dog. For DiMaggio it was called romance and hustle.

And for McCovey it was even worse

Save The Pitcher. Save The World

by E Ticket on Jan 18, 2007 10:26 AM PST up reply actions

Re: Free Kool-Aid for enablers

and Maris was reviled as he approached the 'hallowed' # 60. There is a lot of jealousy and resentment out there, directed at guys who make lots of money, enjoy lots of fame, and )presumably) get lots of women (see Chamberlain, Wilt). Everyone has their impossible 'rules of conduct' since these 'stars' are role models.
Lots of great points on here.
Wilriv, you have lots of good points, in general, but I think your position really is emotional rather than logical. And there is little question if the Giants 'move on' without Bonds, 07 will be a disaster.

by allfrank on Jan 18, 2007 1:22 PM PST up reply actions

Re: Free Kool-Aid for enablers

I asked you a question.

"Are you personally going to substantiate any of this or are you just going to continue extrapolating as fact, inferences you are making without any real knowledge?"

And this was your reply.

"And stating denials and excuses does not change the fact that he juiced, cheated, lied and disrepected his team."

I have asked you here and elsewhere to elaborate on your opinion. And you repeatedly respond as you did above. Or at best, you simply repeat an allegation from selected media, that is loosely constructed from minor events that may or may not be related. In any event they are certainly not given much context.

Bottom line is this: Like most, though not all, Bonds bashers, you really don't know what you're talking about. Well, never mind. I'll leave you alone to your opinions. For some reason I was under the impression that you actually wanted to debate facts, knowledge, or shed new information, or bring a viewpoint that has not been expressed at least 1000 times elsewhere in media in the past 3 days.

Just a friendly suggestion Will, but your opinions might be better served if you could draw some lines between actual facts, incidents, or common knowledge to make your point. Paraphrasing the rants, musings, and waxings of Gwen Knapp, Bruce Jenkins, and the SI, ESPN East Coast crowd does not serve your hyperbolic conclusions well.

I can disagree with lots of people on Bonds. Like Moggeee and Goofus and the Mayor of 311 and so forth. We have common grounds of agreement on certain facts. We have different interpretations very often. I think they're the wrong interpretations, very often. They think I'm wrong a lot too. In the end, the only thing that matters is new knowledge or new viewpoints or a better way of looking at things. What I don't get back from them is idiotic paraphrasing of biased hacks. I, do get back original thought, creative thinking, and more than a few laugh your asses off comments though.

Save The Pitcher. Save The World

by E Ticket on Jan 18, 2007 11:10 AM PST up reply actions

This'll stop him

Wil's a Pill.

A Shill, an Eel, and a Banana Peel.

by Moggeee on Jan 19, 2007 12:21 AM PST up reply actions

What flavor Kool-Aid today

Juiced: In grand jury testimony he said he took flaxseed oil and arthritic balm - better known as The Clear and The Creme. Apparently Bonds did not enjoy how the creme made him feel according to the VP of BALCO.

Cheated: taking flaxseed oil and the balm he cheated. He tested positive (and did not appeal) for amphetamines. He cheated to get an advantage.

Lied: Told grand jury he did not know he was talking steriods. Does this really pass the smell test? He lied to MLB about getting something from Sweeney's locker. Sweeney says that Orza called him to remove any type of pills from locker and Sweeney says he did not have any.

Disrepects teammates: while the Giants are playing he is sleeping. Manager asks him to play and he begs off. When a new contract comes up this winter the Giants specifically address these issues with Bonds.

A buddy of his (Anderson) has spent time in jail for steriod distribution and is there today because he does not want to rat him out. BALCO's reason for existence is to produce undectable PEDs. Bonds was their prize guinea pig.

Yes the media has a pure dislike for the man. Does that preclude them from writing the truth? Each writer? Every story? The media reports. You decide.

Based on all the reports, actions, evidence and circumstantial evidence I have decided that he cheats, lies, is juiced and disrespects his team.

The best evidence, the evidence that even the Bonds enablers and apoligists would have to accept, would come from Greg Anderson. I believe Anderson should talk openly and honestly to grand jury. Tell the grand jury what Anderson did, what Bonds did (and any others).

by wilriv21 on Jan 18, 2007 11:51 AM PST reply actions

no apologist or member of the lynch mob

There are a couple of things here that drive me crazy. First, Bonds did testify he took flaxseed oil and arthritic balm. There is no testimony that says it was The Clear and The Creme he took under the guise of flaxseed oil and arthritic balm. It may well be a accurate assumption that that is the case, but it is an assumption nonetheless. Yet, time and time again, this is put out as if it is a proven fact.

Second, if he did test positive for amphetamines (something I agree he most likely did do given his non denial) he is among legions of baseball players who have taken this substance over the last four to five decades (Mays, Aaron, Schmidt and many others have been linked to their use.) Please read "Ball Four" and many other books on the topic if you don't believe me. The positive test is certainly a sign of stupidity on Bonds part, but to single him out for your venom for amphetamine use is a little strange. It is more than a little strange that Bonds' name is the only one leaked to the press regarding amphetamines as I don't believe for a minute he is the only one to test positive.

Lastly, as to Bonds relationships with his teammates and whether he disrespects his teammates, I can think of no other time, other than the Sweeney incident, in which Bonds has undermined a teammate publicly. Even the much publicized pushing match between Bonds and Kent was because of Bonds sticking up for a teammate being harassed by Kent (iirc David Bell.) Barry is not necessarily the guy his teammates like to hang out with, but up to a few days ago I'd say he always supported the team, and always worked harder than any other Giant to be able to contribute to the team.

I especially dislike this nonsense about Barry "sleeping" when the team needed him or "begging off" from playing. Barry was coming back from major knee problems last year at the age of 41 and in doing so, he played more, and contributed more, than anyone on these boards or in the media thought was possible for him to do. But now he is spoken of as if he was lazy and just didn't want to help out his team for some unknown and selfish reason. If Bonds was unable to perform on a given day, that was what was expected to be the norm by most observers prior to the season. Now, he is vilified because there were occasions last year when it was true he was unable to play, instead of being lauded for the worked he did to be able to exceed everyone's expectations and come back. Place it in context this stuff is really petty and skewed.

I've already commented on the horrible action of blaming Sweeney in other threads, but let me say again, I think this was unforgivable. In this one thing we agree, and as a result I've reached the conclusion that I don't care if Bonds retires right now, but based on this one incident I won't accept everything the media writes about Barry either.

yob

by Sayhey on Jan 18, 2007 1:54 PM PST up reply actions

Re: no apologist or member of the lynch mob

"There are a couple of things here that drive me crazy. First, Bonds did testify he took flaxseed oil and arthritic balm. There is no testimony that says it was The Clear and The Creme he took under the guise of flaxseed oil and arthritic balm. It may well be a accurate assumption that that is the case, but it is an assumption nonetheless. Yet, time and time again, this is put out as if it is a proven fact."

This drives me nuts too. Of course it sounds like he's just setting up plausible deniability, but still he certainly never said he took anything illegal.

by hammystyle on Jan 19, 2007 12:44 PM PST up reply actions

Re: SF trying to get out of Bonds Agreement?

Back to the subject at hand. here's Schulman's article in today's Chron:
http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/chronicle/archive/2007/01/18/SPGQUNKOD11.DTL

Interesting item:

"Ironically, the leaked drug test that embarrassed Bonds last week might be his best insurance policy for staying with the Giants in 2007.

According to multiple industry sources, the Giants cannot use the failed drug test to walk away from the contract because legally they should not have received the confidential information."

Biggest mankinder in the history of no brain.

by Goofus on Jan 18, 2007 11:51 AM PST reply actions

and yet another take on this issue

While the Giants consider whether to complete their strained negotiations with Bonds or back out, baseball officials say Barajas' story could prove pivotal. Barajas signed a contract in December with the Toronto Blue Jays, then fired his agent, backed out of the deal and signed with the Philadelphia Phillies. His defense: "I never signed a deal."

If the Giants, who reached a preliminary deal with Bonds for $16 million six weeks ago, decide that they have had enough of Bonds and want to set him free, Barajas' name is sure to come up.

"The union didn't step in and stop that one," said a lawyer who is not part of the Bonds negotiations. "The Giants have to know that. Why would it be OK for the player but not the club?"

http://www.nydailynews.com/sports/story/489694p-412425c.html

Could be very interesting. An argument for both sides.

by wilriv21 on Jan 18, 2007 11:57 AM PST up reply actions

Re: and yet another take on this issue

There are big differences between the Barajas case with the BlueJays and the Bonds case with the Giants. The BlueJays decided that they did not want Barajas if he didn't want them. They never even made an effort to fight him backing out of the contract. Bonds' case would only be the same if Barry accepted the Giants backing out just like the BlueJays accepted Barajas backing out. This is just not going to happen. If the Giants back out Barry and the Union will file a grivence and they will win. The BlueJays too could have filed a grivence and they too would have won but they choose not to.

by giantsrainman on Jan 18, 2007 2:54 PM PST up reply actions

Re: and yet another take on this issue

But dood!. Its in the all the New York Papers. It just has to be true. Just like the pennant and world series the Mets and Yankees won last year, and the year before that and the year before that and and and...well it just has to be true. Because Barry eats small children, burns down churches, synagogues, and carries around a suitcase with a nuclear device too. Trust me. You might as well discuss astronomy with a Hale Bopper.

Save The Pitcher. Save The World

by E Ticket on Jan 18, 2007 3:03 PM PST up reply actions

Backing out of what?

SF Giants organization have yet (purposely) to say they have agreed to contract with Bonds. The SF Giants official stance is that there are ongoing negogiations and no deal yet. They have not sent any paperwork to MLB pertaining to Bonds, no signatures and no 40 man spot. The FAs the Giants selected this winter have signed some formal document and have reserved a spot on 40 man roster.

by wilriv21 on Jan 18, 2007 4:03 PM PST up reply actions

Re: Backing out of what?

No letter of intent was filed in the Barajas case either. If (as has been reported and yes this like everything that has been reported is an if) Barry has agreed with the Giants terms on the disputed items in the contract then the Giants have no basis to back out. The could not defend a desire to now add more conditions or a desire to change their mind on any concessions they had already agreed to. The only way the Giants can back out is if Barry agrees to let them just as the only way Barajas was able to back out was because the BlueJays agreed to let him.

by giantsrainman on Jan 18, 2007 4:22 PM PST up reply actions

Sure they can

they can add more conditions or change their mind on some issues. And here is the kicker - they can fail his physical if needed.

by wilriv21 on Jan 18, 2007 4:33 PM PST reply actions

Dream On!

What would be the basis for these new conditions? Adding new conditions without s new basis is the very essense of negoiating in bad faith. The Giants can not use the information gained from the violation of Barry's privacy that was promised in the CBA as the basis for "new conditions".

What would be the basis for the Giants to "fail his physical"? What new physical conditions would they be able to detect that they did not already have knowledge of.

Just because you want it to be true does not mean it is true or even could become true. You are blinded by your hatred and unable to look and this with a rational mind.

by giantsrainman on Jan 18, 2007 5:09 PM PST up reply actions

Re: Sure they can

Coming from somebody who likes to judge on integrity.

by mxmob33 on Jan 19, 2007 10:28 AM PST up reply actions

Physical

A physical for a 42 yr old man with thrice repaired knee and whose body has been ravaged with years of steriods abuse can very easily have legitimate health issues to where a club would think twice of signing to a 16/20m contract.

by wilriv21 on Jan 19, 2007 11:50 AM PST up reply actions

Re: Physical

Do you really think the Giants can sell that they didn't know Barry had had 3 operations on one knee in 2005 and one on the other in 2004 before they offered him a contract and thus before his physical? Do you really think the Giants can sell that they didn't know Barry was 42 before they offered him a contract and thus before his physical? These are all things the Giants and their doctors already knew thus they are not grounds for the Giants or their doctors to fail Barry's physical now. The Giants would have to find a new previously unknown physical problem to be the basis for any medical decission not to conclude the contract. This just ain't happening and all you hate driven dreaming just isn't go to make it happen.

by giantsrainman on Jan 19, 2007 3:00 PM PST up reply actions

Question about physicals

Yes, they knew he had knee surgery but he was already under the existing contract. I am not sure how closely the Giants medical team has been with Bonds. If I remember correctly Bonds choose his own doctor to perform his knee operations and not the team physican. Did Conte work closely with Bonds?

Before a new contract is signed players undergo a team physical. I would think that with a new contract the Giants would conduct a very thorough exam. Don't know how thorough the annual spring training exam is and the last time Bonds signed a contract I believe was in 2001 or 2002, so it has been awhile. The team physicians could determine Bonds knee might not hold up during a season of play. This is quite possible for an aging ballplayer with recent injuries. There have been reports that at least one of his knees is bone on bone (ouch).

by wilriv21 on Jan 19, 2007 3:45 PM PST up reply actions

Open Your Mind To Reality!

We all get you don't like Bonds and don't want Barry to remain a Giant. But open you mind, these dreams of yours are just not realistic. Barry will be a Giant and your dreams just will have no effect on this.

by giantsrainman on Jan 19, 2007 3:58 PM PST up reply actions