That’s all I care about right now.

Without a doubt in my mind if Josh Byrnes were to sign him it would make up for some of the other f ups he has been accountable for. I mean this would send me flying in the air if we were to sign the third greatest hitter of all time, AT LEAGUE MINIMUM.

Problem is no GM wants to pull the trigger on this because they are afraid of the media consequences but it comes to a point now where his impact on the field will out weigh his impact off of it.

Anyways from a statistical point of view Bonds is one of the greatest hitters in the game. Even in his 40’s when guys are usually done his EqA is still in the .300’s every year.

2005 40 yrs. old- .339 EqA
2006 41 yrs. old- .329 EqA
2007 42 yrs. old- .345 EqA

Note that EqA has the same exact scale as batting average (.260 is average while anything above .300 is great) and as you can see by this Bonds still had a great year in 07. I think if someone were to sign Bonds I think he would easily post a EqA above .300 and seeing how CoJack is the only regular to have one in the .300’s we could use it badly.

I don’t mind the steroids thing simply because it would be stupid for me to judge and criticize Bonds for doing it when I did not criticize the many on our 01 team or Mark McGwire when he broke the homerun record.

when people first started bringing him up, but when I heard a few days ago that not only was he willing to work for minimum, but give it away too? Come on, this is the easiest decision you could make.

Or, to be more accurate:
No. [MP3, not safe for work]

On a whole number of levels. Too many issues.
1) What condition is Bonds in to hit? He hasn’t seen a pitch in nine months, as far as I know.
2) The ongoing legal proceedings. At best, they’ll be a distraction. At worst, he’ll be behind bars.
3) His knees have caused him to miss a total of 216 games over the past three seasons.
4) What impact would Bonds, his barcalounger, flat-screen TV and entourage have in the locker room – and the other players? Every report I’ve seen is that he was utter poison for the Giants.

And then there’s the whole moral question of signing a tax-evading, abusive, lying, steroid-abusing cheat. Oh, alright: “allegedly.”

I think Ben’s poll options above are more than slightly skewed towards his personal biases. I wouldn’t “boycott” the D-backs. But it would certainly and significantly reduce my level of interest in and support for, the team. After a decade of hating Bonds – not just because he’s a Giant, but because I think he is pond-scum – it would basically be impossible to cheer for him.

Frankly, there are more important things than reaching the playoffs this season. If that requires us to hire Bonds, I’d rather not go there.

okay, here’s some guys from that team:

Matt Williams
Randy Johnson, not exactly a friendly guy especially towards the media.
Luis Gonzalez, a lot of people look at his 2001 powerfest with suspicion.

Of course, Bonds seemlessly blends these qualities together to make him easier to dislike, but the 2001 team wasn’t a bunch of saints either.

I would not be happy about it, but I wouldn’t boycott the team. That’d just be stupid.

This team is my team, no matter what.

chicks dig the longball. This way we could get more chicks!!

a FanPost has gone over 100 comments.

As long as you give him a day or two off every week, he will produce more than Brynes or Burke. 276 average last year. A lot better than some of the guys on the team right now.

would I be hated more if I wore The Player’s Chicago jersey, or a Bonds jersey to SnakepitFest?

Nick Piecoro has mentioned that possibility. Josh Byrnes is quoted about Bonds:

"He and maybe a couple of others are sort of sitting out there," Byrnes said. "I think it’s a bit of assessing any players’ readiness, then knocking somebody out of the lineup, dollars, etc. I don’t want to talk about him specifically, but, believe me, we’ve considered a lot of options. There is sort of no one obvious option right now, but there are a lot of considerations."

Also, apparently Piecoro is a jinx for Chad Qualls. Well, now we know who to blame it on.

I’m not a stathead, and I have no place to comment on any player’s morality, but I’ve started to think about this option for the dbacks. On ESPN’s 1st and 10 this morning, they looked at the Bonds for the Dbacks.

Bonds brings offense that we desperately need. Byrnes is going to be out for probably the rest of the season, and we need someone that can produce and play left field. One of the points that they brought up is that if Bonds were to come back in Arizona, he wouldn’t be the complete focus of everything because we aren’t a rabid sports town- not a huge market. I don’t quite agree with that- there is a rabid sector (hello, azsnakepit!) and I know I am part of it- but they are right. In general, Diamondbacks fans aren’t exactly “rabid,” but I’m not sure how popular that decision would be. Another thing they brought up was whether or not the Dodgers would take him if we didn’t.
As far as his legal problems…I don’t know. That, for me would be the biggest problem. When does the trial start?

So that was pretty jumbled…I’m going to go with I hate the idea, but he could be what we need right now. Worst case scenario- it doesn’t work out, we get rid of him at the end of the season. Best case? He puts us over the top and makes the Diamondbacks World Series contenders.

According to this report.

The D-backs will not be pursuing free agent slugger Barry Bonds, a source said Wednesday. The club had internal discussions about signing Bonds, who remains unsigned after the Giants elected not to re-sign him following the 2007 season, as it had about several potential free agents and possible trade acquisitions, but decided to move forward…

[Josh Byrnes’] comment, however innocuous, spread quickly and the D-backs were perceived to be serious suitors for the all-time home run leader when, in fact, they had only had a few internal discussions, according to the source. Byrnes explained why he did not flat out deny any interest in Bonds. “I don’t know at any time I’ve commented directly on the pursuit of a player,” he said on Wednesday. “So I don’t know why I’d start now.”

I have been an anti-Barry guy for many, many years, but for some reason I’m warming to this idea. Perhaps it’s because everything seems so tainted now, perhaps it’s because our offense is so dreadful, and definitely because the price tag is so low… anyway, I say sign up Senor Big Head and see what he can do.

first non-GameDay Thread FanPost to go over 200 comments. Bravo, Ben!

The Arizona Diamondbacks would be moronic not to sign Barry Bonds. There, I said it. First off, I feel like I must address the media frenzy that many anti-Bondsers have been mentioning. Media circus or not, Barry Bonds is the greatest hitter since Babe Ruth. Bonds continue to rake even when he was being booed at every game, and being slammed in the media. We can use sabermetrics to prove my point.

At this point, the DBacks are on pace for 83.3 wins, according to Baseball Prospectus, giving us a 49.15% chance of making the playoffs. If Bonds was signed today, he would probably contribute 2.4 wins above a replacement player, a 1.9 win difference above Chad Tracy, who is estimated to contribute 0.5 wins. BP has found a regular season win to be worth $900,000, which would make Bonds worth $1.805 on regular season contribution alone. However, Bonds would give us a 24% boost in our chances to make the playoffs. Research has shown that a playoff apperance is worth $35 million, so Bonds gives the DBacks $8.4 million by boosting our playoff odds. Add his regular season contribution to his playoff contribution, and Bonds is worth $10.205 million this year!!!! If Josh Byrnes is serious about bringing another World Championship to Arizona, he would go out and sign Bonds.