September 21, 2007

He's of no further use to them. Can't blame them at all.

posted by budman13 at 08:27 PM on September 21, 2007

He's of no further use to them. Can't blame them at all. Except for, of course, hitting the ball better than anyone else on their team, and by a huge margin. List of S.F. Giant batters with OPS+ > 100 (league average) Barry Bonds - 172 (337 AB) Mark Sweeney - 102 (90 AB) Eugenio Velez - 132 (8 AB) That's it. Everyone else on the team is hitting league average or worse. The Giants will probably be the worst hitting team in MLB next year (without Bonds).

posted by grum@work at 10:51 PM on September 21, 2007

If Bonds is done I have dibs. His head would make a great pinata. Imagine all the candy you could stick in there. Grum- thanks for the stats, you are great at that. However the Giants could possibly use his HUGE salary slot to pick up a few very good players in free agency and fill some of their holes. making them a better team without Bonds than with. I think the Giants conceded the playoffs before the season started, they were more interested in attendance and hall of fame recognition when Barry broke the record.

posted by urall cloolis at 11:43 PM on September 21, 2007

However the Giants could possibly use his HUGE salary slot to pick up a few very good players in free agency and fill some of their holes. making them a better team without Bonds than with. According to USA Today, Barry Bonds' salary for 2007 is $15,533,970, which is 9th in the league. Here is a list of expected free agents in 2008. (some may have already signed deals with their current clubs) Best batting options: Andruw Jones - turning 31 next year and posted a sub-100 OPS+ this year Torii Hunter - turning 32 next year and posted a ~125 OPS+ this year Adam Dunn - turning 28 next year and posted a ~133 OPS+ this year Aaron Rowand - turning 30 next year and posted a ~128 OPS+ this year According to another site, the projected salaries for those 5 players are: Jones: $23million/yr Hunter: $16million/yr Dunn: $13million/yr (actually, that's the team option for 2008 if they don't buy him out) Rowand: $11million/yr There isn't any way you can get two quality hitting free agents in the current market for the amount that Bonds would cost. So you'd be replacing a ~140 OPS+ batter (assuming Bonds really slumps in 2008) with one of those guys. Of course, that's assuming the Giants break away from their current trend of signing ancient players. They have the oldest team in the majors (average age: 32.7) and one of the oldest teams in major league history. Oh, and in case you were wondering if maybe some of the young guys might improve next year...there aren't any "young guys" of note, except for Rajai Davis (100 OPS+). Kevin Frandsen (age 25) has accumulated the most AB by someone under 30 (229 AB) and he's good for a 72 OPS+. I said it before and I'll say it again. SF is going to be the worst hitting team in MLB next year if Bonds is not playing for them. Even with them playing for him, they have the worst offense in the league (based on OPS+, which accounts for park effects). At least Bonds gave fans SOMETHING to watch (either to enjoy or to enrage). (justgary: you can put my prediction on your user page for examination at a later date) but the media circus in NY would eat him alive. I can't possibly imagine that the NY media would be any harsher, more intrusive or more abrasive to Bonds than how the national media (ESPN, S.I., books, etc.) has treated him the past couple of years.

posted by grum@work at 01:13 AM on September 22, 2007

grum, I could be wrong ( and I fully expect you to let me know if you think I am), but I do think that looking at OPS as the only measure of Bond's worth to be misleading for at least a few reasons. 1) Unless he goes to a Al team as a DH he'll have to play the field, and he is clearly not the fielder he once was. He is a good, but not great, outfielder this year, and one would have to expect that to continue to decline as he ages. 2) As a hitter on the Giants, his OPS is inflated because the pitchers can easily pitch around him. Why pitch to a proven HR hitter if the few batters don't have much chance of hurting you? Do you really think he'd get as many walks next year on the Yankees line up? 3) Bond's OPS rating is so heavily skewed by the walks, that one might overlook the other factors that come into play on the offensive side of baseball. Stolen bases, extra base hits, not to mention games played. With those other players the team gets a full time outfielder, plus a more rounded offensive attack. At least, that's how I see it

posted by dviking at 02:03 AM on September 22, 2007

AL Designated Hitter, here he comes.

posted by jerseygirl at 07:40 AM on September 22, 2007

Whatever.I'm still trippin' behind the 1958 CADILLAC Convertible that drove the Say-Hey KId to get his props.Back then teams played players cold, but at least they were loyal to each other.You real old scholars,didn't Bond's Godfather stay with the Giants his whole career in the bigs? No, he played for the New York/San Fransisco Giants from 1951 until May of 1972, when he was traded to the New York Mets. He played the rest of that season and 1973 with the Mets. I think loyalty was an incorrect assumption, it's was more of a lack of choice. That nasty reserve clause tended to put a damper on player movement. And...I resent the old inference!

posted by tommybiden at 08:44 AM on September 22, 2007

He is hitting better than anyone on the team, as mentioned above, but that being said, the Giants absolutely stink! They need to move on and try to rebuild. It only made sense for them to hold onto the guy until he broke the record, because they've put up with the crap for years now (not that it was all bad, because without Bonds, who in their right mind would pay to see the Giants). I'm sure Barry Zito was pleased with his decision to go to the Giants. True, he didn't pitch too well for the majority of the season, but even when he pitched well, he wouldn't get any run support from that pathetic lineup. Bonds will play for a year at DH, then fade off into the sunset.

posted by dyams at 10:55 AM on September 22, 2007

The Giants will pick up Dunn, in my view. I live outide the Bay, and want him on my team. The fans would not like him, the media the same.

posted by SFValley_Dude at 11:28 AM on September 22, 2007

Red Sox fan 1) Sure. I'd have to completely stop reading the paper, but I'd enjoy the performance if the Sox had a place for him. 2) Same way they did with every enemy who ever came over to our side. 3) Let's not discuss it.

posted by yerfatma at 11:55 AM on September 22, 2007

1 & 2: If there's one thing I've learned in sports, winning & hitting the ball well resolves a lot of ill will in the city you play for- and vica versa. If he plays well on a new team, the city will love him and talk about how he's misunderstood and about how great a signing he was. If he plays poorly, then he'll get the hate some think he deserves.

posted by jmd82 at 12:37 PM on September 22, 2007

Dodger Fan 1) It could NEVER happen. I can't even imagine Bonds being allowed to wear blue. Kinda like seeing Piazza in a green and yellow Oakland uniform. It's just not right! 2) We'd all have to burn our Jeff Kent jerseys and jump off the top deck. 3) The media would have a field day. It would be the Twilight Zone! It might be happening but I can't accept it being real. NO WAY, JOSE! I really am sorry to see him leave the Giants....it was so much fun to boo him when they were in town! He was the Giant we loved to hate! NOW WHAT?

posted by Blue Boy at 12:49 PM on September 22, 2007

Well grum...they're a last place team with him so he really will be missed.

posted by budman13 at 01:46 PM on September 22, 2007

As a Twins fan living in Dallas, I am pretty certain that I don't have to worry about Bonds showing up on the Twins' or the Rangers' roster. I hear that some writers put the Rangers in hunt for him, I can't see Hicks doing that after selling off Teixeira. I know the MN fans would not want him, the Dallas folks would tolerate him if he helped turn the team around. I don't see how that's possible The media in any city will have a field day at first, then it would be all about whether he won or not. Grum, not to split hairs, but Bonds is not 9th in the league in slugging %. He does not have enough AB's to qualify. If you take the qualifing level away for everyone, he's something like 28th. (yes, pitchers, I know)

posted by dviking at 02:09 PM on September 22, 2007

I think he might join the A's. I lived in Oakland/San Jose for some years. Yes, I want him on the team. Yes, the fans will boo him. Yes, the media will treat him like Zeus in ancient Greece.

posted by SFValley_Dude at 02:37 PM on September 22, 2007

Don't think he'll come to St. Louis. Media will probably give him a break (they don't have pit bull mentality) however I'm fairly sure fans would not tolerate his signing. Baseball in St. Louis is unreal-only thing I can compare is Indiana and basketball.

posted by brickman at 03:20 PM on September 22, 2007

Yes, Barry, you will live forever in our hearts, just like the heartburn I got from the huevos rancheros in New Mexico. (Actually, with a side of chorizo, they were pretty good.) Would I want to see BB in a Red Sox uniform? The only thing I could think of that would be worse is seeing David Ortiz in pinstripes.

posted by Howard_T at 04:22 PM on September 22, 2007

Barry Bonds, as a DH and on a team with protection around him in the batting order, would be a very big addition to a A.L. team. If he could concentrate only on hitting, forget about going into the outfield, and stay relatively healthy, he'd produce big-time (at least for the next year or two). Put him in the Angels lineup, in front of (or in back of) Guerrero, he'd put up numbers. Does a team want him in their locker room? That's the big question (along with how much they'll have to shell out for a guy Bonds' age).

posted by dyams at 04:58 PM on September 22, 2007

I'm just sayin', it was bad. I can't imagine Papi in stripes would look fatter.

posted by yerfatma at 05:27 PM on September 22, 2007

Prediction page? You must be thinking of yerfatma. Oops. Don't know why I thought it was you, justgary.

posted by grum@work at 06:11 PM on September 22, 2007

If I were grum I'd resent being lumped in with the likes of Joe88.

posted by Ying Yang Mafia at 08:55 PM on September 22, 2007

'Cause we're both Sox fans and gorgeous? Why do I hear the music from "The Crying Game"? If I were grum I'd resent being lumped in with the likes of Joe88. Ha! Joe88's statement about Mickelson being better than Tiger is hilarious, but the hands-down winner has to go to be this one. Let me count the ways this is the worst prediction I've ever seen: 1) It was wrong. That's always important. 2) It was VERY specific. No generalizations, no wishy-washy comments, just a bold statement of fact. 3) It referenced his previous comments and used them as part of his basis for his prediction. It's one thing to make an off-the-cuff statement, but it's a whole other kettle of fish to make it sound like it's part of your main thesis on the subject. 4) It was in the very near future. I can't remember if everyone leaped all over him 2 minutes after the prediction fell through, or did we wait a whole 5 minutes? No one had time to even forget about this prediction. 5) It included an arrogant and preemptive "I told you so." It's one thing to be confident about a statement, but to gloat before you're proven right? Fantastic. Bonus round: After being proven wrong, the gentleman decided to qualify his prediction after the fact, and then made another prediction in his admittance of failure. Naturally, he was wrong (again) when Tiger won the PGA Championship in 2007. Sadly, our fearless prognosticator hasn't been seen or heard from in about 11 months.

posted by grum@work at 10:57 PM on September 22, 2007

It's about time - $19 million for a player hitting .279, requiring numerous days off during the season, and saturated with negative baggage. The last time I saw Bonds play the outfield he looked lost. Usually teams expect veteran players to provide leadership and Bonds cannot even do that - many of his teammates over the years have disliked him. I would not be surprised if several of the Giant players helped convince management to get rid of Bonds. Bonds' main concern has always been his personal statistics and he wants to play until he gets 3,000 hits. There is always a team that will take a chance on a problematic player but I doubt that Bonds will be picked up in my city. One of the players recently called him a bad apple and another said his records were tainted. Several people I have spoken to said they would reduce the number of games they attend or not go at all if Bonds were acquired. I don't know if an individual player has ever been responsible for reducing attendance but Bonds could possibly accomplish that in some cities.

posted by longgreenline at 02:47 AM on September 23, 2007

$19 million for a player hitting .279, Wow. Nice job completely messing up your argument with incorrect or misleading facts. He earns $15.5million, not $19million. His .279 batting average is still above the league average. You also conveniently forget to mention he leads the league in OBP and OPS, which are far better indicators of a batter's contribution to the team's ability to score than batting average. That's like complaining that Matt Holliday is 5th in the league in GIDP, or that Jose Reyes leads the league in caught stealing. "Let's ignore all the other stats that show how well he's playing, and just concentrate on the one that seems to be the worst (but is still above league average)."

posted by grum@work at 10:18 AM on September 23, 2007

While I certainly do not have the "man crush" on Bonds that some of you do, I do wonder how much of a pay cut he'll take in order to play the DH role on an AL team. Looking at Bonds vs. Ortiz numbers for this year I think Ortiz is far more valuable, and he makes less than Bonds. Plus, he's not an ass. With the HR chase over, I just don't see Bonds as that much of draw. Sure, the first few games people might come out just to say they saw him, but if he goes to the Angels I do not see an increase in attendance that lasts throughout the season. ...........Player G ,AB ,,, R ,, H .2B 3B HR RBI BB ,,,K ,SB CS AVG OBP SLG OPS David Ortiz 143 529 108 170 48 1 32 111 105 101 3 1 .321 .435 .597 1.033 Barry Bonds 125 337 75 94 14 ,,0 28 ,,66 132 ,54 ,5 0 .279 .483 .570 1.053 (sorry for the comma's, was trying to line this up on a Treo) Ortiz makes $13.25mil, or 2.25 less than Bonds. For my money Ortiz is worth far more, so will Bonds take $12mil? Which is about $12mil more than what I'd want the Rangers to pay him.

posted by dviking at 11:08 AM on September 23, 2007

How many of you have actually met the man? Know him well enough to know if he is truly an asshole or if that is just his reaction to an unforgiving media that is constantly hounding him? I don't know if he used steroids or not but even if he did it is not my place to judge him. I don't have to eat dinner with him every day or go to a movie with him so if he is an asshole it has no effect on my life. As long as he can play ball at an above average level he has my blessing and I will cheer for him to match or break the few remaining records he is chasing. Good luck Barry and ignore the haters with the miss placed anger issues.

posted by Folkways at 12:40 PM on September 23, 2007

What about Ethel Merman in a thong? And workboots. And not much else. 'Cause we're both Sox fans and gorgeous? Fatty, these images will ruin the week for me. I think I'm getting nauseous as I type. But tell me, how the hell did you come up with Ethel Merman in a thong?

posted by Howard_T at 12:54 PM on September 23, 2007

As long as he can play ball at an above average level he has my blessing and I will cheer for him to match or break the few remaining records he is chasing. I'm willing to bet this is the attitude of many fans of non-Bondsian teams as soon as their team were to sign Bonds.

posted by grum@work at 01:59 PM on September 23, 2007

Hawkguy, I disagree. Bonds would be the worst thing for the Royals right now. I mean this from a strategic standpoint, not even factoring in the media drama that seems to follow him. We finally have three young solid pitchers that can be a nucleus of our future staff (meche, bannister, and greinke 2.0), and have some young hitters who look to be great players (gordan, butler). We're still missing a few pieces to be sure, but the minute you sign bonds to a contract (that would almost certainly be too pricey), you kill any chance of keeping this young talent. Maybe we can let a few more world series mvps get away (dye, damon). I agree with you that Sweeney has been a huge disappointment overall, but Bonds is not the answer, unless that answer is continuing to lose quality young players and remain in the cellar of the AL Central. One point we do find agreement on though. Overall, Whitlock is a joke, and would make bond's hypothetical stay in kc miserable.

posted by brainofdtrain at 02:50 PM on September 23, 2007

The Sporting News has going to one of five places: A's, Tigers, Rangers, Mariners, Yankees Bonds said a long time ago that he has no interest in playing for the Yankees because of the way they treated his dad. And the Yankees have too many guys in the OF/DH mix going into next year to make it a reasonable idea. I think the A's or Rangers are interesting ideas. Removing the "Automatic DH" theory, I'm looking at San Diego (punchless and currently renting Milton Bradley), Cincinnati (if they lose Dunn and Griffey), and Atlanta as intriguing courters. I wonder about Bonds on a young, rebuilding club like the Royals. They'd probably be looking at a one-year deal -- not a long term thing that would kill them for years. Few players say bad things about him as a teammate. Hard to say if he would be good or bad for development. He certainly would take the media focus off young guys during their slumps. He's not going to go unemployed next year. I really wonder what prompted San Fran to make this kind of announcement at this point of the season. Maybe they heard Bonds was considering a new house in the Bay area.

posted by The Crafty Sousepaw at 04:23 PM on September 23, 2007

how much do you want to wager? I'm not sure how you'd determine the outcome of the wager, but I'll always take the side that bets on "fickle fans". For previous example, see: Owens, Terrell - one of the most despised players in the NFL, he is now ritually fellated by the Dallas fans Clemens, Roger - hated by the Red Sox AND Yankee fans for leaving their teams and playing elsewhere, he was courted by both franchises (and fans) when he hinted at returning again in 2007

posted by grum@work at 08:05 PM on September 23, 2007

Clemens, Roger - hated by the Red Sox AND Yankee fans for leaving their teams and playing elsewhere, he was courted by both franchises (and fans) when he hinted at returning again in 2007 I know plenty of sox fans, especially long time fans, that wanted nothing nothing to do with Clemens returning, and before his return this year many were quite vocal about it. So claiming that sox fans, as a whole, courted clemens simply isn't true at all. (if he had gone 6 and 0 with an ERA of 3 most would be cheering now, but that's another kind of fickle)

posted by justgary at 09:35 PM on September 23, 2007

it would have pacified all but the most stringent haters. You would have a lot of attitudes along the lines of "I don't like the guy, but I love the way he pitches", but there's still be a lot of "haters". And I'll use the term, but I don't think it's fair, at least the way I think of the word hater. To suggest that there aren't abundant reasons to dislike roger clemens is ignoring history. Some fans root for statistics, more of a fantasy league mentality, and don't care who the player is. Other's do. That doesn't make them a hater, or at least not one with reasons. Nothing's wrong with either. Besides, I'd rather stick by my guns and be wrong than fickle. But I don't think it's a fair comparison. Bonds going to a team with which he has no history and overcoming hate is different than clemens going back to a team he has a long history with.

posted by justgary at 10:52 PM on September 23, 2007

the hands-down winner has to go to be this one Prediction-wise, I just can't get enough of rcade's 2006 Stone Cold Lock.

posted by qbert72 at 08:28 AM on September 24, 2007

Clemens was hated for going the free agent route to a competitor. posted by dviking Not the time or place, but that's not the reason clemens is hated by many.

posted by justgary at 04:44 PM on September 24, 2007

The Giants have also had to deal with all of the negative publicity surrounding Bonds. The steroid controversy and Bonds adversarial relationship with the media made the home run record events painful instead of joyful. There was an embarrassed silence from the club instead of massive celebration. Bonds has also dominated the roster and the clubhouse, making it very difficult to attract quality, competitive players. The Barcalounger was a real stumbling block to team building. With Bonds out of the way, the Giants can create a team, instead of having one prima donna player with a reluctant supporting cast.

posted by irunfromclones at 12:04 PM on September 25, 2007

Well I will beleive it when I see it. No player wants to come to San Francisco because no one can hit at&t park. Just look at the homerun derby. Hell if Barry played in chicago or cinncinati his whole career he would have broken the homerun much sooner. The Giants will have to go back to Barry once mcgown fails to fork up enough cash to get anyone else. Not that there is anything wrong with resigning him. But only after the giants can secure a couple younger impact players. Hitting him fifth wuoldn't be bad if we had hitters in front of him.

posted by evilchris23 at 02:50 PM on September 25, 2007

Um, I think practically any Giants fan will agree that Kent was a diva jerk asshole, but the fact remains that Bonds was still the team's leading asshat. And there's a big difference between a "comfy" chair and a barcolounger. Polls of the locals, that is Bay Area residents, are running better than 3 to 1 agreeing with the Giants decision to end their relationship with Bonds. Here's what some of the local sports writers have had to say: By Mark Purdy Mercury News Sports Columnist Here is what should happen tonight: Bonds starts in left field against the San Diego Padres. He hits one last home run into McCovey Cove. In the top of the next inning, he is replaced on defense and trots off the field to grand applause. He blows kisses to the crowd, demands a microphone and tells them, "I'm sorry for doing what I did. Thanks for supporting me in spite of my faults. Free pizza for everybody!" Here is what would be fun to see happen: Bonds starts in left field against the San Diego Padres. Victor Conte throws out the ceremonial first pitch. A remote television camera beams in Greg Anderson, Bonds' jailed trainer, for a touching farewell wave. Baseball commissioner Bud Selig shows up for a ceremony in which, because his hands are still stuck in his pockets, he must use his feet to present a plaque to Bonds. Here is what probably will happen: Bonds starts in left field against the San Diego Padres. Fans applaud. He grounds out to the right side of the infield a couple of times, then in the sixth inning laces a single into right field, as has been his way in 2007. He is then removed for a pinch runner, tips his cap to the crowd and leaves the field. And that will be that. One Giants executive said nothing over-the-top is planned for tonight's game. There will be short video tributes to Bonds and his best Giants moments, shown between each inning. When Bonds comes to the plate, there will be pauses so that ovations can go on as long as people are in the mood to clap. But that's it. The Giants pretty much used up all the coins in their ceremony jukebox for the hoo-ha surrounding Bonds' smashing of Hank Aaron's career home runs record this summer. Tonight, no postgame ceremony is scheduled except for the farewell team wave that follows each season's final out at AT&T Park. Otherwise, nothing. No platforms will be erected. No ceremony will unfurl. No one will hand a mike to Bonds for him to say a few words. Too bad. It would be interesting to hear what he has to say. When Bonds wrote on his Web site last week that the Giants had told him they no longer wanted him, he claimed to understand that it was just business. But his remarks contained an undercurrent of annoyance and resentment that the team didn't inform him earlier. Or was it that he couldn't believe he was no longer calling the shots? In the locker room before Tuesday's first pitch, media members and even some Giants players kept sneaking stares at the infamous three-locker space Bonds has occupied since the ballpark opened in 2000. The locker was stuffed with Bonds' clothes and a couple of golf bags. By Ann Killion Mercury News Sports Columnist The Day finally arrived for the Giants. And as expected The Day was awkward and uncomfortable and full of questions. Friday was The Day the Giants ended an era. The Day they officially broke with Barry Bonds. If you were expecting emotion and sentiment, think again. If you were expecting a Tony Gwynn-like farewell or a Cal Ripken-like embrace, sorry to disappoint. The announcement came in typically, weirdly Bondsian fashion. Bonds was informed of the team's decision by Peter Magowan during Thursday night's game. Ever the mercenary, Bonds posted the news on his Web site Friday. Within minutes of the posting, the scrambling Giants had called a Friday-at-rush-hour news conference. In the interview room there were three seats, three bottles of water and two participants: managing partner Peter Magowan and General Manager Brian Sabean. Bonds was not there for what should have been a sentimental moment but ended up a clinical discussion of the surgical removal of No. 25. Later when approached by reporters seeking comment on the end of a remarkable 15 years, Bonds said, "No, I already made my statement." Excuse me while I reach for my handkerchief. Bonds thought he had leverage. The night he broke the home run record he insinuated he would be a Giant next season and bragged about his "family of fans" who would help secure his future. But the feedback the Giants have gotten on Bonds from the faithful is decidedly split. "On this issue, they are divided," Magowan said. The vocal (but shrinking) pro-Bonds faction points to his numbers. They don't understand why one of the worst teams in the league is ridding itself of its most productive player. They can't figure out why Bonds can't stay while the team rebuilds. Friday's moment of ironic contrast came a short time after the Bonds decision was announced, when the Willie Mac Award was presented. Beloved Willie McCovey, who retired as a Giant, presented Bengie Molina with the annual honor given to the team's most inspirational player, as voted by his peers. Since 1980, 28 players have won the team's most prestigious award. Bonds - who has worn the San Francisco uniform longer than any player besides McCovey and Willie Mays - never did. Bonds' final days were never going to play out like McCovey's. This was never going to end like Gwynn or Ripken. Bonds is not that kind of player. He doesn't engender sentiment. He's not going to participate in the Home Run Derby in his own town, he's not going to play if he doesn't feel like it, he's not going to hustle, and he sure as hell wasn't going to take a discount to play one final year as a Giant. "It didn't really come up," Magowan said when asked about the possibility of Bonds playing for a reduced rate in 2008. It didn't come up because Magowan would have been laughed out of the clubhouse by Bonds. It didn't come up because the reality is that you can't rebuild with Bonds around. The True Believers refuse to see the toxicity and the dysfunction, but it has been there for years. The Giants could live with it when the team was winning or the weak division provided camouflage or Bonds was in reach of a record. But not anymore. "Let's quit while we're ahead," Sabean said. Ahead of what? Before Bonds is indicted? Before the 43-year-old's playing time diminishes further? Before Manager Bruce Bochy goes stark-raving mad? Magowan mentioned how, 15 years ago, when he signed Bonds, the move gave the new ownership "instant credibility." But over the years, the Bonds saga - the Balco stain, the way the team bent to his every whim, the focus on records rather than winning - has damaged the Giants' credibility. Time to rebuild that part of the franchise as well. Ray Ratto San Francisco Chronicle So this, apparently, is finally it. The last night of The Era, with all the good and bad, the invigorating and frustrating that it implies. It's James Whitmore's last night in the Harry Truman one-man show. Hal Holbrook's last night as Mark Twain. Cate Blanchett's last interpretation of Queen Elizabeth I. William H. Macy's swan song as Eleanor Roosevelt. Or something like that. At this point, everything about Barry Bonds' 15 years with the Giants seems like a great pewter blur. Including the farewells. Since he did not play in Tuesday night's 6-4 loss to San Diego even though a few fans chanted his name in the bottom of the eighth, when he starts tonight, it will be the last chance ever, ever, ever ... unless, of course, Giants management gets one final, unlikely bout of eight-figure seller's remorse. All indications are that tonight's send-off (or kiss-off, depending on your frame of mind) will be dignified and unobtrusive, which apparently means that Britney Spears will not sing the national anthem while biting off the head of a whippet. Other than that, they are keeping the details a secret. Hey, they got Henry Aaron on tape without anyone spilling the beans, so I guess anything's possible. But other than the obligatory stream of video tributes - Hey, it's James Gandolfini! Hey, it's Mick Jagger! Hey, it's Babe Ruth! Hey, it's Charlemagne! - that leaves a lot of possibilities for a more genuine and realistic commemoration of B. Lamar's Last Waltz. That is, if the Giants want the last night to reflect the totality of his time in Black, Orange and Creamsicle. Like: -- An enormous effigy of Buddha, carried around the field like that of the Blessed Virgin in "The Godfather," complete with cash pinned to the effigy to symbolize the pot loads of money he made the team, and the team paid him. And Buddha, because no slim, trim deity could carry that type of load. -- A huge chrome bat, ball and pillow set, to commemorate the 8,348 plate appearances, 31,582 pitches, 586 home runs and 574 intentional walks. -- A large lineup card with the four-spot left blank, to commemorate the number of times Dusty Baker, Felipe Alou and Bruce Bochy didn't know whether or not he would be available that day. -- A float full of lawyers, and you do so know why. -- Jeff Kent, and Shawon Dunston standing between them. -- All the "Road To History" ballpark signage that they can't really use anymore when Dave Roberts starts 2008 in left field. Or, if Brian Sabean can swing it, Adam Dunn. -- A DVD of the 2002 World Series, in which Scott Spiezio pops up to second instead of homering off Felix Rodriguez. -- A unicycle containing all his favorite sportswriters. -- Umpire Dutch Rennert's strike call on his Blackberry. -- His Hall of Fame plaque, with the engraved legend, "You already have my statement." -- Jon Miller reading identical telegrams from each of the other 29 owners that say, "Honest, we gave it very serious thought. We just couldn't make the numbers jibe." -- The 1991 National League MVP award that went to Terry Pendleton. -- An autographed poster from Friday's news conference of Peter Magowan looking like someone had just force-fed him a live squid. -- A gift certificate from Starving Students Moving guaranteeing next-day delivery of the clubhouse lounge chair, TV and the three lockers he called home and hearth. -- And finally, the MLBTV package at home, so he can see on a day-to-day basis what the Giants meant the other day by "moving forward." Sorry for the lengthy post, but not every sports writer has an axe to grind with Bonds. Some can actually have an objective view, and even accurately reflect the mood of the fan base. Ann Killion and Mark Purdy have always offered a very insightful and well balanced perspective. Ray Ratto is... Ray Ratto.

posted by irunfromclones at 12:21 PM on September 26, 2007

I never get enough copyright violation in my diet.

posted by yerfatma at 02:35 PM on September 26, 2007

For the third time, here's the comment to which I am reacting: Bonds has also dominated the roster and the clubhouse, making it very difficult to attract quality, competitive players. The Barcalounger was a real stumbling block to team building. I'm not refuting anything about the "mood in San Francisco." I'm not begruding anyone who wants to discuss "fan reaction pieces." The claim was made that Bonds' persona -- as a teammate, not as an idol, an interview subject, a neighbor, a father, a valued customer of American Express, just as a teammate -- drove prospective players away from San Fran, principally because he had a Barcalounger. My position, which I have conceded may be a faulty one, is solely that this view comes exclusively from media conjecture. I haven't seen a direct, attributed and corroborated quote that he is a clubhouse cancer. I have never seen anything expressed by free agents that they were staying away from San Francisco because Bonds is there. Peter Gammons has never reported, to my knowledge, that his inside sources are whispering that Free Agent X is staying away from San Francisco because he doesn't want to play with Bonds. Retired players are not writing tell-alls (that I know of) revealing how horrible a teammate Bonds was. I grant you that it may be unreasonable to expect evidence like this to ever break. Most players like to avoid burning bridges, and most would probably like to stay off of the Barry Bonds Show if they can avoid it. Maybe there is evidence of which I am unaware -- if there is, I would welcome it and I am open to changing my position. Until I do, though, the only evidence I have is a handful of players saying he's a pleasure to have as a teammate against scores of reporters who write their own conjecture about Bonds without any whiff of the real evidence I'm asking for. No blinders, just the facts, man. I'm not willing to throw myself into the Bonds hating frenzy and accept every bad thing anyone says about him like he's a one-dimensional villain from a comic book.

posted by The Crafty Sousepaw at 03:29 PM on September 26, 2007

I think llb has put it a lot better than I could. You lost me. What is "llb?" I am by no means even pretending to know more about the Giants, their fans, their media, their personnel, their front office, or really anything at all than those who live in the Bay Area (and that includes everywhere fromTampa Bay to Green Bay to the Hudson Bay to the Bay of Pigs). Here's my point in a nutshell: mmph, mmph, prph. Here's my point if you open the nutshell: I have heard teammates of Bonds' say he is a good teammate. I have not heard teammates of Bonds' say he is a bad teammate. You may be right that, in time, these stories will come forth. When I see good evidence that Bonds' existence hindered the Giants' recruitment potential, I am fully prepared to accept that. At this time, that evidence is made up entirely (to the best of my knowledge) of conjecture, and I don't accept that as good evidence of anything. This is particularly true of evidence that stems from a collective media that routinely bashes the guy for every reason under the sun. I do not deny in any way that Bonds is a first-rate jerk. Lots of teams have first-rate jerks. If free agents refused to play on teams that had first-rate jerks, they'd have to take up golf. Or something.

posted by The Crafty Sousepaw at 01:20 AM on September 27, 2007