PDA

View Full Version : bonds?



Ahhhorsepoo
06-26-2008, 01:02 PM
is there anyone else that wouldn't mind when we unload dunn.. just to sign bonds to a contract for another power bat.. I know he wouldnt play everyday nor do i like bonds at all.. but if we can get ANYTHING for Dunn, then replacing his power bat in the lineup with bonds would be great.. since it basically would be free..

believe me I am in the line of BONDS is the biggest cheater of all time.. BUT if dunn leaves and people are soo worried about not having his power at all.. bring in bonds who will still have 30 homer power.. and it is free.. defensively he is as bad as dunn.. soo thats a wash.. but he draws far more walks.. and has the best eye in baseball history.. and still has a bat that could help a team that many think would be missing a power bat..

I am not saying I want this.. but its a thought.... and it would only be for a year or two.. esp since he has already said he wants league minimum..

and he and griffey are good friends soo that could lure him from another team trying to get him.. b/c you know someone will..

CWRed
06-26-2008, 01:48 PM
No. And no again. Griffey and Bonds in the same outfield? Oh dear.

This team has no use for Bonds.

muethibp
06-26-2008, 01:51 PM
Not to launch in to yet another conversation about Dunn on a different thread, but you reveal your anti-Dunn bias when you suggest that Bonds is as bad as Dunn defensively. Adam's range might be limited, but he has at least some range. Bonds couldn't get to anything that wasn't hit directly at him and that was before being out of baseball for nearly a year.

texasdave
06-26-2008, 01:57 PM
When Dusty scans his bench options for a pinch-hitter late in the game and sees the likes of Hopper, Bako, Valentin, Ross, Patterson and Janish, I bet he just might disagree as to whether this team needs a Barry Bonds or not. Bonds is willing to sign for the pro-rated minimum (roughly 200K). Chump change these days. I say sign him up. Even if he was used as a pinch-hitter deluxe with an occasional start tossed in, Barry Bonds would definitely help this club.

mroby85
06-26-2008, 02:04 PM
Not to launch in to yet another conversation about Dunn on a different thread, but you reveal your anti-Dunn bias when you suggest that Bonds is as bad as Dunn defensively. Adam's range might be limited, but he has at least some range. Bonds couldn't get to anything that wasn't hit directly at him and that was before being out of baseball for nearly a year.


however, bonds may take better routes to the ball, and field everything that was hit at him, they are both liabilities in left field, but i don't think bonds would be any worse than dunn.

Ahhhorsepoo
06-26-2008, 02:11 PM
texas that is exactly what i am talking about... everyday player no..

Ahhhorsepoo
06-26-2008, 02:12 PM
however, bonds may take better routes to the ball, and field everything that was hit at him, they are both liabilities in left field, but i don't think bonds would be any worse than dunn.

correct..

and since it is a business.. bonds would draw some extra fans no matter how much we hate him..

BurgervilleBuck
06-26-2008, 02:23 PM
If Bonds was clean, sure. Take him. But he's damaged goods. Fo a city that's already reeling from the stigma of the Cincinnati Bengals and their players' checkered pasts, why would we want to take on that sort of thing? Then we'd have the notoriety of Pete Rose's gambling and Barry Bonds' enhancements.

I'm all for making this team better but I just don't think Bonds is the answer.

44Magnum
06-26-2008, 02:58 PM
The Reds had better never stoop down and sign Barry Bonds. The man is right where he deserves to be.

texasdave
06-26-2008, 03:11 PM
If Bonds was clean, sure. Take him. But he's damaged goods. Fo a city that's already reeling from the stigma of the Cincinnati Bengals and their players' checkered pasts, why would we want to take on that sort of thing? Then we'd have the notoriety of Pete Rose's gambling and Barry Bonds' enhancements.

I'm all for making this team better but I just don't think Bonds is the answer.

Bonds is one answer. I think you simply don't feel like he is worth the cost. That is understandable given the Reds' current position in the standings. I wonder how you would feel given this hypothetical situation: It is the end of July and the Reds are in SERIOUS playoff contention and Bonds is still available for the pro-rated minimum. Is Bonds worth the cost then? Just curious.

Ahhhorsepoo
06-26-2008, 03:14 PM
If Bonds was clean, sure. Take him. But he's damaged goods. Fo a city that's already reeling from the stigma of the Cincinnati Bengals and their players' checkered pasts, why would we want to take on that sort of thing? Then we'd have the notoriety of Pete Rose's gambling and Barry Bonds' enhancements.

I'm all for making this team better but I just don't think Bonds is the answer.

Pete Roses gambling.. and barry bonds.. sorry but those will NEVER be associated with cincinnati on the same level.. unless he literally injects while in left field if he were to play here.. his steroid questions will always be centered around his 73 homer year in SF..

Jr's Boy
06-26-2008, 03:23 PM
Heck yeah ,arguably the best hitter to ever play the game.Sign him up.

BLEEDS
06-26-2008, 03:44 PM
Bonds would sign for $200K just as likely as Dunn would sign an extension for $8-$10M per year...

The fact that you would even consider this shows your total and utter lack of logic when and where Dunn is concerned, let alone Baseball in general.

PEACE

-BLEEDS

Ahhhorsepoo
06-26-2008, 03:51 PM
ok bleeds.. ok..

aerontg
06-26-2008, 04:01 PM
Bonds. Best eye in baseball history? Highly doubtful. See one Tony Gwynn.

Root Down
06-26-2008, 04:19 PM
I can't imagine off loading Dunn and Griffey and picking up Bonds... I would lose a lot of respect for this organization, good thing that will never happen.

Ahhhorsepoo
06-26-2008, 04:39 PM
gwynn was great.. but bonds was also great.. maybe a wash at best..

bounty37h
06-26-2008, 04:44 PM
Bonds would sign for $200K just as likely as Dunn would sign an extension for $8-$10M per year...

The fact that you would even consider this shows your total and utter lack of logic when and where Dunn is concerned, let alone Baseball in general.

PEACE

-BLEEDS

Bleeds, do you have a single post where you arent condescending to someone?

bounty37h
06-26-2008, 04:47 PM
I would pack all my Reds memorabilia in moth balls and store it in the attic till he died of overdose or left the team if they picked him up.

Root Down
06-26-2008, 04:48 PM
I would pack all my Reds memorabilia in moth balls and store it in the attic till he died of overdose or left the team if they picked him up.

Seconded! Couldn't have said it better myself.

Ahhhorsepoo
06-26-2008, 04:49 PM
but as much as i agree i would do that.. if it helped them win you would be back quickly...... I can PROMISE that..

Root Down
06-26-2008, 04:58 PM
I don't know, it would be like being a 1919 Whitesox fan. Bonds is a disgrace.

texasdave
06-26-2008, 05:27 PM
Bonds would sign for $200K just as likely as Dunn would sign an extension for $8-$10M per year...

The fact that you would even consider this shows your total and utter lack of logic when and where Dunn is concerned, let alone Baseball in general.

PEACE

-BLEEDS

This article in CNNSI reports that Bonds has offered his services to all 30 clubs at a prorated share of the 390K minimum. Since the season is roughly half over that would put that at roughly 200K.

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2008/baseball/mlb/06/25/bonds.independent.league.ap/index.html


Teams have shied away, not wanting to deal with the glare of attention Bonds would bring. The outfielder, who turns 44 on July 24, has been offered by Borris to all 30 teams for a prorated share of the $390,000 minimum.

texasdave
06-26-2008, 05:34 PM
I would pack all my Reds memorabilia in moth balls and store it in the attic till he died of overdose or left the team if they picked him up.

Ok so Bonds did steroids - along with probably hundreds of others in the game. Are you gonna stop watching any baseball until all of them are out of the game? In fact, the Reds re-signed Kent Mercker this year. He was listed among the users in the Mitchell Report. Have you stopped watching the Reds? What is the difference? Is it because you think Bonds is a jerk? There are plenty of jerks in baseball. If you are waiting for baseball to be free of jerks and steroid users you better pick another sport. Because that isn't happening in our lifetime.

BLEEDS
06-26-2008, 06:52 PM
Bleeds, do you have a single post where you arent condescending to someone?

No, I have several. I wouldn't call this one condescending. Saying someone has no logic is not condescending.

PEACE

-BLEEDS

LouisvilleCARDS
06-26-2008, 07:00 PM
Sign Bonds, put him in left, sign Sosa put him in center. Then you have the most Hall of Fame outfield in baseball history. Also sign Canseco for the bench. This year is already in the crapper, may as well draw some fans. :bowrofl:

Lockdwn11
06-26-2008, 07:11 PM
Sign Bonds, put him in left, sign Sosa put him in center. Then you have the most Hall of Fame outfield in baseball history. Also sign Canseco for the bench. This year is already in the crapper, may as well draw some fans. :bowrofl:

LOL The only thing that outfield would draw is flies.

bounty37h
06-27-2008, 10:30 AM
Ok so Bonds did steroids - along with probably hundreds of others in the game. Are you gonna stop watching any baseball until all of them are out of the game? In fact, the Reds re-signed Kent Mercker this year. He was listed among the users in the Mitchell Report. Have you stopped watching the Reds? What is the difference? Is it because you think Bonds is a jerk? There are plenty of jerks in baseball. If you are waiting for baseball to be free of jerks and steroid users you better pick another sport. Because that isn't happening in our lifetime.

Yup, it is 100% cause he is a jerk, not just a jerk, but one of the biggest jerks. I hold the right to cheer for who I want or dont want, and he is on the list of those I could never back. Felt that way before everyone else caught on to the steroids. Felt that way when he was still a Pirate. There are a few players in each sport I dislike that much. Deon pushed the limit for me when he was with Cincy, but I sucked it up.

bounty37h
06-27-2008, 10:36 AM
No, I have several. I wouldn't call this one condescending. Saying someone has no logic is not condescending.

PEACE

-BLEEDS

Let me help you on this one then;
condescending: showing or implying a usually patronizing descent from dignity or superiority.

Your quote "The fact that you would even consider this shows your total and utter lack of logic when and where Dunn is concerned, let alone Baseball in general."
This is condescending, esp since he just showed you documentation that Bonds would actually indeed play for that.

Ahhhorsepoo
06-27-2008, 10:54 AM
I have said many times before.. Bleeds doesn't pay attention to fact.. he just spews his opinion that is very misinformed about like it is fact, and then puts his blinders on when he is proven wrong..

Bounty might as well quit now.. he is totally not worth your time.. when you spill facts he just puts more lies on the table for you to waste time disproving..

CWRed
06-27-2008, 01:29 PM
Bonds would sign for $200K just as likely as Dunn would sign an extension for $8-$10M per year...

The fact that you would even consider this shows your total and utter lack of logic when and where Dunn is concerned, let alone Baseball in general.

PEACE

-BLEEDS


Thank you. I again say NO!

BurgervilleBuck
06-27-2008, 01:43 PM
Bonds is one answer. I think you simply don't feel like he is worth the cost. That is understandable given the Reds' current position in the standings. I wonder how you would feel given this hypothetical situation: It is the end of July and the Reds are in SERIOUS playoff contention and Bonds is still available for the pro-rated minimum. Is Bonds worth the cost then? Just curious.
I'm still not sure. I'm for the Reds winning at all costs but I think picking up Bonds would taint it all. I mean, there must be a reason he's out-of-work and offering his services to other teams. I surmise it's because nobody wants him and the baggage that comes with. The Reds have the need for his bat and the payroll to get him and yet there's has been no indication that they're chasing him.

There's also the publicity stunt stigma attached to it. I just think in the long run, the Reds would prefer to suffer nobly than win with an *.



Pete Roses gambling.. and barry bonds.. sorry but those will NEVER be associated with cincinnati on the same level.. unless he literally injects while in left field if he were to play here.. his steroid questions will always be centered around his 73 homer year in SF..
But the common wisdom would be, the team that Rose bet on is now getting an alleged cheater on their roster. As I said, I'd rather it be the Bengals having the criminal element. The Reds don't deserve it.