If We Sign Bonds; or, Hypothetical Rage

by Joey C. on Nov 16, 2006 4:36 PM PST

So now that Big Frank is (more or less) goneski to the land of logging, snow, and the Quebecois, there is talk that Barry Bonds could fill the obligatory "possibly washed up slugger" role. And if the A's sign him, I quit.

If my favorite team, the team I've followed since I was a small lad in Santa Rosa, California, the team I've kept highest in my affections even as a college student Moscow, Idaho, signs a disgusting, self-absorbed, steroid-grubbing excuse for a ballplayer like Bonds, I'm going to put a moratorium on my fanhood; a moratorium that will last until he leaves the clubhouse that sheltered my childhood heroes.

I'll still root for individual players on the team-- I'll cheer every time I see Chavvy on Web Gems, I'll flush with pride when Bobby Crosby hits .270 with 18 bombs (bold prediction!), and I'll smile when I see Joe Blanton on SportsCenter carving up opposing hitters with his lethal fastball-changeup-yellow hammer combination. But I'll refuse to watch even 1 game. I'll abstain from wearing any of my extensive collection of A's gear. And if the boys went all the way to the World Series, I'd be happy for 'em, but I wouldn't celebrate.

I always felt comfortable that we'd never even have to think about Bonds playing for us because his inflated ego would always insist he was owed a bloated contract, despite declining performance. Clearly, that's not a certainty.

Please, Billy. Please don't let Bonds break that record in an A's uniform. Haven't we suffered enough this off-season?

Tweet Comment 31 comments | 0 recs |

Do you like this story?

Comments

Take a chill pill...

... and allow me to quote myself here.

When you say "a disgusting, self-absorbed, steroid-grubbing excuse for a ballplayer", I say, the A's had a player who fit that description to a T for more than five years. His name is Jose Canseco.

Yes, the loss of Frank Thomas leaves a gaping hole in offensive production that must be filled if the A's are serious about 2007. I could live with Bonds. But I think that trading for Manny Ramirez is the best option, and he's actually a bargain in the current marketplace.

MJB

by MJB on Nov 16, 2006 4:36 PM PST reply actions

I can honestly say

I hated Canseco! You could even ask my dad! He would take me to games when I was little and I would boo him! Ok, I was 8 and I didn't really understand what was going on, I just knew I didn't like the guy! For years I hated the number 33! Fortunately Swisher came along and fixed that problem for me! =)

"This is the best hug in the major leagues, right here!" - Swisher Pics

by BobbyCrosbysGirl on Nov 16, 2006 4:42 PM PST up reply actions

I hated him too.

Though, admittedly, I was a Dodger fan then.

But I will say when Giambi left Oakland, I punched the air with glee.

Homeruns are nice. Character counts.

"It's time to blow this team up." - Oaktoon, July 2006

by Ozzz on Nov 16, 2006 6:00 PM PST up reply actions

on the field, but not in the front office?

It seems to me that "character" is one of the major arguments that some folks (myself not included) have been making against the move to Fremont -- that there is something indicating a lack of character in the ownership in not re-investing in Oakland as a matter of civic pride and payback for the community that has supported the A's for nearly 40 years.

Now, I don't agree with this line of reasoning myself, and I'm sure you don't either from your criticisms of the anti-movers, but I'm curious: if it's OK by you and me for Lew to be a heartless businessman with a concern only for the bottom line of his investment, then why is it somehow not ok for the players on the 25-man roster to be concerned only with their own "bottom lines"?

God I miss old Van Halen, splits and leopard pants -- Blez @('.')@

by monkeyball on Nov 16, 2006 6:40 PM PST up reply actions

Many ANers

are captivated by the players' "bottom lines."

by mikeA on Nov 16, 2006 8:01 PM PST up reply actions

Monkeyball

You're level-headed down-to-earth objective approach to matters sets you apart from many in this crowd. It's a very good quality.

by Pucking Insane on Nov 16, 2006 9:33 PM PST up reply actions

Your :-/

by Pucking Insane on Nov 16, 2006 9:33 PM PST up reply actions

Allow me to make some parallels.

Moving the Expos to Washington = akin to Bonds taking roids.

Moving the A's twenty minutes down the road = akin to swinging at an 0-3 bases loaded pitch in May.

That's how I see it. If Lew was being greedy, there are a multitude of better places to end up than Fremont - period. And as much as certain folks say Vegas and Portland etc aren't real options, who amongst us considered Fremont to be a 'real option' when that city first started talking about it?

The A's gave Oakland a chance to show them love - and not even a lot of love, I'm just talking the minimum. and what did they get for it? A scoreboard that showed 8's as 0's, Mt Davis, and nothing else.

We've all seen other teams move at a moment's notice because they didn't get a taxpayer-funded stadium every ten years. The A's current deal is SO not anything close to that, that to say otherwise is sheer blind cynicsm.

Nobody can tell me the Col was a good place to see or play baseball - not after you've been to the Phone Booth or Great American or Wrigley or Petco or (choose any of about 25 other stadiums that kick the ass of ours). It wasn't about to get upgraded, so the A's looked after themselves AND the fans by staying close, improving their lot, and trying something - anything - to improve their market size.

Meanwhile, Barry Bonds is a fuckhead.

"It's time to blow this team up." - Oaktoon, July 2006

by Ozzz on Nov 16, 2006 9:54 PM PST up reply actions

Canseco is different

He developed into a self-absorbed asshat during his tenure here, and was traded away. Signing Bonds is like saying, "Thank you, sir! May I have another?" We know we would be getting a fully-matured self-absorbed asshat if we signed him.

I can't stand the guy, don't want him on the team, and will ignore him if he's here.

"Next thing you know, they'll have me taking an overdose of pills."--Milton Bradley

by jeepers on Nov 16, 2006 5:01 PM PST up reply actions

I never realized how fickle this fan base was

20 minute move? I'm done.
Sign Barry Bonds? Done.

I mean I wouldn't fault anyone for being upset for either move, of course, but ditching the team entirely is an awfully fool-harded move.

Barry Bonds will be a better offensive contributor in 2007 than Frank Thomas was in 2006. I have no doubt about that, given, if healthy, I expect him to easily amass at least 35 home runs and put up a ridiculous on base percentage. I, for one, have no problem welcoming such an addition as that, one that would greatly help towards repeating as AL West champs.

there's simply no club like the white elephant club

by walk off bunt on Nov 16, 2006 4:42 PM PST reply actions

20 minute move...

that's cool...way better than Denver or Portland, but I'm saddened that they will leave Oakland.
I will continue to be a fan until then..and I'll cross that bridge when I get there.
As for Bonds, sign him. He's a Bay Area boy...keep him in the Bay.

"Straight outta Oakland, California where we sparkin on ya" - 2Pac

by Erik being Erik on Nov 16, 2006 4:52 PM PST up reply actions

Glad you are back :-)

Bring back Hammer.

by OaktownPower on Nov 16, 2006 5:12 PM PST up reply actions

I didn't say I'd stop being a fan altogether

Just for the period that Bonds' fat ass is sitting in the clubhouse. I'm really surprised at how quickly people around here are willing to forgive and forget just for a high OBP.

Zito: I would never bet against this team. First of all because it's against the rules...

by Joey C. on Nov 17, 2006 12:17 PM PST up reply actions

Can we start a DQOTM Award?

The meaning of life is not so much 'found,' as it is 'made.' --Opus

by The Dogfather on Nov 16, 2006 4:51 PM PST reply actions

This diary wouldn't win

The absurd "Crisco Field" diary immediately above this one on the diary list would win the DQ award.

Or maybe it should be a "Chicken Little" award. "The sky is falling! The sky is falling!"

MJB

by MJB on Nov 16, 2006 4:59 PM PST up reply actions

You can if you want, but...

..he's not alone.

I've already got the new header design for Notes From The Nat that includes no mention of the A's, just in case Bonds should become an Athletic.

I can take a lot - losing star players, leaving Oakland, the woeful choice for manager, I could even stand a Giambi return - but there's no way I'd ever cheer for, care for, or promote a team that included Barroid on its roster.

And not for nothing, but the owner of the Rangers just said as much about his own team.

"It's time to blow this team up." - Oaktoon, July 2006

by Ozzz on Nov 16, 2006 6:05 PM PST up reply actions

Amen!

Roids R' US of Fremont?

by LilAnnieOaktown on Nov 16, 2006 6:28 PM PST up reply actions

My view

From a pure economic and baseball standpoint, Barry Bonds is a great addition to the A's. If we want to become a major spender we need to first become the more popular team in our market. What better way than by stealing their best player? If I was in the A's marketing department and wanted to increase fans at the Coliseum next year, I would do four things: sign a Japanese player (I wanted Iwamura, but he signed with the DRays, what of Igawa?), sign some former stars with bench spots who have a shot at helping the team (like Rickey and Sammy), sign Barry Bonds, and sign the player closing in on the home run record.

Of course when we add Hu it makes me have second thoughts. I'll be happy if we sign Bonds and I'll happy if we don't. I just think we really need some bats, and Barry's still swings a mighty big one.

"Loyal? I'm the most loyal player money can buy." - Don Sutton

by vignette17 on Nov 16, 2006 4:57 PM PST reply actions

Toronto's in Ontario, mon frere

God I miss old Van Halen, splits and leopard pants -- Blez @('.')@

by monkeyball on Nov 16, 2006 5:39 PM PST reply actions

What are you talking aboot?

"Next thing you know, they'll have me taking an overdose of pills."--Milton Bradley

by jeepers on Nov 16, 2006 5:45 PM PST up reply actions

take off, you hoser

God I miss old Van Halen, splits and leopard pants -- Blez @('.')@

by monkeyball on Nov 16, 2006 6:36 PM PST up reply actions

Surrender pronto, or I'll bomb Toronto.

"Next thing you know, they'll have me taking an overdose of pills."--Milton Bradley

by jeepers on Nov 16, 2006 7:42 PM PST up reply actions

I know Quebec is in Alberta

But Canada is still the land of the Quebecois... unless they get their own country like they've been bitching for for years.

Zito: I would never bet against this team. First of all because it's against the rules...

by Joey C. on Nov 17, 2006 12:15 PM PST up reply actions

I think he just called Joey a monkey.

Either that, or he's pointing out that Toronto is not Quebecois country.

The meaning of life is not so much 'found,' as it is 'made.' --Opus

by The Dogfather on Nov 16, 2006 6:11 PM PST reply actions

Current lineup without Bonds:

85 wins. Current lineup with Bonds: 95 wins. Just saying.

I like Cindi. A. She never pretends to know more than she does. B. She has unbridled enthusiasm for her "Hotties," and isn't afraid to show it. -IM4Oakgal

by Nico on Nov 16, 2006 8:55 PM PST reply actions

and 85 is pretty generous

People wanted Washington because he would do a better job of establishing the run. -- andeux @('.')@

by monkeyball on Nov 16, 2006 9:13 PM PST up reply actions

Bonds would help this team in so many ways...

What is all of this high horse stuff? Lots of players are whiney millionaires. FT is leaving the A's. We know that Thomas and his big bat made a big difference for the team last year. Bonds has a big bat...we need a big bat...end of story. The media attention for the team wouldn't be a bad thing. Maybe more games would be broadcast locally with Bonds on the teeam too. Sacramento fans might get to see the team a little more.

by IM4Oakgal on Nov 16, 2006 9:34 PM PST up reply actions

speaking of whiney millionaires ..

... one of the advantages of aloof loners like Bonds is that they tend not to organize small groups of players in mutinies to get their managers fired ... they also (to follow this specific comparison) tend to nearly double the OPS of the gung-ho mutineers ...

People wanted Washington because he would do a better job of establishing the run. -- andeux @('.')@

by monkeyball on Nov 16, 2006 10:45 PM PST up reply actions