Frank Signs...

by CyZito on Nov 17, 2006 8:16 AM PST Comment 65 comments

Frank signed the two year deal with the Jays. Two years 18 million.

http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/news/story?id=2665836

Its interesting that Billy wouldn't go that high -- it was rumored that we would pay two years 15 million right? I mean, honestly, I am torn about this. Thats a lot of money to toss at a huge injury risk (especially on turf for the Jays). I think Billy must think that Barry will come cheaper? I mean we certianly need a bopper in the line up. Unless this is just gonna be a 'down' year where we run out someone for the first half and then have Barton share time with Swish at first/DH in the second half. I am not really sure. If thats the case part of me wants to trade an arm or two and cash in on this insane market. What do we think?

0 recs | Comment 65 comments

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

I'd rather see Barton than Bonds

Hope Floats...I hate Sandra Bullock

by franks a lot on Nov 17, 2006 8:13 AM PST reply actions 0 recs

Then you'd rather see the A's

lose baseball games rather than win them.

Which I guess is your perogative.

there's simply no club like the white elephant club

by walk off bunt on Nov 17, 2006 10:21 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Or...

...he'd rather not have to cheer a cheater.

Which shows he has something called character.

Oh, and he'd probably also rather cheer someone who will chase balls in the outfield at a speed above 'fat guy jogging', and run out flyballs so that, you know, if they happen to drop in, you can still get to first base.

He probably also wants to cheer a guy who isn't an absolute c__t.

I'm with him.

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

by Ozzz on Nov 17, 2006 12:16 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Oh please

Character has nothing to do with it. Don't even try bringing that into the fray. Rooting for a baseball team or players isn't where one displays character, it's out in the real world, with real issues. Being to accept Barry Bonds if he were to come to the A's because he'd mean we'd be a better team means in no way, shape, or form that I lack character.

The fact of the matter is that if you'd rather have Daric Barton playing DH over Barry Bonds you'd rather see the A's lose less games next year than they could potentially win. That's fact. Now, if you really dislike Barry Bonds that much, that's a personal thing with you and that's fine. But don't you dare insinuate I lack character because I can get around it, or because I can, hey, get this, forgive and forget.

there's simply no club like the white elephant club

by walk off bunt on Nov 17, 2006 12:25 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Ugh

Being able to accept...

and or form is an indication that I lack character.

Not the best of typing moments.

there's simply no club like the white elephant club

by walk off bunt on Nov 17, 2006 12:27 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Oh yikes

The second clause was originally even correct.

Too much studying last night, forget what I said entirely.

there's simply no club like the white elephant club

by walk off bunt on Nov 17, 2006 12:28 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Oh, you can forgive and forget?

<strawman>
So I guess you forgive Hitler then, eh?
</strawman>

Dude, why do people love Swisher? Because he hits a few long bombs and manages a .235 average? No, because he's a genuinely likewable guy, and if there are better 1B options out there (and there are LOADS), so be it, because A's fans dig the guy.

Why do we love Scoot? Because he's clutch? Nah, but because he plays hard and uses the limited talent has to its absolute zenith.

Why did people dislike Loaiza? Because he couldn't throw a good fastball? Heck, we love Zito and he throws fastballs like Jennie Finch. We disliked Loiaza (en masse) because he looked like he was dogging it, when he wasn't drunk driving.

A's fans care about character, and no player in the game has less character and has done more to destroy what's good about the game of baseball than Barry fuckin' Bonds.

If we need him to win in 2007, I'll stand by making it a rebuilding year, playing Barton so he gets some experience and aiming for 2008.

What I won't take is being one of those braying Giants fans that says "you're just a hater" or "you're just jealous" while they bow to that mound of drug company advertising.

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

by Ozzz on Nov 17, 2006 1:51 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Agree with you about Bonds

but Loaiza certainly got a lot more popular with fans when he started pitching well. Most fans don't really care about character that much I think, but Bonds is a special case. He is the living, breathing personification of everything people hate about professional athletes, and he is an unapologetic symbol of an embarrasing steroid era.

I'd like to eat my lunch, but Billy just kicked me out of my office.

by BlameChannel53 on Nov 17, 2006 3:20 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

and I still contend that ...

... he is that personification mostly (not entirely) because of the media's (reciprocated) disdain for him. HIs character flaws (and I'll grant he's got a few) may well be worse than 99% of other major leaguers (though I doubt it), but we'll never, ever know.

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

by monkeyball on Nov 17, 2006 4:00 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

To me, absolutes are for court cases.

Judging the character of a steroid cheat - the steroid cheat that made Giambi look like he wasn't really trying - is a case where you take the info you have at hand and say, "heck with it, he's a scumbag."

There may be others. There likely are (an understatement on a level with your Bonds has a 'few' character flaws), but of those, most are just trying to stay competitive in their old age (Palmeiro), or stay in the team (Ryan Franklin), whereas Bonds has used his illegal advantage to break formerly unbreakable records.

To put it another way, all murderers suck. But they guy that murders babies, for him there's a special hell. Ditto roiders.

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

by Ozzz on Nov 17, 2006 4:27 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Hmmm ...

I hear what you're sayin', Oz, but I suspect (though I don't know; it's all guesswork) that your central contention -- that Bonds was the only preternaturally gifted mlb'er 'roiding, and that most of the others who did so were marginal schlubs just tryin' to hang on -- is incorrect.

McGwire, Sosa. Canseco. Brady Anderson. Tejada. Giambi. Any players Bonds was actually friendly with.

Now, granted, it's all speculation on most of those guys -- and many of them, if they were roiding, were roiding when there was some argument as to whether it was against MLB rules. But, c'mon -- elite players all, and all, I think it's safe to say, tot-slayers.

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

by monkeyball on Nov 17, 2006 8:44 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

one more name for that list

the man whose hits redefine the term "line drive", Gary Sheffield.

"We don't want haddock and chips, we want cod. In cod we trust." --Ghostigital, the pride of Iceland

by Cutthemullet on Nov 17, 2006 11:11 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

another cheating a-hole ...

... whom I'd honestly have loved to have on the team!

Not, of course, for the price Detroit paid, though.

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

by monkeyball on Nov 17, 2006 11:24 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

me too

Seeing the Yankees trade him for low-level (if not low-quality) prospects to ANY team, though, was enough of a moral victory for me to get over my disappointment that we couldn't even have a shot at Sheff in free agency. Now I'm pulling for Bonds.

"We don't want haddock and chips, we want cod. In cod we trust." --Ghostigital, the pride of Iceland

by Cutthemullet on Nov 17, 2006 11:34 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Two reasons (among others) I'm not:

He's just not very good right now. I mean, he's not hitting tons o'bombs, he doesn't hit for average, his OBP is dropping as pitchers work out he's not the guy he was pre-testing... and another year will make him worse.
Do you really want to be looked at like Giants fans are now - as soulless homers who'll cheer anyone, no matter how foul, as long as it helps them get one more run every five games?

After years of looking down on Giants fans as the least principled in the game, that, for me, the idea of being the new version of them just kills me.

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

by Ozzz on Nov 18, 2006 11:26 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs

I'm with him

I'd rather see Barton than Barry and spend the money elsewhere.

by methodrampage on Nov 17, 2006 1:39 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

No money to spend elsewhere...

Bonds would pay for himself. That's not true of any other player or group of players that the A's could get to command that same chunk of payroll.

If Bonds was paid $10 million for next year, the A's (or whomever signed him) would turn a healthy profit on increased attendance alone. The "break-even" point, i.e. the salary point at which Bonds would exactly pay for himself in 2007, is probably between 15 and 20 million.

MJB

by MJB on Nov 17, 2006 8:44 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

HollywoodOz

I "care" about Swisher because he "hits bombs" and helps us win. I could care less what he does off the field.
I "care" about Scutaro because he's a solid backup infielder who also has an occasional big hit that helps us win. I could care less what he does off the field.
I "care" about Loaiza because he had a nice second half and he helps us win. I could care less what he does off the field.
I don't care about character -- unless you can somehow prove that "character" hits around .280 and gives me about 20-25 HR's a season. If so, sign him up.
You're not in first grade -- these guys should not be your heroes. They're multi-millionaire athletes who play a game.
If Bonds signs, I'm all for it. He may help us win games -- that's the only thing that matters.
Oh, and nice analogy using Adolph Hitler. Cuz everyone knows Hitler and steriod users are real close ethically. Wow.

VacaAsFan

by Vacafan on Nov 18, 2006 8:29 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs

wasn't exactly an analogy

he did acknowledge it to be a strawman, quite clearly (like this: <strawman>)

"We don't want haddock and chips, we want cod. In cod we trust." --Ghostigital, the pride of Iceland

by Cutthemullet on Nov 18, 2006 4:13 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

2/18

Does create much more of an ambiguity than 2/23 or 3/30. Is Thomas a huge risk at 2/18? Yes. We may end up wishing we had paid that if we struggle at DH and miss the playoffs by a few games. I can't fault Billy for not signing him.

I'd like to eat my lunch, but Billy just kicked me out of my office.

by BlameChannel53 on Nov 17, 2006 8:15 AM PST reply actions 0 recs

Thats exactly...

How I feel. I mean, I understand why we didnt make this deal. It could be a huge burden on our team. That being said, if we don't make any moves, I don't see this team making a playoff run. I mean Scoot(untill croz goes down)/Milhouse/Bare-hand-Bobby/ect doesn't really make up a formidable DH platoon.

by CyZito on Nov 17, 2006 8:18 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Don't forget the option

The contract also has an option for the third year. That option should have a buyout in the range of $2-5 million. The contract is really a two year contract for $20-23 million, with a chance to make another $4-7 if the option year is exercised.

by Hang Man on Nov 17, 2006 8:25 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs

The Way I See It

There could have been 3 Outcomes concerning Frank Thomas:

Option 1: Match Offer / Frank Stays relatively injury free / Make playoffs 2 out of 3 years

Option 2: Match Offer / Frank gets hurt / Miss playoffs 3 out of 3 years

Option 3: Don't Match Offer / Miss Playoffs 2 out of next 3 years (at best)

I would have liked to see if Option #1 would have worked out. Now, we're going to have to get extremely lucky to get our DH Spot to be more productive than Scott Hatteberg...and less productive than Frank Thomas.

Not to mention that our Starting Pitching really, really scares me right now. It wasn't very good last year. The Bullpen saved them.

COME ON, OAKLAND, COME ON!

by Colorado Fan on Nov 17, 2006 11:51 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Our rotation

was #4 in the AL in both ERA and IP ... that's pretty good, if you ask me.

Another project of Devo's

by devo on Nov 17, 2006 11:55 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Inconsistent

It was very inconsistent, especially down the stretch.

A's pitching will need to improve if we have any chance next season. Harden will need to stay healthy. That's scary. Offensive production will probably be worse next season, unless we get some bounce back seasons.

COME ON, OAKLAND, COME ON!

by Colorado Fan on Nov 17, 2006 12:45 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

There's no question ...

that the '07 team, as assembled today, is likely to be worse than the '06 team. I'd guesstimate it's about a .500 team. I'd also estimate that we have another $15-20m in payroll to spend, so I'm optimistic that we'll improve on it.

Another project of Devo's

by devo on Nov 17, 2006 12:51 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Speaking of the payroll

I don't have any hard numbers on hand, just stuff that I remember reading over the past several months, so please don't consider this an exact model.

But the A's are looking at $30 million in TV revenue and another $30 million in luxury tax compensation. That pretty much pays for the current roster and they haven't sold a single ticket or hot dog. Figure 2 million in attendance (probably high but I like the round number) at $25 bucks a head (ticket sale + concessions, probably low but it makes for easy math) would give the A's an additional $50 million to play with. Figure half that money goes towards overhead and expenses, the rest is available to go towards the team.

By that math the A's could have a $85 million dollar payroll without the ownership having to dip into their own pockets for one cent. If my math is even in the same ballpark as the actual financial numbers there is no reason why the A's shouldn't have $15-20 million to spend on the roster this offseason.

Some of that might go towards signing young guys like Swisher and Street, but the bulk could go towards trading for expensive contracts or signing FA to expensive contracts. Now, somewhere along the line the A's need set aside some cash for the draft but there's no reason why the ownership couldn't contribute a few million of their own money to that end. Heck, their stock investments will acrue more interest than they'd spend in the draft!

Why yes. I am a ray of warm and fuzzy sunshine.

by grover on Nov 17, 2006 1:56 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

My $15-20m estimate

is based on the total of players we have under contract + estimates on arbi settlements (just under $60m) subtracted from an estimated payroll of last year's nearly $70m payroll +5% or so as a basic, COL type increase, with another $5m or so possible because of our '06 playoff run ...

Buying out the arbi years of Swisher, Street, maybe Blanton would only cost maybe a million total for next year.

Another project of Devo's

by devo on Nov 17, 2006 2:05 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Ahhh...

ESPN is saying there is an option for 2009. That could have been the deal breaker. I wonder what the details are.

by CyZito on Nov 17, 2006 8:21 AM PST reply actions 0 recs

Hang on folks

We don't know all the details to this deal. There is a 3rd year option, and where there is an option year there is also a buy-out. You may need to add an extra few million to the final tally to see what the actual dollar figure is.

Why yes. I am a ray of warm and fuzzy sunshine.

by grover on Nov 17, 2006 8:21 AM PST reply actions 0 recs

Now I get it

The deal seemed reasonable until I saw their was an option for 2009. We'll have to see what that option entails, but that is a very significant change indeed.

I miss Bill King :(

by gojohn10 on Nov 17, 2006 8:25 AM PST reply actions 0 recs

Lame.

The '09 option may easily be an albatross... But I am damn, damn disappointed that FT won't be back for us. I really thought he would.

"This must be heaven," he says.
"No. It's Oakland."

by Kyli on Nov 17, 2006 8:30 AM PST reply actions 0 recs

it sucks that frank is gone, but i wouldn't

have given him anything over a year. he's too much of a risk. billy did the right thing by not matching or going higher then the blue jays. now he just needs to get us a big bat.

"Very nice day in the Oakland A... Oakland A's? What's this stadium called again?" Nick Swisher on TWIB.

by larrysgurl on Nov 17, 2006 8:36 AM PST reply actions 0 recs

This is from SFGATE.com, on Franks contract

Thomas will make $10 million next year and $8 million in 2008 with a vesting option for $10 million in 2009, according to the Globe and Mail. The deal is contingent on Thomas passing a physical. Including incentives, Thomas made $3.1 million with the A's.

by theblackpearl on Nov 17, 2006 8:39 AM PST reply actions 0 recs

That's the problem.

The option is vesting, not a team or mutual option.

Stat Wonk Futurist

by salb918 on Nov 17, 2006 8:47 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs

yup...

that makes it very clear....a little too rich for us...

by CyZito on Nov 17, 2006 8:53 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Can someone explain

what a "vested option" is? And who holds the option?

"Oakland has a way of bringing out the joy in the game." NYT, 9/22/06

by SportySpice on Nov 17, 2006 8:54 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs

See saint's answer below

for an explanation of "vesting option".

Why yes. I am a ray of warm and fuzzy sunshine.

by grover on Nov 17, 2006 9:06 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs

every at bat

usually every year there's one guy on the team who I make a point to watch every at bat closely. MIggy's last year, the year hatteburg had such a hot start...and last year it was frank. I'll sure miss those at bats. Remember the at bat with Mussina when he ended up hitting a line drive over the left field fence? wow. There were many other moments, and I loved the weekly update of where he was on the all time list of RBIs, HRs etc. Does anyone really think he'll hold up on that turf though? Maybe the Jays just aren't concerned with the dough and don't think of it is too much of a gamble. I'll still root for him against the yanks and sox.

by giambizombie on Nov 17, 2006 8:46 AM PST reply actions 0 recs

Absolutely.

Franks PAs were "drop what you're doing PAs." And if he has the power to put the hurt on the Yanks and Sox, that's ok with me.

Stat Wonk Futurist

by salb918 on Nov 17, 2006 8:47 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs

I have no problem with a vested option:

A vested option says that he hits certain marks for performance and durability.

If he hits 38 and 114 every year as thier DH, he will be EASILY worth 28 million over 3 years.

http://www.silverandblackpride.com/

by saint on Nov 17, 2006 8:58 AM PST reply actions 0 recs

Except in three years

we'll likely have a cheaper and better option at DH.

Stat Wonk Futurist

by salb918 on Nov 17, 2006 9:07 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs

We also don't know what the parameters are

It could be 20/80 with 350 pa's which is not as likely this year, but next year might, then the 3rd year you have a HUGE albatross

by theblackpearl on Nov 17, 2006 9:14 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Vesting options

Can only be for plate appearances or games played. Vesting options for HR/RBI/BA/OPS/... are prohibited.

by skwid on Nov 17, 2006 9:12 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs

So long...

farewell, auf Wiedersehen, good night!

"Come on, you douche bags, we're all on the same team!"

by Jennifer on Nov 17, 2006 9:07 AM PST reply actions 0 recs

ERROR

DOES NOT COMPUTE

Stat Wonk Futurist

by salb918 on Nov 17, 2006 9:08 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs

uh-oh

Frank's never gonna make it over the Alps on that ankle.

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

by monkeyball on Nov 17, 2006 12:18 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Good riddance....

"I hate the Angels"

by Vegas A's Fan on Nov 17, 2006 9:17 AM PST reply actions 0 recs

I think there are a couple of factors here

first and foremost, Barton should be ready very soon to take over that DH position. And there is likely a better option sitting out there for DH in Barry Bonds. I hate the guy...I'll probably continue to loathe the guy even if he wears green and gold, but Bonds is basically seeking a one-year deal according to many reports. That's much more convenient for the A's considering Barton's development. You don't want to block his potential position for two more years, especially if he can't turn into a serviceable first baseman.

Part of me really doubts that Thomas will make it through two seasons without missing significant time, especially on that turf in Toronto.

by Tyler Bleszinski on Nov 17, 2006 9:54 AM PST reply actions 0 recs

Daric Barton - DH?

Do you think Billy will DH him? Seems like he'd be better off playing everyday at First Base. I don't like the idea of a 22-Year Old DH'ing Full-Time.

You need "Frank Thomas"-like focus to excel at DH.

I say play Barton at First Base. Move Swisher back to left field. We might be seeing the start of a Merry-Go-Round at the DH Spot. Very similar to the Closer position from 1999 - 2005

Hatteberg
Thomas
Bonds/Nomar/Piazza
?????

COME ON, OAKLAND, COME ON!

by Colorado Fan on Nov 17, 2006 11:57 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs

One-year deals are a great way to go

Look at the Dodgers last year. Colletti focused on filling holes in his lineup with veterans on one-year deals. No long-term contract albatross, plus you get guys who are very motivated to produce and cash in next year -- Nomar produced well above his salary number in 2006, as FT obviously did in Oakland.

Plus, if you only need a year or two before your top minor leaguers are ready for the show, the one-year veteran deals dovetail very well with that. If your big bopper in the minors is ready to produce 35 HR and 100 RBI in the majors this year, you plug him in. If he needs another year at AAA, you bring in a veteran on another one-year deal. It's much better than bringing in a veteran on a three-year deal and having him take up playing time in year three that should be going to your ready-to-go product from the farm system.

MJB

by MJB on Nov 17, 2006 8:56 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

ok...

so he got Nomar and Lofton on one-year deals...he also got Furcal on a horrible 3-year deal. And now they might re-sign Nomar for two years.

"We don't want haddock and chips, we want cod. In cod we trust." --Ghostigital, the pride of Iceland

by Cutthemullet on Nov 17, 2006 11:12 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Yeah...

... he didn't do everything right. Especially Furcal.

Nomar is iffy health-wise on a long-term deal, but this is definitely a players' market. No one is going to get a deal this year like the A's 2006 deal for Frank Thomas.

This is probably the fourth time I've said this here, but if the Red Sox are willing to eat a big chunk of his contract, then trading for Manny Ramirez is a great way to go. He has two years left at $17 million per.

MJB

by MJB on Nov 18, 2006 6:13 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs

agreed

"We don't want haddock and chips, we want cod. In cod we trust." --Ghostigital, the pride of Iceland

by Cutthemullet on Nov 18, 2006 4:11 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

if i had a say:

i'd rather have bonds @ 10 mil X 1 yr then FT at 18 mil X 2 + an option.

agreed blez.

"If the fans don't come out to the ball park, you can't stop them."- Yogi Berra.

by bigelephant on Nov 17, 2006 10:02 AM PST reply actions 0 recs

Bring on Bonds

I hate the guy but ill easily swallow my pride if he helps us win games. I can root for the guy. Call me fickle, but i love me some wins.

"Their batters are patient to the point that it's annoying." -Ryan Franklin, Seattle Mariners

by Helloooo 1st on Nov 17, 2006 10:37 AM PST reply actions 0 recs

Not I.

I watch those Giants fans worshipping him and it makes me disgusted. If the only way you can have pride in your team is with wins, then it's a hollow pursuit, this whole fandom thing.

I don't want the A's to be the team that the game's worst steroid cheat is on when he breaks the last pure record left.

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

by Ozzz on Nov 17, 2006 12:20 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Do you really think...

the Giants are going to let the A's sign Bonds to a 1-year deal? There is no way in hell that is going to happen! The Giants may let Bonds walk, but that will only happen if he's got an offer from another team for a multi-year, multi-million dollar contract.

A one-year deal? The Giants will easily outbid the A's if it comes down to that.

"When I got injured, I felt disrespected. Waaannnh!" - Mark Kotsay

by FoolshGame22 on Nov 17, 2006 10:48 AM PST reply actions 0 recs

Right on it

I concur Byrnesy.

This is a game to be savored, not gulped. There's time to discuss everything between pitches or between innings. ~Bill Veeck

by Steve in Napa on Nov 17, 2006 11:38 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Bonds

If we sign Bonds, don't we lose 2 Draft Picks? I don't see Billy parting with two Draft Picks.

COME ON, OAKLAND, COME ON!

by Colorado Fan on Nov 17, 2006 11:58 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Doubt

Giants will offer Bonds arbitration. If they do, he accept and demand $25 million and might get it.

I'd like to eat my lunch, but Billy just kicked me out of my office.

by BlameChannel53 on Nov 17, 2006 12:12 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Arbitration

What is the last date to offer arbitration? Early December?

COME ON, OAKLAND, COME ON!

by Colorado Fan on Nov 17, 2006 12:41 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Dec. 6th?? Somewhere in that area

Will Bonds sign with another team before then if we don't jump on him? Could force Beane to sacrifice the draft pick if he really wants Bonds. Our farm system really could use the 1st round pick.

I'd like to eat my lunch, but Billy just kicked me out of my office.

by BlameChannel53 on Nov 17, 2006 1:00 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

SF offering

I got this from Baseballamerica. About the new labor deal. "Teams must still offer players salary arbiritration to receive draft-pick compensation, though the deadline for that offer was moved up from Dec.7 to Dec.1".

I do not think Beane needs to jump on Bonds with only 13 days left for SF to offer.

I hope this helps.

by dougald1 on Nov 17, 2006 3:17 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

But that's a great outcome, too

The Giants cannot be allowed to re-sign Bonds at anything below full market value. If the A's or Padres or whomever can get him at $10 million, so be it.

Maybe Bonds will kiss and make up with the Giants in the end, but the Giants need to be forced to pay through the nose to keep him. That requires teams like the A's and Padres to continue to show interest and put money on the table.

MJB

by MJB on Nov 17, 2006 9:00 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs