Susan Slusser reported the A's may still be interested in Barry Bonds:

According to industry sources, before Bonds was indicted on charges of perjury and obstruction of justice this month, talks between the A's and Bonds were further along than anyone has let on.
Even with the indictment, no one with the team has flat-out rejected the notion of signing him.

But should the A's sign Bonds? Sure his 1.045 OPS was the highest in the NL last year, but the Giants offense only scored 683 runs with Barry clogging up the bases.  And they only won 71 games, whereas they had won 72 games without him.

For those who don't trust numbers from a computer, here's Chronicle sportswriter Bruce Jenkins:

If Beane wants to destroy team chemistry, the clubhouse mood and any semblance of sanity by signing Barry Bonds, hey, maybe he doesn't have that much to lose. Remember this, though: Over the past two seasons, Bonds hurt the Giants more from a baseball standpoint than any steroid-related issues. Without Bonds - even if they don't make a single deal - the Giants will improve at least five games in the standings, simply because they can call themselves a team.

As a DH - as opposed to impersonating a refrigerator in left field - Bonds wouldn't be such a detriment, but let's not pretend this has anything to do with winning. This would be about relevance, headlines, notoriety. We're about to find out if there's a price tag on the A's soul.

So the A's wouldn't want Bonds because he could help them lose five more games next year, they would only want him for the headlines.