Bonds Revisited

Now that the Mitchell report has been released, I think its time to revisit the topic of if the A's should sign Barry Bonds, or if they do not, should that then signify that it is time to rebuild.

Signing Bonds now would be a very curious move, if done. For one, with steroid controversy fresh in the air all over again, signing Bonds will stir up flags. But, on the flip side, now that we have a deluge of names thrown at us, with Bonds now one among many and taking a place along side Roger Clemens, Andy Pettite and Miguel Tejada, and even guys whom we thought unlikely such as Adam Piaat and FP Santa, it might be more defensible now than it was before.

Further that with the A's already having an accused steroid user, Jack Cust, on the team. Those who said that they could not root for the A's if they signed a steroid user and jerk (Bonds) are now confronted with the fact that the A's may already have a Steroid User (Cust) who is, by many accounts, a complete jerk. If they would drop their team because of Bonds, do they not already have to drop the team because of Cust? Or is it ok because Cust was already on the team, in which case signing Bonds should not then have an effect.

We can all agree that if the A's do make a move and sign Barry Bonds to DH, the A's offense would then project to be rather solid, sporting 6 players with projected OPS's at or above .800, two in the mid .750's and one washout (Crosby). The A's would have 1 more year, with Bonds, to go for the Playoffs, while still having the ability to trade 2 years of Haren and/or Blanton the next season, retaining much of their value that they have today.

ZIPS projects Barry Bonds to produce a line of .256/.456/.518, and the Hardball Times thinks he will put up a .494 OBP and .566 SLG. Can the A's really turn down that production line if it came for the right price, which it looks like it will?

I think it comes down to this: Do you root for the front of the jersey, or the back? And are you willing to sit through a year or two of being in last place withg hopes for a better tomarrow, or do you want to try one more time to get to the playoffs, but risk finishing .500, middle of the pack, with out the good draft pick or the playoff race you hoped for?

If only there was a superstar, steroid free shortstop available to replace Crosby. I mean, one that didn't cost $300 million dollars, that is.