(i have not read the story yet, only the headline)

"There is no doubt in my mind that Oakland will sign Bonds," one major-league executive said Thursday as the winter meetings wound down. "I'd be shocked if it didn't happen."

Two other teams also have expressed interest in Bonds, an industry source said. Bonds is most likely a fit for an American League club, so that he could serve as a designated hitter. The A's, though, apparently have told Bonds that if he signs with them, he would appear in left field with some frequency. The home run king would be splitting DH duties with Jack Cust.

Im all for it. This could be the start of a sick lineup:

Buck
Swisher
Chavez
Bonds
Cust
Barton
Ellis
Suzuki
Short Stop(I just don't want to put down Crosby)

I think that with a lineup like this and our starting pitching, that we will more than contend in the AL west in 2008. Im not scared of the Angels lineup as it currently stands, and as ive seen mentioned in other diaries maybe Bonds will be the confidance factor that Chavez needs to finally put some real offensive numbers. Chavez has said on numerous occasions that he is a huge fan of Bonds, and would take the pressure off of Chavez to be the big bat in the lineup. He can be the good bat in the middle of the lineup surrounded by power, like he was during the Giambi and Miggy days...

need to read the article before whining.  
bonds and the a's are an ideal fit for each other.

also consider this:
would you rather we trade haren and blanton and whoever else we can, totally blow up the team for prospects, and next compete in cisco field, or do you want the a's to sign bonds and maybe bartolo colon and try to win the west?  because unless you're a billionaire willing to buy the team right now and run it at a huge loss out of the goodness of your heart, those are really the only two viable options.

He is the bat that we have dreamed of...and I like that it will give a big FU to the media.

that we'll be seeing Swisher or Buck in Centerfield, and personally, I think I'd like to try Buck in Center. But whatever works.

Yeah, we'll have crappy OF defense, but we lived through Ben Grieve, didn't we? And hey, I'll take crap outfield defense for a good offense anyday, especially since we've sucked offensivly the last few years.

And if Bonds trial really will start AFTER the season, then all the better.

Since everyone else is throwing their everyday lineup out there, here's the lineup I would throw out there.

CF Travis Buck
1B Daric Barton
RF Nick Swisher
DH Barry Bonds
LF Jack Cust
3B Eric Chavez
2B Mark Ellis
C1 Kurt Suzuki
SS Bobby Murphy

Especially if Chavez bounces back, that is one hell of a Top 6. Ellis is solid enough for a #7 hitter, and Suzuki can probably hold his own in the 8th spot. And of course, we have the pitcher in the 9th spot.

that besides the A's, only the Cards had any interest in Bonds.

http://www.baseballprospectus.com/ch...

juxtaposing my general feeling that I want my team to sign great players not great choir boys with my opinion that Barry Bonds is the Alpha Dickhead of this generation of ballplayers.

One thought, though:  it sure would behoove his agent Jeff "the other" Borris to promote the idea that "industry sources" say there are multiple interested teams.

If it comes to pass. I was so dreading re-building. I just couldn't believe that Beane would do it with the kind of potential that the A's currently possess. I am too old to be enthusiastic about rebuilding for the future.

I wonder what move(s) the Halos would make to counter it? Could that push them towards Santana maybe?

I will have to unrecommend your diary if it has no text.

that they can find no method of fielding a potentially winning team other than becoming the biggest fucking sellouts on the planet.

One winning season brought to us by a hired gun like Bonds means nothing to me.  Even if they go all the way.  I want to see real change, I want to know why WE're not the ones to find the David Ortizes, to draft the Travis Hafners and the Albert Pujolses.  Hell, even the Dustin Pedroias.  We seem to top out at Chavez and Swisher, and as we can see, that's not enough, and it was a long time ago.

That's the only way I'm going to get excited about this club.  My biggest hope is that for whatever reason he ends up playing in about 15 games, we lose all of them, and Buck, Barton, Cust and Swisher step up and win a goddamn championship anyway.

And before you all go jumping on me for being a "hater" or whatever the fuck, just because I don't happen to agree with you that this is a good thing for the A's, go through my posting history and try to find something negative I've said about the guy.  I believe the only thing I've ever posted about Bonds on this site was actually positive after one of his radio interviews with Ray Taliaferro (or however the hell that's spelled).  It's not about him, to me, it's about the organization and what I really want to see out of it.

If Bonds joins the A's, there is 100% certainty he will be injured by April and play in fewer games than Rich Harden.

I like wins.

Really, it's very easy for me to look past all the crap and just think of him as another Frank Thomas, a really good, really old hitter, coming to town to help us. His past is his past, and as long as it doesn't keep him out of the lineup and does keep us up in the standings, I'm fine.

That I don't blame people if they're upset about the A's signing Bonds. People have different values. Quite frankly, I would sell my soul for a World Series.

Others aren't so cold, and that's fine.

If Bonds joins the A's, what number does he get?

25 = McGwire
24 = Rickey

You tell me?

ML executive with doubt in his mind is Beane.

I hope this isn't all just another rumor. I will be very disappointed.

First of all, in terms of a baseball decision, signing Bonds is a fantastic decision.  He is the best hitter the A's could acquire this offseason, bar none.  As the article says, he is the ultimate.  This signing would be Moneyball at its finest.

On the other hand, I can understand the negativity towards this signing.  I myself am not a fan of him, and think his is the biggest asshole in baseball.  How do the Oakland faithful aka, season ticket holders react?  These people support and root for the A's no matter who is on the team.  The A's are a passionate part of their lives.  They are emotionally invested in the team.  I assume these die hard A's fans already hate Bonds with a passion.  It would be tremendously hard for these people to root for Bonds on the A's.

The potential is there for Bonds to be a "clubhouse cancer", and ruin team chemistry.  Also who knows what kind of unwanted results could come with Bonds.  What if Bonds blows up at Beane for "hating black people".  As ridiculous as this may sound, anything is possible with a guy like this.

My opinion is to seperate myself from emotional decisions, and look at what is best for the team.  I was devastated when Hudson and Mulder were traded, but once the shock wears off, I got over it.  Winning makes it easier.  Its also hard because I do consider myself a passionate A's fan, and my hatred for the giants runs deep.  

Ultimately I guess it comes down to results, and I think with Bonds, the A's on paper have a very good shot at making the playoffs.  

Count me in.

After all, Bonds might go to jail!

It would be one thing if the media frenzy following Bonds was strictly a matter of the controversy surrounding his past steroid use, but his recent indictment takes things to a new level.

Before this latest indictment, I would have been all for bringing Bonds to the A's. After all, he's one of the greatest hitters in the history of the game. But, with this new, legally fraught chapter in the Bonds saga just about to begin, I'd really just assume the A's not have anything to do with it.

Sounds like this is going to happen, so I'm bracing myself to accept it. I'm glad Chavvy will be happy, and if we win more games I guess that's a silver lining, too.  I still think it's a bad thing.

I don't dislike Bonds as much as many here do.  Sure, he's a jerk and he did illegal drugs, but I realize that plenty of other players did that too but just aren't as well-known.  But it matters that Bonds is well-known.

We all have our reasons, and this is mine. I truly love the city of Oakland -- it's why I became an A's fan -- and I hate that Oakland has such an undeserved bad reputation. It pains me every time I see someone dismiss Oakland as the grubby and ugly runner-up in San Francisco's shadow. I hate that for so many people who don't know the city, when they think of Oakland all that comes to mind is crime, corruption, and violence.

One of the few things that Oakland had going for it, in terms of reputation, was the Oakland A's.  People who knew a little about baseball would think of the scrappy team of cheerful youngsters beating the odds, and that was good for Oakland.  But the A's also had some of the better known 'roiders -- McGwire, Canseco, Giambi.  That's a bad rap that's been tough to beat.

The day we sign Barry Bonds, all of that comes back, and instantly everyone in the country will be talking about how the A's are the team that loves steroid users, and everyone who already has a bad opinion of Oakland will think, "Yeah, that figures; that's the city with rapists and race riots and motorcycle gangs and political corruption, so what do you expect?"

That's why I will mourn when the A's sign Barry Bonds. Not because I hate Bonds, but because I love Oakland. I don't want to see Oakland's name dragged through the mud again. I know this is a baseball site and we're all supposed to care about baseball more than anything else, but truth to be told, I love Oakland more than I love the Oakland A's. I don't care how many wins it's be worth to the team, it's not worth it.

I have very mixed feelings about this. If we won it all this year and Bonds was a big part of it, it just wouldn't taste as sweet as I'd like. But I understand that our chances of winning it all become much, much better with him in the lineup.

Secondly though (already getting over my qualms and thinking about how he could help us win),  I was curious about what you all would think about Bonds going to the opposite field. I know that nothing really needs to change; if puts up the same kind of numbers he did even just last year, that would be more than great. But, I've always wondered, he is such a skilled hitter, it doesn't seem like it would be too hard for him to just poke everything the other way. And with nobody on the left side of the infield because of the full shift, he could probably bat around .800, which would more than make up for the loss in power. I've seen him do a hard bunt into left field before and wondered: why not do that everytime? He'd have 3000 hits in no time.

It seems to me what would eventually happen is opposing teams would simply stop putting on the full shift, and then he could start pulling the ball again with fewer fielders on the right side, again raising his BA/OBP.

So why not?

Any thoughts?

now I won't be able to sleep. I'm so excited about the prospect of seeing Bonds in an A's jersey in the middle of our lineup. Funny thing is I decided not to re-up my season tix next yr because of too many commitments, but now I may have to rethink that...

WOW! this is un-bleeping-believable.

The headline of the Slusser article is completely misleading since there is absolutely nothing in the article to support it.  There's one GM who thinks Bonds will sign with the A's.  Wow, that's shocking.  There's also one GM that gave Kaz Matsui $16.5MM and yet another who thought GMJ was worth $50MM+.  Ya, great predictors of future performance of others these GM's.    

THERE IS NO NEWS HERE - JUST A PUFF PIECE WITH A BIG HEADLINE

I'm a fan of the A's. I'm a fan of Bonds. I'm a fan of winning. I'm a fan of Beane. I'm a fan of smart, performance-vs-salary-optimizing acquisitions.

Let's recap some events.

Nov. 7 ESPN publishes results from survey of 15 GM's.
The location most agreed on (only 3 mind you) is that Bonds will be in Oakland.