http://thesteroidera.blogspot.com/20...

112 names, including jack cust.  if pettitte, tejada, roberts, matthews, glaus, guillen and ankiel all get cut by their teams, the a's definitely should not sign bonds.

Oops, sorry. Never thought I'd be excited about that...but I am!

I think Beane will likely sign Bonds -- but because he's the best FA available, a good replacement bat for Swisher, a likely (relative) bargain due to other teams being scared off, and because of the potential to spin him off midseason for prospects or potentially garner a Type A compensation pick in '09.

As I've said before when people impute PR/ticket-sales motivations to Beane, I can't think of a single move he's ever made designed with such motivations. I'm open to being convinced, but I've seen no evidence of it.

This also goes against the entire direction of the franchise during Beane's tenure -- the A's in recent memory have either (depending on how jaundiced one is) neglected to make successful overtures to casual fans, or actively discouraged casual (and longtime dedicated) fans to "artificially" depress attendance.

What's more, there are plenty of other cheaper and/or more effective ways that the A's could shore up and expand their current fanbase.

If Beane does sign Bonds, it'll be a 100% on-field performance-vs.-budget decision.

I sincerely doubt Bonds would sign without a no-trade clause, so I don't think the idea of flipping him midseason would work.  

People will definitely show up to see him, I'm sure, but if they sign him,  I will be wearing a paper bag over my head for every one of his Coliseum ABs.

If one of his stated goals for returning to play this season is the chance to win a ring, he has to know that he has practically no chance of doing so in Oakland.  And, as Brian in 317 points out above, there's little chance he will sign a contract that allows him to be traded to anybody.  Combine those two things, and I have to think he's more likely to end up somewhere like Anaheim or San Diego than he is Oakland.

... I think sign-Bonds-to-increase-attendance is a canard, because by signing Bonds, Beane would alienate and lose nearly as many diehard and casual A's fans as he would gain.

shocked even (to use an expression favored by high level baseball executives) , if the A's sign Bonds.

that "Hardcore" fans would still show up for games in 2008 because they are in fact "hardcore" fans.  You go to games because you're an A's fan, not because you're a bandwaggoner.  "Hardcore" means you still buy your season tickets even though the team may loose 90 games....THAT is HARDCORE.

recent trade controversies or not...all rendered moot if we are competitive in 2008.

Hey,you gonna watch the A's, your team, in the AL playoffs tongight on Fox?
Nah, I am still pissed over Swisher's trade and I can't stand joe buck.    right.

Maybe this is just me being naive, but having a relatively cancer-free clubhouse atmosphere where the myriad of young players that will be coming up in the next 12-18 months can fit in comfortably and experience growing pains without the aura of the most hated man in sports lurking overhead seems like it should be a higher priority for this organization than simply winning a couple more games or selling a few more tickets during a non-competitive season.

I just hope Beane feels the same way...

we won't be barry good next year

see their idol. I think more Giants fans show up than A's fans leave. So it is a plus for attendance and maybe some of those fans stay after the season ends.  It's something to think about but ...I no longer care one way or the other. I was excited for Barry because I thought we would be contenders for the division or wildcasrd this year. Not contenders for 4th place in the division.

God will not forgive.

You're so going to Hell!!!

Bonds as DH for ~125 games - factoring in nagging injuries (and really, 125 games would be the upper end  of what he can do these days) and age, and the fact that he'll have to worry about the feds, and he's moving to a better league with a park less accepting of his "yank the ball down the line" home runs and he's not actually much better than Jack Cust.

Last season, Bonds' WARP3 (I know, some people don't like it.) was 7.0. Cust's was 6.2. Even if the .8 Win difference remains, why on earth would the A's pay Bonds to put up a performance that isn't really any better? He's not that much of a draw - especially in Oakland. People want Bonds to go away.

So unless Bonds is willing to sign for $4-5 million (and that's a bit of a stretch), he's not worth it.

And, again, that ignores the fact that many fans would rather see him in a real life Final Destination scenario than on a baseball field. From a baseball standpoint, it's not a good idea.

Someone above mentioned that Chavez might see a lot more fast balls hitting in front of Bonds.

If we add Bonds we might gain a decent trading chip come the deadline but what would Bonds' presence in the lineup do for Chavez' value?  Chavez can't be in the teams future plans and his value is at an all-time low but could hitting in front of Bonds boost his value?  If so, we could be looking at another decent trading chip.

In any case if the addition of Bonds also makes someone else more valuable then I don't see what we've got to lose.

about the philosophies of "long term players" and "rooting for the uniform" once again.

The Yankees still have a "core" from their 1996-2000 run: Jeter, Rivera, Posada... Plus they've had a few long term players besides.  I think (IMO) you build up better attendance, better revenues, when you have long term players play for your team.  I've come around to that thinking.  After all, a "2006" type of winning season for the Athletics did not parlay into increased attendance in 2007.  Only KC and Tampa Bay did worse with home attendance.  I think, "Win or lose, these are my guys" builds more fan loyalty than simply "this year's winners".  And builds greater attendance, and especially, the all-important "bridging attendance", where sons follow the fathers as game attendees, and share the same passion for the team.  

Passion for a team, I'm beginning to formulate, starts with a certain collection of players.  If that collection stays intact, the "passion" gets more 'productive' for the team: more games attended, souvenirs, etc.  If that passion recedes into "let's go to a game, Ripkin is in town" type of reasoning, then ticket prices, seating, parking fees, costly beers, they all become reasons not to go to a game.

If you are "Passionate" however, those costs get ignored.

Better grab your, uh, woolies.