I'm a A's fan who hates Bonds. Why should they sign him? Do you think they will?
2007-12-07 13:57:27 · 20 answers · asked by captaincarney 3 in Sports ➔ Baseball
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2007/12/07/SP2STPL2P.DTL
2007-12-07 14:05:21 · update #1
There are pluses and minues to Bonds.
Pluses: Great On base percentage, can DH so defense isnt a concern, will bring lots of fans to the game
Minuses: Bad with the media, impending legal issues (they wont be resolved by the end of next season though.
A 1 year contract would be ideal at abou $8 million per.
2007-12-07 14:00:46 · answer #1 · answered by ? 4 · 0⤊ 1⤋
There would be a certain irony induced if Barry Bonds signs with Oakland. Remember how the two biggest sluggers in baseball (and others if you believe what was written in Jose Canseco's book) back in the 1980s took steroids, all while Tony LaRussa turned away. In fact, Oakland pretty much harbored the steroid boys (both Giambis, Miguel Tejada, etc.) back in those days.
2007-12-07 15:45:28 · answer #2 · answered by Snoop 5 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Let me just say that every living organism in this solar system, including any residual life forms that may exist on Mars, is sick and tired of the Barry Bonds issue. No one really cares whether this mass of HGH plays again or not.
I would hope that, with the exception of the Giants, who seem to have absolutely no integrity, all other franchises in the major leagues will stay clear of this complete embarrassment to baseball.
The sooner the Bonds issue is laid to rest permanently, the better.
2007-12-07 14:34:04 · answer #3 · answered by The Mick 7 7 · 3⤊ 0⤋
Neither. being a A's fan they do no longer want previous DHs clogging up area on the communities roster. Jack Cust/Barton are the DHs with barton?johnson at 1st. Bonds is a maximum cancers to any team and Franco does no longer help the A's in a playoff run. The angels are the playoff team in the branch it would be a protracted shot for the A's to make it.
2016-10-10 12:34:58 · answer #4 · answered by ? 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
the tigers should.
the only weak link in their line up is left field. bonds can play atleast a 100 games, make the line up even sicker and he gets along great with leyland.
oakland already has a strong bonds fan base, but in detroit, he'd be a fan fave in no time.
just keep him and sheff on seperate ends of the clubhouse.
2007-12-07 17:23:21 · answer #5 · answered by joe 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Hells yes! As long as they can get him for a reasonable price, why not? If he can DH for a full season, he will definitely be productive.
The A's can't afford to have these "moral dilemas". They need all the offensive help they can get. I say, sign him to a 1-year contract. Whatever comes out of the trial, he can help us next season.
2007-12-07 15:04:42 · answer #6 · answered by Pete 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Say what you will about Barry but the guy can still mash. He's not what he used to be but he's also 43 years old. That article makes it sound like it's all but a done deal...so if you believe that report, he'll be on the A's before too long.
2007-12-07 14:24:35 · answer #7 · answered by M.M.12 3 · 0⤊ 1⤋
nobody should sign Bonds. He clearly used steroids, and anyone who signs him is pretty much saying that they condone the use of performance enhancing drugs. He can plead not guilty all he wants, we all know he did it. Sure he has a big bat, but i'd rather take a not so great bat with good character than a big bat with poor quality character.
*i knew somebody or a group was out to get me, i have the same reasons as to why nobody should sign him and yet i have 2 thumbs down.
2007-12-07 14:01:16 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 3⤋
They might be the only team willing to sign Bonds if he elects to play.
2007-12-07 14:21:15 · answer #9 · answered by Frizzer 7 · 0⤊ 1⤋
i heard the A's are showing interest in signing Bonds...I don't know why...there are plenty of other free agent players they can go but it would have to be for PR reason if they do.
2007-12-07 14:13:23 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋