Information contained on this site is for informational or amusement purposes only. Nothing written is intended to be
legal advice or legal counsel. All original work is protected by applicable copyright laws. Thank you.
With David Ortiz out at least a month with a wrist injury, there is speculation that the defending World Series Champions Boston Red Sox might consider signing the still-unsigned Barry Bonds to be the team's designated hitter.
The upside to such a move would be clear: despite all of the controversy surrounding Bonds last year, and despite having little protection in the Giants' lineup, he still managed to hit 28 home runs in just 340 at bats. The Sox have no internal option who could produce anywhere near that production, and turning to the trade market to acquire an equivalent talent would require giving up top prospects. All Bonds would take is some $$$, and at this point, with no other apparent suitors now in June, his salary demands have probably dropped quite a bit.
The downside to signing Bonds, however, seems equally clear. Bonds would likely be something of a distraction, he is likely to face trial for perjury and obstruction of justice later this year (though the trial, if it occurs, would probably occur after the season), he and Curt Schilling are not known to be friends, and he has previously made caustic statements about the city of Boston, once saying "Boston is too racist for me."
If the move happens, it would almost certainly signal that the Bonds collusion conspiracy--that MLB teams tacitly agreed to not sign Bonds this season--was untrue.
-- Posted by Michael McCann @ 6/03/2008 10:37:00 AM --
Comments (5) --
Post a Comment
5 Comments:
Why would the fact that one team finally breaks down to sign Bonds indicate that there wasn't collusion taking place among others?
"If the move happens, it would almost certainly signal that the Bonds collusion conspiracy--that MLB teams tacitly agreed to not sign Bonds this season--was untrue."
If you make this argument, would you also accept the inverse--if the move doesn't happen, it would signal that the collusion theory is true?
I don't but into the thought that if the Sox sign him it necessarily disproves the collusion theory as much as it would show the weakness of such agreements.
It only takes one team acting in their own self-interest to break away from the group. See OPEC.
Bill James has written, extensively, that he considers Bonds a tremendous risk to slide into oblivion if he plays this season. No way the Red Sox make that move.
View Michael McCann's LinkedIn Profile
