Sports Law Blog
All things legal relating
to the sports world...
Tuesday, June 03, 2008
 
Will the Red Sox Sign Barry Bonds?

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.





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?

Anonymous Anonymous -- 6/03/2008 12:30 PM  


A quick look at some BoSox sites indicate that it is about 50-50 relative to the "Barry Bonds debate" so far.

It is either, NO WAY!!! or, do you want to be in first or third place???

Should make for an interesting next couple of weeks in Boston.

http://barrybondstrial.blogspot.com/

Blogger blogger -- 6/04/2008 3:32 AM  


"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.

Blogger Charles Slavik, CPT*D -- 6/04/2008 8:26 AM  


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.

Anonymous Anonymous -- 6/06/2008 10:52 PM  


i dont think they will end up signing him... but it would be cool to see him play some more @_@
-Jerry

Anonymous nfl pick -- 6/10/2008 6:07 PM  


Post a Comment