Barry Bonds is coming to Seattle

Jeff · June 15, 2006 at 3:41 pm · Filed Under Mariners 

Tomorrow, yes, but could the petulant slugger be bringing his size XL melon to Safeco next year as well? San Francisco media reports indicate that it’s a possibility:

During a 10-minute chat initiated by two Seattle writers, Barry Bonds said he might be interested in playing for the Mariners next year. “If they’re looking for a DH, it could be,” he said.

First thought? Much ado about nothing, speculation stirred up by a couple of bored reporters. Not that I blame them. I’m all for throwing rocks at the hornet nest, especially as regards scurrilous rumor-mongering.

Bonds also reiterated how serene he is now. “That’s probably bad for me because normally when I’m an a — , I function better,” he said. “Right now, I’m having a great time with the guys, enjoying life. I may not be the ballplayer I once was, but I’m a lot happier.”

Temtping as it is to let this pass without comment, this implies a facetious five-point action plan:

Step 1: Sign Bonds
Step 2: Piss him off
Step 3: ???
Step 4: Repeat step 2
Step 5: Profit!


70 Responses to “Barry Bonds is coming to Seattle”

  1. DMZ on June 16th, 2006 9:20 am

    You wouldn’t actually laugh, you’d say that? That seems hollow and false.

  2. Gomez on June 16th, 2006 10:10 am

    Well, it reads more expressively than ::uproarious laughter::

  3. Dave in Palo Alto on June 16th, 2006 10:14 am

    I think Gomez was lifting Mandark’s laugh.

  4. John in L.A. on June 16th, 2006 10:20 am

    #40 – “However most these individuals would likely not know any significant fact about Bonds’ talent outside “he hits homeruns, and everybody [i]knows[/i] he is on steroids. These people wouldn’t be able to tell you what team Albert Pujols currently plays for or how his name is pronounced.”

    I wouldn’t make the mistake of assuming that those that disagree with you must be ignorant. Because you’d be wrong at least as often as if you assumed all pro-Bonds people do or do not know all the facts.

    Not sure why I should care how much of the general public hates/loves Bonds anyway. Doesn’t impact my opinion either way. Certainly proves nothing to me.

    “I don’t care that anyone connected to the current administration may or may not have lied to a grand jury (or the american public), and I don’t care if Bonds did. The prez needs to be the best prez he can be, and Bonds needs to keep hitting home runs and being the greatest player I’ve ever seen hit a baseball.”

    I should have read ahead because this statement is so inexplicable to me that we probably don’t even have ground for discussion.

    #46 – “This is also a bad law, and thus I don’t care that Bonds might be breaking it.”

    Obviously a valid opinion, but I’m curious… do you not care about perjury or about steroid abuse? Which should not be illegal?

  5. ira on June 16th, 2006 10:35 am

    Isn’t Alger Hiss dead?
    I know, we have people on the team who APPEAR dead, but standing up an actual corpse to bat would even have a lower OPS than Wille Bloomquist.

  6. Jack Howland on June 16th, 2006 10:43 am

    Can I get a list of offensive players who have been productive on their 43rd birthday? It just seems likely to me that a huge offensive drop off is in order whether it be injuries taking their tolls or plain old age. It just doesn’t seem like a good gamble to me based on the price tag that it will come with, because I assume we are talking about a $10M signing.

  7. Xteve X on June 16th, 2006 11:18 am

    I’d be all for Bonds as DH on a 1-year deal. I couldn’t care less about the roids or alleged perjury on PURPOSEFULLY LEAKED but supposedly secret grand jury testimony.

    I don’t need the media to tell me who to like and dislike.

  8. Ralph Malph on June 16th, 2006 11:27 am

    To those folks who say they don’t care if somebody violates a bad law:

    Do you people have children? Do you tell them that?? Did your parents tell you that??? Stop and think about this a little bit, people.

  9. DaveD on June 16th, 2006 11:52 am

    I will be absolutely disgusted if Roid Boy Bonds gets signed here.

    I don’t want steroid freaks on the M’s.

    It’s Clear He’s Not The Cream.

  10. bob montgomery on June 16th, 2006 11:57 am

    Please, no Bonds. The guy is toast. He’s old and has all kinds of health issues. He’s still hitting well this year, but look at other old sluggers. The end isn’t slow and gradual – it’s abrupt and painful. Next year he will be marginally useful at best. He’ll be completely done in 2008 if he is still playing.

    Look at Hank Aaron, Babe Ruth, Mark McGwire, Mike Schmidt, Jeff Bagwell, Reggie Jackson, Eddie Murray, Willie Stargell, Willie McCovey, Willie Mays. I think it will be a struggle for Bonds to pass Aaron and I don’t think he’ll do it next year.

  11. David J. Corcoran I on June 16th, 2006 11:59 am

    Barry Bonds would provide LH sock and would get injured immediately if signedin Seattle.

    Maybe he could play CF.

  12. Gomez on June 16th, 2006 12:14 pm

    I’m with Bob Montgomery on Bonds’ imminent collapse. He will not pass Aaron. I think his body will give out before he’s able to. It’s already giving out now: he’s just able to buy some time by utilizing his primadonna superstar status to take many days off and leave games early. He’s been hobbled and, athletically, a shell of himself for the last 2 years or so.

  13. seank100 on June 16th, 2006 1:01 pm

    I’m with Corcoran – we could non-platoon Bonds in CF.

  14. byronebyronian on June 16th, 2006 1:10 pm

    #23 – Joe, with all due respect, Arte has spent money, true, but he won’t pay Bonds 20 mil. He could have had Manny Ramirez (as some guy pointed out on another board) but from what I understand, he didn’t want to absorb the salary.

    I doubt seriously that Arte M would pay Bonds what he thinks he’s worth anymore than the M’s or A’s will.

  15. byronebyronian on June 16th, 2006 1:15 pm

    I really can’t believe anybody would be entertaining this? Why not spend that money on chasing a younger, more productive hitter via FA or trade?

    We gripe that Krazy Carl is taking up space on our roster at the expense of younger, cheaper alternatives (and I agree with you guys 100%) but why do this? Doyle should be ready to play by midseason and if he can show some durability, he’s option #1 (unless Grover keeps sending Carl out there and his option vests, oy vey).

    Correct me if I am wrong, but why would we want the headaches and the salary burden not to mention there is no way in hades that Lincoln will sign off on this.

  16. Swungonandbelted on June 16th, 2006 1:23 pm

    45: Hate to rain on your parade, but Felix is pitching tonight last I heard…

  17. Celadus on June 16th, 2006 1:41 pm


    Violating bad laws? Of course I would teach my children to do that. It’s part of civil disobedience. Among my hazy criteria of what makes a good American is the capacity to do what is right, whether it is legal or not, whether or not one is doomed to failure in the short run.

    At the lunatic extreme of meticulously not violating bad laws you have people going to work as guards in Nazi concentration camps because they are told to and not doing so would break the law. Compare that to people going to jail because they refuse to go into the Armed Services after getting drafted because they don’t believe in that particular war.

    Which of these groups of people do you propose to emulate? Choose carefully. Explain to your kids why you make that choice.

  18. Swungonandbelted on June 16th, 2006 1:46 pm

    Bah, nm that, should have looked at the timestamp.

  19. John in L.A. on June 16th, 2006 2:12 pm

    “To those folks who say they don’t care if somebody violates a bad law:

    Do you people have children? Do you tell them that?? Did your parents tell you that??? Stop and think about this a little bit, people.”

    Stop and think about it a little bit? I’ve thought about it for years.

    Right and wrong are a thousand times more important to me than legal nad illegal. And yes, that is not too harsh a truth for children.

    I don’t run my moral code by a punishment paradigm, I run it by what I thinkn it right and wrong.

    There are many useless or outright bad laws on the books, I respect them not at all.

    Conversely, I won’t do anything I know is wrong just because it’s legal.

    Many of the greatest heroes in history became such because they vilotated bad laws. I’m all for it.

  20. Ralph Malph on June 16th, 2006 3:17 pm

    Violating a bad law is fine if it is morally necessary or morally right to do so. A German draftee soldier ordered to operate the gas chamber should have refused the order even though it was against military law to do so. A black person ordered to stop “trespassing” in a lunch counter or to sit in the back of the bus was morally right to refuse to do so, even if he or she would go to jail for that. Or a person who refuses the draft because he believes war is morally wrong.

    Taking steroids is either morally neutral or morally wrong, depending on your point of view. It is not morally right, but it is clearly legally wrong.

    Barry Bonds did not use steroids out of civil disobedience. He did it for his own personal glory and enrichment.

    Justifying what Barry Bonds apparently did on the basis of civil disobedience is just sloppy reasoning.