That was the headline that got my attention on Yahoo! Sports this afternoon.
Really? This guy really thinks that any team wants a guy that 1) hasn’t played in a year 2) is 44 years old and c) might have to take a little time off come July (hint: it rhymes with ‘perjury trial’).
Some of my favorite quotes from the article:
“All things considered, the Pittsburgh Pirates would pass on a player even the caliber of Barry Bonds at this time. We’re looking forward to building around our young players. We’ve got a good core that we feel good about, going forward.”
Pittsburgh Pirates 2008 record: 67-95, 30.5 games out of first place, and last place in NL Central.
Nate McLouth (Pirates statistical leader in just about every category) 2008 numbers vs. Bonds’ 2007 numbers:
McLouth Bonds
AB 597 340
AVG .276 .276
OBP .356 .480
OPS .853 1.045
HR 26 28
RBI 94 66
RUNS 113 75
And they want no part of him for the league minimum salary. Probably from this other stat that most baseball cards don’t even bother to show:
McLouth Bonds
Federal Trials 0 1
For Lying About
Steroids (FTFLAS)
“Washington Nationals president Stan Kasten said the last-place team had other concerns…”
Baseball Prospectus’ 2009 Washington Nationals Outlook: F*cked. [note: may not actually be from Baseball Prospectus]
“I would tell you that I don’t think it’s a very good fit for us right now,” Minnesota general manager Bill Smith said. “We have five players for three outfield spots and a DH, and we like all five guys. It’s just not a good fit for us.”
I’m not going to do another McLouth breakdown, because it would just be redundant. You know what’s worse than having 2 outfielders for three spots? Five outfielders for three spots. That means three of them are not that good and will be rotating with each other in a square dance of sucktitude.
In the interest of fair reporting, we called our contacts at every single MLB team to see what they thought of signing Bonds. Here is what we found out:
Every team other than the Giants
The Giants
