We’re about to put up a big blog post and what I think is a really fun and cool new baseball poll, so hang on.
In the meantime, I want to say one more thing about Barry Bonds. In the comments section it seems to have become more or less accepted that Barry could mean the difference of about four wins for the Royals the rest of the year. This has, on occasion, been clarified as “only four games” as in it would not be worth it to bring Barry Bonds and all his baggage to Kansas City for only four wins — the difference between, say, 73 and 77 wins.
Well, first off, I don’t know if Barry Bonds could really provide Kansas City with four more victories. Maybe he would provide them with more. Maybe less. I don’t know. But let’s say that’s the number, let’s say that the signing of Barry could indeed give the Royals four more victories than they would win without him.
I have to say … that only makes me want to sign him MORE.
FOUR WINS? Are you kidding me? That’s an absolute no brainer. Because that isn’t necessarily the difference between 73 and 77 wins.
Four wins could also be the difference between 79 and 83 wins — which is the difference between a losing and winning season.
Four wins could be the difference between 83 wins and 87 wins, which in this division could win the division*.
*Even if the Twins are playing otherworldly ball right now — why do you people (especially you people in Minnesota) keep arguing with me about Gardy’s genius? I don’t get it. That Twins team has Livan Hernandez and Boof Bonser pitching every fifth day (yes, as pointed out Boof is NOW in the bullpen, but the guy has started 12 games this year). They have Michael Cuddyer’s 90 OPS+ hitting fifth. I misspoke earlier about the DH as you brilliant readers pointed out, Jason Kubel is there most games (though Craig Monroe has played 25 games at DH) but in that case they have Delmon Young’s 90 OPS+ in left. The Twins have hit 51 homers ALL YEAR AS A TEAM … and they don’t lose. What the heck did Gardy ever do to you people anyway? I mean, OK, I know what he’s done, I’ve received plenty of emails about bizarre moves and managerial decisions the man has made. I don’t disagree with the specifics. But in the bigger picture I say this: So he gave Nick Punto a few too many at-bats last year, whatever, we’re at that point of the year again where people across America are noticing the Twins are winning and we outsiders have NO IDEA how they’re doing it. It seems like that’s a Gardy trademark.
Four wins could be the difference between all those young pitchers and players having the experience of going through a real live pennant race and not going through a real live pennant race.
Four wins could be the difference between other free agents looking at Kansas City and saying, “Eh, they have no chance,” to, “hey, they did win (say) 82 games last year, and they have all that young pitching, something special might be happening there.”
Four well placed wins could be the difference between drawing 1.8 million people and, say, 1.73 or 1.68 million or whatever (and here I’m referring only to the extra wins, not even to the “Let’s go see Barry Bonds” factor).
Four wins could be the difference between ownership feeling good about the direction of the club and feeling not so good about the direction of the club.
Four wins could mean the Royals might actually get an occasional highlight on Baseball Tonight.
Four wins could be the difference between a team playing with confidence and energy in August and September rather than a team playing out the string.
Four wins in 2007 and Willie Randolph would still be manager of the Mets. Four fewer wins in 2006 and you know Tony La Russa might not be managing the St. Louis Cardinals. Four more wins and Buck Showalter takes Texas to the playoffs in 2004 and continues to prove that he’s damned good at winning as a manager.
Four wins could help give the Royals their best record since before the strike.
None of this changes the basic Bonds argument.* You can think it’s worth it or not, you can think the guy didn’t do anything unforgivable and deserves another shot or he is so vile and dishonorable that he does not, you can think he’s bluffing with this whole play-for-the-minimum thing or he’s would actually come to KC (or whatever baseball hometown is yours), you can think he would be good for the team or that the long term effects would be bad. For that matter, you can think he really WOULD help the Royals win four more games or he would not.
But a few posts ago, when exploring lineups, I made the mistake in underestimating how much .3 runs per game means over a whole season. It’s worth victories, and every victory in baseball is precious. If Barry Bonds would really be worth four victories to the Kansas City Royals, just from a pure baseball perspective that could be the best prorated $390,000 ever spent on a baseball player (especially if that money is going to kids. Kids, people!).
*I have to admit: I’m fascinated by the undecideds in our culture. It isn’t the undecided part — heck, there are a lot of things I’m undecided about , and I can certainly understand looking at, say, John McCain and Barack Obama and saying they’re undecided. But it’s the PRIDE with which the undecideds seem to feel about being undecided. It gets me every time, you will go on to a poll — let’s say it’s a question like: “Do you think soccer should eliminate or dramatically change the offside rule.”
Then you will see the results that would look like so:
Yes — 28%
No — 24%
Don’t care — 39%
Undecided — 9%
Now, I get the yes votes — that’s how I’d vote. I hate the offside rule the way it’s called now — where countless great plays in Euro 2008 were called back because a players was .9 millimeters offside (or, in many cases, not offside at all).
I get the no votes — my Dad was a semi-professional soccer player, and he is a purist, he more or less made me watch “Soccer Made In Germany” when I was young. And every time I would mention that I hated the offside rule he would say something like, “Well, maybe they should get rid of holding penalties in football so that quarterbacks could stand back in the pocket all day and throw bombs.” To which I would respond: “That’s a great idea.”
I even get the Don’t Care votes — those people hate soccer and never pass up an opportunity to say so. To many, our whole world is one big Jim Rome show.
But the undecideds — I don’t get it. Why would you go to the trouble of filling out a poll like this to say you’re undecided about the offside rule? I understand that people want their opinion heard. But when did it become urgent for people to have their non-opinion heard?
I thought about this when I put the “Not qualified to be a GM” option in the Barry Bonds poll. I figured a few people would punch the button as a joke. I did not realize that 91 people would … and I’m really curious why. Maybe these are the most honest readers I have — I mean, they’re right. I’m not qualified to be a GM either.
Postscript: A couple of people have commented, and others have emailed, asking that if the Royals sign Barry Bonds, where would Billy Butler play. Two answers. (1) Billy Butler is playing in Omaha right now, so I don’t really see this as an issue. I’m a big Billy fan, but he’s 22 years old, and people are too quick to forget he hit .263/.330/.339 in an extended run in the big leagues this year; It would certainly not hamper his development in the slightest to keep whacking the ball in Triple A for a while and (2) If the Royals DO decide that Billy needs to come up and he’s forcing his way into the lineup, they can certainly get at bats for him with a little maneuvering. Billy could play a little first, he could DH, and with the versatility of Teahen, I don’t see this as a problem at all. Now it could mean fewer at bats for Ross Gload, so there is that.
53 Comments, Comment or Ping
Danny
Joe is cool.
Hooray for Joe!
Jun 27th, 2008
Aaron
I clicked on the “I’m not qualified to be Gm” button because I am not qualified to be GM. The hours are too long and I’d miss too many episodes of “The Office” anyways.
Jun 27th, 2008
Ed
Week in and week out, this is the most interesting and best-written thing in the blogosphere. It has to be, since you just talked me into wanting Barry Bonds for my team, too (the Mets, in my sad case).
Jun 27th, 2008
Mikey
Correct me if I’m wrong but wouldn’t four wins over half a season equate to 40 Win Shares over a full season?
And wouldn’t 40 Win Shares in a season be incredibly productive? Like an MVP caliber season?
I guess I’m skeptical that even Barry Bonds can walk onto a field at age 44 without having played in ten months and be that productive.
Regardless, I’d sign him. I just think saying “he’s worth four wins” is pretty aggressive.
Jun 27th, 2008
Dwade
Joe, I’m going to assume that in your aside about Ron Gardenhire you meant that “keep arguing with me that Gardy ISN’T a genius?” and that you are defending him.
Gardy has been very good lately, as this article: http://bleacherreport.com/articles/32936-minnesota-twins-ron-gardenhire-makes-good points out. Wait a few months though, and see how many PAs Nick Punto has in key games down the stretch and you’ll understand the Twins’ fans’ frustration.
Jun 27th, 2008
G Young
Allow me to make the 4 wins as a negative argument, with relation to Barry Bonds:
Four wins would create a tremendous amount of pressure to bring Bonds back in 2009.
Jun 27th, 2008
Dan
There’s a bit by comedian Doug Stanhope talking about the “undecided/don’t know” response in polls. He points to a USA Today poll in which they ask about the likelihood of terrorist attacks at the Olympics. 71% say very likely, 26% say unlikely, and 3% say they don’t know. “You all don’t effing know!! What, were you roommates with Mohammad Atta? What this does prove is that 97% of americans will give you a strong opinion on something about which they have absolutely no idea.”
Jun 27th, 2008
Nick N.
Your facts are little off on the Twins Joe, FYI.
Bonser is in the bullpen currently, not starting every fifth day, and Jason Kubel is the regular DH. Either way, Gardenhire does deserve some credit for the way this team is steamrolling, and they did essentially the same thing under his tutelage during the summer of 2006. (Though in that instance they had a bit more going for them — Liriano’s emergence, Morneau’s ridiculous four-month stretch, etc.)
Jun 27th, 2008
SBG
Boof Bonser is in the bullpen. The DH is Jason Kubel, who has 10 of the Twins’ home runs.
Jun 27th, 2008
Mark LaFlamme
One of my knee-jerk fears is that the pressure to bat Bonds in the DH position all the time might occasionally take the bat out of Guillen’s hands, possibly cause rancor in the locker room, and disintregate that blossoming leadership role. You’ll probably see more seats filled at Kauffman, but do we really want to stink up the place with people who have no interest in the Royals but are there to see Bonds?
That said, don’t count me as full-on opposed just yet. If Bonds puts on the blue and white, I’ll learn to love him somehow. I’m just not peeing my pants with hope of signing him.
Jun 27th, 2008
Josh in DC
I voted for “not qualified.” What can I say? I’m in third-to-last place in my fantasy baseball league in a division filled with idiots. I clearly have no idea what I’m talking about.
On the other hand, in my other (keeper) league, I was granted an expansion franchise and I’m in 5th place (out of 12). It’s my greatest fantasy accomplishment ever. And I’ll be building off Kazmir, Sizemore, Longoria and 2 others I haven’t decided on yet for next year. So I’m also brilliant.
Mostly, I don’t put a lot of thought into online polls.
Jun 27th, 2008
Blackadder
This offseason, free agenst were paid, on average, $4.4M per win above replacement. If you really think Bonds is worth 4 wins, then his fair value is $19.2M–not even prorated!
I think 4 wins is too high an estimate–I think he was worth about 4.5-5 wins above replacement the last two years. 2 wins is probably a better estimate. Regardless, when Torii Hunter can pull in $90M over 5 years for his decline phase, half a season of Barry Bonds for free makes sense for every team in baseball.
Jun 27th, 2008
Dave in SLO
I picked “not qualified.” It seemed better than admitting that I was undecided on the matter…
Jun 27th, 2008
Damon Rutherford
“Correct me if I’m wrong but wouldn’t four wins over half a season equate to 40 Win Shares over a full season?
And wouldn’t 40 Win Shares in a season be incredibly productive? Like an MVP caliber season?
I guess I’m skeptical that even Barry Bonds can walk onto a field at age 44 without having played in ten months and be that productive.
Regardless, I’d sign him. I just think saying “he’s worth four wins” is pretty aggressive.”
4 wins is equal to 12 Win Shares. 4 wins is roughly 40 more runs, which is probably what you threw you off.
Jun 27th, 2008
Matt S
I like how you completely dodge the morality argument Joe. So I assume since morality doesn’t enter into the equation, once Michael Vick gets out of jail, you’d have no problem with a dog murderer QBing the Chiefs?
Ok maybe you draw the line somewhere between dog murderer and cheater who broke two of the most hallowed records in sports. So what exactly is the standard, where does the line lie?
Barry Bonds took a decent chunk of the enjoyment out of a game I love and a home run chase that should have been an all-time great sports moment. I’m pissed about that, and I don’t think I owe him a second chance as a fan. And if the Royals signed him, I’d be pissed at them too.
Jun 27th, 2008
Damon Rutherford
Strike that first “you.”
Jun 27th, 2008
caryn
I put “not qualified to be a GM” because I feel the Bonds decision is too emotional for average folks. Or at least for me.
Michael Vick hurt defenseless creatures whose welfare was his responsibility. Barry Bonds has not done anything close to that. Don’t compare the two, no matter how much you love baseball.
I posted on the other thread but it didn’t make it: if you’re gonna get a rental to go to the prom, get the Hummer Limo. If you’re just driving to the 7-11 a Camry will do.
Jun 27th, 2008
dusty
michael vick would probably be a terrible fit for the chiefs. still, i wouldn’t mind if any of the teams i liked signed him
Jun 27th, 2008
Joe
I put “not qualified to be a gm” partially in fun. But I also try to remind myself, as I second guess every move that my beloved Dodgers make, that the GM and Manager have much more knowledge about the team - personalities, stats, strengths, weaknesses, etc. than I do.
I can second guess them. I can have fun with my friends arguing about whether a pitching change is the right move or not. But at the end of the day, this is what the GM and Manager do for a living. So I’m going to give them the benefit of the doubt most of the time.
Jun 27th, 2008
Curtis
I put not qualified to be a gm also.
Partly it was because I could go either way on the question of Bonds, but the main reason is that for the first time since John S. joined the Braves, I feel comfortable trusting the decision of the actual GM. It was intended as an endorsement of Dayton. If he thinks it is best to sign him or not to sign him, then that is the opinion that matters most to me.
Jun 27th, 2008
Curtis
I already come here every half hour or so on the off-chance that there is a new post, and with a tease like that intro, I just need this page on a 60-second automatic refresh setting like they have for games.
Jun 27th, 2008
Chad
It’s easy to be anti-Bonds when he’s not playing for your side - look at how different things are/were in S.F. vs. the rest o’ the league. Trust me, shortly after he’s wearing another uniform… those fans may experience the same effect…
4 games… As a Giant fan, I would guess he won 1 game every week “by himself”. Often the entire offense could be attributed to Barry…
As long as Mr. Selig is employed by MLB, Barry can’t be considered the biggest stain…
Jun 27th, 2008
Mikey
Damon, thanks. So 4 wins in half a season is equivalent to a 24 win share full-season? I guess that’s not so terribly aggressive.
Jun 27th, 2008
Erik
Twins fans love Gardy, Joe. There are a couple of self-important know-it-alls that would argue any point just to hear (or, read?) the sound of their own voice. But the overwhelming majority of Twins fans love Gardy.
Jun 27th, 2008
Mikey
Off-topic: Interesting situation developing here in the Bronx. Mets and Yankees entering the bottom of the eighth in a Mets blowout.
Same two teams are scheduled to play tonight at Shea at 8:05. No way will this game end before 6 and could be closer to 6:30.
How the heck are they going to get the teams out of there, over to Shea, changed into new unis, warmed up and ready to play ball at 8:05?
Jun 27th, 2008
ChuckO
I’m one of those who would not be qualified to be a GM. I might be able to judge baseball talent better than a lot of the current GM’s. (I could also be deceiving myself there.) However, I would really suck at the business aspects of the job, not to mention the politics of the position. In that regard, Paul DePodesta was an interesting case study when he was the Dodgers GM. He seems to know a lot about baseball, but he couldn’t handle the political demands of the job. Being a GM is just about finding the best talent. It’s also about running the organization, and that’s something else altogether.
Jun 27th, 2008
Devon Young
You got me curious about Gardenhire. I’m with ya, but somehow the folks in Minnesota overlook the fact he’s earned over 1000 wins since ‘02 began and 4 division titles. How many Twins can the average American household name from this period? Oh, maybe Santana, Nathan, Mauer, and Mourneau. So, are Twins fans saying that with that little amount of big talent, they could’ve won 1000+ and 4 divisions? Heh. I think not.
I sure wouldn’t mind Gardy in KC. He’d probably have at least 4 World Series appearances if he managed the Mets, Yankees, or Red Sox.
Oh, and incidentally, the only year Gardy’s team was under .500 …the difference between their wins & losses was - only four games.
Jun 27th, 2008
Patrick
Who better for our young batters to be around then Barry Bonds. He will undoubtedly lead the league in walks, something we could use some improvement on. Additionally, he will help take the spotlight off of some of our developing players like Billy Butler and ease the transition to the Major Leagues. Finally, you’re right that 4 games makes a HUGE difference, and they doesn’t even take into account the impact he might have on our younger players.
Personally, couldn’t care less about his past with steroids. We know he is clean now and that’s all that is really important to us. Steroids don’t give you a flawless swing and and a veterans plate presence. I see know reason not to bring in the best in the business as a model as our young offensive talent develops.
Finally, how can any true baseball fans not want to be able to watch the greatest home run hitter of all time in their home town? Nobody grabs my attention when they step to the plate the way Barry does since Brett and a chance to watch that in my home town is a fans dream.
Jun 27th, 2008
Dan
I thought at first you made a typo but then you did it twice.
How could the Twins possibly have won 1000+ games since 2002?
162 x8 seasons = 1296 games played. They’d need a .772 winning percentage and I think people would have taken note of that.
Jun 27th, 2008
Joe C
“So 4 wins in half a season is equivalent to a 24 win share full-season? I guess that’s not so terribly aggressive.”
Well, it’s a little tricky. Half a season of a 24 WS player is 4 wins over a 0 WS player, yes. But even the Royals can do better than a 0 WS player. If Billy Butler was in the lineup all year and kept hitting about like he has in KC this year, he’d be maybe a 6-7 WS player. So Bonds would have to perform at a 30 WS level to be a four-win improvement. That’s a little optimistic, considering that according to the Hardball Times he had 21 WS last year and 27 in 2006.
Jun 27th, 2008
McKingford
Curtis, sounds like you need to invest in an RSS feed…
Jun 27th, 2008
Sebastian
Joe, I think you’re the best sports-writer in the English-speaking world. I love your insights about baseball and I’m sure you know more about anything worth knowing than I ever will. That said you couldn’t be more wrong about the off-side rule if you tried. I’m sure that your father instilled a healthy respect for the beauty of the beautiful game in you when you were a Cleveland Hosenscheißer. I am also sure that the off-side rule seems stupid if you only casually watch football games. Yet another beautiful attack stopped by the ref (or his assistant)? Fuck that, right?
Wrong. As someone who sees well over 100 games a year (in stadium and on TV) and someone who actually was in the stadium for yesterday’s Spain-Russia spectacle (2 offside calls, if I remember correctly plus a third that should have been called) I feel qualified to say that football would be shit without the off-side rule. The beautiful short-pass game, the outstanding athleticism, the fluency of the game are all dependant on the off-side rule. If you could park your strikers in the penalty box and just lob passes forward the game would lose everything it has gained since the 70s.
From time to time I enjoy seeing a repeat of a Euro ’74 or a World Cup ’72 match. Good times. But back then it wasn’t the same game it is now. Players would run a lot less and remain at their stations. The passing game went further but was less precise and slower. Defenders didn’t tackle nearly as much. It’s interesting and even beautiful to watch, but it is not close to the awesomeness that today’s game can offer.
I’m writing too much. I don’t really understand the american variety of football. But I’m pretty sure that you can‘t just have receivers standing around in the end zone waiting for the quaterback to throw to them. They have to run there. Same is true for proper football. Without offside the game would die.
Jun 27th, 2008
jscape2000
I picked “not qualified” because the real decision maker for me, if I’m the Royals, is the money.
I don’t really believe that Bonds can put the Royals in or near the playoffs without a magical alignment of the moons of Jupiter and starting pitchers.
But if the FO thinks that the “Let’s go see Barry” factor will be greater than the “I’m not going near Barry” factor, that it’ll get them a little more national publicity, and that the gate will be better with an extra winning streak, then they’ll go for it.
Without knowing how much the Royals will bring in (and what they will do with that money) I’m not qualified to make the decision.
Jun 27th, 2008
Josh in Boston
I’m totally qualified to be a GM but only in the lets hang around and get drunk with the owner and prank call Hank Steinbrenner with outrageous trade demands kind of way.
As my last performance review states I’m not very motivated and I procrastinate too much. I guess I’m like Stand Pat Gillick…..
Jun 27th, 2008
Bob R.
If Bonds has taken the joy out of baseball for you that is your problem. He did nothing immoral; he did not cheat. He worked hard to be the best ballplayer he could be and provide fans with the best performance he could. He did it within the expectations of executives, fans and players at the time. He did nothing wrong, whether or not steroids were involved-nothing at all.
You want cheaters? Review the careers of Babe Ruth. Of Mickey Mantle. Of Hack Wilson. Of Whitey Ford. Of myriad players who got on the field in no condition to play-or did not get on the field at all because they were in no condition. Look to those who cheated their employers and all the fans who paid to see star performers but got instead dissipated, hung over players.
You are concerned about players who use(d) drugs? Well, first, there is absolutely no moral issue involved. If it is anything, it is a health issue. Regardless, if it does disturb you, check the career of Sandy Koufax. Of Willie Mays. Of practically any player in the 1950s-70s.
There may be reasonable arguments against signing Bonds, but the notion that he has cheated or been the cause of disenchantment with baseball is perversely wrong. If you want to find immorality in the story of steroid use, look to a headline seeking Congress, to the sanctimonious executives and press, to the whisperers and rumor mongers and the rest of the hyenas.
Jun 27th, 2008
Teddy
Hey Joe check out my baseball blog in the “website” part of this thing, maybe you have some free time in all the hotels on the road. I am a sophmore in college and want to be a baseball writer when I graduate. Anybody else feel free to read. Thanks Joe, can’t wait for the Reds book.
Jun 27th, 2008
Teddy
opps, here it is:
http://www.teddysportblog.blogspot.com
Jun 27th, 2008
JBish
Sebastian speaks the truth! I have to say though, a blown offsides call is at the very top of calls that can thoroughly decide a match (game, etc.) in sports. And referees have to make the line calls SO often that I feel like every other match is affected by a whistle happy (or a laissez-faire) official. I wish UEFA / FIFA could do something about it, because I hate when refs get it wrong, but Sebastian’s rant was on point… you definitely can’t get rid of it.
Jun 27th, 2008
Tom in ATL
I voted “I’m not qualified…” because it’s true and because I already have too much stress outside the internet. I didn’t want to be accountable for making the wrong decision on Barry Bonds. I like the Royals too much. Dayton Moore seems to know what he’s doing.
Jun 27th, 2008
Ed Armbrister
I can’t blame the undecideds for their decisiveness to be indecisive — the world seems to be catering to them more and more.
Jun 28th, 2008
Tony in Hitchin
Bit worried about Sebastian. The World Cup was played in ‘74 and the Euros in ‘72. But the Germans won both tournaments so I guess it’s six and two threes.
As to the main point, I was with Joe all the way until the idea of highlights on “Baseball Tonight.” Can’t see that happening any time soon. Banny would have to pitch back-to-back no-hitters for someone in Bristol to muse one morning, “Any of you guys know where these Royals play? Maybe we should think about sending a crew over there one day. They’re not playing the Yankees or Red Sox? Oh well, scratch that idea.”
But of course there would be a crew there if Barry were to sign. We’d see him on the day of his debut making his way to the stadium, taking BP, sitting in the dugout, being walked twice…and then the host of the show would announce, “Oh, and the Royals won 4-2. Meanwhile over at Shea…”
Jun 28th, 2008
Char
//If Bonds has taken the joy out of baseball for you that is your problem. He did nothing immoral; he did not cheat. He worked hard to be the best ballplayer he could be and provide fans with the best performance he could. He did it within the expectations of executives, fans and players at the time. He did nothing wrong, whether or not steroids were involved-nothing at all.//
Yeah, the man’s a saint.
Joe, I’ve really admired you. But if you’re seriously advocating the signing of a snake like Bonds to your team, I’m very disappointed, to say the least.
And apologies to all snakes for comparing them to Bonds.
Jun 28th, 2008
Bob R.
I have no idea if he is a saint; I doubt it. But compared to the slime that has been attacking him, he is an inner circle saint. I am not sure for whom I have more contempt, the miserable slimeballs who attack him or the suckers who fall for the attacks.
Jun 28th, 2008
El
provide fans with the best performance he could
BB said he would not play hard because he didn’t want to risk injury.
That is cheating the fans - not providing them with his best performance.
Just a relentlessly stupid, selfish player only a HR whore could enjoy.
Jun 28th, 2008
Bob R.
If you think Bonds was only about home runs you have no idea at all what game he played. As for calumnies about his efforts, there is not a shred of evidence that he did not play hard and there is a mountain of evidence that he worked harder than most to be the best player he could be.
Jun 28th, 2008
Geoff
The offside rule needs re-wording/re-working or whatever so that its back to how it used to be without any of this active/inactiver player rubbish. It would also mean that the first dutch goal against the I-ties (thats the Italians for you Americans) would have been offside. Seriously how does a player off the field injured play someone onside, it’s ridiculous.
On the other hand they had Big Sam as a pundit for one game saying that if he gets a job back in management (unlikely now Paul Ince is at Blackburn) he would play with the idea of having his striker stand behind the goal line and run on to the field as under the current rule it wouldn’t be offside. That’s the sort of thing I’d love to see utilised at free kicks from deep areas. Maybe Hull will use it since their manager is a protege of Big Sam.
Jun 29th, 2008
Bellylard
Maybe you should have a poll on who is undecided.
I suspect the results will be inconclusive.
As for me, I used to be indecisive, now, I’m not so sure.
Jun 30th, 2008
Bellylard
Barry might be smart enough to know that at his age 90 percent effort keeps him out there 80 percent of the time, and 100 percent might risk only keeping him out there, say, 60 percent of the time. 130 top-5-player quality games vs. 100 mvp-quality games.
Jun 30th, 2008
Creston
“Four wins could mean the Royals might actually get an occasional highlight on Baseball Tonight.”
I dunno, do you have anyone capable of playing a crazy version of Take Me Out To The Ballgame? Say, DeJesus and Meche doing an air guitar version of it, or something?
Btw, 4 wins in 3 months for a single player is a LOT of wins. He (Bonds) could do it, sure. He might possibly even do more. But it’s also very possible that he’ll do a lot less. A-Rod in his crazy insane season last year added “just” 10.7 wins for the whole season.
Jun 30th, 2008
Matt
Although I’m not qualified to be a GM, I’m hoping every day that the Rays will sign Barry. 4 wins to them could be their first playoff appearance (or at least first winning season)! One only needs to look at Josh Hamilton and Milton Bradley to see that “clubhouse cancers” are the new market inefficiency. I still don’t like him, and hope he never gets into Cooperstown, but how could any GM not want him on their team?
Jun 30th, 2008
MAO V
Great example of ‘Not Sure’ idiocy….. From Omaha.com. How can you be ‘not sure’ about your PLANS????
Do you plan on attending the U.S. Olympic Swimming Trials this week?
Yes.
No.
I’m not sure.
Note: This question is for our site visitors’ enjoyment only and is not a scientific poll.
Jun 30th, 2008
Buchholz Surfer
I think it could possibly be a great improvement to do away with the offside rule– the whole field would have to be defended and could be attacked. It certainly wouldn’t lead to less running– players run more now than they did in the past with the harsher offside rule.
A player who just hangs by the goal behind the defense would not be helping his team defend, which would now need that help, as they must defend the whole field at all times. Look at basketball– different sport, but no one just stands by the offensive goal when the other team has the ball, even though they are free to do so. They need to get back and defend.
If no offsides at all is just too radical, you could try it with a rule that says the offensive player can’t be ahead of the ball, but the defenders’ positioning is irrelevant. That would at least give the attackers more room and require the defenders to actually defend the players on the other team, instead of just trapping them offside.
It’d be great to see lower-level youth or amateur teams experiment with a no offsides rule, just to see what happened. They obviously shouldn’t just try it at the highest levels without experimenting first, but it’d be great to see how the game might change without the offside rule.
I’m sure that there’s no interest in actually experimenting with this rule even at the lowest levels– too radical, too many purists not willing to even see what might happen, etc. I think it’d be an interesting experiment though. Might make things more exciting and actually improve the game. Or not. The only way to really find out is to try an experiment though, and if they ever did, I’d love to see what happened.
Purists think I’m nuts– I’d also experiment with moving the penalty spot further back to give keepers a better chance, so that when a PK is called, it’s not a virtual automatic goal. And at the highest levels, use postgame video review to fine or even suspend players who are caught obviously diving.
Jul 1st, 2008
Don't Jinx The Dirt
I am reluctant to write what has surely been said before , so after waiting days to post so that it is buried like his rememberance……
:The development of a major league club on any permanent basis should involve planning not only for one succeeding season but for the permanency of a proud position in all succeeding seasons.
-Branch Rickey-
Jul 5th, 2008
Reply to “Only Four Games”