Bonds playing in '08 would be bad for baseball
If you were an owner, you would justify signing him by saying that you wanted to win and that you wanted to make money. And perhaps those are the only reasons that should matter.
Only with Bonds, it's not that simple.
Bonds represents a cancer in the industry. He is not the only player alleged to have used performance-enhancing drugs during baseball's steroid epidemic. But he is not just another name in the Mitchell report, either.
The signing of Bonds would put the sport's problem with PEDs back in the headlines at a time when the fallout from the Mitchell report is fading, a time when Roger Clemens is more of a question for the government than a question for baseball.
Bonds' personality quirks and salary demands, while certainly not inconsequential, are secondary issues. Any owner who would prostitute himself by signing Bonds would face a storm of negative publicity boiling down to three words: Shame on you.
Bonds isn't like the other players cited in the Mitchell report. He can't pull an Andy Pettitte, admit to using PEDs and apologize. Such a reversal would confirm that he is guilty of perjury and possibly land him in jail.
Even if Bonds led his new team to a World Series title, many would consider the victory hollow. Bonds, like any player, could pass every steroid test while using human growth hormone and other undetectable substances. And he would remain under greater suspicion than most.
Still, as with any prominent free agent, all it takes is one team to succumb to temptation.
Among four player agents surveyed Monday, two predicted that no team would sign Bonds. A third predicted that he would land somewhere and the fourth estimated that the chances were 80-20 against — but 50-50 if a team could work out Bonds and determine that he was in good enough shape to play.
The Rays, according to the St. Petersburg Times, discussed Bonds internally. Cardinals ownership, according to the St. Louis Post-Dispatch, rejected manager Tony La Russa's suggestion to sign Bonds.
Other teams, however, surely are engaging in the same types of discussions, and the clamor for Bonds should only grow as spring training continues and teams start analyzing their rosters more objectively.
Consider the words of La Russa, who views Bonds only from the standpoint of what he could add to his club: "I take these guys as guys who fit into what we're trying to do. If somebody looks at the bigger picture, that's their responsibility, not mine."
In other words, just win, baby.
Unfortunately for La Russa, Cardinals ownership looked at the bigger picture, knowing that the franchise would be ridiculed for signing Bonds after profiting from the exploits of another slugger under suspicion, Mark McGwire.
The Rays, too, seem an unlikely fit for Bonds. All spring, players and club officials have talked about the positive influence of veterans Troy Percival and Cliff Floyd, the improved clubhouse culture following the departures of Delmon Young and Elijah Dukes.
Bonds would make a hellacious designated hitter, but the Rays would be labeled as hypocrites and worse if they signed him — not a great selling point as the team mounts a political campaign to gain approval for a new downtown ballpark in St. Petersburg.
The Cardinals and Rays, though, are but two of 30 clubs.
The Padres, who are auditioning about a half-dozen left fielders and seemingly trying to trade for about a half-dozen more, would benefit perhaps more than any team from the addition of Bonds.
The Mariners, desperate enough during the off-season to sign Carlos Silva for $48 million and trade five prospects for Erik Bedard, are almost completely devoid of left-handed power.
Neither of those clubs appears remotely interested in Bonds, but it's only February. Some slugger will get hurt. Some team could panic. Bonds easily could end up back in uniform, much to the chagrin of commissioner Bud Selig, who surely would love him to disappear.
Then again, this is not a sabermetric exercise in which you calculate how many runs Bonds would add to a given lineup and proclaim his addition to be a masterstroke.
Nor is this a situation analogous to the Kobe Bryant sexual-assault case, in which Bryant continued playing for the Lakers during pre-trail hearings in 2003-04.
Bryant, like Bonds, was legally entitled to play, and the case against him eventually was dismissed. But Bryant's alleged offense was an isolated incident, not a reflection of a league-wide problem.
Bonds is a cancer. Baseball needs to cut the cancer out.
advertisement
