This looks to me like the kind of thinking that always used to get George in trouble. There's a shiny toy out there that you can get just by throwing money at it. So never mind about the the team's needs and whether that part makes any sense; it's shiny! it's a brand name! I want!

My only concern remains - would he still cost the Yanks their first round pick?

In regards to the professional atmosphere, I think that persona was real the first few years of Torre's reign, when the team managed to not only combine the tools and talent, but fit in some potentially loose cannons as well. I had a fantasy of sorts of seeing a poster of each player fielding his position in a business suit; that's how locked these guys were to their game. I think that began to change in 1998, and more noticeably in 2000. Different priorities, I imagine. Up until then, you had some key players with personal health or family issues that were a rally point or a reason to focus on the game. After 2001 is when I really started to feel that the "professional" persona lost it's depth. That of course coincided with George deciding to mess with the decision-making again.

I may be wrong, but for someone who demanded excellence and respect from top to bottom, he sure wasn't one for setting the bar in a substantial way.

So are you willing to cut a 25 million dollar player AND sign a 15M prorated contract to boot for Bonds? I know I would feel icky about that. (yes you could play Giambi at first and Matsui Left Damon Center and sit Cabrera I guess. I just highly doubt the team could survive 3 month and all 3 of them are still not on the DL)

4 Thanks Chyll, that's twice you've set me straight tonight. =)

Yes, Bonds is a better hitter than any of those guys. But it doesn't change the fact that (a) those guys are all still on the team, and (b) they're not the problem. Signing Bonds addresses a problem that doesn't exist, and addresses it by creating more problems.

"H ah aha hah ah!"

(sigh). Just felt like saying that for some reason. Good night all >;)

Also, Phil Hughes has posted a (very lousy) photo of "The Window" at his blog,

philhughes.wordpress.com

Question: With all his legal issues as well as the steroid issue in baseball, has Bonds quit juicing? Did he quit after 2004? 2005? 2006? 2007? This is one of those times where both fans and media might complain about getting Bonds, but will then fight to the death for a seat to go and see him.

My only issue, and I think the Yanks would be on the same page, is no outrageous percs. Bonds has to be willing to be 'one of the boys' and NOT the King of the clubhouse.

We can't worry about injuries to JD/Mats/Giambi AND at the same time complain there is no room for Bonds. As I've said, rest JD 25 games, Bobby 20, Melky 15 and 40 games at DH. That's 100 games (if necessary) for Matsui.

Shelly has options. Send him to SWB until someone gets hurt. Investigate trading Matsui. His salary covers Bonds and he is really superfluous next year if AJax comes up.

Are the Sox really the team to beat? Might we miss the PS? If you believe that, then I think you have to at least consider Bonds.

Bonds (and Clemens possibly) face serious and substantive legal issues. El Bud has clearly intimated he would rather BB stay out of the game. There are issues I have with this (collusion, and buck-passing, both) but I have issues with the op-tics of signing him, too, on the 'shiny toy' formulation. Enough money to buy whatever we want... Yes, Bonds might be cheaper than many with an incentives contract, but he's also the Biggest Name in the Game.

Leave it alone.

PS More I think about it, more I think the proceedings vs Bonds and Tejada create a very difficult political/ethical climate for giving Roger a walk. Not unless you do it for all three, on some kind of 'look forwards not back' amnesty.

"I am a Yankees fan and love watching games and our individual players, but when Bonds walks to the plate with a bat in his hand, it's just excitement that transcends anything else in baseball."

Have to say I absolutely agree with this. But did we feel that way before he loaded up on steroids after McGwire and Sosa? (He was a sensational player, but ...) Doesn't this make the point about how much we all loved the bulked-up home run dudes? I'm including myself so don't pile on me. My point has always been that Selig/Fehr/players/owners all (correctly) saw what we fans were calling for.

I have no interest in seeing Bonds swing a bat ever again, particularly in our hallowed pinstripes thank you very much.

If they don't give a damn and be willing to run Giambi out there until he breaks then yeah, GO FOR IT.

Bonds is, dollar for dollar, the most cost efficient player around (not including kids/pre-FAs of course).

We are talking a ONE year contract. Not Giambi for 7, or RJ for 4, or even Matsui for 4. We are talking a one-time 'cortizone' shot that can be a difference maker in challenging the Sox for the division.

We knew it even before the MR. Many players have taken steroids, including pitchers. It is only because Bonds is one of the top 3 most talented players of this generation that he has done so well. It might be years since he's taken steroids. With all his legal issues, I'm not sure he want to take chance testing positive.

I wish there were no PEDs issue. I'm not proud that Bonds has used. But he has been MLB's scapegoat, not unlike Roger is now. A few guys have been singled out because they are stars, but they are no 'less moral' then many, many players of their generation.

So.... I wish he were clean. But considering we passed on Santana, and have been very faithful to our 'youth policy', Bonds is simply an amazing masher and OBP machine that can be had cheap.

If everyone who loved watching him bat did NOT piss-and-moan about the steroids, then you would not hear a sound.

Besides, we haven't done anything much in a few years to have people really hate the Yankees. We are overdue.

What a funny, funny anecdote.

The very image of Mussina and Joba sitting down together over an Atari 2600 or whatever the hell the kids play on these days is just delicious.

Giambi strikes me as untradeable. They're not gonna release him.

Matsui is worth something in trade. But I'd rather move Damon... and I don't know if that's possible.

21 On paper, yes it seems to be too much, but these things have a way of working themselves out.

That's very funny.

On this one though I am laughing more at how everyone seems to 'agree' without knowing what they agree with. Tutu blasts me (as I leap to take a bullet for the infirm OYF) for QUOTING him on how compelling it was to see Bonds battle a pitcher. But my main argument in 15 was 'don't want him.

But then OYF treacherously AGREES with Tutu who just blasted HIM. This confuses this Ol' Horse. Tutu says no interest in ever seeing Bonds again, OYF wants him as our DH. Jeez. You guys could solve the Balkans you are so good at agreeing.

Shiny toy, for me, has zip to do with length of contract it is just signing the flashiest name, with all the notoriety instantly accruing. Like, you want to argue it wouldn't get more media attention than Santana to the Mets? That's a shiny toy.

I stand by my main query: why is everyone so worried about runs and production? Didn't some people just run through this and show us increasing over last year on likely projections?

If Bonds was used as a DH, acquiring him has no effect on run prevention, but increases run production. Ergo, it makes the team better.

Things get more interesting if he would play some LF, because his defense is questionable, especially at the Stadium. Then again, so is Matsui's (which is one of the reasons Damon is to be the main LFer).

As a fan, I would struggle with it, because I don't like Bonds much and I detest the media frenzy around him. But when he's in the lineup, getting on base over 40% of the time and beating pitchers into wobbly piles of goo...

Still, I'd rather miss the wild card by a 1/2 game than have Bonds in pinstripes .

I lived - and survived - MANY years as a fan of Yankees teams with losing records and worse. Yet none of that made me feel as bad as having Bonds next year would make me feel.

I'm just sayin.

I'm not agitated about run production, don't think it will be a problem. But if the opportunity is there to have one of the best offensive players of our generation in the lineup, why not take the chance?

At the very least, he'll give media tips to Rodriguez :)