I re-read this and for some reason, I strangely liked it. I figured it had everything: nostalgia with Bonds, analysis on why he shouldn't come back and a Seinfeld and Can't Hardly Wait reference. Seriously, that's the trifecta of sports blogging in my mind. Any time you can bring in George Castanza and Jennifer Love Hewitt in a Giants article is just unfathomable.
Anyways, at the time, there was a little bit of hoopla with the thought of bringing Barry Bonds back to solve the Giants' offensive woes. The move would have been an absolute disaster. Bonds hadn't played in a year and a half, and the Giants were finally building chemistry for the first time in over a decade. If Bonds was back, all of that would have been kiboshed in a second.
But, as the article states, I don't hate Barry. It's just that I don't want him back playing. He's not the same Bonds we once knew.
From Bleacher Report
After browsing on the blogosphere, I found this article on the Daily Dish, a SB Nation MLB trade rumors blog.
Basically, in summary, it is suggesting that if the San Francisco Giants are looking for an upgrade in power, they should look in their own backyard and sign Barry Bonds.
It is a very intriguing suggestion.
The Giants as of this moment are in a bind. Some fans and baseball experts feel that in order to be serious contenders, the Giants need to add another offensive player to solidify their lineup.
However, who to give away in order to acquire an offensive upgrade is a tough subject.
Jonathan Sanchez, an early candidate to be traded, has suddenly become harder to dangle. The difficulty is not because his trade value went down, as it did for most of the season.
On the contrary, his value has sky-rocketed since his no-hitter on July 10.
Now, that begs us to ask some questions:
Are the Giants willing to trade a guy who looks to be turning a corner?
Do the Giants want to get rid of a guy who could be something special down the road?
Therefore, it's inquiries like these that make it tough for the Giants to make a trade. They certainly have enticing players on the market that could garner some nice pieces in return.
Yet considering how well this team has played in the first half of this season, whether or not those players are worth trading away is a whole different animal altogether.
This is a franchise and general manager that is known for trading away good players who were on the cusp of reaching their peak, for over-hyped, underachievers, especially at the Trade Deadline.
To have that happen again this year would be absolutely devastating to Giants fans, especially considering all the struggles since 2005.
So in some ways, the Bonds signing is a win-win situation in theory.
The Giants don't have to trade anybody away. They can keep their roster intact and they would be
upgrading their offense at the same time.
Furthermore, as George Castanza said in the show Seinfeld, the Giants would "have hand" in the negotiations with Bonds.
After all, no other teams are exactly knocking on Bonds door with offer sheets. The Giants would be the only suitors, and thus, could afford to make strict demands.
Brian Sabean and Peter Magowan can make it very simple with Bonds:
"You want to play this year, you have to follow our rules and what we want. NO EXCEPTIONS. If you don't want to do that, you can forget about playing this season."
Bonds wouldn't have to be an everyday player either. Bonds splitting time with Nate Schierholtz could be a good thing.
Schierholtz won't have the pressure of having to deliver consistent performances at the plate game after game.
Instead, he can work on improving his plate patience, while Bonds, in platoon-outfielder duty, would provide the spark and power whenever he is filling in.
Yet the problem is that while all of this is great in theory, it never turns out like you want in the end.
Can Bonds handle being talked down to in negotiations after years of constantly being catered to?
Can Bonds learn to be a platoon outfielder after a career where he has always been "The Man"?
Is Bonds even baseball-ready after a year-and-a-half away from the game?
Sure, Bonds is in shape physically, but baseball is a game of skill. Can we be sure that those skills are still in tune after not seeing Major League pitching for so long?
If we were talking about this in April, I would be open to Bonds coming back. That way, the Giants could allow him to develop and get used to being in Major League lineup again.
However, this is July and to make things more pressing, the Giants are in a playoff race. The Giants can't afford to waste at-bats on a guy who is trying to get back in the swing of things after such a long lay-off.
This isn't like Pedro's signing with the Phillies. Pedro is a pitcher who can only affect his team every five days, if that.
Furthermore, he has only been out of baseball for less than a year (and this isn't even including his recent appearance playing for the Dominican Republic in the World Baseball Classic).
Bonds would be affecting his team on a more regular basis than Pedro, and to make matters worse, he is coming off a bigger lay-off.
Those two factors aren't exactly the recipe for success.
Unfortunately for Bonds, the ship has sailed on the chance to sign him this season. This team has gone through too much and has played too well for Sabean to make a crazy acquisition like signing Bonds at this point.
The Giants simply should stand pat with their current roster. If they are afraid that a trade may bite them in the butt, then the best thing to do would simply not make that trade at all.
This current team got them this far. Why can't they do it all the way?
In theory, a guy like Bonds would be perfect at this point. It is a very enticing scenario, even for those Giants fans who are glad the "Bonds Circus" is gone.
However, this isn't a video game. The chance that the Giants are going to get the Bonds of old is very slim, and if the Giants can't get the Bonds of old, then there is no point in wasting money, at-bats and possible wins on him.
Sorry Barry, but like Jennifer Love Hewitt in Can't Hardly Wait, we as Giants fans have learned better and moved on to different people.
And the results have been great since you've left. So you can understand why we don't want to go back, much like Hewitt didn't want to go back to that stupid, pompous jock.
Not that we're completely comparing him to you, though.
Your 2015 Giants: Trade for Mike Leake
1 hour ago