Right now it's all a game of high-stakes poker with the negotiations and you have to understand that a lot of the "stuff" that's reported is part of that, but a couple of questions keep coming up in my mind:
If the organization really wants to get a way from all the BS brought on by Bonds being the biggest diva in baseball, why on earth would the answer be to acquire the 2nd biggest diva in Manny Ramirez?
Why would you spend roughly the same in salary for Manny, plus the cost in players to acquire him, when you could just sign Bonds for a little less? They should be able to get creative and link his salary to playing time or days on the DL, or something that would ease the teams risk due to Bonds age and possiblity of injury.
The Giants image as an organization is a little up in the air here. You have a guy who maybe for the last decade whether anyone wants to admit it or not, has more than paid for huge salary.
Where do you think the post-Bonds attendance of the team will be when the team is barely treading .500?
What is going to be the backlash from fans who have to pony up for 2007 season tickets, when the booby prize will be no-Bonds, but hey you get to go the All-Game?
I wouldn't pony up for 81 games to secure tickets for a glorified exhibition game. Would you?
What would be the backlash from potential future divas, uh free-agent superstars when they see, this is how you're treated as a player? Maybe it hasn't hurt them so far but they don't exactly take their stars gracefully into retirement. (ie: Mays, Marichal, McCovey,Clark etc.). To see some of these guys in other uniforms is pretty sickening.
I know this is a business, but this is hardly Mays hanging on due to sentimentality from a NY Mets owner, or Hank Aaron, returning "home" to Milwaukee. This is a guy who can be an impact player in the middle of somebody's lineup.
What is the impact of attedance if he signs with Oakland? I would love to see that purely from an experimental point of view. I think you eventually have to figure a net loss of approx. 500,000 to 1,000,000 in attendance going over the bridge from SF to Oakland. And if you figure the average fans expenditure at $50-$100, well get out your calculators and see where this leads for the Giants in the next few years.
If Sabean bluffs and loses him to Oakland, could be a long time before they recover. I don't see Bonds going to Boston in my lifetime. I'm not sure who would be left after those two and Boston s only being mentioned to make the Manny to SF deal work, which I don't think it does. LA makes more sense, which makes the true nightmare scenario for SF.
Manny to LA, Barry to Oakland.
I think Oakland could fit both Piazza and Bonds in if they lose Zito. If they have to pony up to get Zito, they are bargain-bin shopping, and can't afford either one.
Does $14 million for Bonds make economic sense? Does he fit in as an active, productive player? Seems like a no-brainer, but maybe I'm giving this organization a little too much credit in the gray matter department. If they have the extra money letting Bonds walk, what are they going to do with it? Where have they spent it well recently, after the Bonds signing? Who have they signed that worked out well? That has had an impact in the W-L department.
They'll probably spend it on Schmidt so he can spend the majority of the length of the contract on the DL. Isn't that why the Cubs are interested in him? Gosh, they better win that battle, if they have any hope whatsoever of overtaking the Cubs for the most years of futility of any franchise chasing a World Series victory.
No comments:
Post a Comment