PDA

View Full Version : Anyone for Juan Gonzalez?


Jerry_Manuel
12-20-2001, 04:38 PM
Juan Gonzalez rejected arbitration today.

Gonzalez's agent, Jeff Moorad, said negotiations likely will stretch past Christmas and that the Indians remain a longshot to sign his client.

"The door remains cracked open," Moorad said. "Mark Shapiro (Cleveland's general manager) and I talked at some length today and agreed to stay in touch regarding Juan. At the same time, as I thought it might, ramped up this week. And we have begun to talk more specifically about other teams about what a multiyear contract for Juan might look like."

Anyone know of a team that needs Juan Gone?
Anyone want to see him here?

KempersRS
12-20-2001, 04:43 PM
Originally posted by Jerry_Manuel
Juan Gonzalez rejected arbitration today.

Gonzalez's agent, Jeff Moorad, said negotiations likely will stretch past Christmas and that the Indians remain a longshot to sign his client.

"The door remains cracked open," Moorad said. "Mark Shapiro (Cleveland's general manager) and I talked at some length today and agreed to stay in touch regarding Juan. At the same time, as I thought it might, ramped up this week. And we have begun to talk more specifically about other teams about what a multiyear contract for Juan might look like."

Anyone know of a team that needs Juan Gone?
Anyone want to see him here?

The Mets will get him.

Jerry_Manuel
12-20-2001, 04:47 PM
Originally posted by KempersRS
The Mets will get him.


From ESPN Rumor Central:
While ESPN.com's Bob Klapisch reports the Mets remain interested in signing Gonzalez, Mets GM Steve Phillips was quoted in the New York Daily News on Wednesday saying that it is "highly unlikely" that the club would sign a high-priced free agent, an indication that he will not be pursuing Gonzalez.

KempersRS
12-20-2001, 04:52 PM
Originally posted by Jerry_Manuel



From ESPN Rumor Central:
While ESPN.com's Bob Klapisch reports the Mets remain interested in signing Gonzalez, Mets GM Steve Phillips was quoted in the New York Daily News on Wednesday saying that it is "highly unlikely" that the club would sign a high-priced free agent, an indication that he will not be pursuing Gonzalez.

Alomar will influence them. I don't see why they wouldn't go after him. Their outfield is pathetic when it comes to power hitters.

Jerry_Manuel
12-20-2001, 04:55 PM
Originally posted by KempersRS
I don't see why they wouldn't go after him. Their outfield is pathetic when it comes to power hitters.

Money.

kermittheefrog
12-20-2001, 04:56 PM
Why does Gonzalez think he can get somethnig in free agency that Bonds couldn't? Looks like somebody doesn't have a clue. He should have taken the Tigers' money when they wanted to overpay him.

Jerry_Manuel
12-20-2001, 05:02 PM
Originally posted by kermittheefrog
Why does Gonzalez think he can get somethnig in free agency that Bonds couldn't? Looks like somebody doesn't have a clue. He should have taken the Tigers' money when they wanted to overpay him.

Bonds is 37
Gonzalez is 32

So the years isn't a problem if he wants five. No way he gets 20 million, 11 or 12 would be good for him.

kermittheefrog
12-20-2001, 05:11 PM
Originally posted by Jerry_Manuel


Bonds is 37
Gonzalez is 32

So the years isn't a problem if he wants five. No way he gets 20 million, 11 or 12 would be good for him.

But we're comparing apples and oranges Jerry. Bonds is one of the top ten ballplayers, ever. He is better at pretty much everything that has to do with baseball. Juan is also a guy who is guarenteed to not be in the lineup at least 20 times a season beacuse of some sort of injury. Despite the ages I'd rather give Barry the money than Juan Gone. Although I wouldn't want to give either of them 5 year contracts.

Jerry_Manuel
12-20-2001, 05:18 PM
Originally posted by kermittheefrog
But we're comparing apples and oranges Jerry. Bonds is one of the top ten ballplayers, ever. He is better at pretty much everything that has to do with baseball. Juan is also a guy who is guarenteed to not be in the lineup at least 20 times a season beacuse of some sort of injury. Despite the ages I'd rather give Barry the money than Juan Gone. Although I wouldn't want to give either of them 5 year contracts.

Oh I agree with you this time Kermit, Gonzalez has to play a full season before I would give him a long term deal.

You said:
Why does Gonzalez think he can get something in free agency that Bonds couldn't?

I think the big issue with Bonds was the years which was why he didn't get many if any offers. I think Gonzalez would be able to get a 5 year deal because he is younger then Bonds. I think a team like the Mets will give him a 4 or 5 year deal.

kermittheefrog
12-20-2001, 05:22 PM
Originally posted by Jerry_Manuel


I think the big issue with Bonds was the years which was why he didn't get many if any offers. I think Gonzalez would be able to get a 5 year deal because he is younger then Bonds. I think a team like the Mets will give him a 4 or 5 year deal.

You're probably right Jerry, the Mets are dumb like that.

Spiff
12-20-2001, 05:47 PM
I think it's hilarious that he used the Indians for a year to get his reputation back as an all-star caliber player, and he did that to some extent, then nobody even wants him.

Poetic justice.

czalgosz
12-20-2001, 07:13 PM
Originally posted by Jerry_Manuel


I think the big issue with Bonds was the years which was why he didn't get many if any offers. I think Gonzalez would be able to get a 5 year deal because he is younger then Bonds. I think a team like the Mets will give him a 4 or 5 year deal.

Bonds was offered a multi-year deal by the Giants, I believe for 3 or 4 years, but he turned it down because it was for "only" $68 Mill or something like that.

The Giants will end up signing Bonds to a long-term deal, if only because of the pressure from the fans. Even though they could use the money in wiser ways (does anyone really think that he'll ever top his 2001 season?) they'll keep him for PR purposes.

Giants fans are like Cub fans without the loyalty - they stop showing up when the team isn't good, and when they're there, it's more just to see Pac Bell Park and to be seen there than anything else. If they let Bonds go, they'll lose a lot of fans, even if the team ends up being better in the long run.

czalgosz
12-20-2001, 07:15 PM
Originally posted by Wh1teSox00
I think it's hilarious that he used the Indians for a year to get his reputation back as an all-star caliber player, and he did that to some extent, then nobody even wants him.

Poetic justice.

Gonzalez was silly not to seek a multi-year contract last season. Everyone knew that there was a potential meltdown on the horizon with labor troubles; so everyone who could was getting their payday last season.

Apparently either he or his agent has an inflated estimate of what his value is.

oldcomiskey
12-20-2001, 07:24 PM
[QUOTE]Originally posted by kermittheefrog
[B]

Bonds is one of the top ten ballplayers, ever.

Bonds is good but he aint that good---Top 10 ever----give Me a break

Better than Ruth and Aaron and Foxx and Gehrig and Mantle
Better than say Mays and Hornsby and Cobb and Royce Clayton(ok so hes better than Royce)

and that dont include pitchers

czalgosz
12-20-2001, 07:33 PM
Well, his 2001 season was one of the top 5 offensive seasons, by anyone, in any era. I think that's what Kermit was trying to say. Bonds always had the talent to be one of the top 10 players of all time, IMO, but he was always kind of lazy.

And besides, I still think that real impact players win championships. Ruth won championships, DiMaggio won championships, Mays won championships. Ted Williams never won championships, but there were those who said that he was a selfish ballplayer, more concerned about his stats than about the Red Sox. Bonds not only has never won anything, but he's never really even done anything in the playoffs.

oldcomiskey
12-20-2001, 07:37 PM
Williams said that he was more interested in his stats----and if Bonds is so good why does he tank in the playoffs---you take those bad years away from Thomas and you could make the same statement about Hurt being in the top 10 all time

czalgosz
12-20-2001, 07:41 PM
Sure, you could say the same thing about Thomas - and he was doing it before they juiced the ball, too. I have said that Frank Thomas is one of the top 5 right-handed hitters of all time. Noone has been able to refute me on that one yet. But Thomas has also been accused, like Williams, of caring less about winning and more about his stats. He has also not performed well in the playoffs. Take it for what it's worth...

oldcomiskey
12-20-2001, 07:44 PM
my point exactly my anarchistic friend---

kermittheefrog
12-20-2001, 08:02 PM
Originally posted by czalgosz
Well, his 2001 season was one of the top 5 offensive seasons, by anyone, in any era. I think that's what Kermit was trying to say. Bonds always had the talent to be one of the top 10 players of all time, IMO, but he was always kind of lazy.

No you're wrong. I said what I meant, Bonds is one of the top 10 ever. Who's better? I'd say Ruth, Cobb, Mays, Wagner, Johnson, Williams and maybe Lefty Grove. Why hasn't Bonds won Championships you ask? It's simply tougher to win a title now that it was back whwen there were just 16 teams. But how about this. I've heard a lot of people say every year the Giants finish about two spots better than you'd expect based on their talent. They chalk it up to Dusty Baker. Maybe they should give some credit to Barry Bonds.

duke of dorwood
12-20-2001, 10:16 PM
As for the original question, I'll take him right now. Would that upstage the Flubs move or what? If Reinsy hated the Cubs like the Mets hate the Yankmees, he'd do it.


:reinsy

I'm your Doctor of Love

kermittheefrog
12-20-2001, 10:21 PM
If we could get him for a one year deal like Cleveland did last year that would be sweet. Two years would be just fine too.

czalgosz
12-20-2001, 10:56 PM
Where would we put him? We have a DH. Anyway, monkeys will fly out of my butt first...

ma-gaga
12-21-2001, 01:15 AM
Juan Gonzolez... 1 year deal... drool.

He is pretty good, he puts the SCARE into a lot of teams. Or maybe it was just because Thome was hitting behind him.

Whatever, I'd like to have him short-term as well. 130 games or 162 games, he can hit.

RedPinStripes
12-21-2001, 01:15 AM
Hell yeah I'd want Juan. A 2 year deal would be perfect. I would hope he goes to the NL since we won't get him. It seems like he hit 20 of his 30 something hr's off the Sox.

CubKilla
12-21-2001, 03:42 PM
Who wouldn't want Juan Gonzalez? A one or two year deal would be perfect. As for where do we put him..... LF is the only option. Gonzalez would be an improvement over El Caballo. I just don't think Gonzalez is fast enough to try a CF experiment. Maggs..... enough said. But Reinsdorf owns the team so why are we torturing ourselves with the possibility?

RedPinStripes
12-21-2001, 03:48 PM
Originally posted by CubsF'nBlow
Who wouldn't want Juan Gonzalez? A one or two year deal would be perfect. As for where do we put him..... LF is the only option. Gonzalez would be an improvement over El Caballo. I just don't think Gonzalez is fast enough to try a CF experiment. Maggs..... enough said. But Reinsdorf owns the team so why are we torturing ourselves with the possibility?

:reinsy
"Keep deamin fools" hahahaha

oldcomiskey
12-21-2001, 03:54 PM
Originally posted by kermittheefrog


No you're wrong. I said what I meant, Bonds is one of the top 10 ever. Who's better? I'd say Ruth, Cobb, Mays, Wagner, Johnson, Williams and maybe Lefty Grove. Why hasn't Bonds won Championships you ask? It's simply tougher to win a title now that it was back whwen there were just 16 teams. But how about this. I've heard a lot of people say every year the Giants finish about two spots better than you'd expect based on their talent. They chalk it up to Dusty Baker. Maybe they should give some credit to Barry Bonds.

Im all for giving Bonds credit---but to call him in the top 10 all-time---I dont see it==wheres Clemente and Aaron on your list

RedPinStripes
12-21-2001, 03:59 PM
Originally posted by oldcomiskey


Im all for giving Bonds credit---but to call him in the top 10 all-time---I dont see it==wheres Clemente and Aaron on your list

I would call Bonds one of the top 10 best of all time. I'm no fan of his, but this is a guy who was great with a stick, glove, base stealing, and speed. What else can you ask for? He has slowed down a bit, but he had every tallant you could ask for at the top level.

kermittheefrog
12-21-2001, 04:21 PM
Originally posted by oldcomiskey


Im all for giving Bonds credit---but to call him in the top 10 all-time---I dont see it==wheres Clemente and Aaron on your list

Aaron is either right after Bonds or a couple more spaces down, I'm not sure since this list isn't exactly formal. Clemente doesn't come close to that class. He was great but he doesn't have the kind of walks and power that Bonds does.

oldcomiskey
12-21-2001, 04:35 PM
10 players that were better than Bonds
1. Ruth
2. Mays
3. Mantle
4. Clemente
5. Aaron
6. Ted Williams
7. Musial
8. Koufax
9. Ryan
10. Cy Young


there you go

kermittheefrog
12-21-2001, 04:57 PM
Originally posted by oldcomiskey
10 players that were better than Bonds
1. Ruth
2. Mays
3. Mantle
4. Clemente
5. Aaron
6. Ted Williams
7. Musial
8. Koufax
9. Ryan
10. Cy Young


there you go

Koufax who only won 165 games? Ryan who in 27 seasons never won a single Cy Young award? Clemente who hit 327 less home runs and walked 1103 less times and stole 401 less bases. That's mind boggling, 327 less homers and 1103 less walks and 401 less stolen bases and Bonds' career isn't even over yet. Even with Clemente having a career BA. 25 points better than Bonds, Bonds' OBP is 60 points better and Bonds' slugging is 110 points better (btw - I'm not approximating the numbers just come out nice and round here).

This is definitely a case of a guy who won't get due credit until he's done playing, come on. There is no way Clemente was a better player than Bonds. I know Clemente didn't finish his career but Bonds next year will be at the age Clemente was when he died. There really isn't much question who is/was the better ballplayer. Even before the 2001 season Total Baseball's Total Player Rating had Bonds as the 6th best player of all time and Clemente as the 53rd. After this season Bonds will no doubt move up to 3rd all time in TPR behind only Ruth and Mays.

oldcomiskey
12-21-2001, 06:47 PM
Koufax retired early--but alright Ill play your silly game---replace him with say Mike Scdmidt and replace Clemente with Walter Johnson---Im keeping Ryan for two reasons--ONE is 7 no hitters and all those strikeouts and TWO all I had to was name 9 to bump Bonds out of the top 10

AsInWreck
12-21-2001, 07:58 PM
Originally posted by oldcomiskey
10 players that were better than Bonds
1. Ruth
2. Mays
3. Mantle
4. Clemente
5. Aaron
6. Ted Williams
7. Musial
8. Koufax
9. Ryan
10. Cy Young


there you go

what about ty cobb?

Daver
12-21-2001, 08:02 PM
Originally posted by AsInWreck


what about ty cobb?

I think Honus Wagner should at least get an honorable mention.

WinningUgly!
12-21-2001, 09:03 PM
I can't understand why :barrybonds ain't gettin' no love here! I'm with Kermit on this one. :barrybonds is easily among the top 5-10 position players of all time. There are plenty of overated superstars in the game today, but :barrybonds isn't one of them. Just imagine how even more impressive his numbers would be if Jimmy Leland wasn't forced to lead him off during his early years in Pittsburgh!

kermittheefrog
12-22-2001, 02:52 AM
Originally posted by oldcomiskey
Koufax retired early--but alright Ill play your silly game---replace him with say Mike Scdmidt and replace Clemente with Walter Johnson---Im keeping Ryan for two reasons--ONE is 7 no hitters and all those strikeouts and TWO all I had to was name 9 to bump Bonds out of the top 10

Keep Ryan all you want, he's not the league of the other 9 guys on your list. I could easily name 15-20 pitchers better than Ryan. It's a shame you mention him but not Ty Cobb or Honus Wagner.

What silly game am I playing? How are you defining quality of players? If you talk career there is no way Koufax makes the list. If you are talking one season Bonds is the best ever. I think you'd have to meet some middle ground between peak and career value. Koufax was outstanding at his best but didn't have a long career, that doesn't make him a top 10 player. But if you just want to look at guys who put up the best couple seasons in a row Koufax is certainly top ten.

Putting Koufax's career in perspective: Koufax pitched at least 150 innings 9 times. That's the same number of time Lefty Grove won the ERA title.

RichH55
12-22-2001, 09:10 AM
I'm with Kermit on this one...>Bonds is a top 10 guy. Also, I would take Ted Williams any day over Joe Dimaggio.....I won't make any pronoucements on what Williams worried about(though maybe taking two tours of Army duty means he didnt want to win in some twisted way, eh?), but I do know that Joe Dimaggio insisted on being called the greatest living ball player every time he was introduced somewhere...now seeing as that reeks of hubris I'm thinking Joey might have been a little interested in his stats and whatnot....could it be the Yankees were just a touch better than the Red Sox in those days? Give me Teddy Ballgame in a heartbeat

:hitless:slowswing
We are tied for 11th on your list right man? Please.....

oldcomiskey
12-22-2001, 09:36 AM
first--playing a silly game is just a figure of speech---and how is it that if Bonds is in the top 10 everybody keep naming players that are better than mine...Im not saying Bonds sucks---but top 10 all time is a strong statement---those were off the top of My head---yes I consider Ryan to be better than Bonds----the all time leader in strikeouts and 7 no hitters

oldcomiskey
12-22-2001, 09:39 AM
Originally posted by WinningUgly!
I can't understand why :barrybonds ain't gettin' no love here! I'm with Kermit on this one. :barrybonds is easily among the top 5-10 position players of all time. There are plenty of overated superstars in the game today, but :barrybonds isn't one of them. Just imagine how even more impressive his numbers would be if Jimmy Leland wasn't forced to lead him off during his early years in Pittsburgh! \

But he didnt say top 10 position players--which he is not anyway--Look had you said that he had a HOF career or is in the top 25 all time I can buy that---no shame in that--but 10 is a stretch

czalgosz
12-22-2001, 10:58 AM
In terms of all-time ballplayers, I think I'd put Bonds on a level with say Mickey Mantle. He's a very consistent ballplayer, and a 1.004 career OPS is outstanding. But he isn't as good a hitter as say Ted Williams was in his prime. And that's pretty much all he can do, is hit - he's an indifferent fielder, and while he's a good baserunner, he's pretty much abandoned that part of his game.

I'm not going try to list 10 players better than Bonds and send this spinning off into whole new realms of off-topic discussion, but I will say that no one would have said that Bonds was one of the top-10 ballplayers of all time before this past season. Frank Thomas had better numbers before 2001, and I'm not going to say that he's one of the top-10 ballplayers of all-time.

So, Kermit, if you say that Bonds' admittedly amazing 2001 season propels him by himself into the exalted heights, then I won't argue. But Bonds' career was very good but not awe-inspiring before last season.

But I will agree with you on Koufax. He was a mediocre pitcher when he was young, then he had a brief but dazzling period where he was dominant, then he got hurt. You need to put together more than the 3 or 4 good seasons he had to be great.

WinningUgly!
12-22-2001, 03:01 PM
And that's pretty much all he can do, is hit - he's an indifferent fielder

Huh? He won 8 Gold Glove awards in 9 years! Let it go, the guy is easily among the top 10 of all time...even before his monster 2001 season!

oldcomiskey
12-22-2001, 03:03 PM
hes not easily in the top 10 all---I have listed player after player that was better-----top 25 maybe--not top 10--plus he had a juiced ball and last year had a short porch---

czalgosz
12-22-2001, 03:27 PM
Originally posted by WinningUgly!


Huh? He won 8 Gold Glove awards in 9 years! Let it go, the guy is easily among the top 10 of all time...even before his monster 2001 season!

The Gold Glove awards are a joke and are no indication of how good a fielder one is. They give the award to the best hitter at each position that doesn't absolutlely embarass themselves with the glove, or to someone who makes ESPN's "plays of the week" more than once. Sportswriters are lazy. The awards they give out are meaningless.

And besides, I didn't say a "bad" fielder, I said an "indifferent" fielder. Bonds isn't like Carlos Lee who just doesn't know what he's doing out there, he just doesn't care. He jogs after balls, he doesn't hustle, and more than once he's shown up his own pitchers by not even bothering to follow the path of the ball as it's flown over his head.

And have you looked at Barry Bonds career stats (pre-2001)?

.289 BA / .411 OBP / .567 SLG

very good, certainly nothing to be ashamed of. 2001 by itself improved his numbers to .292 / .419 / .585. That's excellent. But let's look at Frank Thomas' career numbers -

.319 BA / .438 OBP / .577 SLG

As you can see, Frank Thomas has been a better hitter than Barry Bonds, even after Bonds' 2001 season. And there's no way that I would say that Frank Thomas is one of the top-10 ballplayers of all time. Therefore, I'm not willing to say with a straight face that Barry Bonds is one of the top-ten players of all time.

WinningUgly!
12-22-2001, 04:14 PM
plus he had a juiced ball and last year had a short porch---

So are you saying that the ballparks Ruth, Mantle & Williams played in didn't help pad their stats as well? :D:

FarWestChicago
12-22-2001, 04:16 PM
Originally posted by WinningUgly!


So are you saying that the ballparks Ruth, Mantle & Williams played in didn't help pad their stats as well? :D: WU, use the full quote feature so I know who the hell you are arguing with. :smile:

WinningUgly!
12-22-2001, 04:43 PM
Originally posted by FarWestChicago
WU, use the full quote feature so I know who the hell you are arguing with. :smile:

O-tay...
Originally posted by oldcomiskey
hes not easily in the top 10 all---I have listed player after player that was better-----top 25 maybe--not top 10--plus he had a juiced ball and last year had a short porch ---

So are you saying that the ballparks Ruth, Mantle & Williams played in didn't help pad their stats as well?

How's that FWC? Sorry, if I knew it bugged you so much, I'd have done it a lot more! :D: :D:

RichH55
12-22-2001, 05:58 PM
Not to mention that Bonds has won 4 MVPS and finished close at least 2 times, and I think I couple more than that...helps to show his value relative to his era even if you do go with the juiced ball, short porch, i hate lead-offs hitters, aliens in Pitt AND SF theories...The guy has the credetials....and if he is easily top 25 of all-time than saying a guy is top 10 isn't neccessarily a huge stretch

kermittheefrog
12-22-2001, 06:45 PM
Originally posted by czalgosz


The Gold Glove awards are a joke and are no indication of how good a fielder one is. They give the award to the best hitter at each position that doesn't absolutlely embarass themselves with the glove, or to someone who makes ESPN's "plays of the week" more than once. Sportswriters are lazy. The awards they give out are meaningless.

And besides, I didn't say a "bad" fielder, I said an "indifferent" fielder. Bonds isn't like Carlos Lee who just doesn't know what he's doing out there, he just doesn't care. He jogs after balls, he doesn't hustle, and more than once he's shown up his own pitchers by not even bothering to follow the path of the ball as it's flown over his head.

And have you looked at Barry Bonds career stats (pre-2001)?

.289 BA / .411 OBP / .567 SLG

very good, certainly nothing to be ashamed of. 2001 by itself improved his numbers to .292 / .419 / .585. That's excellent. But let's look at Frank Thomas' career numbers -

.319 BA / .438 OBP / .577 SLG

As you can see, Frank Thomas has been a better hitter than Barry Bonds, even after Bonds' 2001 season. And there's no way that I would say that Frank Thomas is one of the top-10 ballplayers of all time. Therefore, I'm not willing to say with a straight face that Barry Bonds is one of the top-ten players of all time.

Okay - 8 gold gloves. Gold Gloves aren't meaningless. Sometimes gold gloves go to guys liek Rafael Palmeiro who plated 25 games at first but if a guy consistently wins gold gloves I'd say he's gotta be a good fielder. GGs going to a guy like Palmeiro are probably due to a weak voting system that doesn't do a good job of identifying candidates moreso than managers (who votes on the GGs) not knowing who is actually a good fielder.

When Bonds finishes his career he'll probably have over 500 SB. Right now he's 16 away from 500 and he stole 13 last year.

That baserunning and defense is something a guy like Ted Williams or Frank Thomas doesn't have going for him. I'm not sure if it makes Bonds better than Williams but I know it makes him a lot better than Frank Thomas and I'm a big Frank Thomas fan. I think Bonds is in the top 5-10 ballplayers of all time.

One more thing abotu Nolan Ryan - Ryan had a long career and did a lot of great things but his control kept him from beign a guy like Lefty Grove or Walter Johnson. He's just not better than guys who had much better careers but don't have a gaudy 7 no hitters.

guillen4life13
12-22-2001, 08:05 PM
Originally posted by kermittheefrog


Koufax who only won 165 games? Ryan who in 27 seasons never won a single Cy Young award? Clemente who hit 327 less home runs and walked 1103 less times and stole 401 less bases. That's mind boggling, 327 less homers and 1103 less walks and 401 less stolen bases and Bonds' career isn't even over yet. Even with Clemente having a career BA. 25 points better than Bonds, Bonds' OBP is 60 points better and Bonds' slugging is 110 points better (btw - I'm not approximating the numbers just come out nice and round here).

This is definitely a case of a guy who won't get due credit until he's done playing, come on. There is no way Clemente was a better player than Bonds. I know Clemente didn't finish his career but Bonds next year will be at the age Clemente was when he died. There really isn't much question who is/was the better ballplayer. Even before the 2001 season Total Baseball's Total Player Rating had Bonds as the 6th best player of all time and Clemente as the 53rd. After this season Bonds will no doubt move up to 3rd all time in TPR behind only Ruth and Mays.


Where's Joe Jackson? (he won a world series)
Where's Cal Ripken? (He has already proven himself as a legend, and has been a legend for a few years now, and he has also won a world series, and should have won two if it weren't for that damn yankees fan who snagged that ball and forced it to be a homer)
Where's Dimaggio? (he has a world series)
Where's Rickey Henderson? (leadoff hitters set the pace of the game, no doubt about it, and Rickey was the best, and he has a few rings)

Now you know I'm an Ozzie Guillen fan, but really, Ernie Banks was the best shortstop ever, and is on, or at least almost on the top ten list.


Here's my list for best 10 position players of all time:

Babe Ruth
Ty Cobb
Hank Aaron
Pete Rose
Joe DiMaggio
Ted Williams
Mickey Mantle
Ernie Banks
Joe Jackson
Cal Ripken




My All Time Dream Team is as follows (Batting Lineup, regardless of position):

Henderson
Banks
Ruth (P, or DH)
Williams
Rose
Mantle
DiMaggio
Jackson
Ripken

oldcomiskey
12-22-2001, 11:38 PM
all valid arguments---I suppose when canseco hits number 500 hell be in the top 10 as well though-----but I still say if Bonds is in the top 10 why not invite him to the all-century team

czalgosz
12-22-2001, 11:49 PM
Originally posted by kermittheefrog


Okay - 8 gold gloves. Gold Gloves aren't meaningless. Sometimes gold gloves go to guys liek Rafael Palmeiro who plated 25 games at first but if a guy consistently wins gold gloves I'd say he's gotta be a good fielder. GGs going to a guy like Palmeiro are probably due to a weak voting system that doesn't do a good job of identifying candidates moreso than managers (who votes on the GGs) not knowing who is actually a good fielder.

When Bonds finishes his career he'll probably have over 500 SB. Right now he's 16 away from 500 and he stole 13 last year.

That baserunning and defense is something a guy like Ted Williams or Frank Thomas doesn't have going for him. I'm not sure if it makes Bonds better than Williams but I know it makes him a lot better than Frank Thomas and I'm a big Frank Thomas fan. I think Bonds is in the top 5-10 ballplayers of all time.

One more thing abotu Nolan Ryan - Ryan had a long career and did a lot of great things but his control kept him from beign a guy like Lefty Grove or Walter Johnson. He's just not better than guys who had much better careers but don't have a gaudy 7 no hitters.

Well, my problem with using MVPs or Gold Glove awards to decide how really good a player is is that the awards are given out on a subjective basis - ie., they're given out by sportswriters that you may or may not agree with.

MVPs are given to players who play on good teams - which is fine, because it is for Most Valuable Player, not Best Player, bu=t if you're talking about all-time best, it shouldn't matter whether he played on a good team or not. Ted Williams should not be left off any 10-best player list, and yet he never played in a World Series. One of the reasons Tony Gwynn didn't win MVP is that he played for the Padres (another is that he didn't hit homers).

Long story short, MVP awards and Gold Gloves are given out by sportswriters who have no accountability and are frankly pretty lazy when looking into the matter (they usually devote less thought to the matter than you or I do). When you look at the numbers, which are the closest thing we have to objective standards, they show that Bonds has indeed put up HOF numbers.

Here's my personal top 10 - guys who dominated baseball, who were above and beyond the pack.]

1. Babe Ruth - Picture if Tim Hudson gets moved to left field for 2002, and he hits 75 homers. Then next season he hits 130 homers. Then the season after that he hits 190. That's the kind of ballplayer that Babe Ruth was, and the impact he had on the game.

2. Ted Williams - Simply the finest hitter of all time. He made it look easy. Just imagine what his numbers would be like had he not sacrificed his most productive years to WWII and Korea.

3. Walter Johnson - The most dominant pitcher of all time.

4. Bob Gibson - The only pitcher that can argue with Johnson.

5. Ty Cobb - My Favorite Ty Cobb anecdote - he was criticizing sportswriters for going off about Babe Ruth and his homers, saying that he could hit homers if he wanted. When a writer challenged him to put his money where his mouth was, he went 4-for-4 that night, with 3 homers and a double off the wall. After the game, he said that hitting homers was "bad baseball" and went back to his old way of hitting.

6. Cy Young - no comment needed.

7. Honus Wagner - He put up numbers in the Dead Ball era that anybody playing today would be proud of.

8. Lefty Grove - Best lefthander in baseball history.

9. Hank Aaron - never got the respect he deserved until the very end of his career. Had simliar numbers as Bonds (.305 / .377 / .555 career) while playing in an era dominated by pitchers and hitting primarily in a pitchers' ballpark.

10. Rogers Hornsby - Great hitter, great fielder. He had amazing numbers. Batted .358 / .434 / .577 as a middle infielder!!!


I'm sure, Kermit, that you will find a way to tear one or more of these choices down, and there's no way this argument will ever be resolved to anyone's satisfaction, because it's subjective. There's no way that you can convince me that Bonds belongs up there instead of one of those guys, and there's apparently no way I can convince you that he doesn't. It's fun to think about, though...

Daver
12-22-2001, 11:50 PM
Originally posted by oldcomiskey
all valid arguments---I suppose when canseco hits number 500 hell be in the top 10 as well though-----but I still say if Bonds is in the top 10 why not invite him to the all-century team

Good point,Canseco almost guarntees a place in the HOF if he hits 500 HR,and Harold Baines will be the only one with 1500 RBI that doesn't get in.

kermittheefrog
12-23-2001, 07:19 AM
Originally posted by czalgosz


Well, my problem with using MVPs or Gold Glove awards to decide how really good a player is is that the awards are given out on a subjective basis - ie., they're given out by sportswriters that you may or may not agree with.

MVPs are given to players who play on good teams - which is fine, because it is for Most Valuable Player, not Best Player, but if you're talking about all-time best, it shouldn't matter whether he played on a good team or not. Ted Williams should not be left off any 10-best player list, and yet he never played in a World Series. One of the reasons Tony Gwynn didn't win MVP is that he played for the Padres (another is that he didn't hit homers).

Long story short, MVP awards and Gold Gloves are given out by sportswriters who have no accountability and are frankly pretty lazy when looking into the matter (they usually devote less thought to the matter than you or I do). When you look at the numbers, which are the closest thing we have to objective standards, they show that Bonds has indeed put up HOF numbers.

Here's my personal top 10 - guys who dominated baseball, who were above and beyond the pack.]

1. Babe Ruth - Picture if Tim Hudson gets moved to left field for 2002, and he hits 75 homers. Then next season he hits 130 homers. Then the season after that he hits 190. That's the kind of ballplayer that Babe Ruth was, and the impact he had on the game.

2. Ted Williams - Simply the finest hitter of all time. He made it look easy. Just imagine what his numbers would be like had he not sacrificed his most productive years to WWII and Korea.

3. Walter Johnson - The most dominant pitcher of all time.

4. Bob Gibson - The only pitcher that can argue with Johnson.

5. Ty Cobb - My Favorite Ty Cobb anecdote - he was criticizing sportswriters for going off about Babe Ruth and his homers, saying that he could hit homers if he wanted. When a writer challenged him to put his money where his mouth was, he went 4-for-4 that night, with 3 homers and a double off the wall. After the game, he said that hitting homers was "bad baseball" and went back to his old way of hitting.

6. Cy Young - no comment needed.

7. Honus Wagner - He put up numbers in the Dead Ball era that anybody playing today would be proud of.

8. Lefty Grove - Best lefthander in baseball history.

9. Hank Aaron - never got the respect he deserved until the very end of his career. Had simliar numbers as Bonds (.305 / .377 / .555 career) while playing in an era dominated by pitchers and hitting primarily in a pitchers' ballpark.

10. Rogers Hornsby - Great hitter, great fielder. He had amazing numbers. Batted .358 / .434 / .577 as a middle infielder!!!


I'm sure, Kermit, that you will find a way to tear one or more of these choices down, and there's no way this argument will ever be resolved to anyone's satisfaction, because it's subjective. There's no way that you can convince me that Bonds belongs up there instead of one of those guys, and there's apparently no way I can convince you that he doesn't. It's fun to think about, though...

Well first of all Gold Gloves are given out by the managers not sportswriters. Second of all, would you admit that everyone who has won 2 MVPs was at least a good player (actually everyone who has won two MVPs is a great player)? Now why can't we say everyone who has won say 2 or 3 Gold Gloves is a good fielder? Barry Bonds has won eight, I think he's a good fielder without the Gold Gloves but hey they are some proof. Who do you think you are discounting subjectivity? Me 6 months ago? Opinions have value.

As to your top ten there is no agruing it's an incredible group of players but I have two disagreements.

Bob Gibson - Great pitcher, a guy who I really wish I could have seen pitch. I think he's a little overrated due to his era and the stories of him scaring the ***** out of batters. How can you put him ahead of Grove when:

a. Grove won 9 ERA titles, Gibson won 1 and placed in the top ten "just" 8 times.
b. Grove won 300 games, Gibson won 251.

I think Grove is way ahead of Gibson. I'd have Grove in the top ten, Gibson closer to the 40-50 range.

Rogers Hornsby - Rogers Hornsby was not a great fielder. He was famous for having trouble with pop flies because he couldn't back up. The Cardinals tried him in the outfield, at first and at third and decided they could live with him at second. That's because when he played second base wasn't the position we know it as now. Double plays weren't big until around the 1940s. Before then second base wasn't an important defensive position so applying modern standards of second baseman to Rogers Hornsby makes him look greater than he was. Even for the old times standard for second basemen Hornsby wasn't very good. They just could live with him because he knocked the crap out the ball. I think Hornsby is more in the 15-25 range. BTW - did you know Hornsby died in Chicago?

The other advantage Bonds has over these guys is that the game is harder to dominate now. Talent is better identified and reaches the major leagues with more coaching. Lefty Grove didn't reach the majors until he was 25 because Baltimore (then a minor league team) didn't want to sell him, their number one starter. Another reason Grove is way ahead of Gibson in my mind is because he deserves some credit for that time in the minors, the minors were different back then and a lot of players who were in the minors could have been in the majors. The minors were more than slaves to the majors at the time so some guys who could play stayed with clubs where they were the star.

RichH55
12-24-2001, 03:39 AM
I'll give everyone that Gold Glove and MVP are subjective, but I would also argue that helps the Bonds argument more than it hurts him.....From what I can tell is that the media hates Bonds, most reports on him are thinnly veiled shots against him, even when he is putting up one of the greatest years ever...I think that this might have cost him an MVP or at the very least a decent amount of support...so that argument would have to be taken into account for Bonds.....Also I'm curious why people put Cy Young on the all-time top 10 list(not saying he doesnt belong), just saying he has the most wins, but also the most losses of all-time...does longevity trump all? And another to consider on the Ted Williams numbers is that he lost multiple seasons(I want to say 3 or 4) due to military service, this being in the prime of his career...those numbers he put up would have unreal with a few more prime years, or if he played today....I Shudder to think how much Teddy Ballgame would be worth today if he played

RichH55
12-24-2001, 03:42 AM
Teddy Ballgame and Ty Cobb are also part of my favorite baseball lines(I have heard it used for both players)

Reporter: How do you think Ty Cobb would hit against todays pitchers?
Baseball guy: I'd say he'd hit about .290
Reporter: .290?!??! Ty Cobb? The man who hit over .400 multiple times, has around 4000 career hits and a lifetime average well over .300?
Baseball guy: Well ya gotta remember he's 73 damn years old

kermittheefrog
12-24-2001, 02:33 PM
Originally posted by RichH55
I'll give everyone that Gold Glove and MVP are subjective, but I would also argue that helps the Bonds argument more than it hurts him.....From what I can tell is that the media hates Bonds, most reports on him are thinnly veiled shots against him, even when he is putting up one of the greatest years ever...I think that this might have cost him an MVP or at the very least a decent amount of support...so that argument would have to be taken into account for Bonds.....Also I'm curious why people put Cy Young on the all-time top 10 list(not saying he doesnt belong), just saying he has the most wins, but also the most losses of all-time...does longevity trump all? And another to consider on the Ted Williams numbers is that he lost multiple seasons(I want to say 3 or 4) due to military service, this being in the prime of his career...those numbers he put up would have unreal with a few more prime years, or if he played today....I Shudder to think how much Teddy Ballgame would be worth today if he played

I think Young is in the 10-15 range. He had amazing longevity but wasn't the kind of pitcher Grove or Johnson was. I could have said something about him but there were easier targets.

SOXSINCE'70
12-24-2001, 03:08 PM
:messica

It would be a good idea for clueless GM Lenny Billiams to deal Carlos Lee's dead ass ASAP so the Sox can at least pursue this idea.
P.S.-The Mets will be at Comiskey June 10-12.This is a first.How far can Mike Piazza hit a ball?? Bet Farther than Eric Chavez last year.And he almost left the park completely!!

doublem23
12-24-2001, 03:14 PM
Originally posted by SOXSINCE'70
P.S.-The Mets will be at Comiskey June 10-12.This is a first.How far can Mike Piazza hit a ball?? Bet Farther than Eric Chavez last year.And he almost left the park completely!!

:burly
Not if I have my way.

oldcomiskey
12-24-2001, 03:59 PM
Originally posted by kermittheefrog


I think Young is in the 10-15 range. He had amazing longevity but wasn't the kind of pitcher Grove or Johnson was. I could have said something about him but there were easier targets.

so thats why they call it the Lefty Grove award----I always thought it was the Walter Johnson award myself

SOXSINCE'70
12-24-2001, 05:26 PM
Originally posted by doublem23


:burly
Not if I have my way.



:messica



I was thinking more Glover than Beuhrle.Hey,on the bright side,it will be Roberto Alomar's only visit to Comiskey.Thank God for that!

kermittheefrog
12-24-2001, 08:12 PM
Originally posted by oldcomiskey


so thats why they call it the Lefty Grove award----I always thought it was the Walter Johnson award myself

Does that mean Babe Ruth shouldn't be in the top 10 because there aren't any awards named after him?

oldcomiskey
12-24-2001, 08:22 PM
no as usual you missed My point----Denton True Young gets my vote for best pitcher all time---give it up---Bonds aint in the top 10

kermittheefrog
12-24-2001, 11:15 PM
Originally posted by oldcomiskey
no as usual you missed My point----Denton True Young gets my vote for best pitcher all time---give it up---Bonds aint in the top 10

If you think Nolan Ryan belongs in the top 10 and the Cy Young is the best pitcher of all time because he has an award named after him I give up.

Bmr31
12-24-2001, 11:17 PM
Originally posted by kermittheefrog


If you think Nolan Ryan belongs in the top 10 and the Cy Young is the best pitcher of all time because he has an award named after him I give up.

oh not this again. Barry Bonds isnt even in the top 30 all time players......

oldcomiskey
12-25-2001, 08:44 AM
its true had Johnson played on better teams he might have had a better win-loss record but look at it this way---on this list there are no losers--lets not fight today--its the Lord's birthday---well continue this tomorrow--and Ryan was the same way--played on some pretty bad teams----

DimaAl888
12-25-2001, 12:41 PM
Why would anyone compare pitchers with hitters/players?!
There definately should be a separate Top 10 for both... and another Top 10 for pitchers who have ever pitched in Coors or Enron :)


:moron

Hey, Sux neanderthals, I though it was my duty to compare apples to swamp boots using pseudo-literary, hyper-biased, over-the-top, piss-yellow journalism....it is only logical--and logic isn't 'black and white'!-- that Sammy is better than both Walter Johnson AND Walter Payton, and he is paid accordingly since Cubs are also better at paying for Sammy than anyone else.





I personally think :barrybond is probably is 9th or 10th in the hitters Top 10 players list since he does have to be "penalized" slightly for playing in the offensive era

oldcomiskey
12-25-2001, 01:35 PM
if you gave Ruth or Aaron or Cobb or Hornsby or Mantle the same ball youf never even hear of Barry Bonds

guillen4life13
12-28-2001, 10:48 PM
Originally posted by DimaAl888
Why would anyone compare pitchers with hitters/players?!
There definately should be a separate Top 10 for both... and another Top 10 for pitchers who have ever pitched in Coors or Enron :)


:moron

Hey, Sux neanderthals, I though it was my duty to compare apples to swamp boots using pseudo-literary, hyper-biased, over-the-top, piss-yellow journalism....it is only logical--and logic isn't 'black and white'!-- that Sammy is better than both Walter Johnson AND Walter Payton, and he is paid accordingly since Cubs are also better at paying for Sammy than anyone else.





I personally think :barrybond is probably is 9th or 10th in the hitters Top 10 players list since he does have to be "penalized" slightly for playing in the offensive era



"uh huh, okay, whassup, shut up"

I think that applies to your sorry ass.
And, it is my humble opinion that NO ATHLETE is deserving of that kind of money. It is also my humble opinion that Sassy Losa is a piece of **** compared to Walter Payton. Walter Payton is the second greatest Chicago Athlete (M.J. being the first). I can think of many people who were better than Losa.

and, I think I've said this before:

SCRUBS FANS SHOULD STAY IN THEIR OWN LOUSY MESSAGE BOARDS!!!!! STAY YOUR ASS AWAY FROM WSI! WE'RE HERE MINDING OUR OWN BUSINESS, WHY DON'T YOU DO THE SAME?

I have many adjectives and nouns I'd like to use to describe you scrubs fans, but i fear they may cause me to be reported to the moderator, therefore...

just piss off

Daver
12-28-2001, 11:07 PM
Don't mind Dima the fastest gun in the West has already banned his sorry ass.
He has yet to prove his proficiency with the Bow though.

WinningUgly!
12-28-2001, 11:09 PM
Originally posted by daver
Don't mind Dima the fastest gun in the West has already banned his sorry ass.
He has yet to prove his proficiency with the Bow though.

Ah, the ever-lurking Dima :smile: