PDA

View Full Version : NY Times makes case for Bonds to the Twins


Fenway
12-04-2006, 09:15 AM
The baseball writers are really getting goofy now

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/12/03/sports/baseball/03score.html


A team that comes close to selling out most of its games would be unable to accommodate the extra fans who would pay to see Bonds break the record. But one with a big stadium and mediocre attendance could increase its revenue by more than $5 million.

Add it all up, and one team trumps the rest: the Minnesota Twins (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/news/sports/baseball/majorleague/minnesotatwins/index.html?inline=nyt-org).

They had the worst-performing left fielders in the majors last year. They play in a tightly contested division, vying against the 2006 pennant-winning Detroit Tigers (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/news/sports/baseball/majorleague/detroittigers/index.html?inline=nyt-org) and the 2005 world champion White Sox, as well as the up-and-coming Cleveland Indians (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/news/sports/baseball/majorleague/clevelandindians/index.html?inline=nyt-org). And, crucially, they averaged 24,000 empty seats a game in August and September, meaning they could benefit more from an increase in attendance for Bondsís record chase than any other serious contender.

SouthSide_HitMen
12-04-2006, 09:52 AM
I've seen a lot of silly articles in that paper but this one takes the cake.

It assumes Barry Bonds would be able to draw fans to any games outside of the handfull directly before the record (mostly by people looking to make a buck). Minnesota is not a big home run park so I don't know if he can break the record next year based on the fact you don't know how long he will stay healthy. The carpet in Minnesota is among the worst in baseball and even at DH it is bound to take a toll on his knees.

The Twins would lose money on the deal, would be unable to fill other areas due to Bonds sucking up all of the cash and would make the team worse IMO. The Twins have been successfully by passing on players like Bonds. The premise he will contribute more to a team than Soriano, Lee or any other free agent OF / DH is highly doubtful.

chisoxmike
12-04-2006, 10:18 AM
:praying:

AuroraSoxFan
12-04-2006, 10:23 AM
They don't sell out the crap dome because their fan base sucks, not because they lack a pompous HR belting SOB like Bonds. Look at their picture. 4 div titles in the last 5 years and they still have tons of empty seats. I lived that way for a while. People do not show up until they are about to clinch something. It just is not too big of a baseball market there. In addition, their owner is a tight wad. Last but not least, there is no way he'd fit in there with a manager like Gardy. He'd never put up with any of the crap that guy seems to bring to the table.

chisoxmike
12-04-2006, 10:31 AM
They don't sell out the crap dome because their fan base sucks, not because they lack a pompous HR belting SOB like Bonds. Look at their picture. 4 div titles in the last 5 years and they still have tons of empty seats. I lived that way for a while. People do not show up until they are about to clinch something. It just is not too big of a baseball market there. In addition, their owner is a tight wad. Last but not least, there is no way he'd fit in there with a manager like Gardy. He'd never put up with any of the crap that guy seems to bring to the table.

Twins sign Bonds
Bond tears apart the Twins
Twins don't recover for years
:bandance: :bandance: :bandance: :bandance: :bandance: :bandance:

AuroraSoxFan
12-04-2006, 10:35 AM
Twins sign Bonds
Bond tears apart the Twins
Twins don't recover for years
:bandance: :bandance: :bandance: :bandance: :bandance: :bandance:


Sure would be nice.

Grzegorz
12-04-2006, 11:22 AM
If the Twins sign Bonds that would dumbest personnel move in the history of baseball.

As a Chicago White Sox fan I'd do cartwheels if this signing takes place.

Sox Fan 35
12-04-2006, 06:04 PM
The Twins are too smart to sign Bonds.

1951Campbell
12-04-2006, 06:07 PM
As someone who reads the New York Times 6 days a week, I can tell you that if they're making a case for something, the opposite position is usually the wiser one.

soxinem1
12-05-2006, 07:10 AM
The Twins are too smart to sign Bonds.

Correct, this will not happen. Harmon Killebrew coming out of retirement is far more likely.

caulfield12
12-05-2006, 09:15 AM
Lyman Bostock coming back from the dead is more likely.

I used to respect the Times, but never for their sportswriting.

TOP TEN LIST WHY HE WON'T GO

1. Not enough good seafood restaurants
2. His son can't be the batboy
3. Gardenhire and Ryan would NEVER allow the team to be splintered
4. The Twins already have Jason Kubel and Tyner for LF/DH...and they could still try to bring back S. Stewart

5. Artificial turf
6. No media attention in Minnesota, No Surreal Life or even the Flavor of Barry

7. Pohlad's too cheap
8. Nobody wants Barry, they want him to disappear like Sosa, McGwire, Raffy/Viagra commercials and Canseco

9. No "splash homers" in Minnesota
10. Barry is allergic to Hefty Bags

soxfan26
12-05-2006, 10:03 AM
The "up and coming" Cleveland Indians? :?:

chaerulez
12-05-2006, 10:16 AM
Another reason the Twins might not draw is because they play in that ugly horrible buliding they call a stadium.

s.dedalus
12-05-2006, 03:33 PM
I used to respect the Times, but never for their sportswriting.


This appeared in the NYTimes. The Twin Cities media (or the Twins, for that matter) had nothing to do with it.

Ol' No. 2
12-05-2006, 03:45 PM
You sure this article wasn't in the funny pages?

tstrike2000
12-05-2006, 04:08 PM
Correct, this will not happen. Harmon Killebrew coming out of retirement is far more likely.

I think Kirby Puckett coming out of retirement is more likely and he's not even living.

WizardsofOzzie
12-05-2006, 06:02 PM
I'd love the opportunity to boo Barry on a regular basis at games:smile:

ondafarm
12-05-2006, 09:50 PM
No comments about the NYT, but this article is flipped out. No way.

app2686
12-05-2006, 10:54 PM
I'm having a hard time understanding why this proposal by The NY Times is so outrageous.

I hate Bonds just as much as everyone else. But from the point of view of winning and statistics, it make sense. (Although it's also hard to say how team chemistry will be affected).

I think Bonds still has the ability to play baseball.

Bonds is still very disciplined as the plate. He drew 115 walks last season and had an OBP of .453 while batting a modest .270 and slugging .545. I'm assuming his bat isn't as quick as it used to be due to age but his isolated power and contact rate are still impressive as his statistics indicate.

His health is questionable. However he did play in 130 games last season and there haven't been any indications [yet] that his health has worsened since the season ended.

Financially, if the Red Sox can sign JD Drew to 5 years, tentative $70 million, signing Bonds for 1 year, $17 million seems more than reasonable: a bargain especially if the additional revenue of his presence and a potential postseason birth can offset the costs of his contract as the article claims.

Perhaps Bonds is yet to draw interest not because he "sucks" but because organizations truly believe he'll end up going to jail rendering any potential contract offers awash.

And no, The New York Times does not suck. It is a world-renowned newspaper that makes the Chicago Tribune look like the Sun Times.