Giants better off without Bonds

John, MI — Wed, 02 Jul 2008 16:49:50 GMT

Not a fan of the Giants, but I agree, if they would have let him go a year earlier and not signed Zito out of Boras's evil workshop they would have made some other stronger moves and probably be close to making the playoffs this season.

Giants better off without Bonds

Jack Burton — Wed, 02 Jul 2008 17:45:46 GMT

The final 2 years had nothing to do with wins/losses. It had everything to do with filling the seats for every home game. San Fran realistically knew they weren't going to win it all, so why not fill the seats (and all the concession stands, parking, advertising, etc.) instead.

Giants better off without Bonds

M Sardar, Elk Grove, CA — Wed, 02 Jul 2008 18:11:06 GMT

Good article, good diagnosis of the Giant's current situation. If Noah Lowry ever returns to last year's form, he might be a nice trading chip for some more offensive pop. Jury is still out on Bowker but Lewis might be one answer; nevertheless the Giants clearly need more power from their corner infield and outfielders.

Giants better off without Bonds

Mike Call, Albany, New York — Wed, 02 Jul 2008 18:17:50 GMT

Sorry, that was George Young, not Bill Walsh, that made the comment about cutting a player a year too early rather than a year too late

Giants better off without Bonds

Jonathan, Pleasanton, Calif. — Wed, 02 Jul 2008 18:50:41 GMT

Ted - you came and spoke to my sports journalism class at St. Mary's in Moraga a couple years ago and your insight was as fun to hear then as it is to read now. I think one thing that can't be discounted on Bonds is the fact that he was chasing the game's most hallowed record. I think the Giants management knew exactly what they were sacrificing by keeping Bonds, but to them it was worth it rather than the embarrassment of watching Bonds get the record in another uniform. Besides, many fans would have been upset if after years of sticking by Bonds through everything, they didn't get "rewarded" by being able to witness the record-setting home run. I was upset with the Giants' resigning Bonds as well, but it sure was fun to see him hit #756 at 3rd and King...

Giants better off without Bonds

SF Giants fan... — Wed, 02 Jul 2008 20:00:53 GMT

Ummm...Bonds was the Giants? Until the Giants can lose better than 9 to 0 against the cubs...BONDS still is the Giants.

Giants better off without Bonds

Christopher George Haddad, Tucson, AZ — Wed, 02 Jul 2008 20:05:04 GMT

Tell me again why Bonds should never have been brought back for the 2007 season, and yet why you think his career in SF needs closure?? Tell me again why the best evidence you could offer as to why Bonds did not deserve to be on the team after 2006 was because Vizquel and Aurilia are not any good?? And can your editors please tell me why they decided to let you of all people pollute the Internet with this kind of hogwash logic?!?!

Giants better off without Bonds

Alan Hagemeier, Amarillo, TX — Wed, 02 Jul 2008 20:13:35 GMT

"game’s greatest home run hitter", are you kidding me?

Giants better off without Bonds

Curt, SF — Wed, 02 Jul 2008 21:04:42 GMT

Better off in what respect?
Wins - no
Money - They're giving it to Zito
Attendance - how many sellouts this season?

As a fan, I could care less about clubhouse atmosphere. I don't get to go in the clubhouse. I mostly like to see wins, and some homeruns don't hurt either.

I agree about most of the vets, esp. Aurillia. I liked him when he was productive, and he was a "Good Giant," but when I see him on the field now, I wonder why he's here--a Sabean homey, I guess.

Omar is definitely done and should bow out gracefully before he' waived. Signing Dave Roberts (in his prime, he was a fourth outfielder) was a mistake right from the start.

Durham and Winn are no great shakes, but they both have hit well this year and until someone.... It's a shame that there is no one to drive them in.

The Giants are better than most of us thought they would be, but they are still not very good. To say that they are better because Bonds is gone is ridiculous. No one on this team will finish the season with 25 HR and or 90 RBI. Even now, Bonds could probably post those numbers on 1 leg.

Giants better off without Bonds

Cookie Sangrenegra, Orlando Florida — Wed, 02 Jul 2008 21:29:56 GMT

If the Giants had kept Bonds, perhaps palying first base, they could be in first place today. Or is their current first baseman getting on base 48% of the time and slugging over .500? The hysterical bash-Barry bias of much of the press. They always claim, against the historical record, that Bonds is a cancer hurting his team when 1) the Pittsburg Pirates, on top of the NL when he played left, haven't had a winning record since. And the Giants came within a whisker of winning it all, featuring the cancer Bonds. So now the Giants would have been better off dumping him? Why?

Giants better off without Bonds

Keith Marzak, San Carlos, CA — Wed, 02 Jul 2008 21:36:09 GMT

As a lifelong Giants fan, you hit the nail on the head. However I have to disagree with any kind of further embarrassment of the Giants by "celebrating", i.e. parading Bonds around and relishing his not-so-clean home run record along with his incredibly disrespectful and unprofessional demeanor to both his teammates, management, the press, and his fans... I've seen enough of him, as have most Giants fans, he had his due and got his respect and closure from the Giants last year. He doesn't need, or deserve, one ounce more....

Giants better off without Bonds

Chris, New York, NY — Wed, 02 Jul 2008 21:47:34 GMT

Yep, the team is much better without that 1.000 OPS in the lineup. Fewer runs and more outs help every team. Brilliant column!

Giants better off without Bonds

Barry Bonds Fan, San Diego, Ca — Wed, 02 Jul 2008 22:27:56 GMT

Why are we still crying about Barry Bonds who "HAS" the home run record. Baseball is boring without him especially the non GIANTS. We should call them the Migets. No bigger than life players and no drugs have ruined baseball. I loved the WWF. IT'S A BUISNESS. not a sport. Have you tried to buy a ticket these days. No fun any more and boring. I loved and collected baseball stuff but now with all of the loosers. No Fun! Bring back Barry Bonds ******and all.

Giants better off without Bonds

Frank — Wed, 02 Jul 2008 23:08:58 GMT

I for one was sad to see Bonds leave. I used to attend 15 plus games a year just for Bonds and I have not been there this year at all. Bonds was the Giants.

Giants better off without Bonds

Greg, San Diego CA — Wed, 02 Jul 2008 23:18:45 GMT

Not only do the Giants have the previously mentioned players they have a nice crop of young players in the minors both position and pitchers. The signing of Zito will go down as the worst contract in baseball EVER. Hopefully the weak NL West will not lead Brian Sabean the think that the Giants can contend because then he will want to buy at the trade deadline vice sell and set this team back even further.

Giants better off without Bonds

Steve — Thu, 03 Jul 2008 13:49:23 GMT

Ted, having been around the Giants as much as you have in the past few years, I think you've got it pretty much pegged. I'm not as enthusiastic about honoring Bonds, only because, much as they should, it's likely doing so will dredge up the old demons they're trying to get past now. But you could be right. But you are absolutely right about the youth thing. Get the old guys off the field.

Giants better off without Bonds

Dan, Virginia Beach, Va — Thu, 03 Jul 2008 14:21:09 GMT

I think you missed the point about Bonds and the Giants. The Giants did not want to let a "cash Cow" go at the expense of rebuilding, especially when the seats were filled in anticipation of breaking the HR record. You see plainly they parted company once the record was broken. In my mind it was plainly a business decision. Besides you cant anticipate a "weak division", ARI sure looked strong at the beginning of this season.

Giants better off without Bonds

Rob indianapolis Indiana — Thu, 03 Jul 2008 15:55:16 GMT

Everyone is better without this overrated, over paid prima donna. There is a lot more to being a great baseball player than just hitting and he was never great of any of the other things. Not a great fielder, couldn't throw(no arm) was the fastest. So please tell me what made him soooo great.

Giants better off without Bonds

John Sanchez — Thu, 03 Jul 2008 20:47:12 GMT

They need to play Ray Durham as much as possible and use him as trade bait. He's a contract hitter. If the Giants could get one decent minor league position player for him, it would be well worth it. If the Giants sign him again... I don't even want to think about that.

Giants better off without Bonds

John Haberstroh, Boston, MA — Thu, 03 Jul 2008 21:12:26 GMT

Dear Sirs:

I remain part of the "He must have done 'roids" crowd with regard to Bary Bonds (BB). I am also of the opinion that he would have put up fantastic numbers without the help of any chemicals. His swing was sweet and fast I admit. But as an ambassador to the game, BB was a clown. His selfish, boorish, prima-dona act what with the private part of the locker room, the entourage, the sardonic attitude and so forth was gauche beyond words. When Manny Ramirez clubbed his own 500th homer recently, we saw nothing from BB. What a surprise. Give him his due you ask? He got his due in the only currency that he understands; greenbacks. He is a petulant, self-absorbed, mono-maniac child in a man's body. I say let his fate play out the way it must. You are right about the Giants, they mortgaged their future to keep BB and the rebuild will be time consuming. BB is gone now. Let It Be, as the Fabs once said. Leave BB to be judged by history; that is his due.

John Haberstroh, Boston, MA

Giants better off without Bonds

beavis — Fri, 04 Jul 2008 18:03:59 GMT

It's all Barry Bonds fault. He's the reason for all the following:

*Not being able to draft a every day position player for the last 15 years that made any impact on the daily line-up. Oh wait, Bill Mueller was Ok

*Sabean trading away Liriano, Nathan, and Bonser for AJ a lifetime 280 hitter for one year. Forget the fact that the Giant's have blown about a 100 saves since Nen retired.

*Zito getting a billion dollars for the next 100 years. Yeah, let's sign a local nice-guy at any cost to "off-set the Barry signing". Since when did a 89 mph fastball and a declining curve deserve franchise money?

*Signing Durham, Roberts, and Aurillia? Why did they not cut bait with the guys or even bother to re-sign/sign them at all? All the decent young postion players you mentioned are limited by these guys, not someone that performed as well as Bonds. You trade Montana away to allow Young to develop. You unload Thome to bring up Howard. You don't unload Bonds to allow Dave Roberts more playing time.

It's obvious the Giants brass had no faith in the farm team. That's why they had to bring Bonds back. There is no one that will come close to his worst statistical season that is within 2-3 years from the minor league system.

You failed to mention the obvious, Bonds put butts in seats for the last 8 years in SBC. I don't recall much of backlash in SF about Bonds being re-signed because he at least would perform. The annual attendance will continue to shrink just like Denver, Cleveland, and Seattle did if another star is not brought in via free agency soon.

Giants better off without Bonds

Paul Keller — Sun, 06 Jul 2008 15:14:54 GMT

While it definitely is different watching the Giants without Barry, the drama ( and I'm talking strictly baseball drama ) is absolutely missed. Opposing coaches no longer have to plan for what they're going to do as Barry's spot in the batting order approaches and opposing pitchers are much less prone to intestinal problems. Fans no longer have to plan their restroom breaks or beer runs around when Barry's going to bat.

I agree that Lewis, Bowker, and probably Nate Schierholtz all deserve every-day player status, I'm not so sold on Burriss. Of course, the Zito signing was not one that will get Brian Sabean into the HOF, but was it worse than the deal that left us without Joe Nathan. Brian Wilson is definitely looking like he'll be the closer for a while, and Lincecum, Cain, and Sanchez could even lead this team to a division title in this weakest of all divisions in major league baseball. We all knew that they could perform. Bowker though, has been a real gem. Wouldn't it be great for the Giants to end up with an NL Rookie of the Year.

Giants better off without Bonds

PeterWest — Tue, 15 Jul 2008 06:10:34 GMT

Walsh said if the team had a younger player, WHO PROJECTED TO BE BETTER THAN THE VETERAN, only then was it better to cut the veteran a year early rather than a year too late. You're showing you don't understand what Bill was saying. It goes back to Bill backing Virgil Carter as a starter over the rookie stud Gregg Cook. After being told to start Cook by Paul Brown, Bill realized Brown was right - it was better to let the stud develop for the future even if the vet might be marginally better in the present.

Now with that clarification in place, show me any player in the Giants system in 2006 who projected to be better than a 40-42 year old Bonds. There was no one! Not then and not now - that is what is so sad about the Giants.

Ted, the problem all along has been the Giants inability to produce home grown positional player talent and, secondarily, their inability to trade pitching for above average positional players. If the Giants strategy was to specialize in pitching and trade for hitting, then, at best, the Giants mispriced the relative value of pitching vs. hitting. At worst, they have been simply awful at developing players, period.