PDA

View Full Version : Royals Would you want the Royals to sign Barry Bonds?


KCCHIEFS27
07-11-2008, 03:36 AM
I'm sure a lot of you saw the title of the post and thought what a moron..but hear me out..

1. B.B. or B.B., as in Billy Butler or Barry Bonds as the DH? Billy just hasn't been cutting it this year after looking very promising towards the end of last year. And Barry could fill in maybe twice a week in the outfield to take Gathright's limp noodle bat out of the lineup.

2. He is willing to be paid the league minimum..that is a complete steal. Or even better for free, "Borris said Bonds even would play for free offering to donate whatever salary he receives to purchase tickets for children."

3. The trial issues..come on, the prosecutors in that case have screwed up so bad it won't even start until after the season is completed.

4. Tainted legacy might look bad. Really? Would people stop showing up to Royals games? No way. Fans would flock to the idea and finally, the Royals will be shown on ESPN more often. People would come just to hold up asterisk marked signs. I think it would boost attendance and frankly, the team would win more games. And the additional revenue he brings in will only help during next years free agency period.

5. Some of you may think Bond's is a huge jerk, but so are a lot of other MLB players. Didn't Guillen just scuffle with the pitching coach not to long ago? Let's just say Bond's wouldn't do anything stupid to make an even bigger mockery of himself. Hell, maybe the players will relax more and just go play. Could things go bad? Maybe, but it's not as if he's going to come in and ruin a contending team.

So, what do you think? Yes/no?

|Zach|
07-11-2008, 03:47 AM
Absolutely not.

Terrible.

Fruit Ninja
07-11-2008, 03:56 AM
Wouldnt make any difference in the standings, but it would draw more people and media attention to KC thats for damned sure.

Jenson71
07-11-2008, 05:23 AM
Would I want? No.

Would I mind? Yes.

Chief Chief
07-11-2008, 05:38 AM
Even though the stadium renovations included the Royals getting a larger and more luxurious locker room last year, it still isn't big enough or good enough for Barry's big-*** head and huge ego. His team attitude is poor and that's opposite of what manager Trey Hillman is trying to instill into our young ballplayers. Billy Butler needs to see major league pitching in order to get better at the plate. Since we're not in play-off contention this year, this is the best (read: non-pressure) opportunity for him to learn the opposition's pitchers and work out the bugs. I'd prefer Bonds make a similar offer to and sign on with WWF so at least my kids can get free tickets to watch Monsteroid take on opponents with similar hat sizes.

ChiefsFan4Life
07-11-2008, 05:55 AM
Hell no - absolutely not

OmahaChief
07-11-2008, 05:56 AM
I say yes for these reasons.

1. Butler is not cutting it at DH. NO power and grounds into too many double plays at this time. Needs time in Omaha to think about getting committed to getting in shape.

2. Bonds would be cheap.

3. Bonds would produce. He had gets on base a ton via walk or hit.

4. Still has some value in the outfield as well. Limited but could play.

5. People would come to see him, if nothing else to boo him. Butts in the seats equals more money for other players.

6. He is not as bad of a guy as people make him out to be. Sure he does not like the media and can be surly but still not the devil. I have met him on 3 occasions and each time he has been nothing but cordial. At the 2003 All Star game he was what I would consider nice. Signed tons of autographs and stuff


The stigma that is associated with Bonds is unfair. If people hate Bonds, they better hate Giambi, Clemons, Jose Guillen and any other person listed in the Mitchell report. So he broke the Home Run record so people hate him more. Big effin deal, I am a firm believer that half that league was on juice then.

little jacob
07-11-2008, 06:24 AM
assuming he would even play in kansas city, why does a team in a youth movement with no realistic shot at the playoffs this year want a 44 year old outfielder? one who when last we saw him was making $15 million?

little jacob
07-11-2008, 06:26 AM
Updated: July 10, 2008, 6:25 PM EST

The Arizona Diamondbacks became the latest team to say "No thanks" to Barry Bonds, and they're not alone.

Bonds' agent, Jeff Borris, told USA Today that at this point, no MLB team has interest in adding the home run king to its roster.

"I am not talking to any club about Barry Bonds because they all made it very clear to me they are not interested in him. Every club," Borris told USA Today.

CoMoChief
07-11-2008, 07:06 AM
If we were in first place in a tight race then I'd say bring him in as a DH.


But we're a long ways from that, so absolutely not.

Molitoth
07-11-2008, 07:08 AM
YES - Bring him in.

RibKing67
07-11-2008, 07:13 AM
NO!

kc rush
07-11-2008, 07:20 AM
Not just no, but HELL NO! He is a cancer and we have a rookie manager (who never played at the MLB level), it would create bedlam in the clubhouse. Besides, the Royals are going nowhere this year, you only bring in a bat like that if you think it will get you over the top.

Old Dog
07-11-2008, 07:28 AM
Hell no, don't bring him in.

Yes, I would mind.

Demonpenz
07-11-2008, 07:42 AM
I would love to see it. Get some interest in the team, get people actually watching the games, and for cheap. It won't happen though. Lets give billy the rest of the year and a year in the weight room before we replace him.

Hound333
07-11-2008, 07:50 AM
I say yes for these reasons.

1. Butler is not cutting it at DH. NO power and grounds into too many double plays at this time. Needs time in Omaha to think about getting committed to getting in shape.

2. Bonds would be cheap.

3. Bonds would produce. He had gets on base a ton via walk or hit.

4. Still has some value in the outfield as well. Limited but could play.

5. People would come to see him, if nothing else to boo him. Butts in the seats equals more money for other players.

6. He is not as bad of a guy as people make him out to be. Sure he does not like the media and can be surly but still not the devil. I have met him on 3 occasions and each time he has been nothing but cordial. At the 2003 All Star game he was what I would consider nice. Signed tons of autographs and stuff


The stigma that is associated with Bonds is unfair. If people hate Bonds, they better hate Giambi, Clemons, Jose Guillen and any other person listed in the Mitchell report. So he broke the Home Run record so people hate him more. Big effin deal, I am a firm believer that half that league was on juice then.

The steriods I could forgive. I know you said he has been nice to you and thats great. I just have heard differently from one of my good friends. This friend was getting his masters in Sports Medicine and did his internship at the Giants spring training. He said Bonds was the biggest jerk to everyone and when offered a simple "Good morning Mr. Bonds" he responded with " Just shut up and tape my ankle" Ya he's a stand up guy.

He also told me of a situation where bonds was undressing after a game. He would take his clothes and toss them on the floor one at a time and motion for one of the clubhouse guys to come pick them up. The kicker was he was sitting next to the clothes bin.

Maybe he's changed a bit now. Maybe he realized what a jerk he is and changed. I don't want to take a chance with the Royals. We don't need an over the hill cancer in the clubhouse. He would undermine the manager somewhere because Bonds has always just done things his way. That is not what a young team learning how to win needs.

RedNeckRaider
07-11-2008, 07:52 AM
Updated: July 10, 2008, 6:25 PM EST

The Arizona Diamondbacks became the latest team to say "No thanks" to Barry Bonds, and they're not alone.

Bonds' agent, Jeff Borris, told USA Today that at this point, no MLB team has interest in adding the home run king to its roster.

"I am not talking to any club about Barry Bonds because they all made it very clear to me they are not interested in him. Every club," Borris told USA Today.

Outstanding! :thumb:

Fish
07-11-2008, 08:05 AM
Adolf Hitler was an exceptional public speaker. One of the best ever.

But I wouldn't want him coming to my office for a motivational speech....

Hell NO to Bonds....

Deberg_1990
07-11-2008, 08:11 AM
assuming he would even play in kansas city, why does a team in a youth movement with no realistic shot at the playoffs this year want a 44 year old outfielder? one who when last we saw him was making $15 million?

There ya go. Hes not coming here for those reasons.

The only purpose it would serve bringing him in is "a$$'s in the seats" and he gets people talking.

beavis
07-11-2008, 09:50 AM
If he could still play, Steinbrenner would have already overpaid for him.

StcChief
07-11-2008, 01:13 PM
sure give roid boy and 2nd chance

ChiefsCountry
07-11-2008, 01:26 PM
The positives would be the Royals would sell out every game and ESPN would give them coverage every stinking night big time. The Royals could use the cash for the renovations and to put into the team. Hell let Butler learn his way at first and put Bonds at DH. I really dont see where it will hurt, we trot out players like Teahan and Gload anyways.