Saturday, March 08, 2008

The Mets and Bonds

In his March 7th post, Mets should consider Bonds, Buster Olney has made me question his sanity. Ok, so the numbers say it wouldn't be a terrible idea. But for once, I'd argue there's more to this than just stats. Signing Bonds continues the incentive for cheating.

If the Mets sign Barry Bonds, I will put my hat away until he has left. I will not root for the Mets or baseball at all. There are other steroid users that would probably have the same effect on me, but Bonds is the king. I know I am not alone. You can hold me to this.


Sparky said...

Guillermo Mota

Josh said...

Guillermo Mota came clean immediately, and frankly, sucked. He hasn't cashed in the same way as Bonds.

Gary Sheffield back atcha.

Sparky said...

Mota got $5 million, which is nice cash. And I don't think there should be a sliding scale of justice based upon how a player performed.

That being said, I'm not hung up on the issue because no one truly knows how wide spread the problem was/is. There are a great many players that will skate through this mess because they don't fit the profile of a muscle-bound HR hitter or 40+ flamethrower.

Baseball as a whole, management and players, failed to deal with the situation. As Brian McNamee says, "It is what it is."

Josh said...

Its not as much a sliding scale of justice as a sliding scale of incentives. Whether or not Bonds benefited the most is not the point. His prominent example creates the incentive for children to put their health at risk, more than it does for a middling player.

McNamee is right, but that doesn't mean baseball should continue to sign players that we know used (and lets not have that debate). Even if we can't catch them all, should those that did cheat, especially on as grand a scale as Bonds, get a free pass? No way.

Sparky said...

Remember, this is just a spring training debate, so don't bring your A game.

Josh said...

You been hanging out with Girardi?