Jason Whitlock made his case in the Star yesterday for bringing Barry Bonds to Kansas City. Here’s a little of what he said:
Barry Bonds should be wearing a Royals uniform this season. The game’s greatest hitter has yet to retire or be convicted of a crime. He’s been railroaded by the commissioner, a publicity-seeking federal prosecutor and the hypocritically self-righteous segment of the baseball media.
Whitlock asked a number of current Royals their thoughts about Bonds and they had good things to say him. Only former Royal Brian McRae expressed skepticism about the hypothetical move—saying that Bonds is 45 and his body is shot.
I have no idea if Bonds could still be productive or not. From the way it sounds, he could be had for little or nothing, so there’s no financial risk for the Royals. But he’d by taking someone’s spot on the roster—probably Billy Butler’s—with the notion that his bat could give the Royals a sustaining force that might lead to a push toward the AL Central crown this season. If it doesn’t work out, Moore could cut him loose and most of the baseball world would cheer because they would have proof that Bonds can no longer play at a high level.
So, signing him would seemingly bring minimal risk. But not so fast. You don’t need me to tell you that Bonds has a notoriously bad attitude. We already have one of those guys on the team in the form of Jose Guillen. Do we really need another one? Somebody will probably say that winning has a way of erasing such problems and that’s probably true to some degree, but the Giants did win when Bonds played there. They won the NL West three times and the wild card once. Did all of that winning curb Bonds’ attitude? Did he ever become a leader for the Giants? Did he leave San Francisco with the respect of his teammates?
And think about this . . . by and large, the Royals clubhouse isn’t a hang out for ESPN. If the Royals signed Bonds, national reporters would be asking his new teammates all sorts of questions about Bonds on a regular basis. That’s not a good reason to avoid the services of a player, but it certainly would bring a New York-type atmosphere to the clubhouse and most of our players have never been under such intense scrutiny. Could they hold up under it?
I hope the Royals decide not to sign Bonds for same reason I think signing Guillen was a mistake. I don’t think trading on-field production for a bad attitude is a good choice to make. And I like the chemistry the team has currently. I’ve been critical of Butler, Mark Teahen, and Alex Gordon and I’ve also said that all three need to produce this season. I still feel that way. To willingly remove one of them from the equation for Bonds isn’t worth the risk.
What do you think?
