Strike3Forums.com - Tampa Bay Rays Discussion  

Go Back   Strike 3 Forums > American League > Tampa Bay Rays


This is a discussion on Why the Rays don't need Bonds within the Tampa Bay Rays forum at Strike 3 Forums; For the past two days all I have heard is how good it would be ...


Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools
Why the Rays don't need Bonds
Old
  (#1)
Lincecum For CY
love_that_reefer currently owns a section of Cooperstownlove_that_reefer currently owns a section of Cooperstownlove_that_reefer currently owns a section of Cooperstownlove_that_reefer currently owns a section of Cooperstownlove_that_reefer currently owns a section of Cooperstownlove_that_reefer currently owns a section of Cooperstownlove_that_reefer currently owns a section of Cooperstownlove_that_reefer currently owns a section of Cooperstownlove_that_reefer currently owns a section of Cooperstownlove_that_reefer currently owns a section of Cooperstownlove_that_reefer currently owns a section of Cooperstown
 
love_that_reefer's Avatar
 
Status: Offline
Join Date: Apr 2005
Major League ERA: 5.37
Why the Rays don't need Bonds - 02-26-2008, 08:11 PM
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.us Bookmark at YardBarker!

For the past two days all I have heard is how good it would be for the Rays to get Barry Bonds. From Jim Rome to Colin Cowherd to Buster Olney. They say it will bring in fans and generate more income. They say it might be the one thing to get them over 81 games for the first time. One point they are overlooking is that the Rays have just finished an offseason in which they finally have things going in the right direction and have traded away their troublemakers (Young,Dukes). If you just got rid of your troublemakers, why bring in the biggest one of all. I take that back. Dukes has done far worse things than Bonds but you get my point. Listen to what the Giants players are saying this spring with no Bonds in camp. They feel more freedom and more relaxed than in years past. That's no knock on Bonds but its simply the truth. No more media hovering over them and constantly drilling them with questions about Barry. No more commanding presence in the locker room. The Rays are just lie the Giants are this season, very youthful. Why ruin what should be a much improved team with a media tornado that sucks everyone around in to the steroid cloud?

Another question you have to ask yourself is why not give the younger guys (everyone on the team) the necessary ABs to get better? Gomes and Baldelli should be DHing along with Cliff Floyd. Baldelli and Floyd have more upside than a 44 year old Bonds. Justin Ruggiano needs to come up and play RF at some point. Bonds would be blocking a lot of the future of this team not to mention disrupting a young teams environment with media coverage by the hundreds instead of dozens.

I'm not knocking Bonds but I do think his time is up in this game. Last season I wanted the Giants to get Soriano or Carlos Lee over Barry did want Bonds to break the record in a Giants uniform in some way. He did that and us Giants fans appreciate everything he did on a ball field since his coming here in 1993. He saved the franchise and we can never repay him for that. But Bonds' time should be up. The game is trying to get over this steroid cloud and more on. Bonds will only keep the bad memories fresh and Pedro Gomez employed. Did I evenmention Bonds was indicted on federal charges of perjury?
   
Reply With Quote
Re: Why the Rays don't need Bonds
Old
  (#2)
New York Yankee Hater!!!!
mntwinsfan has made the 25 man roster out of spring trainingmntwinsfan has made the 25 man roster out of spring trainingmntwinsfan has made the 25 man roster out of spring trainingmntwinsfan has made the 25 man roster out of spring trainingmntwinsfan has made the 25 man roster out of spring training
 
mntwinsfan's Avatar
 
Status: Offline
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Denver Colorado
Double-A ERA: 6.99
Re: Why the Rays don't need Bonds - 02-26-2008, 09:51 PM

Bonds will be a good fit in a Ray uniform. Without question it will brings fans to the games and the win total will be above 81. I would love to see Bonds hit some game winning home runs to beat the Yankee's and Red Sox's. DH him 75% of the time and I believe his homer total will be above 40. Rest of the time let him play LF, I would keep him off all astro turf, to keep the knee's in good shape. Tropicana Field is a hitters park correct?


TeamLeagueRecordStandingsWild CardPlayoff RecordWorld Series
GiantsS3SL112-501st0-06-80-0
IndiansTSSL34-495th0-00-00-0
TwinsTPSL0-0-0-05-80-0
http://www.strike3sim.com/League/ Giants
http://www.thirdstrikesim.com/ Indians
http://www.strikesbacksim.com/ Vegas
   
Reply With Quote
Re: Why the Rays don't need Bonds
Old
  (#3)
Lincecum For CY
love_that_reefer currently owns a section of Cooperstownlove_that_reefer currently owns a section of Cooperstownlove_that_reefer currently owns a section of Cooperstownlove_that_reefer currently owns a section of Cooperstownlove_that_reefer currently owns a section of Cooperstownlove_that_reefer currently owns a section of Cooperstownlove_that_reefer currently owns a section of Cooperstownlove_that_reefer currently owns a section of Cooperstownlove_that_reefer currently owns a section of Cooperstownlove_that_reefer currently owns a section of Cooperstownlove_that_reefer currently owns a section of Cooperstown
 
love_that_reefer's Avatar
 
Status: Offline
Join Date: Apr 2005
Major League ERA: 5.37
Re: Why the Rays don't need Bonds - 02-27-2008, 01:08 AM

Tropicana is regarded as a pitcher's park according to the park factor. It's pretty much a neutral field.
   
Reply With Quote
Re: Why the Rays don't need Bonds
Old
  (#4)
Team Leader
DravenX has signed a long term contract to be the franchise playerDravenX has signed a long term contract to be the franchise playerDravenX has signed a long term contract to be the franchise playerDravenX has signed a long term contract to be the franchise playerDravenX has signed a long term contract to be the franchise playerDravenX has signed a long term contract to be the franchise playerDravenX has signed a long term contract to be the franchise player
 
DravenX's Avatar
 
Status: Offline
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Shaw AFB, SC
Triple-A ERA: 4.24
Re: Why the Rays don't need Bonds - 02-27-2008, 02:01 AM

No team really needs Bonds.




"For someone who was never meant for this world, I must confess I'm suddenly having a hard time leaving it. Of course, they say every atom in our bodies was once part of a star. Maybe I'm not leaving... maybe I'm going home."
   
Reply With Quote
Re: Why the Rays don't need Bonds
Old
  (#5)
Furcals Designated Driver
realmofotalk currently owns a section of Cooperstownrealmofotalk currently owns a section of Cooperstownrealmofotalk currently owns a section of Cooperstownrealmofotalk currently owns a section of Cooperstownrealmofotalk currently owns a section of Cooperstownrealmofotalk currently owns a section of Cooperstownrealmofotalk currently owns a section of Cooperstownrealmofotalk currently owns a section of Cooperstownrealmofotalk currently owns a section of Cooperstownrealmofotalk currently owns a section of Cooperstownrealmofotalk currently owns a section of Cooperstown
 
realmofotalk's Avatar
 
Status: Offline
Join Date: Apr 2005
Major League ERA: 2.32
Re: Why the Rays don't need Bonds - 02-27-2008, 05:40 AM

Love him or hate him, but for Bonds to not retire as a San Francisco Giant is like having Michael Jordan not retire as a Chicago Bull.


Counting down to: The end of Andruw Jones's contract with the Dodgers:
163 games
   
Reply With Quote
Re: Why the Rays don't need Bonds
Old
  (#6)
Team Leader
DravenX has signed a long term contract to be the franchise playerDravenX has signed a long term contract to be the franchise playerDravenX has signed a long term contract to be the franchise playerDravenX has signed a long term contract to be the franchise playerDravenX has signed a long term contract to be the franchise playerDravenX has signed a long term contract to be the franchise playerDravenX has signed a long term contract to be the franchise player
 
DravenX's Avatar
 
Status: Offline
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Shaw AFB, SC
Triple-A ERA: 4.24
Re: Why the Rays don't need Bonds - 02-27-2008, 07:26 AM

Depends on which retirement.




"For someone who was never meant for this world, I must confess I'm suddenly having a hard time leaving it. Of course, they say every atom in our bodies was once part of a star. Maybe I'm not leaving... maybe I'm going home."
   
Reply With Quote
Re: Why the Rays don't need Bonds
Old
  (#7)

My #1 forever.
Porter99 currently owns a section of CooperstownPorter99 currently owns a section of CooperstownPorter99 currently owns a section of CooperstownPorter99 currently owns a section of CooperstownPorter99 currently owns a section of CooperstownPorter99 currently owns a section of CooperstownPorter99 currently owns a section of CooperstownPorter99 currently owns a section of CooperstownPorter99 currently owns a section of CooperstownPorter99 currently owns a section of CooperstownPorter99 currently owns a section of Cooperstown
 
Porter99's Avatar
 
Status: Online
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Puyallup, Washington
Major League ERA: 3.92
Re: Why the Rays don't need Bonds - 03-07-2008, 07:10 PM

Originally Posted by love_that_reefer View Post
For the past two days all I have heard is how good it would be for the Rays to get Barry Bonds. From Jim Rome to Colin Cowherd to Buster Olney. They say it will bring in fans and generate more income. They say it might be the one thing to get them over 81 games for the first time. One point they are overlooking is that the Rays have just finished an offseason in which they finally have things going in the right direction and have traded away their troublemakers (Young,Dukes). If you just got rid of your troublemakers, why bring in the biggest one of all. I take that back. Dukes has done far worse things than Bonds but you get my point. Listen to what the Giants players are saying this spring with no Bonds in camp. They feel more freedom and more relaxed than in years past. That's no knock on Bonds but its simply the truth. No more media hovering over them and constantly drilling them with questions about Barry. No more commanding presence in the locker room. The Rays are just lie the Giants are this season, very youthful. Why ruin what should be a much improved team with a media tornado that sucks everyone around in to the steroid cloud?

Another question you have to ask yourself is why not give the younger guys (everyone on the team) the necessary ABs to get better? Gomes and Baldelli should be DHing along with Cliff Floyd. Baldelli and Floyd have more upside than a 44 year old Bonds. Justin Ruggiano needs to come up and play RF at some point. Bonds would be blocking a lot of the future of this team not to mention disrupting a young teams environment with media coverage by the hundreds instead of dozens.

I'm not knocking Bonds but I do think his time is up in this game. Last season I wanted the Giants to get Soriano or Carlos Lee over Barry did want Bonds to break the record in a Giants uniform in some way. He did that and us Giants fans appreciate everything he did on a ball field since his coming here in 1993. He saved the franchise and we can never repay him for that. But Bonds' time should be up. The game is trying to get over this steroid cloud and more on. Bonds will only keep the bad memories fresh and Pedro Gomez employed. Did I evenmention Bonds was indicted on federal charges of perjury?
There are legit reasons to why Bonds shouldn't be on the Rays. But you have to look on the business side of things and his fit on the roster. On the business side, Tampa Bay is one of the lowest grossing teams when it comes to tickets sales. Have they really had a superstar on the national level? McGriff? Past his prime. No one recognizes Wade Boggs as a D-Ray. Just the signing of Bonds would add much needed revenue to try and get out of that bomb of a stadium named after a fruit juice. As for the fit on the roster, the Rays are extremely young and they need a veteran presence to help them learn the ropes of the ML. You know pitchers will respect him at the plate still. Why wouldn't you want to learn from a guy that knowledgeable at the plate?


LeagueTeamRecordDivision TitlesWild CardLDSLCSWS
S3SLArizona Diamondbacks67-57 (2nd)None41-30-1None
TSSLSeattle Mariners0-0 (1st)210-3NoneNone
TPSLSeattle Mariners0-0 (1st)NoneNoneNoneNoneNone
SBSLVancouver Vultures0-0 (1st)NoneNoneNoneNoneNone
   
Reply With Quote
Re: Why the Rays don't need Bonds
Old
  (#8)
Furcals Designated Driver
realmofotalk currently owns a section of Cooperstownrealmofotalk currently owns a section of Cooperstownrealmofotalk currently owns a section of Cooperstownrealmofotalk currently owns a section of Cooperstownrealmofotalk currently owns a section of Cooperstownrealmofotalk currently owns a section of Cooperstownrealmofotalk currently owns a section of Cooperstownrealmofotalk currently owns a section of Cooperstownrealmofotalk currently owns a section of Cooperstownrealmofotalk currently owns a section of Cooperstownrealmofotalk currently owns a section of Cooperstown
 
realmofotalk's Avatar
 
Status: Offline
Join Date: Apr 2005
Major League ERA: 2.32
Re: Why the Rays don't need Bonds - 03-07-2008, 11:30 PM

Well, if you're arguing that Bonds would be a good fit in Tampa, he would be a good fit anywhere. Heck, even the L.A. Dodgers, considering the Dodgers' owner loves to squeeze every penny out of the fans' pocket.


Counting down to: The end of Andruw Jones's contract with the Dodgers:
163 games
   
Reply With Quote
Re: Why the Rays don't need Bonds
Old
  (#9)

Brewers/Steelers Fan!!!
brewersfan19 currently owns a section of Cooperstownbrewersfan19 currently owns a section of Cooperstownbrewersfan19 currently owns a section of Cooperstownbrewersfan19 currently owns a section of Cooperstownbrewersfan19 currently owns a section of Cooperstownbrewersfan19 currently owns a section of Cooperstownbrewersfan19 currently owns a section of Cooperstownbrewersfan19 currently owns a section of Cooperstownbrewersfan19 currently owns a section of Cooperstownbrewersfan19 currently owns a section of Cooperstown
 
brewersfan19's Avatar
 
Status: Offline
Join Date: Jun 2006
Major League ERA: 6.10
Re: Why the Rays don't need Bonds - 03-07-2008, 11:58 PM

Just hope the Rays dont get that desperate.
   
Reply With Quote
Re: Why the Rays don't need Bonds
Old
  (#10)
Lincecum For CY
love_that_reefer currently owns a section of Cooperstownlove_that_reefer currently owns a section of Cooperstownlove_that_reefer currently owns a section of Cooperstownlove_that_reefer currently owns a section of Cooperstownlove_that_reefer currently owns a section of Cooperstownlove_that_reefer currently owns a section of Cooperstownlove_that_reefer currently owns a section of Cooperstownlove_that_reefer currently owns a section of Cooperstownlove_that_reefer currently owns a section of Cooperstownlove_that_reefer currently owns a section of Cooperstownlove_that_reefer currently owns a section of Cooperstown
 
love_that_reefer's Avatar
 
Status: Offline
Join Date: Apr 2005
Major League ERA: 5.37
Re: Why the Rays don't need Bonds - 03-08-2008, 12:37 PM

The Rays have a veteran presence on this team already in Carlos Pena. Pena also hit 48 homeruns last year. On the business side it makes sense but this team is on the right track now and to screw that up by bringing in the most hated man in baseball doesn't help. Another thing, what is the one thing Bonds hasn't done in baseball? The man wants a ring and Tampa isn't going to give that to him. If the Rays put a winning product on the field, people will come. Right now, they are well on their way in doing that.




2008 Giants > Padres

Pathetic Stat of the Year- Matt Cain has a 3.74 career ERA, but has won just 30 of his 104 starts.
   
Reply With Quote
Re: Why the Rays don't need Bonds
Old
  (#11)

My #1 forever.
Porter99 currently owns a section of CooperstownPorter99 currently owns a section of CooperstownPorter99 currently owns a section of CooperstownPorter99 currently owns a section of CooperstownPorter99 currently owns a section of CooperstownPorter99 currently owns a section of CooperstownPorter99 currently owns a section of CooperstownPorter99 currently owns a section of CooperstownPorter99 currently owns a section of CooperstownPorter99 currently owns a section of CooperstownPorter99 currently owns a section of Cooperstown
 
Porter99's Avatar
 
Status: Online
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Puyallup, Washington
Major League ERA: 3.92
Re: Why the Rays don't need Bonds - 03-08-2008, 01:36 PM

Originally Posted by love_that_reefer View Post
The Rays have a veteran presence on this team already in Carlos Pena. Pena also hit 48 homeruns last year. On the business side it makes sense but this team is on the right track now and to screw that up by bringing in the most hated man in baseball doesn't help. Another thing, what is the one thing Bonds hasn't done in baseball? The man wants a ring and Tampa isn't going to give that to him. If the Rays put a winning product on the field, people will come. Right now, they are well on their way in doing that.
How long has Pena been in the League? Before he hit those 48 HRs, he was a fringe player that got traded by Oakland and cut by Detroit.


LeagueTeamRecordDivision TitlesWild CardLDSLCSWS
S3SLArizona Diamondbacks67-57 (2nd)None41-30-1None
TSSLSeattle Mariners0-0 (1st)210-3NoneNone
TPSLSeattle Mariners0-0 (1st)NoneNoneNoneNoneNone
SBSLVancouver Vultures0-0 (1st)NoneNoneNoneNoneNone
   
Reply With Quote
Re: Why the Rays don't need Bonds
Old
  (#12)

Brewers/Steelers Fan!!!
brewersfan19 currently owns a section of Cooperstownbrewersfan19 currently owns a section of Cooperstownbrewersfan19 currently owns a section of Cooperstownbrewersfan19 currently owns a section of Cooperstownbrewersfan19 currently owns a section of Cooperstownbrewersfan19 currently owns a section of Cooperstownbrewersfan19 currently owns a section of Cooperstownbrewersfan19 currently owns a section of Cooperstownbrewersfan19 currently owns a section of Cooperstownbrewersfan19 currently owns a section of Cooperstown
 
brewersfan19's Avatar
 
Status: Offline
Join Date: Jun 2006
Major League ERA: 6.10
Re: Why the Rays don't need Bonds - 03-08-2008, 02:13 PM

Still with a young team and with some quality talent, why risk the chance of distrubing the 'chemistry" (with roids cloud hanging over Bonds' head).

I say stay away Rays!!!
   
Reply With Quote
Re: Why the Rays don't need Bonds
Old
  (#13)
Hall of Famer
BronxBomberz was named the top prospect in baseballBronxBomberz was named the top prospect in baseball
 
BronxBomberz's Avatar
 
Status: Offline
Join Date: Dec 2006
Single-A ERA: 5.95
Re: Why the Rays don't need Bonds - 03-08-2008, 02:15 PM

The Rays definitely don't need Bonds. I like their direction.
   
Reply With Quote
Re: Why the Rays don't need Bonds