Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Should the Tigers sign Bonds?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Go get em Tigers
    replied
    I don't want Barry Bonds soiling Tiger Stadium

    even if it is that new stadium, Comerica Township. I'd rather have a 72 year old Hank Aaron playing for the Tigers than Barroid. I don't single out Barry as a steroid user, but at least McGwire had the sense to get out of the game before he did irreparable harm to too many of the game's hallowed records.

    Leave a comment:


  • tigers527
    replied
    Originally posted by west coast orange and black View Post
    tigers527: It should be noted that Bonds' people have been tossing around the idea of charging MLB with collusion.

    the players union is looking at it, not bonds' camp.
    Question would the lack of MLB pursuit be enough to make collusion stick? Wouldn't Bonds/Sammy Sueser (I love the Ted Kennedy pronunciation) or any of the other guys who I can't remember have to approach teams with the interest in playing before collusion would look to be a stronger case?

    Leave a comment:


  • west coast orange and black
    replied
    tigers527: It should be noted that Bonds' people have been tossing around the idea of charging MLB with collusion.

    the players union is looking at it, not bonds' camp.

    Leave a comment:


  • Evangelion
    replied
    What kind of defensive setup would you all like to see?

    Leave a comment:


  • tigers527
    replied
    Originally posted by Captain Cold Nose View Post
    How well could Polanco handle third? He has played there in the NL, hasn't he?
    My season ticket seat partner and I talked about the same thing during Monday nights loss, and we came to the conclusion that he could probably field the position well, he just does not have the arm for the position.

    But yes when Chase Utley first came up Polanco did get some innings at 3B. From looking it up Polanco only got about 15ish games worth of innings at 3B.

    Leave a comment:


  • Captain Cold Nose
    replied
    How well could Polanco handle third? He has played there in the NL, hasn't he?

    Leave a comment:


  • 2Chance
    replied
    One problem that hurts our pitchers is the ham-handed defenders we have put behind them in order to get those bats in the lineup. Pitching and defense, with teamwork and timely hitting, won us a trip to the World Series in '06.

    Thankfully, Pudge, Polanco and Granderson do not fit that mold. And Cabrera, though "out of position" at first base, seems to be taking well to defending that bag. (From what I have seen, he could be a very good first baseman.) Unfortunately that puts Guillen's less-than-accurate arm way across the diamond, which has been no help.

    Odds are, we will score the runs, but we will also be giving the other team a lot of extra outs. Jim Leyland's real dilemma is that in order to give his pitchers a chance with stellar defense he has to put guys in who can't hit their weight.

    Bottom line, can Bonds help here? No.
    Pitchers already have a fear factor in our lineup; but opposing batters know that with our defense they are going to score some runs too.
    Last edited by 2Chance; 05-07-2008, 09:35 AM.

    Leave a comment:


  • Captain Cold Nose
    replied
    Originally posted by tigers527 View Post
    They probably also won a handful of games by 10ish runs. Don't get me wrong, the Tigers certainly could use some pitching, but Barry is sitting there and free for the taking (minus salary of course).

    12 out of 34 games this season the Tigers have scored 2 runs or less (3 games with 2 runs, 4 games with 1 run, and 5 shutouts). I am not sure what kinda pitching is out there that would give the Tigers much of a shot in any of those games. Should the Tigers have won maybe 1 or 2 of those games, not sure. It is tough to ask starters/bull pen to win a 1-0/2-1 game.
    Would adding Bonds guarantee better offense? It's not like the Giants have done so well the last couple of years. But, then again, the Giants didn't provide Bonds with close to the bats around him that the Tigers currently have.

    I've said if the price was right it mioght be woorth the risk. If Bonds is going to expect an eight-figured salary, I would say no, very emphatically. The media circus as well as everything else with Bonds (a lot of haters out there who have singled Bonds out over everyone else) could prove to be a detriment even if he does return to form of a few years back.

    Leave a comment:


  • KCGHOST
    replied
    I think a number of teams have this dilemma. Sure Bonds can help you at the plate but what you need is pitching. The Yankees are in much the same boat as the Tigers. Maybe the Twins would be a good fit??

    A team that could actually benefit from him is my poor Royals. They actually have decent pitching but can't hit their way out of a paper bag. The problem there is that even with Bonds they wouldn't contend so why bother.

    Leave a comment:


  • tigers527
    replied
    Originally posted by Evangelion View Post
    The Tigers have lost four games by more than 10 runs.
    They probably also won a handful of games by 10ish runs. Don't get me wrong, the Tigers certainly could use some pitching, but Barry is sitting there and free for the taking (minus salary of course).

    12 out of 34 games this season the Tigers have scored 2 runs or less (3 games with 2 runs, 4 games with 1 run, and 5 shutouts). I am not sure what kinda pitching is out there that would give the Tigers much of a shot in any of those games. Should the Tigers have won maybe 1 or 2 of those games, not sure. It is tough to ask starters/bull pen to win a 1-0/2-1 game.

    Leave a comment:


  • Captain Cold Nose
    replied
    Hey EBG. Welcome. For those of you who may be wondering, I can confirm his location. I was in rough and tumble doowntown Plymouth a couple weeks ago. It was tooth and nail until I reached the security of I-275 and a happy, inviting Livonia.

    Another bat won't help them, they have good hitting on the team that is warming up. The pitchers. The team does not need a quick fix.

    Considering their horrendous start, the best thing for the team to do is play out the season. It is more likely than not they'll get things together. Now is not time to panic.

    Leave a comment:


  • BenHertz
    replied
    He could split time with Sheffield in LF and DH.

    Leave a comment:


  • EddieBrinkman'sGlove
    replied
    Collusion? I don't think so. The only reason he was playing last year was to sell tickets for the home run record. Who wants an aging steroid user who's disruptive in the clubhouse. No thanks. It's too bad we traded Jurrjens. He could be helping us.

    Leave a comment:


  • Evangelion
    replied
    Originally posted by tigers527 View Post
    Have you looked at some of the spilts in the W/L: W=.316BA, 27HR, 116RBI, L=.218BA, 9HR, 38RBI. Not to mention their less than 5 runs scored vs more than 5 runs scored record. Not that Bonds would resolve the entire offense's issues, but it could not hurt, check the DH splits if you don't believe me.

    http://www.baseball-reference.com/pi...=DET&year=2008

    Besides where do the Tigers get pitching right now????
    The Tigers have lost four games by more than 10 runs. Does it matter if the team scored a couple of more runs or had a couple of more hits? What I see is a pitching staff getting hit hard, it doesn't matter if the offense score 1-5 runs when the pitching giving up 6-12 runs a game. You have a 6-0 lead and end up losing a game? Pitching a issue.

    Is the offense hitting to it's potential? No, but I don't see the offense as a problem in need of a upgrade. It's been good. More games could have won if the pitching staff wasn't blowing leads or giving up a large amount of runs.

    Don't understand your second sentence. You mean what's their record when they scored 5 runs compared to their record when they scored less than 5 runs?

    Not at all. Bonds would be a welcome addition to teams even if they're not in dire situation. I won't disagree that adding Bonds would hurt. It's just adding Bonds won't help the problems the Tigers are dealing with.

    Nothing to be honest. The Tigers need to get their starting pitchers on track, if possible. Otherwise, the Tigers need to deal for another starter or/and reliever, but I don't see appealing options in the trade market either. Kevin Milwood? I'm sure you'll pass on him.

    Bullpen always been a crapshoot. You could get lucky with certain veterans that find it and others that just fall a part after success. Honestly, the bullpen can only wait for relief when Rodney and Zumaya or another pitcher(s) steps up.

    The solution for the offense, if it's consider a concern, and pitching is currently on the team. It's just a matter of getting these players back on track.

    Leave a comment:


  • tigers527
    replied
    Originally posted by Evangelion View Post
    Is he even needed? The Tigers offense isn't a problem.
    Have you looked at some of the spilts in the W/L: W=.316BA, 27HR, 116RBI, L=.218BA, 9HR, 38RBI. Not to mention their less than 5 runs scored vs more than 5 runs scored record. Not that Bonds would resolve the entire offense's issues, but it could not hurt, check the DH splits if you don't believe me.

    http://www.baseball-reference.com/pi...=DET&year=2008

    Besides where do the Tigers get pitching right now????

    Leave a comment:

Ad Widget

Collapse
Working...
X