<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:itunes="http://www.itunes.com/dtds/podcast-1.0.dtd"
xmlns:rawvoice="http://www.rawvoice.com/rawvoiceRssModule/"
	>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Highlight #3: Bonds&#8217; No-Show</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/index.php/highlight-3-bonds-no-show/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/index.php/highlight-3-bonds-no-show/</link>
	<description>Daily baseball statistical analysis and commentary</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Sun, 12 Feb 2012 23:34:21 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: big   o</title>
		<link>http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/index.php/highlight-3-bonds-no-show/#comment-49613</link>
		<dc:creator>big   o</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 31 Oct 2008 18:42:52 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/index.php/highlight-3-bonds-no-show/#comment-49613</guid>
		<description>i have always felt that billy beane traded away  dan haren (3 year contract @5.5-6.5m/per)  as a way of avoiding  taking on  mr. bonds  as the  A&#039;s  dh for 2008 .

the  A&#039;s  deal  , no doubt ,  re-stocked  their  depleted  minor league system , and will hopefully work out to their benefit in the long run .

however  ,  i don&#039;t feel that the  A&#039;s would have received significantly less for haren  had they waited one more year .

i can understand why some owners would not want to get involved with the bond&#039;s  media circus ......  but ,  he undoubtedly  would have put fans in the seats of  that &quot;small market&quot; team  , increased revenue ,  and given A&#039;s fans one more run at the play-offs  , before  the team  went into  a complete re-build mode .

collusion at the corporate level is  difficult , if not impossible ,  to  prove .

within  mlb  ,  the suspicion of impropriety  surfaces  because  &quot;favors&quot;  come  in all shapes and sizes .

as an  aside , i would like someone to ask  a-rod  how he feels about  bonds  having been excluded .  i&#039;m sure he  is not going to refuse the extra money  , but the bonus clause in  a-rod&#039;s  contract for becoming the home-run king  has  become more attainable  as a result  of  this  crap . 

come on guys  ....  30  owners  and  a  commissioner  &quot;for life&quot;   ?

who&#039;s  getting  a  fair shake ,  here  ?

certainly  not  barry  bonds .

and certainly  not  you  or  I .</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>i have always felt that billy beane traded away  dan haren (3 year contract @5.5-6.5m/per)  as a way of avoiding  taking on  mr. bonds  as the  A&#8217;s  dh for 2008 .</p>
<p>the  A&#8217;s  deal  , no doubt ,  re-stocked  their  depleted  minor league system , and will hopefully work out to their benefit in the long run .</p>
<p>however  ,  i don&#8217;t feel that the  A&#8217;s would have received significantly less for haren  had they waited one more year .</p>
<p>i can understand why some owners would not want to get involved with the bond&#8217;s  media circus &#8230;&#8230;  but ,  he undoubtedly  would have put fans in the seats of  that &#8220;small market&#8221; team  , increased revenue ,  and given A&#8217;s fans one more run at the play-offs  , before  the team  went into  a complete re-build mode .</p>
<p>collusion at the corporate level is  difficult , if not impossible ,  to  prove .</p>
<p>within  mlb  ,  the suspicion of impropriety  surfaces  because  &#8220;favors&#8221;  come  in all shapes and sizes .</p>
<p>as an  aside , i would like someone to ask  a-rod  how he feels about  bonds  having been excluded .  i&#8217;m sure he  is not going to refuse the extra money  , but the bonus clause in  a-rod&#8217;s  contract for becoming the home-run king  has  become more attainable  as a result  of  this  crap . </p>
<p>come on guys  &#8230;.  30  owners  and  a  commissioner  &#8220;for life&#8221;   ?</p>
<p>who&#8217;s  getting  a  fair shake ,  here  ?</p>
<p>certainly  not  barry  bonds .</p>
<p>and certainly  not  you  or  I .</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Scappy</title>
		<link>http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/index.php/highlight-3-bonds-no-show/#comment-49611</link>
		<dc:creator>Scappy</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 31 Oct 2008 18:38:40 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/index.php/highlight-3-bonds-no-show/#comment-49611</guid>
		<description>For all the twins fans out there think about this, if they had signed him for about a weeks worth of baseball they would have made the post season.  Though to the Twins credit they did score quite a few runs, but there outfield bates leave something to be desired.

For all the Jays fans out there, if they had signed him for the season they could have actually contended.  Their offense needed quite a bit of help.

The only reason that the pathetic offenses of the Royals, Athletics, and Mariners have for a reason to not sign Bonds (aside from legal issues) is because they were so bad it was more valuable to give the at-bats to an up and comer.  Unless you are Bill Bavasi and you actually think your team is going to contend when they are projected to be below average.  Jose Vidro was -1.11 WPA/LI.  Replacement level as a DH !?!?!  

Hell the Royals could have signed for the spectacle.  It probably would have put people in the seats for a little while.  Same goes for any of the other teams that had trouble drawing a crowd.

Any of the teams in the NL West (except San Fransisco) would have been wise to sign them as the entire division was so close it could have gone to anyone.

As a Sox fan had Ortiz stayed on the DL I would have been glad to see Bonds step to the plate for us.

I wish it wasn&#039;t so hard to prove collusion.  It would be fitting for an organization that turned a blind eye towards steroids to end up being taken down a peg by one of their scape goat.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>For all the twins fans out there think about this, if they had signed him for about a weeks worth of baseball they would have made the post season.  Though to the Twins credit they did score quite a few runs, but there outfield bates leave something to be desired.</p>
<p>For all the Jays fans out there, if they had signed him for the season they could have actually contended.  Their offense needed quite a bit of help.</p>
<p>The only reason that the pathetic offenses of the Royals, Athletics, and Mariners have for a reason to not sign Bonds (aside from legal issues) is because they were so bad it was more valuable to give the at-bats to an up and comer.  Unless you are Bill Bavasi and you actually think your team is going to contend when they are projected to be below average.  Jose Vidro was -1.11 WPA/LI.  Replacement level as a DH !?!?!  </p>
<p>Hell the Royals could have signed for the spectacle.  It probably would have put people in the seats for a little while.  Same goes for any of the other teams that had trouble drawing a crowd.</p>
<p>Any of the teams in the NL West (except San Fransisco) would have been wise to sign them as the entire division was so close it could have gone to anyone.</p>
<p>As a Sox fan had Ortiz stayed on the DL I would have been glad to see Bonds step to the plate for us.</p>
<p>I wish it wasn&#8217;t so hard to prove collusion.  It would be fitting for an organization that turned a blind eye towards steroids to end up being taken down a peg by one of their scape goat.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

