On ESPN radio's gamenight, Buster Olney a writer for espn.com said he sees Barry Bonds finishing his career with the Tigers. He said look for Detroit to be the team Barry gets dealt to a the deadline. The feeling in SF is Barry has done all that he can and achieved all the milestones he can as a Giant, therefore they will look to move him do to the fact he has already all but said if he comes back next year he will look to the American League so he can be a regular DH. Bonds is a FA after this season so it makes sense for the Giants to want to trade him. Olney cited this is not an offical rumor and no talks have taken place between the two teams. However, He said Detroit made the most sense given their need for a big LH bat, Bonds and Leyland mutual love for the other, the ability for Det to add payroll and the fact that the Giants need to get younger through trades andDetroit can accomadate. When asked about the rocky relationship between Van Slyke and Bonds Olney said "Leyland will make it work".

I am not a fan of Bonds but I think Bonds would really put Detroit back on the map. I know they are getting a lot of pub now but imagine how much we would get with Bonds.

Forget about the pub, if we get Bonds, we could win a World Series. Love him or hate him, he's still a major force to be reckoned with.

Yeah but for who? I mean, Marcus Thames is the DH right now, and IMO he's done a smash up job.

I would Imagine we would give up a couple minor league pitchers maybe a bat from the current roster as long as a deal doesn't include Zoom, Verlander Maybin or Granderson I would do it. I would soften slightly that stance if Bonds would agree to re-sign for next season.

Anthony, get your point about Han Solohomerun but let's face it like Vinny said love him or hate Bonds he is still a threat and a factor more than Marcus could ever be.

I know, i was just wondering who we would give up. I've liked thames for a while now, but Bonds can still get it done. I agree. No disputing that.


LMAO@Han Solorhomerun.

Sell your soul to the Devil would you? No thanks, too much drama and bagage here.

Jon Paul Morosi sifts through a list of lefty bats the Tigers are looking at. I still say that a deal for Bonds makes so much sense for both Detroit and the Giants, and for Bonds, as well, because of Leyland's presence. Talked about this off-air with Jeff Brantley before Baseball Tonight on Saturday and he agreed completely, and he knows the relationship between Bonds and Leyland much better than I. Got a couple of e-mails from readers asking if the presence of Andy Van Slyke as the Tigers' first base coach would be a problem, considering the poor relationship between Van Slyke and Bonds. Absolutely not: Leyland would make sure it's not a problem, if he thought that Bonds could help the Tigers.

Here's why it makes sense for the Giants: There's an excellent chance Bonds won't be with the team next year, once he becomes a free agent, and they've already sold almost all the tickets they're going to sell in 2006 because of Bonds' presence; they've just about maxed out on his box office appeal, and he's probably not going to reach any more major milestones this season, like his 755th homer.

]

Bonds rumors heating up again.

http://detroitnews.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20061011/SPORTS08/610110418/1129/SPORTS0104


Leyland-Bonds talk fuels rumors

Late night dinners in San Francisco can produce some pretty meaty gossip, even in a seafood restaurant.

The owner of a popular eatery told us Monday night that word among waiters in his restaurant and others nearby had Tigers manager Jim Leyland meeting old friend Barry Bonds for dinner at Scoma's.

If we heard it, so did others and the buzz was all around town by Tuesday morning.

Bonds, close to becoming baseball's all-time home run king, is a free agent. He knows Leyland from their days in Pittsburgh, where Bonds played before coming to San Francisco. The speculators wondered if there might be something in the works between Bonds and the Tigers.

"Oh, I wouldn't have any comment on anything like that," Leyland told reporters.

Bonds, 42, hit 26 home runs for the Giants this year and needs 23 more to surpass Henry Aaron. He made $19.3 million in 2006.

Marcus Thames, who will DH for the Tigers in the American League Championship Series, also hit 26 home runs. Thames makes $342,000 a season, or about $19 million less than Bonds.

the voyer in me would love to see bonds a tiger, but as far as for the good of the team, im not 100% certain he would make alot of sense.

I think coming off a WS birth or win you can afford to take on Bonds. However if they fail to finish out the ALCS, Bonds would be too big of presence his chase and issues would over shadow the team. On the Flip side having Bonds following playing in the WS would take the pressure off repeating the WS birth and may fuel the team to play well. I know that seems silly or hyporcritical but I just think that teams that have played in championship level games need distractions and adversity to keep them focused on baseball, where teams who need to prove they belong, can't afford them because it takes their minds off baseball.

To be honest I would have no real issue with Bonds as long as he isn't there only move and they don't drastically over spend because I think next year we will need to improve the roster to stay in the playoff hunt. I mean the Twins are another pitching starter away from being a power. The White Sox are a pitching coach away from being better than 05. The Indians have enough fielders and depth to move a very good bat or two for a couple arms. So to me the Central has 4 deep legit teams and in the East the Jays, Yanks BoSox will be contenders all year, and the Angels and Rangers will look to upgrade to getting back will take money and retooling.

I agree that the Central is going to be a dogfight next year, just like it will be in basketball this year.

I do NOT want the Tigers to sign the cheater.

I do NOT want the Tigers to sign the cheater.

So you don't think that there are any users/former users on the current Tigers roster?

Look at a few before/after pics of Pudge.

Good point. Pudge is about the same player he was before. His B avg has dropped but he ain't 25 anymore either.

I guess its a little disengenuous(I think thats a word) of me to say that Bonds is attempting to break a record that is one of baseballs most coveted records. He wouldn't have done that without steroids. Pudge could have done what he has done without roids, imo. Pudge looked bigger but not in the same way, imo, that Bonds looks in a Giants uni compared to a Pirates uni.

Bonds blames it all on the his trainer. I think anyone with half a brain knows that if Bonds felt his trainer gave him steroids without Bonds knowing it, Bonds would sue his ass all the way to the soup line. Bonds has done nothing to his trainer.

I'll pass.

I'd rather trade Bondo for Texiera and sign Soriano (or something similar). We have a good chance with our minor league prospects to add a young good hitter. Bonds would certainly help for a year, but big deal. SOOOO many teams need pitchers that we can do much better IMO.

One of the side benefits of a long playoff run is the extra pub it gives to future FA's....
We went from "no way in hell would I go to that dump" to "man this is a team of the future, better check it out".

This is less about Bonds and more about other free agents and the Tigers, but do you realize the Yankees are the only team in the last 10 years to repeat as League Champions in either league?
So, while the Tigers are there now and look to have everyone back, plus the benefit of a free-spending owner and a ton of other perks, what moves do you think they should make OR strategically avoid in order to repeat as AL champs?
Think about it, the White Sox won it all and realistically improved their roster during last offseason, yet they missed the playoffs. Sure, Ozzie was even crazier and that probably cost them, but just how will Dombrowski do it?
Having said all that, I truly don't think Bonds is a good answer for any of this.
Now, having said THAT, let's put an end to any of this comparison between Bonds and Thames. Clearly throwing out # of HRs and salary is not an adequate picture. Thames also has the benefits of age, health, and fielding ability. Meanwhile, to talk Bonds you have to include his strikeout to walk ratio was 51:115 (Thames was 92:37). Bonds had a substantial lead in BA, OPS, etc.
If it weren't for chemistry issues, I would clearly still take Bonds. You just can't mess with a .454 on base percentage.
However, that can't score enough runs to make up for the potential clubhouse disaster. Say what you will about Leyland's ability to handle it, I don't think it's a good idea. Exactly how many rings does Bonds have? Compare that to the number of otherwise solid ballplayers that didn't want to play with Bonds and THAT is the only number I need to see.
We could upgrade the position in a lot of ways that are better than Bonds.

By the way, I totally still see it happening if Ilitch has a say in it. He would have to love the revenue stream created by it, along with the historical asterisk making headlines with the Olde English D.