The Elephant In The Room

I may have missed earlier discussions on the matter, but finally this spring, an Indians beat writer has addressed the elephant in the room. Or, perhaps more accurately, the elephant that remains unsigned. Jim Ingraham finally wrote the "Whither Barry Bonds" article.

It was written the day after Buster Olney's blog entry detailing why the Mets should consider signing Bonds created a great deal of furor in the media. The timing may have been coincidental, or it may have been a reaction piece. Either way, it's worth commenting on here.

First, a note on Ingraham's style for those who may be unfamiliar with his work. Ingraham is a fine reporter and often makes solid insights into the Indians. In years past, he would assist Baseball America with writeups on the Indians top prospects, so he definitely has a solid body of knowledge on the organization, not just the major league team. When he writes pieces that include an opinion, he tends to begin with a particular stance and then finds justifications for it. This includes an unfortunate habit of sometimes finding a negative in what others might see as a positive.

To be fair to Ingraham, he states a great many positives in signing Bonds. Clearly Bonds can still rake. He hit .276/.480/.565 last season in a ballpark that is not conducive to left handed hitters. He would only require a one year contract. He would have a centerfielder with superior range to help cover for his increasing lack of range in left field. He would help fill what is perhaps the Indians biggest weakness - production in the corner outfield spots.

And then he gets to the negatives, which center around largely the same things we've heard about Bonds for years. He creates a media circus. He wouldn't be cheap. Bonds is all about Bonds, not about the team. Furthermore, Ingraham points out that the Indians already have two outfielders and a designated hitter. Then he brings up Albert Belle for reasons that aren't terribly apparent.

Let's address the Belle subject first, because I believe it is relevant to any discussion of Bonds. Belle was certainly not beloved by Indians fans, but he was accepted, despite all of his transgressions, both on and off the field, because he helped the Indians win. Bonds will be the same way. As soon as Bonds starts doing things that help the Indians win ball games, he will be accepted by the majority of fans.

In arguing against bringing Bonds' media circus into the Indians clubhouse, Ingraham implies that the Indians clubhouse is quite harmonious at present, and that Bonds would provide an unnecessary distraction. I think this argument is so flawed that it would point to an ability to bring Bonds in. A harmonious clubhouse with tight knit players would very much be better able to handle the distactions that come with Bonds than a clubhouse already teetering on the bring of dysfunction.

It is worth noting that Bonds does not ask for these distractions. Certainly, Bonds could do things differently, but the media follows Bonds, not the other way around. It is unfortunate that this is the case, as the reason that Bonds is followed around has a great deal to do with performance enhancing drugs. It has been rather firmly established that Bonds is one of many major leaguers to have connections with them. The relentless singling out of Bonds is in many ways despicable.

The decision to sign Bonds should come down to two things. First, determine how much he would cost. Second, ascertain if Bonds' production is worth that expense. That's pretty much it. The fact that the Indians already have two mediocre left fielders should not enter into the discussion, other than noting how much of an upgrade Bonds would be. The distractions that Bonds brings could be factored into his production, but I have a hunch that as long as Bonds helps the team win that the players would be willing to deal with him/them.

As for the first part of that decision making process, speculation is that Bonds would require between 8 and 10 million dollars to sign. As for his production, absolutely he would be worth that money. Addressing concerns about Bonds' defense, frailty and inability to play every day, the Indians have a player in Jason Michaels who would substitute defensively for Bonds late in games and would be able to rest Bonds 2 or 3 days a week.

The trouble is that the Indians don't have that kind of money laying around. I imagine that the Tribe are quite close to their budget currently and don't have the ability to shed several million dollars from it quickly. Furthermore, I doubt that Larry Dolan would be willing to allow the budget to increase so dramatically on such short notice at this point in the season.

If, in fact, the Indians are unwilling to sign Bonds because of the distractions that he would bring, I think this is a point of weakness on the part of management. Eric Wedge has already shown an inability to handle a certain type of players as witnessed by his difficulties with Milton Bradley. Barry Bonds would be a tremendous asset to this team, the sort of player that would turn the Indians from contenders to prohibitive favorites, and Shapiro and Wedge should recognize that fact and be able to put their personal feelings aside.

Unfortunately, I just don't think it will happen as there is the question of whether Bonds would be willing to sign with the Indians. While Bonds certainly wants to play for a contender, I do not think that the Indians are a good fit for him. I think Bonds might prefer to play for a team on which he can be the designated hitter. Additionally, Bonds' children live on the West Coast, and in all the media witch hunting, something that is never mentioned is how devoted to them he is (granting that you're supposed to be devoted to your children), further making Cleveland a poor fit from Bonds' perspective.

I just wish it would happen.