I am not a sportswriter and I do not like to write blogs where I just disagree and bash a particular writer or the media in general.  I am making an exception to my own rule this time.  What is it with writers and their goldfish memories?  5 years ago the profession was leading the charge against Barry Bonds and performance enhancing drugs.  I won't even get into how the profession essentially ignored the topic until 2002.  Now, the media is leading the charge against MLB and the so called collusion against Barry Bonds.  Go to any sports website that covers baseball, turn on sports radio, or the television and you will read or hear some talking head ask in wonderment why nobody wants Barry Bonds.

Look, I do not care whether he used the cream, the clear, HGH, steroids, or herbal supplements.  The usage of these substances was rampant throughout baseball.  I do not get caught up in the "purity" of the game, because there are so many eras in the game that were not "pure".  No blacks in the game for more than 50 years?  How can I evaluate how great a player from 1925 was compared to a player from 1989?  A huge segment of the baseball talent was excluded from the game.  The height of the pitching mound for Gibson and Koufax?  Would either of them dominated like they did if the mound was lowered prior to their heydays?  There is no way to quantify those types of accomplishments against today's pitchers.  I compare apples to apples and oranges to oranges.  Bonds was the best hitter in an era where many other hitters and a great number of pitchers were using the same PED's as was Bonds.  That is as level a playing field as you can get.  With that said, I would still not want Bonds on my team.

There may be some teams out there that are not touching Bonds because of his association with the "Steroids Era" of baseball and it is an easy excuse for the media to jump on and exploit.  It shows how lazy and lemming-like they can be.  I have a theory that took me all of 30 seconds to organize in my averaged sized brain.  It starts and ends with the only thing that is important in the game of baseball; money.  It starts with money and ends with money and there is a lot of relevant contributing factors in between.  First you have the ridiculous amount of money Bonds would demand for 2 1/2 months of service.  There are not many numbers being thrown around in the public forum, but based on what players are making today, and what Roger Clemens has been able to get out of the Astros and Yankees for half a season of work, I am guessing Bonds price would be in the $8M-$12M range.  Now, using the lessons I learned in Business School, as a team executive I have to justify that expenditure.  Bonds would give a team that needs his bat to push it into the post season decent value for his production.  Based on his recent numbers and the fact that he is healthy, I would say if I were a team like the Yankees, Red Sox, White Sox, Rays, A's, Mets, Diamondbacks, Dodgers or Padres signing Bonds would be worth consideration.  I would then have to balance the price for his production against what I lose by signing him.  This is where the relevant stuff starts to add up in the debit column of my accounting book. 

The media distraction for a team in the hunt is going to be a circus most teams are not willing to deal with.  3 to 4 extra Public Relations people will have to be brought on staff just to absorb the added media relations work that will come with signing Bonds.  That means more money out of the team coffers.  That will probably be offset by the increase in ticket sales as the team steams towards a playoff position, but there could be a fan backlash.  That would last two seconds if the playoffs were on the horizon.  Money-wise, that is a wash.  The distractions created by increased media presence in the locker room could potentially kill a team that is not used to the kind of attention Barry brings.  The Yankees and Mets can handle it.  New York is New York.  Most of the drama isn't on Broadway.  It's in the Bronx and Queens everyday.  A player like Bonds would just be the status quo.  The White Sox have Ozzie Guillen, so Bonds is like cat sitting compared to Ozzie.  The Red Sox could handle the media onslaught.  I am not sure about the ability of the rest of the teams to deal with the added media presence. 

Next is the attitude and other "intangibles" Barry brings to the locker room and his contribution to team chemistry.  I do not believe Barry is capable of humility and no matter how bad he wants to win a World Series, I do not believe he would ever put his ego aside for a title.  Taking that into consideration, the choice of teams in the hunt and with the financial resources to sign Barry will have to make a decision.  The Dodgers are already a mess and there is no way Bonds is put in the same zip code as Jeff Kent.  That would sink the Dodgers, who still have a shot at winning the very weak NL West.  The A's can afford Barry, but do not forget the fact the A's would never spend the money to rent Bonds.  Besides, that locker room is one of the better ones in the game right now and there is no way that team management would mess with the chemistry for the asking price.  The A's do have enough veterans to help the younger guys deal with the added media presence, but the A's are too cheap to think about it, so why bother?  The Rays also have a very good locker room atmosphere and a lot of young players.  If I  am  running the Rays, I don't want Bonds attitude within a 1000 miles of Longoria, Upton, or any of my young studs.  I also don't want him messing with what seems like a good balance of young superstars and older journeymen veterans in the locker room.  The Padres and Diamondbacks really need a bat to help offenses on life support.  The Diamondbacks have the financial resources, but again, with so many youngsters on the roster, Bonds is not the guy you want in that locker room.  Can you imagine Barry's reaction to Brandon Webb and Micah Owings flying their toy helicopters in the outfield during BP?  The Padres farm system is a mess and the money it would cost to sign Bonds would be better spent on signing some decent free agents in the off-season that can keep the team competitive while the talent in the minors develops.  Plus, the Padres are not really big spenders.  That leaves the teams that are usually involved in conversations involving big names and big money; Yankees, Red Sox, White Sox, and Mets.

The Mets are getting hot and if Minaya wants to ensure he is fired, signing Bonds will do just that.  The Mets already have too much money invested in overpriced veteran talent.  They might do it because they are the Mets and if they do, Minaya is a bigger idiot than I already give him credit for being.  The Red Sox won't do it.  Theo Epstein is just too smart for that.  Their would be a clubhouse revolt in Boston if Epstein even considered the move, led by Francona.  The White Sox might consider it, but they already have in Jim Thome a guy that can really only play DH.  There is not anywhere to put Bonds although I would pay top dollar to see Ozzie and Bonds go at it in a verbal exchange in the locker room.  That leaves the Yankees.  This is the only team that can afford to bring in Bonds.  And I don't mean the money, but all the stuff that comes with Barry.  They are equipped to handle it all, but it all comes back to my basic question.  Is Bonds really worth the money?

I didn't just get a Bachelor of Science in Business, I have my MBA.  Those extra classes didn't do anything for my writing talents and honestly, the extra line on my resume just ensures I won't get offered any entry level jobs, but I believe it does make me more qualified than somebody with a journalism degree to answer a question relating to the cost of signing Barry Bonds.  A businessman only succeeds if he or she thinks with the brain and keeps the emotion out of the decision making process.  Lest the sabermetricians think I slighted them, I have considered Bonds' ungodly numbers in my determination that it is not collusion that is preventing a team from signing Bonds.  Just like in accounting, I add all the credits and assets, subtract all the debits and I am left with a negative balance for every single team that would benefit from signing Bonds.  I might not have included every variable in this article, but I did think about them; where would he play, what teams are really in contention, AL DH versus NL playing LF, the money, short-term finances versus long-term finances, chemistry, blah blah blah.  The bottom line, which we all know is what really matters in baseball, is that Barry Bonds is not worth the financial obligation to sign even if it means a trip to the post season.  It has nothing to do with the PED's.  Baseball resides in a glass house on that issue and they know it.  If you live in a glass house, you don't dress with the lights on.  There is no way the owners are secretly colluding behind the scenes against Bonds.  There isn't an owner in baseball willing to touch Barry Bonds because he will cost too much money for what he will do for the team.  Risk versus reward is the most basic of business concepts and if baseball knows anything, it is profit.