Why we need to take a good, long look at Barry Bonds

I never believed I would ever say this, but the Cardinals need to take a serious look at Barry Bonds. I know it's practically blasphemy to utter those words, as even I cringe when I think of the Barry Bonds-era of baseball, BALCO, and juicing, but the circumstances have forced the issue to be readdressed. Cardinals fans are all in unison when we say that the Cards should not sell the farm this year for an all-in run at the post-season, but that doesn't mean we want to fall out of the race. That said, we're going to need to part with some valuable prospects to get any kind of upgrade that compares to the Brewers and Cubs' on the trade market. Adding a player with a resume like Bonds would cost us cost-controlled prospects like Bryan Anderson, Jaime Garcia, and Jess Todd. Maybe we don't need to do that, though. Maybe we can significantly upgrade the offense for practically nothing.

An article at the end of last month reported that Barry Bonds is willing to play for the pro-rated portion of the major league minimum salary, and, on top of that, would be willing to donate all of it to charity. He'd play for free.

For all the bad press you get by signing Barry - and you would certainly get some bad press - giving him one last chance to rectify himself while doing it for a good cause, all in a storied baseball town like St. Louis, would help take the sting out of having Bonds. Plus, if he actually contributes on the playing field when signed (which is an if at this point), St. Louis fans who value good baseball over anything outside the game would further alleviate the pain.

Anyone can think of a thousand reasons why signing Barry Bonds wouldn't work. I could come up with a list right now. But why should we be so quick to dismiss an idea that would cost us next to nothing and could really benefit our club, possibly more so than CC Sabathia or Rich Harden ever could? Baseball, as outlined in Moneyball, is all about capitalizing on market inefficiencies to get ahead of the competition. That's why international signings have ballooned over recent years and why the Cardinals have taken steps to be at the front of the international scene. It's why the Cardinals have refocused themselves on minor league development and retaining key prospects. Signing Barry Bonds when no one else would is another example of staying ahead of the game. The Cardinals have become shrewd enough to know this, especially with the Cubs spending the way they are. Why not acknowledge the elephant in the room and try to use it to your advantage instead of ignoring it?

What does Barry Bonds bring to this club? Strong OBP skills (last season he put up a .480 OBP), low K rate (meaning he puts the ball in play), and, of course, doubles and home run power from the left side of the batter's box. What doesn't he bring? He's a below average to poor left fielder, doesn't have very much speed, and has two wobbly knees that are bound to make him sit out from time to time. Over the course of a season, Barry would have a hard time holding up playing every day. Fortunately, we're talking about less than half a season, not including post-season play, and the Cardinals definitely have enough outfielders to give him adequate rest. A lineup including Bonds would generate about 5.5 runs a game. Replace Bonds with Chris Duncan? 5.04 runs a game. Replace him with Skip Schumaker? 5.183 runs a game. Bonds adds serious pop to this lineup when healthy. There's no doubt about that.

Tony La Russa has expressed his willingness to sign Barry Bonds, but the front office said no. This is the question I ask, you, Mr. Mozeliak now: why are we unwilling to talk about such a deal, especially now? I would certainly understand legitimate reasons, but I don't see many right now outside of the obvious public relations part. My idea for the situation: talk it over with the players, especially Albert Pujols, your clubhouse leader, and get their perspective on signing Bonds. Albert has shown support for Bonds in the past, but leave it up to them to give the preliminary OK or nix on the deal. After all, Barry's going to be interacting with them every day in the clubhouse.

Signing Barry Bonds would be a big response to the Cubs and Brewers this season while still retaining the future of the organization in the farm system. If the Cards get to the post-season, that's a huge revenue boost for club ownership, Bonds gets to make a final impact on the game in a positive way, and the fans get to see a winning ballclub. Everybody wins. I'm not saying we should sign Barry Bonds at this very moment, but I am saying we need to seriously consider the possibility. Make contributing the salary to charity a prerequisite to signing him. Do anything to negate the negative windfall of signing Bonds. Most of all, don't let a good idea fall through the cracks. The D'Backs, a pretty shrewd club in their own right, are already warming up to it.