That's what a new SI.com article is claiming. Of the 7 places where Bonds might make sense, Cliff Corcorran has deemed that San Diego would be the ideal place for Bonds.
Personal issues aside, I still don't think Bonds is a good idea for this team, and here's why:
- Defense. A Giles/Edmonds/Bonds defense isn't going to cover a lot of ground. With all of the games we play in the NL West, that's bound to hurt us. I know that some people have suggested that Bonds isn't that bad defensively, but most contemporary metrics show him to be below average to average at best.
- PETCO Park. The article cites Bonds' numbers at PETCO, and they ain't pretty. OBP aside, Bonds would probably only be good for long fly-outs (Clay Hensley aside). While this is great with a man on third and less than two outs, the last thing our team needs is someone else who's power will be nullified by the ocean air.
- Roster spot. Bonds will not play more than 130 games in 08, and he will likely not complete many of the games he appears in. This would essentially mean that we'd be carrying a 25-man roster with at least one (and possibly more - Giles & Edmonds) player who cannot go all the time.