I would take Barry Bonds. He could very well be just now hitting HIS prime. 73 is a lot better than the fifty something Ken Griffey hit. I also don't believe he would make up that difference with his glove.
-- Gary E. Robinson, Belton, Missouri

I would pick neither, because both are team-corrosive individuals who have never, ever led their teams past the first round in any postseason.
-- Steve Watkins, Louisville, Ky.

High averages, great power, lots of speed on the bases, great defense. That describes both Jr. and Barry. If I have to pick one, give me Jr. just because of the public perception that he is a good guy and Barry isn't. If I own the team, I want all the good publicity I can get.
-- David Slawson, Fort Smith, Ark.

If we're talking "primes of their careers," we're basically talking Bonds now, and Griffey sometime between '96-'99. Thinking along those lines, despite Bonds' incredible production the past two seasons, I'd take Griffey, because he'd be in his late twenties (as opposed to Bonds' late thirties), and I'd have no clue about his propensity towards nagging injuries or desertion of cities which idolize him. I'd end up regretting my choice, but realistically, without a crystal ball, I'd pick Junior.
-- Chris Wright

It's a great question for debate, but I would have to say Ken Griffey Jr. He was by far the best at his position in his prime and he was on stride, as some believed, to be on of the games all-time greats. By the way, isn't Barry Bonds a better player now than he was in his "prime"...at least now he is more mature and under control.
-- Amol Kapur, Hamilton, Ontario, Canado

Since we are comparing IN THEIR PRIME, I'm all over Griffey, and for one glaring reason. In complete honesty, Junior's prime is comparable to Bonds' prime years (the only difference is Bonds is hitting versus even MORE diluted pitching and even MORE juiced balls). But what it comes down to here is character, that nasty C word Bonds knows nothing about. Sure, Griffey isn't Mr. Personality these days, but I give him the benefit of the doubt when he claims that his injuries and losing are a large contributor. And there is Barry "Show me the money, stocks and" Bonds, having the greatest season of ANY major leaguer EVER, on a team in the playoff race until the last week last year, still being as cold to the fans and media as he was back in Pittsburgh. (Hey Barry! You don't see Griff whine because he has that same girly voice you do!) Oh yeah, Bonds makes a wonderful poster boy for my ticket sales and a catalyst in the locker room. Right... I'll stick with Griffey there.
-- Chris Lindy, Evansville, Ind.

Griffey vs. Bonds … Hmm ... interesting choice. Two guys who put up great numbers (in their prime) yet, even surrounded by other talented guys, can't make a dent in the post-season. What to do? I think I'll take Jeter. (And, as a Boston fan, it really pains me to say that.)
-- Tim Burnell, Dover, N.H.

Between Bonds and Griffey Junior in the prime of their careers ... I'd have to go with Bonds on this one ... The only conceivable reason to go with Griffey here is that he's six years younger. I just don't see Griffey performing the way Bonds is now when Junior turns 37 or 38. Bonds is a better hitter (career OPS, BB/K, etc.), still no slouch on the basepaths, and while he may not be winning Gold Gloves anymore, is a very solid fielder. As for the clubhouse presence stuff, it's probably overrated anyway, and Junior isn't exactly Mr. Congeniality either. The opportunity to sign the greatest player of our time is not one I'd pass up for Junior Griffey ... Now, A-Rod or a Vlad Guerrerro, that's an interesting choice.
-- Roji Oommen, New York, N.Y.

I would have to take Griffey over Bonds. Both players have the whole package, but Griffey's defensive skills are (or were) a bit better. The power to all fields, hit for average, RBIs and stolen bases. Bonds gets the nod in being more patient at the plate, but Griffey's arm would offset that.
-- Jeff Lanctot, Orlando, Fla.

I would take Junior in a heartbeat. Statistically, they match up roughly evenly, with the offensive nod going slightly to Bonds (although Griffey is right there with him) while defensively Griffey gets the nod. But it's the intangible -- clubhouse presence/attitude -- that makes me pick Griffey over Bonds. Sorry Giants fans.
-- Shawn Megathlin, Cumberland, Maine

Difficult question. What do you consider Barry's prime, back when he was a great hitter and a speedster on the bases, or now when he's cranking the long ball like no one else? Are we taking their salaries from their primes into consideration? Anyway, I have to take Barry no matter how you answer my questions. He is truly one of the greatest hitters the game has ever seen, and he brings more speed and/or power than Griffey, depending on which way we're looking at it. And since the personality factor is a wash on both … Barry all the way.
-- Jonathan Owen, Tiffin, Ohio

I'd have to say that despite all logic, Barry appears to be in his prime right now, while Junior is on the injured list. But back when Junior was in his prime and was the only one wearing his cap backwards? Toughie. But, Barry just put up the best offensive season in baseball and despite his accomplishments, Junior hasn't done that. On the field, you are comparing two gold Glove winners. I'd take Bonds.
-- Marc Aaron, Originally NYC but now, Shanghai China

I would definitely take Griffey. First off he's a center fielder, and the best one of the 90s for that matter. And consistency wise, he has been far superior, just take a look at the stats! You could pencil in about .290 with 45-50 HRs every year. With Bonds, he really didn't start developing his power until he got out of Pittsburgh and by that time, in reality, he was out of his prime (which is said to be 27-29). He was definitely a late bloomer. And I know his steals should count for something, but in today's game, the stolen base has taken a back seat to the long ball. Last but not least, you have to have the defense to win championships. They are probably close to being equal defensively as far as tracking down and catching the ball, but Griffey has a far better arm, hands down! There really was no comparison, Griffey was the man, and I am more than sure that he will one day be the man again, while I feel Bonds has two good years left, then it's time to go.
-- Jason Halstead, Toronto, Ontario, Canada

Wow, what a tough question. Bonds or Junior in their prime. Last year I checked out Bonds' career numbers compared to Willie Mays'. Barry fares very well. He may be as good a hitter as has ever played the game. But I'd still take Griffey, because he can hit with Bonds and he'll steal some games for you with his glove.
-- Stephen Stamp, North Vancouver, British Columbia

Gotta go with Griffey!!! Reason being he is younger and we may not have seen him in the prime of his career yet. If we have seen him at his best then the two are very comparable. But who is to say that like Bonds, Griffey is going to get better with age?
-- Scott Elam, Highland Heights, Ky.

Bonds over Griffey, it's simple. Look at the numbers. Bonds, in his prime (last year), put up the best offensive numbers in baseball history!!!!!! And it looks he might challenge that again. People don't even want to pitch to him! Look at the walks!!! His numbers belong to a Playstation game! I don't think I'd rather have anybody else!
-- Ernesto Ruiz-Garcia, Minneapolis, Minn.

If I am the manager of a baseball team, I believe I would choose Barry Bonds any day over Ken Griffey Jr. for two reasons. Barry in his prime was not only a threat to steal, hit for average, hit for power but he could beat you even by walking. Ken Griffey was a threat to hit the ball out of the park or take advantage of hitter friendly Kingdome. I think Bonds was a more versatile player while Junior was just a homer threat.
-- A Mehta

Based on the numbers, I'd pick Barry Bonds in his prime over Ken Griffey Jr. in his prime. I know that Bonds has the reputation for being the more selfish player and sulkier clubhouse presence. But even without his amazing 2001 season, Bonds consistently topped Griffey in Slugging and On-base Pct. in their best years. Griffey posted an OPS of over 1.000 or better in four seasons, while Bonds topped 1.000 in OPS a whopping nine times (including 2001). I also note that Bonds gives you more stolen bases than Griffey, and I figure they're about even with the glove. Bonds' better offense, in my view, more than makes up for any improvement in personality you'd get with Junior.
-- Loren Fox, New York, N.Y.

Ken Griffey Jr. because he just seem to make everyone around him play better plus Bonds just doesn't have many friends in the clubhouse.
-- Don Pangburn, Cleveland, Ohio

I'd have to pick Griffey Jr. only because of the attitude factor. Bonds has had problems with teammates and the press. I don't dislike Bonds for the things he's said or done, but I know that those things haven't always sat well with the other players. Also, Bonds being "missing" come playoff time. Griffey Jr. in his prime just seemed to have it all! Bonds seemed to have it all as well plus a little chip on the shoulder. Therefore, Junior by a nose.
-- Tom Edghill, Syracuse,N.Y.

Griffey or Bonds? You might as well ask Mantle or Mays. You can make arguments either way, and neither side will be wrong. I personally, and this is only my opinion, of course, would take Griffey. He hit for roughly the same average as Bonds, but from 1996-2000. Griffey averaged 50 HRs a season, and hit over 40 HRs seven full seasons in a row. Bonds has never come close to that. Granted, Bonds is racking up big numbers now, but in his prime, Griffey was a player that everyone wanted on his team, while Bonds has been, and always will be a 24-1 player on his teams. Griffey is possibly the best defensively centerfielder ever, Bonds ... ehhhhh. Also, have you ever seen Bonds take a hometown discount in his contract? Didn't think so.
-- Frank Colletti, Rockville Centre, N.Y.

I'd take Barry Bonds over Ken Griffey every time. Bonds is headed to be the most consistently productive player of all times. The Pirates and the S.F. Giants have always been competitive whenever Bonds has played for them, despite the non-willingness of the owners to catch the prime free agents available. I don't feel compelled to dislike Bonds because he has not been nice to some people (especially reporters). I enjoy watching his performance in the playing fields, not his socializing abilities after the game.
-- Efrain Reyes, Santo Domingo, Dominican Republic

Bonds by a mile. He comes to play every day [at least no extended injuries], puts up huge numbers, and provides plenty of game-winning bombs. Griffey has all the tools and HAD all the potential. Then he decided he had to go to Cincy, and it's never been the same for him. The proof was shown when Seattle improved after he left. If the Giants had not re-signed Bonds this year, they would not have started the season 6-0. Bonds over Griffey any day.
-- Paul Quiroga, Santa Clara, Calif.

Let's see, if I remember correctly, it was about 5 years ago that a major sporting mag tipped its cap to Barry but said it was now time for Griffey Jr. to ascend to the throne. Your question is no question at all. Bonds was the better player in the "prime" of his career and is the better player in the prime of Griffey's career. By the way, when a guy has the second best season in baseball history, isn't it pretty safe to say that he's still in his prime? This must be a personal hangup of WAAG's, as I doubt you'll see many votes for Junior, who besides his inferiority on the field is twice the whining jerk Barry ever was.
-- Ragnar Carlson, Honolulu

Bonds-Griff? That's easy. Bonds ranks as the best left fielder of all time because of his stellar defense, and oh yeah, he hits a bit too. Even in bonds' first prime he won more MVPs than Junior has in his career; his latest power surge is just icing on the cake. Sure Griff is great, but even his best will never rank anywhere near the best at his position all-time. Wait … isn't Mr. Bonds STILL in the prime of his career? I pick him, and the 150 homers that he will hit this season, as opposed to the 150 days on the DL of Mr. Griffey.
-- Martin Rotemberg

Perhaps my view is colored by Griffey showing himself to be fragile in his maturing years, but: Bonds v Griffey? Has to be Bonds (assuming you couldn't, in a salary capless world, have both). Once you get past the so-called surliness, I just don't think there is any evidence that Ken Griffey has been as valuable to his teams as Bonds has been to his on a day-to-day, week-to-week, month-to-month basis. And don't those advertisements from a few years back, showing Griffey chasing a fly ball virtually around the world, seem like a lifetime (or two) ago?
-- Mark Melickian

Well, this is kind of a pickle. I'm a native of Pittsburgh and a huge Bucs fan which is automatically synonymous with "Bonds hater" for reasons obvious to anybody heralding from the three rivers. So I have a choice between a man who viciously spurned and degraded our city when he left, though we gave him seven years of love even after he continually instigated his own "Operation Shutdown," and Griffey who went from telling SI in August 1994 that Pittsburgh was a place where he'd love to play ball and then five years later calling us a "terrible city" and one (of the many) places where he'd refuse to be traded. (Don't let anyone tell you Pirates fans don't hold a grudge). However, the fact is both players are remarkably talented and have proven track records of regular-season success (neither player is championship material for whatever reason), though Griffey's got the edge on D. Since a defensively top-of-the-line CF with a power bat as well as good speed is often a more critical need than a defensively not-quite-top-of-the-line LF who has only slightly better offensive numbers I might be inclined to go with Griffey. But Pokey, a player who actually wants to play in the 'Burgh, didn't seem to have much love for Griff the past couple years so in the end I'd choose Bonds, the devil I know over the devil I don't, and shift him to right where all good Pirate malcontents since Bonilla seem to set up shop.
-- Patrick Byers, Ithaca, N.Y.

Lastly, because he did the research, we allow a little space to the following user, who was a little late in taking up sides in the Owners vs. Players question of a couple of weeks ago. We're not vouching for these numbers, but here goes …

Actually, I'm answering last week's question, about Players vs. Owners. Actually, not so much answering it as illuminating it. According your story, Major League Baseball salaries now top $2 billion, which means that 849 players have a combined payroll larger than the Gross Domestic Product of the following countries: