• Also-ran team in ownership transition.
  
• Premier outfielder available on free agent market.
  
• Team signs premier outfielder before ownership transition is completed.
  
• Team wins 103 games.*

No, it's the reality of the 1992-1993 San Francisco Giants.

"On a Dodger board I read a reference to the Giants signing Bonds in 1993 concurrent with the new Magowan ownership group," Dodger Thoughts reader Brian Greene wrote me Monday. "But according to [Baseball Library.com], the Giants signed Bonds on 12/8/92; however the sale was not appoved until 1/12/93."

Furthermore, according to Baseball-Reference.com, the 1992 Giants payroll was $30.8 million. After making the changes that included signing Bonds, the 1993 payroll was $34.9 million, an increase of $4.1 million or 13 percent. Keep in mind that the Giants wouldn't move to their new baseball stadium until 2000.

The Barry Bonds that the Giants signed was 26 years old, coming off a season with 34 home runs (in 140 games) and an EQA of .374.

Vladimir Guerrero is 27 years old, coming off a season with a back injury, 25 home runs (in 112 games) and an EQA of .327.

Riskier signing? Sure. The difference is, the Dodgers don't have to increase their payroll to sign Guerrero.

We can't fairly judge anyone's decision to sign or eschew Guerrero until he plays out his entire contract and we see what kind of injuries he had. But for the Dodgers not to aggressively pursue Guerrero, it had better be because of definitive evidence that his back will likely keep him off the field for months, if not years, at a time.

And even so ... if such evidence exists, wouldn't that evidence scare off all teams? (Perhaps it has already, explaining the sluggish interest in Guerrero.) If so, shouldn't that reduce Guerrero's bargaining position for all, making his demands reachable?

Is there any team with better reason or better means to gamble on Guerrero than the Dodgers?

*But not 104.