Minimum wage for Bonds; why is he not signed?

[lovethegame]

His legal mess is deep into the fall ,he'll play for peanuts
No team wants this guy to hit them into October???
Crazy

[SamtheBravesFan]

And they'd have to deal with the media circus that goes with it. Plus, what gaurantee is there that his 43-year old PED-less body can produce? It's not as crazy as you might think.

[metfan13]

He's getting just what he deserves.

[RuthMayBond]

His legal mess is deep into the fall ,he'll play for peanuts
No team wants this guy to hit them into October???
Crazy

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/collusion

[Transplanted Fan]

The market for 44-year-old outfielders is small enough as it is. Combine the looming federal charges against him, and you get a package that none of the thirty teams want to sign for. I don't even think it's collusion keeping Bonds out of baseball; it's just common sense.

[RuthMayBond]

The market for 44-year-old outfielders is small enough as it is. Combine the looming federal charges against him, which, if they happen, will take place in the off-season

[Moses Fleetwood-Walker]

No team wants this guy to hit them into October???
Crazy

This is the only way he can be stopped from hitting HRs. Pitching to him at the plate doesnt work. :cap:

[Ubiquitous]

It is more then just deep in the fall or in the offseason. This thing doesn't even start to get going until March of 2009.


If Bonds is getting what he deserves then apparently what he deserves is a big old collusion lawsuit in which if he wins he'll get treble damages.

Hmm 15 million times 3 apparently he deserves 45 million dollars.

[SHOELESSJOE3]

And they'd have to deal with the media circus that goes with it. Plus, what gaurantee is there that his 43-year old PED-less body can produce? It's not as crazy as you might think.

Your correct, easy to figure out. I would think that there are more than a few teams that know he could be of some value.
So whats so difficult to figure it out, his image and the position he is in, his own doing. He could probably hit some and there are still no takers, answer is an easy one, they don't want him. I certainly hope there is no collusion, I don't think there is, whats so surprising that he has no takers.

[Mattingly]

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/collusion
Does Merriam-Webster also have links to the following words and terms?

Unwanted
Disliked
Armor padding
Cheater
Undetectable designer drugs
Antisocial

There are quite a few reasons not to want Bonds. He personally didn't seem to care too much that the fans heavily suspected he was a cheater. If he doesn't care what the average Joe or Jane Baseball Fan thinks, should that person who was ignored suddenly be interested in his well-being?

If he wants the fans on his side, then he could've done a much better job of convincing those same people the past few years.
thinks there's a big difference between collusion and simply being told "Good Riddance!" If Barry didn't get the message from the fans before, he likely won't this time either.

[Ubiquitous]

So whats so difficult to figure it out, his image and the position he is in, his own doing. He could probably hit some and there are no takers, answer is an easy one, they don't want him.


Yes it is obvious that MLB does not want Bonds, but the real question is why.

Is it because 30 separate organizations all came to the conclusion separately that they don't want Barry Bonds or is it because there is an organized attempt to keep him out of MLB.

What exactly does a team like the Nationals have to lose by offering a minimum wage contract to Barry? Negative publicity right? But the Nationals are in the dumpers in terms of tickets, popularity, ratings, and standings. I believe more people watch C-Span then they do Nationals games. There is the old saying any publicity is good publicity and in the case of the Nationals that fits. If the Nationals sign Bonds they will make money and they will improve their team this year. But instead they would rather send out Pena and Kearns.

The Giants claimed they were not resigning Bonds to free up salary space, well, Bonds is now willing to play for the minimum wage. Why are they not signing him? There whole argument for not signing him is shot. The Giants know that Bonds will sell tickets yet they don't sign him.

Yes it is possible that all these teams came to the conclusion of no on Bonds on their own but the history of MLB is not on their side. MLB lost 3 collusion hearings and settled a fourth one out of court and gave the players millions of dollars in that settlement. History has shown when the cry of collusion has been released it is because in fact collusion has happened.

[KCGHOST]

The great majority of the teams can give perfectly valid reasons for not signing Bonds. Heck, half the teams can simply argue that even with Bonds they wouldn't be serious contenders so why put bother with the hassle. And if you don't think having Bonds on your roster wouldn't be a hassle you need to start sharing the stuff you are smoking.

For Bonds to play in the AL he needs to find a team that is willing to use one guy as their DH like Boston does before having him on the roster isn't a real problem. With a roster composed of 12 pitchers and 2 catchers you only have 11 players to man seven spots. That leaves four bench guys. When one of those three is strictly a DH you have a real roster problem. That would only give you three guys to use to take advantage of platoon advantages, defensive replacements, short term injury coverage, etc. So in the AL you are practically down to just Boston and Cleveland. Now Boston has Big Papi and Cleveland has Travis Hafner. Had Papi's injury been season ending it would have been interesting to see what they would have done. Cleveland would have had to do something about Hafner who has a pretty big contract. They sure aren't going to have two full time DH guys.

One of the great truths about Barry Bonds is that if you conducted a poll of the fans of each team, other than the Giants, as to whether they would like to add Bonds to their roster you will get a resounding "Not No, but H--L NO!" Even his most ardent supporters have to understand that for the great majority of teams their own fans would boo Bonds if he stepped on the field in their colors. Not to say he couldn't win them over with his performance, but who wants to sign a guy that is going to be booed by your own fans??

What the Bonds supporters might want to do is ask "Where's the Smoking Gun?" You can whine and moan about collusion all you want but at some time you have to actually present proof other than "what else can it be" queries. You might also want to wonder why the MLBPA isn't exactly standing up for Bonds on this issue.

[RuthMayBond]

What the Bonds supporters might want to do is ask "Where's the Smoking Gun?" You can whine and moan about collusion all you want but at some time you have to actually present proof other than "what else can it be" queries. It took EIGHT YEARS for an arbitrator to award money in the collusion suit of 1987.
So it's not like they found the proof immediately

[abolishthedh]

All posts thus far have merit, Mattingly and KCG in particular. I agree wholeheartedly with you.

When a person deludes himself as long as Barry has, and is able to justify his own delusions for that long as well, the situation becomes too much to handle. I would love to see Barry in a courtroom on a collusion case, only to see him humbled in the end (and much poorer as well).

We've seen it before with Pete Rose, and today with Roger Clemens, and baseball history has seen it. Ty Cobb died with virtually no friends because he thought the rules of life didn't apply to him. Karma, and how sweet it is to at least some of us.

[RuthMayBond]

Does Merriam-Webster also have links to the following words and terms?

Disliked
Cheater
Undetectable designer drugs

Yes, yet Giambi is still knocking down, what, $20 mil on your team anyways. And Clemens (and Sheffield?) used to. Pettitte?

[Westlake]

I have an idea..

It's probably because the fans don't like him. If you already know your fans hate him, why would you want to sign him? Collusion my arse. It's really not that hard to figure out.

[RuthMayBond]

I have an idea..

It's probably because the fans don't like him. If you already know your fans hate him, why would you want to sign him? Collusion my arse. It's really not that hard to figure out.And why are the fans singling him out? (see post #15) Stupid Red Sox never shoulda signed Ted Williams, listen to the fans

[Ubiquitous]

It took EIGHT YEARS for an arbitrator to award money in the collusion suit of 1987.
So it's not like they found the proof immediately

Timeline:

Early 1986 the union filed suit, September of 1987 arbitrator found MLB guilty, January of 1988 he figured out the damages. November of 1990 MLB and MLBPA come to an agreement on damages for all three collusion cases. They settle at 280 million.

[Ubiquitous]

The great majority of the teams can give perfectly valid reasons for not signing Bonds.

That was their argument in the first four collusion cases and in 3 of those cases they lost on decision and the other they didn't ever bother to take it to a hearing. Instead they simply handed over some cash.



as to whether they would like to add Bonds to their roster you will get a resounding "Not No, but H--L NO!"

You really think Rays fans would say no to Bonds at this moment? How about in a month when they need every win possible? You really think those same fans that are saying "Not No, but H--L NO!" will be saying that when Bonds is putting up a .340/.480/.650 and helping their team get to the playoffs? There is a reason why Giants fans loved Barry it is because he was a tremendous baseball player who kept the Giants in contention.

[Ubiquitous]

Ty Cobb died with virtually no friends because he thought the rules of life didn't apply to him. Karma, and how sweet it is to at least some of us.

You watched too many movies, go ask Bill Burgess about Ty Cobb.

[Ubiquitous]

What the Bonds supporters might want to do is ask "Where's the Smoking Gun?" You can whine and moan about collusion all you want but at some time you have to actually present proof other than "what else can it be" queries. You might also want to wonder why the MLBPA isn't exactly standing up for Bonds on this issue.

Sorry I accidently snipped this out.

There is no reason to wonder. MLBPA will file a grievance on behalf of Barry Bonds when Barry Bonds requests it. They are legally bound by their charter to do so. Barry Bonds is not going to file a grievance nor would he have a reason to do so until after the season is over. Once the grievance is filed there will be a discovery phase of the arbitration suit. At that time people will be interviewed, documents perusesd, minutes scanned.

Again in 1985 or 86 or 97 you could say the same thing. Where is the smoking gun. It wasn't until after the issue was brought before an arbitrator that the facts came to light. It was then that they found the smoking gun.

[Westlake]

And why are the fans singling him out? (see post #15) Stupid Red Sox never shoulda signed Ted Williams, listen to the fans

Yeah, all Sox fans hated Williams when he was 17.

So now it's the fans with the collusion? Sue em all. MLB fans owe Barry Bonds 45 million bucks.

[Ubiquitous]

I have an idea..

It's probably because the fans don't like him. If you already know your fans hate him, why would you want to sign him? Collusion my arse. It's really not that hard to figure out.

Fans like Milton Bradley? Fans like Vince Coleman?

Did Chicago fans like Dennis Rodman?

Yet all these players get signed. Fans love and hate depends greatly on what that player can do for your team. If Bonds hits the fans will accept him, I would think any baseball exec having been around baseball for awhile knows this.

[zahavasdad]

Good Riddence to Baroid

I DONT want him on MY TEAM

The only team he should be playing for is the Leavenworth Lions

[Ubiquitous]

Yeah, all Sox fans hated Williams when he was 17.

So now it's the fans with the collusion? Sue em all. MLB fans owe Barry Bonds 45 million bucks.


Bonds couldn't sue the fans since he doesn't have a legally binding contract with the fans to not collude.


As for Williams almost no Red Sox fans hated Williams even when he was spitting and cursing at them.

Though actually there probably were quite a few Red Sox fans who didn't like him when he was young. He was a young immature kid who did immature things, miraculously he got "mature" real quick when he started hitting over .300 and banging out homers.

[RuthMayBond]

Timeline:

Early 1986 the union filed suit, September of 1987 arbitrator found MLB guilty, January of 1988 he figured out the damages. November of 1990 MLB and MLBPA come to an agreement on damages for all three collusion cases. They settle at 280 million.
It's not the timeline I have but I could very well be wrong, not the first nor the last time :bowdown:

[Imgran]

You really think Rays fans would say no to Bonds at this moment? How about in a month when they need every win possible? You really think those same fans that are saying "Not No, but H--L NO!" will be saying that when Bonds is putting up a .340/.480/.650 and helping their team get to the playoffs? There is a reason why Giants fans loved Barry it is because he was a tremendous baseball player who kept the Giants in contention.

We're talking about a hitter going on 45 who's an outfielder mostly by courtesy. It is extremely improbable that Bonds approaches a .480 OBP at that advanced age, after having spent this long cooling his heels. He may be a freak of nature but everyone has their point of no return.

As for the Rays, they've already got Floyd, Gross, Gomes, Hinske, Upton, and Crawford to work through DH and 3 outfield positions, and Crawford is a franchise left fielder. The last thing the Rays need is an LF/DH -- even if they cut Gomes, they still aren't likely to be looking for outfield help and they have guys like Baldelli to look to for what they do need.

Most of the players who can't hit as well as Bonds still can are far more versatile so it's not nearly the slam dunk you're trying to call it.

Face it. No one in baseball wants Barry Bonds. Teams can be of a coincidental opinion without it being collusion, especially with a player of limited utility and advanced age. Barry is a potential embarrassment and distraction and only a few contending teams are even going to look at him.

Furthermore, a team that picks up Barry now is giving off "We Are Desperate" signals that most teams go ten miles out of their way to avoid.

Perhaps he does a Sammy Sosa and comes back after a year's absence if he beats the charges against him, But I really doubt it.

[Moses Fleetwood-Walker]

We're talking about a hitter going on 45 who's an outfielder mostly by courtesy. It is extremely improbable that Bonds approaches a .480 OBP at that advanced age, after having spent this long cooling his heels. He may be a freak of nature but everyone has their point of no return.

As for the Rays, they've already got Floyd, Gross, Gomes, Hinske, Upton, and Crawford to work through DH and 3 outfield positions, and Crawford is a franchise left fielder. The last thing the Rays need is an LF/DH -- even if they cut Gomes, they still aren't likely to be looking for outfield help and they have guys like Baldelli to look to for what they do need.

Bonds is 43 years old. The same age he was last time he was an all star and hit 28 HRs and led the league in walks & OBP. He will be 44 later this month though. At this point, I'd rather Bonds pursue a "collusion" suit against the league. It'll only add to the lure of his legend and give people in the future a glimpse of how badly society wanted to bring Jack Joh- err Bonds down. Bonds The Martyr, I like it! :cap:

[Ubiquitous]

We're talking about a hitter going on 45 who's an outfielder mostly by courtesy. It is extremely improbable that Bonds approaches a .480 OBP at that advanced age, after having spent this long cooling his heels. He may be a freak of nature but everyone has their point of no return.

As for the Rays, they've already got Floyd, Gross, Gomes, Hinske, Upton, and Crawford to work through DH and 3 outfield positions, and Crawford is a franchise left fielder. The last thing the Rays need is an LF/DH -- even if they cut Gomes, they still aren't likely to be looking for outfield help and they have guys like Baldelli to look to for what they do need.

Most of the players who can't hit as well as Bonds still can are far more versatile so it's not nearly the slam dunk you're trying to call it.

Face it. No one in baseball wants Barry Bonds. Teams can be of a coincidental opinion without it being collusion, especially with a player of limited utility and advanced age. Barry is a potential embarrassment and distraction and only a few contending teams are even going to look at him.

Furthermore, a team that picks up Barry now is giving off "We Are Desperate" signals that most teams go ten miles out of their way to avoid.


The guy was 42 last year and he had a .480 OBP, yes he is a year older, and yes he could tank, but considering he didn't tank last year, would be playing for minimum wage, and the guy can hit it isn't exactly a stretch to send out a flyer on him. Teams do this all the time. Enrique Wilson and Luis Soto used to get their carcasses dragged out every year and they aren't even as good as Bonds left pinky toe.

In terms of desperate signals, it only becomes desperate signals if Bonds fails. If Bonds hits it becomes a great signing.

Again the point isn't whether or not anybody in baseball wants Bonds, the point is whether or not 30 individual teams came to that conclusion on their own or if there was some agreement between 2 or more teams to exclude him.
In terms of the RAys are you telling me Willie Aybar has to be on that bench?
If Barry Bonds was on the Rays he would immediately become their best hitter, are you honestly telling me they can't find a spot for him? He can't sit on the bench and a PH? He can't be the DH? The Rays DH spot is killing them it might very well be the reason they miss the playoffs and the tens of millions of dollars they would recieve by playing in the playoffs. Are you honestly telling me that giving Bonds 200K is a bad investment on the Rays part?

[Imgran]

Bonds is 43 years old. The same age he was last time he was an all star and hit 28 HRs and led the league in walks & OBP. He will be 44 later this month though.

Right, instead of ancient he's slightly less ancient. That does nothing to address the issues of versatility, defense, and finding out who even needs him.

At this point, I'd rather Bonds pursue a "collusion" suit against the league. It'll only add to the lure of his legend and give people in the future a glimpse of how badly society wanted to bring Jack Joh- err Bonds down. Bonds The Martyr, I like it! :cap:

yeah, uh-huh. Tell yourself that. I notice that one of the teams conspicuous in their absolute refusal to consider talking to Barry are the guys who know him best and are the most likely to see something useful in signing him -- the offense-starved Giants.

[RuthMayBond]

In terms of the RAys are you telling me Willie Aybar has to be on that bench?
If Barry Bonds was on the Rays he would immediately become their best hitter, are you honestly telling me they can't find a spot for him? He can't sit on the bench and a PH? He can't be the DH? The Rays DH spot is killing them it might very well be the reason they miss the playoffs and the tens of millions of dollars they would recieve by playing in the playoffs. Are you honestly telling me that giving Bonds 200K is a bad investment on the Rays part?
Well, ya know, the Rays are in the playoffs ALL the time, no big deal if they miss this one

[Westlake]

Fans like Milton Bradley? Fans like Vince Coleman?

Did Chicago fans like Dennis Rodman?

Yet all these players get signed. Fans love and hate depends greatly on what that player can do for your team. If Bonds hits the fans will accept him, I would think any baseball exec having been around baseball for awhile knows this.


Yet none of these players were hated more than Bonds. Are you ignoring that? No baseball exec wants to have to deal with all the heat he gets for signing him. Again, it's that simple. If I was a GM, i'd think about it. If he was the last piece I needed to make the playoffs, I'd possibly sign him regardless. But I dont blame anyone who wont.

[RuthMayBond]

Yet none of these players were hated more than Bonds.Yep, they come in droves to show how much they hate him. As long as you've got your Hate-O-Meter calibrated, I guess we can't argue

[Mattingly]

Yes, yet Giambi is still knocking down, what, $20 mil on your team anyways. And Clemens (and Sheffield?) used to. Pettitte?
Neither Clemens, nor Sheffield, nor Giambi, nor Pettitte have broken any MLB records of monumental proportions. Clemens upped his name on the list of MLB starting pitchers, but which record of monumental proportions has Clemens broken past in his entire 7-Cy Young Award winning career? Going past #755 was Bonds' doing.

Sheffield isn't that nice (in my opinion) either, but he's not as roundly disliked as is Bonds.

Clemens' arrogance in his DC hearings has been made quite obvious by the media. Giambi & Pettitte are still popular, could possibly be re-signed next season. Giambi just had a very well-received 'Stache night, and the kiddies and his teammates were wearing those. How's that for likeability ... and *HUMILITY*!

None of them are as universally disliked as is Barry Bonds. Instead of looking at every isue they can fnd, why don't some of his supporters look at the man himself?

Of all the top names (as in HoF-worthy, based on stats only) in the PED scandal, of those who are available, Bonds has the most to offer in 2008. However, he has a very poor likeability raing amongst most fans. He didn't seem the least bit concerned or interested in the fans, many of whom are now returning the disfavor. He didn't seem to have any interest other than that he was breaking offensive record after the next, all at the ire of many fans.

So now all of a sudden, the *VERY SAME* long-ignored fans are expected to be considerate of his next career move. If Bonds resumes his career, should the fans who are expected to be swayed by his supposed right to keep working, be expecting him to also resume his ignoring their very strong beliefs that he's cheated his way into the record books? Business as usual, Mr Bonds?

I have no interest in someone contnuing their career if, in the end, we're nothing more than just little unimportant "little people" (to borrow a quote from the late hotel heiress, Leona Helmsley). If he has no interest in us as individuals, ignores our strong suspicions, despite fans of his team being expected to buy things with his name and likeness on it, then he can go work for and in front of someone else, as far.as I'm concerned

The paying fans who fill the seats, read about the game in the local sports column, root on the team, support he stadium's nearby souvenir, food & bar vendors, buy the stadium food, souvenirs, wear the tees, jerseys, signs and other stuff, if they are to be ignored, then I give up. I would much rather make the majority of any team's fans happy by *NOT* having him on the payroll, rather than him acting like playing the game is a right, rather than a priviledge, as many of us feel it is.

In short, Mr Bonds, continue thumbing your nose at we, the unimportant fans out there. Please feel perfectly free to do so from the sidelines, lawyers next to you. May the record books remain safe this year and in other years from you.

[Ubiquitous]

Yet none of these players were hated more than Bonds. Are you ignoring that?

Are you ignoring SanFran? If it is about hate then how can SanFran doesn't take him up on his offer?

Dennis Rodman was the pariah of the NBA, Chicago absolutely hated him for what he did as a Piston. Then he had his antics in SanAn and yes Dennis by that point was persona non grata. Yet Krause signed the fans were not happy and then Dennis went out and played and the fans loved him.

[RuthMayBond]

Neither Clemens, nor Sheffield, nor Giambi, nor Pettitte have broken any MLB records of monumental proportions.Ah, then it's ok

<Clemens upped his name on the list of MLB starting pitchers, but which record of monumental proportions has Clemens broken past in his entire 7-Cy Young Award winning career?>

:think:

<Giambi just had a very well-received 'Stache night, and the kiddies and his teammates were wearing those. How's that for likeability ... and *HUMILITY*!>

Wow, I really don't get the connection there

<Of all the top names (as in HoF-worthy, based on stats only) in the PED scandal, of those who are available, Bonds has the most to offer in 2008.>

You mean a 45 year old who can't play the field? Hard to keep the stories straight

<He didn't seem the least bit concerned or interested in the fans>

Add mind-reader to your list of titles

[Westlake]

Are you ignoring SanFran? If it is about hate then how can SanFran doesn't take him up on his offer?

Dennis Rodman was the pariah of the NBA, Chicago absolutely hated him for what he did as a Piston. Then he had his antics in SanAn and yes Dennis by that point was persona non grata. Yet Krause signed the fans were not happy and then Dennis went out and played and the fans loved him.

Again, I think you and I both know Bonds is hated by almost all fans much more than Rodman. I do get your point about playing well, but you can read my last post about signing him in the first place from a GM standpoint.

I think SF just got tired of the crap they got from away fans. The game turned into a booing Bonds fest and i'm sure the players were tired of it too. I mean that's just a guess, but who knows. I think that's more reasonable than calling it league-wide collusion.

[sturg1dj]

the whole fan hatred thing is overrated. right now as a Tiger fan I cheer for Kenny Rogers and Gary Sheffield two players that are hated, seen as jerks, and who I have booed when they were with other teams. Guess what, I got over it, and during his first season with the team you could see with all of the Shef (Chef) hats that most of the fans were over it too.


I still think the Yankees should sign him. There he couldn't lord over anyone and the players on the team could handle the extra media coverage. And he could play DH.

[Westlake]

Yep, they come in droves to show how much they hate him. As long as you've got your Hate-O-Meter calibrated, I guess we can't argue

Well if you're going to pretend like you can't see the obvious so you are argue your point, this is going nowhere.

Most team's fans dont want him signed, and I dont blame GMs for taking that into consideration. Like I said in my last post, it makes more sense to me than collusion.

[Ubiquitous]

Again, I think you and I both know Bonds is hated by almost all fans much more than Rodman. I do get your point about playing well, but you can read my last post about signing him in the first place from a GM standpoint.

I don't think you fully comprehend how much Rodman was hated, especially by Chicago.

[Moses Fleetwood-Walker]

Neither Clemens, nor Sheffield, nor Giambi, nor Pettitte have broken any MLB records of monumental proportions.

This is the 800 lb gorilla in the room. Its about the most "hallowed record in sports once held by god in pinstripes". And if you're a man like Bonds we'll turn 2007-2008 into 1974 on your ass!

[Westlake]

I don't think you fully comprehend how much Rodman was hated, especially by Chicago.

Perhaps not, but I did follow basketball (especially the Bulls) a lot during that time and I dont think it was as hardcore as Bonds vs. everyone.

[Ubiquitous]

and you also happened to be like 9 years old when the Bulls signed him, and not even in preschool when he was making his reputation as a Piston. Though possibly you were in Kindergarten when he was going nutsoid in SanAn.

[yamsi12]

simple, he has a bad reputation that comes along with him.

saying the Nationals have nothing to lose is a joke, they have their good name to lose. SF wont sign him because they are trying to heal from the damage bonds did to their organization as a whole. He needs to just go away.

[Ubiquitous]

simple, he has a bad reputation that comes along with him.

saying the Nationals have nothing to lose is a joke, they have their good name to lose. SF wont sign him because they are trying to heal from the damage bonds did to their organization as a whole. He needs to just go away.

I would think saying the Nationals have their good name to lose is a joke.

Who exactly thinks they have a good name?

And what damaged did Bonds do the SF organization?

[Westlake]

and you also happened to be like 9 years old when the Bulls signed him, and not even in preschool when he was making his reputation as a Piston. Though possibly you were in Kindergarten when he was going nutsoid in SanAn.

Well then I couldn't possibly know what I was talking about. I'll also remember this when I try and post about a player pre-1990s.

But you're not giving a real answer to my point. You believe that that the entire league is in collusion against him and its not because he is hated by almost all MLB fans and front offices dont want to have to deal with the scrutiny from fans and press alike?

[yamsi12]

I would think saying the Nationals have their good name to lose is a joke.

Who exactly thinks they have a good name?

And what damaged did Bonds do the SF organization?

just because the team sucks doesnt mean they dont have a good name. All they have right now besides a horrid record is their name. Its not like signing him and they magically make the playoffs, not to mention they would tick off what already small fan base they have.

have you been to a SF giants game in SF during the bonds era? Sure there were a lot of fans standing and cheering, but there were many that also sat and didnt recognize he even existed, me being one of them. Ask the people in the streets of SF and many didnt care for him. Most of the press Bonds brought with him was in a negative light. The Giants kept him around and theor reputation as an organization suffered horribly. Im glad they arent going to sign him for the league minimum and have chosen to move on with younger talent like lincecum, cain and bowker.

[metfan13]

This is the 800 lb gorilla in the room. Its about the most "hallowed record in sports once held by god in pinstripes". And if you're a man like Bonds we'll turn 2007-2008 into 1974 on your ass!

Wasn't that hallowed record held by Aaron when it was broken? Don't recall him in pinstripes.

[Moses Fleetwood-Walker]

Wasn't that hallowed record held by Aaron when it was broken? Don't recall him in pinstripes.

Is Aaron the reason its considered so "hallowed"? Be truthful.

[metfan13]

Is Aaron the reason its considered so "hallowed"? Be truthful.

It was hallowed before Aaron, and it was hallowed after Aaron. But it's not hallowed now. You make the connections.

Baseball fans would have been more than happy to have Henry Aaron hold that record for a long time to come. Or does that not work with your skewed view of the world?

[Old Sweater]

That'll teach Bonds for leading MLB in OBP.....the MOB don't like it.

[Mattingly]

This is the 800 lb gorilla in the room. Its about the most "hallowed record in sports once held by god in pinstripes". And if you're a man like Bonds we'll turn 2007-2008 into 1974 on your ass!
I have no idea what you mean here.

I wouldn't call this an 800 lb gorilla. If in pinstripes, you must be referring to Ruth. I have no idea where the "God" thing comes from regarding him.

In 2007, Bonds beat Aaron's record. In 1974, Aaron beat Ruth's record, after ending 1973 with 713 HRs.

Now what are you saying that any of this has to do with Bonds playing in 2008, since the record is already broken?

[Ubiquitous]

Well then I couldn't possibly know what I was talking about. I'll also remember this when I try and post about a player pre-1990s.

But you're not giving a real answer to my point. You believe that that the entire league is in collusion against him and its not because he is hated by almost all MLB fans and front offices dont want to have to deal with the scrutiny from fans and press alike?

I did give a real answer. Hatred by fans is meaningless, if can play, if you can contribute the fans will stop hating you, they'll even embrace you. Baseball execs know this. You think Beane or the Rangers got Bradley because they thought the fans liked him? They got him because they felt he could play and the emotions of the fans really don't matter when it comes to wins.

[Ubiquitous]

just because the team sucks doesnt mean they dont have a good name. All they have right now besides a horrid record is their name. Its not like signing him and they magically make the playoffs, not to mention they would tick off what already small fan base they have.

ARe you aware of all the shennanigans that organization has pulled?



have you been to a SF giants game in SF during the bonds era? Sure there were a lot of fans standing and cheering, but there were many that also sat and didnt recognize he even existed, me being one of them. Ask the people in the streets of SF and many didnt care for him. Most of the press Bonds brought with him was in a negative light. The Giants kept him around and theor reputation as an organization suffered horribly. Im glad they arent going to sign him for the league minimum and have chosen to move on with younger talent like lincecum, cain and bowker.

Again how did their reputation suffer horribly? Can you actually quantify it?
I know one way to quantify in the opposite direction and that is attendance.

[Ubiquitous]

It was hallowed before Aaron, and it was hallowed after Aaron. But it's not hallowed now. You make the connections.

Baseball fans would have been more than happy to have Henry Aaron hold that record for a long time to come. Or does that not work with your skewed view of the world?


Like all things time heals all wounds.

When Roger Maris broke the single season record many people felt something was lost. When Hank Aaron broke the home run record people felt something was lost. But then time marches on, new generation I raised watching Maris and Aaron play, seeing those players records and those records become the record.

[Old Sweater]

Boom Rah Rah Bonds!!!!!!!!!!!

Down with the haters!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


No PED is even equal to having Gehrig hitting behind you!!!!!!!!!!

Still 98% Bonds at the very least!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[dl4060]

Yes, yet Giambi is still knocking down, what, $20 mil on your team anyways. And Clemens (and Sheffield?) used to. Pettitte?

His team reportedly looked into voiding Giambi's contract, though that could not be done.

It would be interesting to see how Bonds would have been looked at if he had come out and admitted using at the original Balco hearings, the way Giambi did. Not something we can ever know the answer to, but a curious hypothetical.

I highly doubt Giambi will be signed for what he is currently making when his deal is done. He can still play, as can Bonds. There is far less dislike of Sheffield and Giambi than Bonds.

What is most interesting to me is that the Giants did not pick Bonds up. San Francisco is the only place I could see Bonds as a fit for a losing team.

Barry can still play, but it is perfectly plausible not to want the headaches that go with him.

If he means a world series title, than yes, that would be worth it to many teams. The problem would be if you sign him and come up short. This would upset much of your fan base for nothing.

[Ubiquitous]

His team reportedly looked into voiding Giambi's contract, though that could not be done.

And then decided to trot him out there as a starter everyday and even had promotional nights based around him. If anything the voiding of his contract information was a PR move by the Yankees and nothing more.




I highly doubt Giambi will be signed for what he is currently making when his deal is done. He can still play, as can Bonds.

I highly doubt it too. It is extremely hard to bring in that kind of money, especially at that age.



If he means a world series title, than yes, that would be worth it to many teams. The problem would be if you sign him and come up short. This would upset much of your fan base for nothing.

But only if Bonds doesn't perform. If you come up short and Bonds has a 1.000 OPS the fan base isn't going to string the GM up. If Bonds has a .650 OPS and they come up short they will be angry.

[dl4060]

I did give a real answer. Hatred by fans is meaningless, if can play, if you can contribute the fans will stop hating you, they'll even embrace you. Baseball execs know this. You think Beane or the Rangers got Bradley because they thought the fans liked him? They got him because they felt he could play and the emotions of the fans really don't matter when it comes to wins.

This is true to some extent. Bradley is nothing in comparison to Bonds. If Bradley can keep his behavior in check, and play well, fans will embrace him. With Bonds, it is not so easy. There is far more baggage.

The emotions of fans do not matter to a certain point. A winning team will cure just about anything. It is a very open question whether or not Barry Bonds is past that point.

[Ubiquitous]

This is true to some extent. Bradley is nothing in comparison to Bonds. If Bradley can keep his behavior in check, and play well, fans will embrace him. With Bonds, it is not so easy. There is far more baggage

But right there is a huge difference between Bonds and Bradley and that difference is in favor of Bonds. Bradley's actions impacts his performance and his ability to be on the field. Bonds impact does not. We've already seen a fan base that has been willing to embrace Barry Bonds. We know it can happen. If he can play the baggage won't be enough to stop people from attending/watching games.

[giantsrule]

i think bonds will play this season, i figure eventually some team will take a chance on him when the post season starts to draws near...

[Ubiquitous]

Bonds is done. There is only about 67 games left and he hasn't played all year. The further we go into the season the less likely it will be that Bonds plays for a team. Right now I would say there is about a 1% he plays. Maybe if Manny goes down in Boston and Ortiz suffers a setback. Basically some team in contention needs to suffer a major injury to their DH or OF'er like, right now in order for Bonds to get signed.

[dl4060]

And why are the fans singling him out? (see post #15) Stupid Red Sox never shoulda signed Ted Williams, listen to the fans


You are seriously stretching. Williams was signed at age 17, he had not built up a mountain of bad feelings by then. There are probably other examples which would support your case better than this one.

[SHOELESSJOE3]

It took EIGHT YEARS for an arbitrator to award money in the collusion suit of 1987.
So it's not like they found the proof immediately

So what does that mean, if we don't know now it may still be true and exposed later.

It is possible collusion, but it's also possible teams just don't want him. Some are acting surprised that no one wants him and it may not be collusion.

What do we do wait years assuming that it may just take a while to uncover collusion.

[RuthMayBond]

And what damaged did Bonds do the SF organization?Well, he DID ruin their streak of 48 years not being in the World Series

[dl4060]

I remember listening to a sports talk radio show this spring with Eric Karros. He spoke of talking to a player on the Giants who said the clubhouse was very different, in the way that they did not have to answer the constant questions about Bonds. It was certainly not negative towards Barry, more negative towards the issue of having to constantly answer the same questions over and over. Signing Bonds is not a simple matter. There are a host of other issues which come with it. I don't think the Dennis Rodman situation is comparable. It would not surprise me if there is some collusion going on. It would also not surprise me it there is not.

[BlueBlood]

Well, he DID ruin their streak of 48 years not being in the World Series

Yeah, because we all know 1989 and 2002 were separated by 48 years. :shhh:

[RuthMayBond]

San Francisco is the only place I could see Bonds as a fit for a losing team.What happened to DH only?

<If he means a world series title, than yes, that would be worth it to many teams. The problem would be if you sign him and come up short. This would upset much of your fan base for nothing.>

As long as you get what you want. That's what they dislike Bonds for :confused:

[RuthMayBond]

Yeah, because we all know 1989 and 2002 were separated by 48 years. :shhh:Dang, 1989 bites me in the backside

[BlueBlood]

Dang, 1989 bites me in the backside

And so does 1962. :hp

[RuthMayBond]

You are seriously stretching. Williams was signed at age 17, he had not built up a mountain of bad feelings by then. There are probably other examples which would support your case better than this one.All right, they shouldn't have KEPT him. You know what I was referring to

[RuthMayBond]

And so does 1962. :hpI was very young then :blush:

[SHOELESSJOE3]

Boom Rah Rah Bonds!!!!!!!!!!!

Down with the haters!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


No PED is even equal to having Gehrig hitting behind you!!!!!!!!!!

Still 98% Bonds at the very least!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Tell us what you really mean Sweater. Babe's advantage because he batted with Gehrig on deck. Your comparing that to PED users, your hinting at that comparison.

Thats what I get out of that post. Apology if I'm wrong, but how else can your post be taken.

[BlueBlood]

Wouldn't they have just walked Ruth to get to Gehrig? And by they, I mean Walter Johnson.

[RuthMayBond]

Wouldn't they have just walked Ruth to get to Gehrig?Gehrig would love another guy on base. At least it would have cut down on the Babe's HR & RBI

<And by they, I mean Walter Johnson.>

I'm glad you know what you mean

[Mattingly]

Like all things time heals all wounds.

When Roger Maris broke the single season record many people felt something was lost. When Hank Aaron broke the home run record people felt something was lost. But then time marches on, new generation I raised watching Maris and Aaron play, seeing those players records and those records become the record.
In the case of Maris, I don't know how fans of other teams felt, but Yankee fans rejected him at the time, since he was traded for, while Mick was borne from the farm's crop. Mantle also had the great looks that women adored.

I remember Aaron's race to 714, the special balls, Kuhn's forcing him to play in a game he didn't want to. Still, Ruth's effect on the game was his revolutionizing it into a power game, opposed to the hit and run quickly thing that Ty Cobb did so well.

Maris was booed since Mick was in the HR race, was hospitalized that September, and only Mick would people have felt comfortable breaking that record.

Aaron was booed and in some circles, hated passionately because of his race. Bonds, by comparison, is despised primatily because of his cheating allegations, but also due to his oversized elbow guard, and perceptions that he couldn't care less about the fans.

[Mattingly]

I did give a real answer. Hatred by fans is meaningless, if can play, if you can contribute the fans will stop hating you, they'll even embrace you. Baseball execs know this. You think Beane or the Rangers got Bradley because they thought the fans liked him? They got him because they felt he could play and the emotions of the fans really don't matter when it comes to wins.
I think it all depends upon what the player did before being picked up to earn him the bad reputation. You'd mntioned Dennis Rodman whe he went to the Bulls, alongside Jordan, Pippen et al.

I don't know what got the ChiTown fans bothered about him before, but he was acquired as a rebounder. Jordan *DESPERATELY* wanted 6 rings, since he'd been compared negatively to Earvin Johnson (5 rings) as a team player.

Rodman's wildness on the court included wrapping opposing players' legs around his neck, as if to suggest he was a victim, and and getting the opponent's best scorers tossed by getting into altercations.

For baseball, we had Clemens. Unlike Boggs before him or Damon afterwards, he was a pitcher, and an old schooler who owned the plate. He hit many Yankee players like Jeter who played to the inside of the plate.

Many Yankee fans never embraced Clemens, since he was the anti-Boomer, the 1998 ace he was traded for, in being standoffish and a workut maven, opposed to being the cuddly beer drinker who once illegally wore during a game a Ruth-worn cap he'd bought at auction.

Only in Game 4 of the 1999 WS did Clemens get embraced, but not universally. He was still seen as a Red Sox player, just as Manny and Varitek are today.

After Clemens' strong PED allegations, some of Clemens' detractors have new reason to dislike him. Hence, many won't like Bonds either also due to his strong PED allegations.

[Ubiquitous]

There was a period in Rodmans career where he wasn't just the most hated man in the NBA but the most hated man in sports. That period was right before the Bulls signed him. It wasn't something as simple as his opponents and their fans hated but also his own team and their fans hated him.

As for the Bulls and their fans they hated Rodman because of what he did when he was a Piston. Rodman was one of the Bad Boys and the Pistons unlike say the REds of the same era actually earned their nickname. I don't think anybody outside of Detroit and their fans actually liked the Pistons. Especially not Bulls fans. The hatred/rivalry that Det-Chi had at that time period totally and completely dwarfs whatever kind of rivalry you think the Cards-Cubs have right now. The two teams hated each other. Thomas snubbed Jordan at the all star game, the Pistons bragged to the world via SI that they knew how to contain Jordan (and described in detail how to do it), and the Pistons as part of their bad boy namesake tried to push the Bulls around.

Late 80's-early 90's it was pretty clear that the two best teams in the East were Chicago and Detroit. Whomever beat the other was going to go to the Finals. The year the Bulls finally got past the Pistons they did so with a sweep. The Pistons did not go out gracefully. One final acts of their pettiness and perhaps their most famous act of aggression was when Rodman in the final game near the end grabbed a hold of a stumbling Pippen after the whistled had blown and threw him into the seats behind the backboard. AFter the game was over the Pistons slunk off the court without even bothering looking at the Bulls, shaking their hands, or offering them good luck.


Bulls do their thing win three championships. Rodman goes to San Antonio and has a total meltdown in the playoffs and everybody pretty much blames Rodman for derailing the Spurs. People are saying Rodman is out of control, he gets fined and suspended left and right. Then the shocker comes down from up high, Jerry Krause has signed Dennis Rodman. Chicago and Bulls fandom is aghast, almost nobody can believe that Krause signed this scumbag. Bulls start the season and they destroy the competition, Rodmans plays excellently and the fans embrace him.


Now was the hatred for Rodman the same as it is for Bonds? No, but he came about as close as a person can to that level without actually getting their at one point.

[Mattingly]

There was a period in Rodmans career where he wasn't just the most hated man in the NBA but the most hated man in sports. That period was right before the Bulls signed him. It wasn't something as simple as his opponents and their fans hated but also his own team and their fans hated him.

As for the Bulls and their fans they hated Rodman because of what he did when he was a Piston. Rodman was one of the Bad Boys and the Pistons unlike say the REds of the same era actually earned their nickname. I don't think anybody outside of Detroit and their fans actually liked the Pistons. Especially not Bulls fans. The hatred/rivalry that Det-Chi had at that time period totally and completely dwarfs whatever kind of rivalry you think the Cards-Cubs have right now. The two teams hated each other. Thomas snubbed Jordan at the all star game, the Pistons bragged to the world via SI that they knew how to contain Jordan (and described in detail how to do it), and the Pistons as part of their bad boy namesake tried to push the Bulls around.

Late 80's-early 90's it was pretty clear that the two best teams in the East were Chicago and Detroit. Whomever beat the other was going to go to the Finals. The year the Bulls finally got past the Pistons they did so with a sweep. The Pistons did not go out gracefully. One final acts of their pettiness and perhaps their most famous act of aggression was when Rodman in the final game near the end grabbed a hold of a stumbling Pippen after the whistled had blown and threw him into the seats behind the backboard. AFter the game was over the Pistons slunk off the court without even bothering looking at the Bulls, shaking their hands, or offering them good luck.


Bulls do their thing win three championships. Rodman goes to San Antonio and has a total meltdown in the playoffs and everybody pretty much blames Rodman for derailing the Spurs. People are saying Rodman is out of control, he gets fined and suspended left and right. Then the shocker comes down from up high, Jerry Krause has signed Dennis Rodman. Chicago and Bulls fandom is aghast, almost nobody can believe that Krause signed this scumbag. Bulls start the season and they destroy the competition, Rodmans plays excellently and the fans embrace him.


Now was the hatred for Rodman the same as it is for Bonds? No, but he came about as close as a person can to that level without actually getting their at one point.
I hadn't known that Rodman did all that. I only knew Isiah Thomas from the Pistons back then, didn't know Rodman and his #91 until he had about 18 boards a game. Rodman also helped double teams with either of their 2 centers, since Shaq was unstoppable.

I think that if a baseball player pushed a guy out of bounds, you'd never hear the end of it. Rodman had an inch on Scottie and another 15-20 lbs. Between this and the team's refusal to at least shake hands, offer congrats, wouldn't go over well in baseball. If anything, Bob Watson would fine and suspend him.

What did Rodman do before that situation that made hin so despised?

I was a Knicks fan back then, and them, the Lakers, Celtics and 76ers were also very good teams back then.

[SHOELESSJOE3]

Gehrig would love another guy on base. At least it would have cut down on the Babe's HR & RBI

<And by they, I mean Walter Johnson.>

I'm glad you know what you mean

For sure, less at bats less home runs but imagine what his OBA and OPS would look like with no Gehrig following him. And I doubt his home run frequency, AB/HR ratio would suffer, he might look even better.

[Ubiquitous]

What did Rodman do before that situation that made hin so despised?


He was one of the Bad Boys, surely you know about them? The whole team was despised by all that were not Pistons fans. They were a bunch a punks and premadonnas who would fight and flop left and right and then going running to the press about every little complaint. I believe both Rodman and Thomas both claimed that Larry Bird was overrated because he was white and if he was black he would just be another good player.

[west coast orange and black]

mattingly: Bonds is despised primatily because of his cheating allegations, but also due to his oversized elbow guard, and perceptions that he couldn't care less about the fans.

so, how did fans feel towards bonds before the allegations?
his elbow guard is a source of scorn? you really believe that the thousands who have booed bonds cite his right elbow protector?

[west coast orange and black]

"while you were busy pointing at my hair i won 5 championships."

[west coast orange and black]

transplanted fan: the looming federal charges against him

trial is calendared for next year.

[west coast orange and black]

ubiquitous: Yes it is obvious that MLB does not want Bonds, but the real question is why.

i can not think of a player other than bonds who was the topic of owner discussions during a winter meet.

[west coast orange and black]

westlake: If you already know your fans hate him, why would you want to sign him?

$

[west coast orange and black]

ubiquitous: If it is about hate then how can SanFran doesn't take him up on his offer?

for the same reason that johnny b will not be asked to return as manager.

[west coast orange and black]

westlake: I think SF just got tired of the crap they got from away fans. The game turned into a booing Bonds fest and i'm sure the players were tired of it too.

players are on xboxes, have ipods on and play cards when in the clubhouse.
out on the field, their focus is the game.
that part of things is really that simple.

[west coast orange and black]

westlake: Most team's fans dont want him signed, and I dont blame GMs for taking that into consideration.

the flip side is that fan favorites are consistently dealt away.

[west coast orange and black]

yamsi12: have you been to a SF giants game in SF during the bonds era? Sure there were a lot of fans standing and cheering, but there were many that also sat and didnt recognize he even existed...

if by "bonds era" you mean 1993 and after, i saw bonds play 722 games, with nearly 450 of those at mays field.

the sitting-on-the-hands-thing did not happen.

[west coast orange and black]

ubiquitous: Bonds is done.

agreed, everywhereman

Basically some team in contention needs to suffer a major injury to their DH or OF'er like, right now in order for Bonds to get signed.

agreed. it would take a season-ending injury for bonds to step onto the field.
that is a horrible situation.

[Zagi-CRO]

I think, as Cubs's fan, they still needed Barry Bonds, pursuing the WS championship!?
What do you think about?

[Transplanted Fan]

Um...no thanks. PEDs, federal purgery charges, age, injuries, and general misanthropy aside, where exactly would he fit into that roster? The Cubs have so many outfielders that Matt Murton (a .290 average guy with good pop) was expendable, Derrek Lee's not going anywhere at first, and the National League doesn't have the DH. Signing Bonds would make no sense whatsoever.

[metfan13]

Oh good. Another thread to discuss not signing Bonds.

[Zagi-CRO]

Oh good. Another thread to discuss not signing Bonds.

I dont understand, Bonds is better then half of others players.

[Tenorman]

If I was a GM, the reason NOT to sign him could be distilled down to two words: clubhouse poison

Even on a cellar-dwelling team, the liability and baggage he brings far outweighs the chances of him bringing the club into contention.

For a contending team, there is probably a very good chance that there is some team chemistry behind the success. Why would I want to contaminate that by signing a clubhouse pariah, a prima donna who seemingly has no concept of a "team player" mentality.

Even Pete Rose eventually came around and finally admitted that he realized what he did was wrong. I don't ever see that happening with Bonds; he is too wrapped up in himself and his records.

No team needs that at a time when baseball is trying hard to put this whole PED thing in the past.

Bottom line for me: the liabilities far outweigh any possible benefits.

As for possible collusion? It is just as possible that 30 GMs have all come down with a bad case of common sense...

... could happen.

[RuthMayBond]

Even Pete Rose eventually came around and finally admitted that he realized what he did was wrong. Not wrong enough to keep him from preening for the Hall.
Not wrong enough to try to upstage the HOF ceremonies by hawking his book.

[Imgran]

Know the team that surprises me hasn't gone after Bonds?

Toronto. Goodness knows they need a power hitter. Their pitching staff is pretty good, with that one more power bat it's not too late for them to get into the AL East race. Is there some kind of extradition problem with Bonds possibly playing in Canada or something?

Also according to the rumors, their GM's on his way out anyway so why not?

[Tenorman]

Know the team that surprises me hasn't gone after Bonds?

Toronto. Goodness knows they need a power hitter. Their pitching staff is pretty good, with that one more power bat it's not too late for them to get into the AL East race. Is there some kind of extradition problem with Bonds possibly playing in Canada or something?

Also according to the rumors, their GM's on his way out anyway so why not?

Bonds in a Jays uniform??? :eek:

The Jays actually have some good clubhouse chemistry. Why would they want Bonds to screw that up? That was the best reason for getting rid of Shea Hillenbrand a couple years back. Why bring that back x1000.:dismay:

It might be true that JP Ricchardi is on his way out, but as things are now, he can just walk away. If he were to bring in Bonds, the fans would tar and feather him and toss him off the CN Tower. :laugh

[Ubiquitous]

How is Bonds clubhouse poison?

[SamtheBravesFan]

How is Bonds clubhouse poison?

Well, my guess is his attitude and wherever he goes, the media follows and they want to ask his teammates about Bonds. *shrugs*

[SHOELESSJOE3]

Boom Rah Rah Bonds!!!!!!!!!!!

Down with the haters!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


No PED is even equal to having Gehrig hitting behind you!!!!!!!!!!

Still 98% Bonds at the very least!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Again I ask, what your point. So some may gain an edge by using PED's but Ruth had a favorable condition, the great Lou Gehrig following him.

Actually Babe was doing fine even before Gehrig came along. Was Gehrig a plus I would think so, they had to pitch to Ruth more. Probably less home runs had Gehrig not been there but then Ruth's OBA would have been higher. Just a few numbers, Babe 1919-1924 a 6 year period before Lou and 1925-1930 a 6 year period after Lou joined the team. Starting at 1919 because he was playing much more, less pitching and a significant number of games as a position player.

------------Pa--------AB--------Ba.--- Slg-------OBA-----BB------AB/HR
1919-1924--3726------2887------.363---.759-----.503---- 792------10.93
1925-1930--3716------2944------.343---.707-----.469-----685------10.48

Not much of a difference, we could get in to parks and other factors but the number comparison here is not the real issue.

This is the real issue. It's your point, if I understand it, that steroids my benefit some but Ruth had the benefit of having Gehrig batting behind him and that helped even more than any PED.

Are you really trying to sell that one?
Get with it, PEDs ar now banned in the game, it was long overdue.
That comparison of one's position in the batting order to one using PEDs will go no where.

[White Knight]

It's a national tragity that Bonds and Sosa weren't signed, yet Frank Thomas (a scrub compared to Bonds last lear) was signed in days after his release from Toronto. Almost makes me wanna stop watching baseball.

[metfan13]

It's a national tragity that Bonds and Sosa weren't signed, yet Frank Thomas (a scrub compared to Bonds last lear) was signed in days after his release from Toronto. Almost makes me wanna stop watching baseball.


Stop watching. Maybe they'll start an anything goes PED league and you can enjoy that.

[White Knight]

Stop watching. Maybe they'll start an anything goes PED league and you can enjoy that.

Neither have tested positive for anything, and it's extremely unlikely either have been on in the last 2-4 years. Possibly never with Sosa. So why was Thomas signed? His production numbers flat out suck compared to Bonds '07. Sosa too probably is capable of more HRs.

[RuthMayBond]

Have a "nice" thread.
Oops, too late for that

[metfan13]

Have a "nice" thread.
Oops, too late for that

It's a Bonds thread. How nice can it be?

[BoweryBoys]

Yes it is obvious that MLB does not want Bonds, but the real question is why.

Is it because 30 separate organizations all came to the conclusion separately that they don't want Barry Bonds or is it because there is an organized attempt to keep him out of MLB.

What exactly does a team like the Nationals have to lose by offering a minimum wage contract to Barry? Negative publicity right? But the Nationals are in the dumpers in terms of tickets, popularity, ratings, and standings. I believe more people watch C-Span then they do Nationals games. There is the old saying any publicity is good publicity and in the case of the Nationals that fits. If the Nationals sign Bonds they will make money and they will improve their team this year. But instead they would rather send out Pena and Kearns.

The Giants claimed they were not resigning Bonds to free up salary space, well, Bonds is now willing to play for the minimum wage. Why are they not signing him? There whole argument for not signing him is shot. The Giants know that Bonds will sell tickets yet they don't sign him.

Yes it is possible that all these teams came to the conclusion of no on Bonds on their own but the history of MLB is not on their side. MLB lost 3 collusion hearings and settled a fourth one out of court and gave the players millions of dollars in that settlement. History has shown when the cry of collusion has been released it is because in fact collusion has happened.

These are all good points but not one single one would meet a legal standard that would allow Bonds to sue for some form of collusion. Yes there have been collusion cases in the past. To make a valid case for collusion a union has to show with good evidence that an employer, with whom they have a contract that expressly prohibits such type action, is deliberately working together to artificially control and limit wage growth and benefits towards a majority of the union employees involved. In what way does one player not being offered a job qualify? it doesn't.

No judge or arbitrator is going to consider a lawsuit regarding one single player not being offered a job when no legal bases exists that states said player is being denied any right by not receiving any job offer. If this was the case any unemployed person in this country could attempt to sue any one who turned them down for employment simply because they were not offered a job. Even in MLB employers have every right to hire whom they choose as in any other business as long as they do not practice illegal discrimination based on race, creed, sex, age, disability, etc. Bonds would have a heck of a difficult time trying to sue for a job via that route. Unless he can show he is without an MLB job specifically due to an obvious attempt by MLB management to decrease union contracted wages and benefits as a whole, he doesn't have much luck of winning a collusion suit, Bottom-line is that all 30 MLB clubs have every right in the workd to choose not to hire Bonds if they don't want to and there is nothig Bonds can do about it unless he can prove it is due to racial discrimination.

[BoweryBoys]

That was their argument in the first four collusion cases and in 3 of those cases they lost on decision and the other they didn't ever bother to take it to a hearing. Instead they simply handed over some cash.




You really think Rays fans would say no to Bonds at this moment? How about in a month when they need every win possible? You really think those same fans that are saying "Not No, but H--L NO!" will be saying that when Bonds is putting up a .340/.480/.650 and helping their team get to the playoffs? There is a reason why Giants fans loved Barry it is because he was a tremendous baseball player who kept the Giants in contention.

Again, what you seem to be missing is that in those past collusion cases evidence was presented to indicate that various free agents were not being offered jobs due to a deliberate conspiracy by management to attempt to control wage growth and opportunity, i.e. perhaps control or even end the practice of free agency, in violation of a union contract. The point is that collusion has to apply to the union employees as a whole. Collusion victories by the union in the past were not about individual players but that an individual player was wrongly suffering due to an organized attempt against the whole management/union contract of fair labor practices. In no way is Bonds going to be able to win a collusion suit on the bases that he, as one single player, has been denied any job offers without the clear cut evidence that his joblessness is due to an organized effort by management to violate the union contract as a whole with a possible negative effect on the working conditions of all union workers as a whole. Big stretch for Bonds to argue a case like that since it is only about that 30 teams are just using their legal right to not hire someone they don't want without the adverse effect on other union employees and free agency as a whole.

[BoweryBoys]

Sorry I accidently snipped this out.

There is no reason to wonder. MLBPA will file a grievance on behalf of Barry Bonds when Barry Bonds requests it. They are legally bound by their charter to do so. Barry Bonds is not going to file a grievance nor would he have a reason to do so until after the season is over. Once the grievance is filed there will be a discovery phase of the arbitration suit. At that time people will be interviewed, documents perusesd, minutes scanned.

Again in 1985 or 86 or 97 you could say the same thing. Where is the smoking gun. It wasn't until after the issue was brought before an arbitrator that the facts came to light. It was then that they found the smoking gun.

Yes and that "smoking gun" was the obvious fact that free agents were not being offered contracts due to a deliberate organized attempt by management to adversely effect, control and perhaps eliminate the past contracted right of free agency. The collusion cases in the past were because the union could show that the contracted right of free agency was being caused undue harm by unfair labor practices of management with that deliberate attempt and agenda in mind. Hard pressed for the union to stick its neck out to attempt a collusion case in the matter of one single player not being offered a job when there is no legal right to work law in this country that says simply being out of work is illegal and not being offered a job is an illegal business practice or unfair labor practice. Without the fact of a certain number of other free agents also mysteriously not being offered contracts, I doubt the union would stick its neck out on a case that have zero chance of winning and nothing to gain for theunion as a whole by trying.

[Old Sweater]

Get with it, PEDs ar now banned in the game, it was long overdue.


Cm'on Shoeless!!! banned but not enforced.

No independent testing?

over 40? MiLB players suspended compared to 3 or 4 MLB players? Last year

No HGH testing?

Selig and MLB will continue to just fry the big fish at the end of their careers to fool the easily fooled.

Back to the topic, it is a shame for a lot of fans that Bonds leads MLB in OBP and the good ol boys headed by marketing Bud won't give him a job after using him all those years.

[BoweryBoys]

Bonds couldn't sue the fans since he doesn't have a legally binding contract with the fans to not collude.


As for Williams almost no Red Sox fans hated Williams even when he was spitting and cursing at them.

Though actually there probably were quite a few Red Sox fans who didn't like him when he was young. He was a young immature kid who did immature things, miraculously he got "mature" real quick when he started hitting over .300 and banging out homers.

Nor does he have a legally binding contract with MLB that guarantees him the right to lifetime employment as a player at his whim and desire for as long as he wants to continue playing. Unless he can clearly prove that he would normally be offered employment by MLB but he is clearly not due specifically to an organized attempt by MLB management to control and adversely effect free agency as a whole, he has about zero chance of anything but accepting his "forced retirement".

[BoweryBoys]

"Face it. No one in baseball wants Barry Bonds. Teams can be of a coincidental opinion without it being collusion, especially with a player of limited utility and advanced age. Barry is a potential embarrassment and distraction and only a few contending teams are even going to look at him."

And that is exactly the point. All 30 teams can decide that they just do not want Barry Bonds on their team and it does not meet any legal definition of collusion, no matter what their particular reasons. As long as there is no clear evidence of an attempt by MLB management to violate some part of the basic agreement as a whole specific to working conditions and rights that apply to all union members, then this is just about all 30 teams excercising their legal right to not employ someone they are no longer interested in as a player. If some team decides that maybe they think it is worth taking a chance on Bonds and that he may be the missing ingredient needed to make the playoffs, then someone will offer him a contract. If no one does that is by no means legal collusion that the union would get anywhere making a case with. There is no legal guaranteed right to play MLB or even be offered a job by an MLB club, even if you are a union member which I thought Bonds was not. It has to be a union member being unfairly and illegally subjected to unfair labor practices on the job. Such as a free agent who can show the only reason that he was not offered a job was a deliberate attempt by all clubs colluding to drive down free agent wages. That is what is needed in a collusion case.

[BoweryBoys]

"Again the point isn't whether or not anybody in baseball wants Bonds, the point is whether or not 30 individual teams came to that conclusion on their own or if there was some agreement between 2 or more teams to exclude him."

Yes and the real point is that in order for two or more teams entering into a deliberate agreement to not offer Bonds a contract to get anywhere as "collusion", it has to be clearly shown and provable that it was done so specifically with the intention of an unfair labor practice that violates all union employees right to unencumbered free agency. There is no right to work where Bonds can sue just because all 30 teams just don't want him. Too bad for Bonds that this isn't the off season and there is all these large numbers of unexplained great player free agents going unsigned for no apparent legitimate reason. Bottom-line is that Bonds is probably history, called it "forced retirement" if you want, and there is little he can do about it but sulk.
If he can maybe show two or more clubs got together and agreed to deny employment because of his race maybe he tries to sue. But then he would also have to show that both those two teams make it an illegal practice against hiring anyone of his race in violation of federal law.

[west coast orange and black]

tenorman: clubhouse poison .... liability and baggage .... Why contaminate that by signing a clubhouse pariah, a prima donna who seemingly has no concept of a "team player" mentality.

you are singing some wrong notes, tenorman - bonds does not bring poison into a clubhouse; he is not a pariah.

what bonds does bring, though, is a freaky/freakish fascination that attracts reporters and photographers. bonds' baggage ought not be a handicap for professionals. you claim that bonds is tempermental. ok; so what? the same bonds that is presently unsigned is the same bonds who lead the giants into the world series not that long ago. he's the same guy. deal.

As for possible collusion? It is just as possible that 30 GMs have all come down with a bad case of common sense...

possible, but very unlikely, considering that the gm had at least one conference call to specifically discuss bonds.

[west coast orange and black]

white knight: Neither have tested positive for anything

bonds has neither confirmed nor denied the alleged positive test result. (it's all part of the game plan.)

[west coast orange and black]

boweryboys: In what way does one player not being offered a job qualify [as collusion]? it doesn't.

question asked and already answered?

here is another, bb:
are you certain that racial discrimination is the only grounds for bonds to file an action of collusion?

[west coast orange and black]

boweryboys: Unless he can clearly prove that he would normally be offered employment by MLB but he is clearly not due specifically to an organized attempt by MLB management to control and adversely effect free agency as a whole, he has about zero chance of anything but accepting his "forced retirement".

where does racial discrimination fit into all of this, bb?
did i misunderstand your earlier statement?

[Ubiquitous]

Nor does he have a legally binding contract with MLB that guarantees him the right to lifetime employment as a player at his whim and desire for as long as he wants to continue playing. Unless he can clearly prove that he would normally be offered employment by MLB but he is clearly not due specifically to an organized attempt by MLB management to control and adversely effect free agency as a whole, he has about zero chance of anything but accepting his "forced retirement".

No he has a legally binding contract that states that MLB teams and the Commissioners office shall not collude on player signings. He doesn't need to clearly prove that MLB or their teams are trying to adversely affect free agency as a whole. He only has to convince an arbitrator that it is happening to him.

[Ubiquitous]

Yes and the real point is that in order for two or more teams entering into a deliberate agreement to not offer Bonds a contract to get anywhere as "collusion", it has to be clearly shown and provable that it was done so specifically with the intention of an unfair labor practice that violates all union employees right to unencumbered free agency.
Again no it doesn't

[Ubiquitous]

Yes and that "smoking gun" was the obvious fact that free agents were not being offered contracts due to a deliberate organized attempt by management to adversely effect, control and perhaps eliminate the past contracted right of free agency. The collusion cases in the past were because the union could show that the contracted right of free agency was being caused undue harm by unfair labor practices of management with that deliberate attempt and agenda in mind. Hard pressed for the union to stick its neck out to attempt a collusion case in the matter of one single player not being offered a job when there is no legal right to work law in this country that says simply being out of work is illegal and not being offered a job is an illegal business practice or unfair labor practice. Without the fact of a certain number of other free agents also mysteriously not being offered contracts, I doubt the union would stick its neck out on a case that have zero chance of winning and nothing to gain for theunion as a whole by trying.


No the smoking gun was the transcripts and testimony of people involved explicitly stating that they were part of an organized attempt to collude.


The union is legally obligated to file a grievance on behalf of Barry Bonds if Barry Bonds so chooses to pursue one.

[Imgran]

boweryboys: Unless he can clearly prove that he would normally be offered employment by MLB but he is clearly not due specifically to an organized attempt by MLB management to control and adversely effect free agency as a whole, he has about zero chance of anything but accepting his "forced retirement".

where does racial discrimination fit into all of this, bb?
did i misunderstand your earlier statement?

He's saying that unless the prospective employers (the 30 MLB teams) engaged in some form of actually illegal business practice, such as racial discrimination, there's absolutely no grounds for a case of collusion.

That doesn't mean that there wasn't collusion, hypothetically, just that there's no way a case on that basis would stand up in court.

[Ubiquitous]

Two sides to every coin

[Imgran]

Again no it doesn't

Umm, yes it does, at least if it wants to take advantage of prior precedents. You could run it up the flagpole and see if a judge wants to expand the precedent, but even if there's some evidence of actual collusion -- hard evidence I mean -- it'd be hard to prove in court and likely counterproductive in that any victory would be Pyrrhic (ref: Flood, Curt)

[Ubiquitous]

Umm, yes it does, at least if it wants to take advantage of prior precedents. You could run it up the flagpole and see if a judge wants to expand the precedent, but even if there's some evidence of actual collusion -- hard evidence I mean -- it'd be hard to prove in court and likely counterproductive in that any victory would be Pyrrhic (ref: Flood, Curt)

Um no it doesn't.

It is in the CBA and it wouldn't go before a judge. It would go before an arbitrator and the damages most certainly would not be Pyrrhic. The damages are spelled out in the CBA. Bonds would get treble damages. MEaning first they would decide whateve amount of money he should have gotten without collusion (which is going to be a favorable amount towards Bonds) and then they would triple it. So Bonds would get 30 to 45 million dollars if he wins, that isn't pyrrhic.

As for proving it the union has done a good enough job of proving it 4 times now. They even got MLB to cough up money because of the collusion in 2003free agency era.

If it is in fact collusion there will be evidence of it, this isn't the X-Files.

Secondly it should be pointed out that colluding is not illegal. It is not a criminal violation, no laws are broken. The agreement to not collude was put into a contract, both sides agree not to collude. I would also like to point out that it was the owner who insisted on not allowing collusion and by doing so it has cost them hundreds of millions of dollars.

In the case of Bonds I don't think they really care if they are found guilty or not. If anything they will probably settle this out of court rather quickly. 30 to 45 million is chump change when spread out amongst 30 teams and a business that makes around 5 billion dollars a year and has a Commissioners discretionary that has hundreds of millions of dollars.

[Ubiquitous]

He's saying that unless the prospective employers (the 30 MLB teams) engaged in some form of actually illegal business practice, such as racial discrimination, there's absolutely no grounds for a case of collusion.

That doesn't mean that there wasn't collusion, hypothetically, just that there's no way a case on that basis would stand up in court.

Collusion has nothing to with legality. It has to do with the terms of a negotiated contract.

Racial discrimination would be an entirely different kind of lawsuit and that would in fact be in front of a real judge in a real court system.

[Transplanted Fan]

Considering that Bonds isn't even a member of the players' union, isn't all of this legal mumbo jumbo a moot point?

[White Knight]

No HGH testing?

HGH is over-rated at best. No way it makes anyone produce amazing stats. Yes, it's safe (so far) but it doesn't produce testosterone like steroids.

[Ubiquitous]

Considering that Bonds isn't even a member of the players' union, isn't all of this legal mumbo jumbo a moot point?

He is a member of the union (he opted out of the endorsement side of the union which any player is allowed to do), and even if he wasn't part of the union he and MLB are still bound by the CBA. All MLB players and MLB regardless of their status in the union must follow what was negotiated in the CBA.

[west coast orange and black]

imgran: He's saying that unless the prospective employers (the 30 MLB teams) engaged in some form of actually illegal business practice, such as racial discrimination, there's absolutely no grounds for a case of collusion.

i missed the "such as" framing of "racial discrimination."
i relied on thia: "Bottom-line is that all 30 MLB clubs have every right in the workd to choose not to hire Bonds if they don't want to and there is nothig Bonds can do about it unless he can prove it is due to racial discrimination."

[west coast orange and black]

healthier gains.

[Transplanted Fan]

healthier gains.

Well, it's definitely not a pipe.

[Zagi-CRO]

Will Hideki Matsui's bum knee cause the New York Yankees to hit the Bonds market?

[dl4060]

Bonds impact does not. We've already seen a fan base that has been willing to embrace Barry Bonds. We know it can happen. If he can play the baggage won't be enough to stop people from attending/watching games.

The fan base which embraced him started to do so in 1993, not 2008. He was not exactly popular before that, but the situation was nothing like it is now. It is certainly possible that another fan base would embrace him, but I would call it far from certain.

Barry coming back would be an interesting experiment. I don't think any of us can know conclusively how it would play out. Bonds is enough of a polarizing player that normal standards of fan base evaluation do not apply to him.

[brewers96]

My dictionary entry for 'Barry Bonds': an old baseball player who took steroids then denied it. Is now looking for a job and should be a nurse and give vacinations to people considering he got many himself, but he didn't go to a hospital!:rofl:

[KHenry14]

Arte Moreno on Costas Now last night confirmed that the Angels wont sign Barry, and he thinks that no other team will either. Basically he said that the league has "Moved on" and Barry isn't part of that movement. Which is interesting because the Angels could sure use him.

[Transplanted Fan]

Once again, teams know that Barry Bonds is an egomaniac, clubhouse cancer, and all-around distraction. Teams are also all but certain that he has used performance-enhancing drugs and lied about it not only to the game of baseball, but to a federal grand jury. What they don't know is how much Bonds, about to turn 44 years old, has left in the tank. However, the records of the position players who have been in the majors at that age and older do not inspire confidence. Bonds carries a small country's worth of baggage and is, more likely than not, washed up. Why would any team want that?

[spark240]

Any team that signed Bonds would be suffering the fallout for years after he retired for good, known as the team that knowingly, deliberately, embraced him after the public flowering of the steroid story.

Even if he were guaranteed to provide Ruthian production, for free, for the remainder of the season, I don't believe it would be worth it.

[White Knight]

Will Hideki Matsui's bum knee cause the New York Yankees to hit the Bonds market?

God, I hope so. As soon as he started to perform, us Yankee fans would no doubt embrace him.

[White Knight]

Any team that signed Bonds would be suffering the fallout for years after he retired for good, known as the team that knowingly, deliberately, embraced him after the public flowering of the steroid story.

Even if he were guaranteed to provide Ruthian production, for free, for the remainder of the season, I don't believe it would be worth it.

Why? Who cares what he's on (or was on) as long as it helps your team?

[BoweryBoys]

Collusion has nothing to with legality. It has to do with the terms of a negotiated contract.

Racial discrimination would be an entirely different kind of lawsuit and that would in fact be in front of a real judge in a real court system.

I respectfully beg to differ. It has every thing to do with legality even if it is not in front of a judge in a court case and instead just an arbitrator. I know because my brother is an attorney who handles many types of labor matters in arbitration.

It does not have anything to do with the terms of a negotiated contract specific to one individual player simply being denied a job offer from a team, any and all teams. And besides Bonds does not even currently have a negotiated contract for the terms of which to (maybe) be illegally voided by an unfair labor practice from management.

What a collusion case has to be able to attempt to prove to move forward and be a valid claim is a deliberate attempt at conspiracy by management to deny a right(s) and condition(s) earlier guaranteed via a union contract. In the specific case of MLB free agency and signing players, a deliberate attempt by management to weaken and perhaps end the previously guaranteed right of free agency. Collusion has everything to do with it having to be a clear attempt at violation of the CBA for a case to get anywhere, before it would even go to an arbitrator. The union would have a hard time claiming collusion and claiming violation of the CBA case due to one player not being offered a contract, especially Bonds as a good case could be made that there are legitimate reasons why teams do not wish to offer him employment.

The bottom-line is that management, even MLB teams, have their rights too and as long as Bonds has no specific contract from MLB stating that he is guaranteed employment by at least one club for as long as he chooses he doesn't have much choice but to sit and hope someone offers him a job.

The idea that any MLB team is legally obligated to offer any type of free agent player a job for any reason is legally false. It is the same as if, during the era of the reserve clause, a team was legally allowed to force a player no longer under contract to sign a new one if said player decided he would rather just retire. MLB is not legally enforced to offer a player a roster spot if they don't want too as long as it is for clearly legal reasons. Also, any player who decides he does not want to sign a contract with a certainteam has that right as well. it works both ways.

[spark240]

As soon as he started to perform, us Yankee fans would no doubt embrace him.

Who cares what he's on (or was on) as long as it helps your team?

Saith the Yankee fan... :rolleyes:

[BoweryBoys]

I'm just curious as to why so many seem so wrapped up in whether or not a 44 year-old veteran player ever plays again or not, even if he is the all-time HR king and had an .480 OBP last season. What does anyone think Bonds is ever going to do again at his age on an MLB field, especially if he cannot get away with (possibly) using chemicals to help him withstand the rigors of playing MLB at that age and help him stay consistently productive? I mean what do people think they are missing with Bonds now retired? Does anyone think they are going to see him hit 73 HRs in a season again? Come on, the man never hit more then about 49 in a season before that and quite possibly didn't become a holy terror at the plate until possibly having chemical help.

I guess some of those who want him to play have some kind of anti-management agenda when it comes to MLB? Collusion, yada, yada, yada...
I hate owners, they're all crooks etc, etc...

I mean come on! MLB players have never been better treated, better payed nor worked under better conditions then the guys playing today. There's too much cry baby behavior in MLB today. It almost seems to have led to a false sense of entitlement among players and their fans.

I wonder if the real possible lasting effect of modern era PED use in the game is that it has allowed some fans to feel that many modern players are some kind of supermen who can continue to hit MLB pitching at a consistent and highly productive level even well into their late 40s. What's next in the future? 50 being "the new 40" when it comes to modrn era MLB players?

[Ubiquitous]

I respectfully beg to differ. It has every thing to do with legality even if it is not in front of a judge in a court case and instead just an arbitrator. I know because my brother is an attorney who handles many types of labor matters in arbitration.

It does not have anything to do with the terms of a negotiated contract specific to one individual player simply being denied a job offer from a team, any and all teams. And besides Bonds does not even currently have a negotiated contract for the terms of which to (maybe) be illegally voided by an unfair labor practice from management.

What a collusion case has to be able to attempt to prove to move forward and be a valid claim is a deliberate attempt at conspiracy by management to deny a right(s) and condition(s) earlier guaranteed via a union contract. In the specific case of MLB free agency and signing players, a deliberate attempt by management to weaken and perhaps end the previously guaranteed right of free agency. Collusion has everything to do with it having to be a clear attempt at violation of the CBA for a case to get anywhere, before it would even go to an arbitrator. The union would have a hard time claiming collusion and claiming violation of the CBA case due to one player not being offered a contract, especially Bonds as a good case could be made that there are legitimate reasons why teams do not wish to offer him employment.

The bottom-line is that management, even MLB teams, have their rights too and as long as Bonds has no specific contract from MLB stating that he is guaranteed employment by at least one club for as long as he chooses he doesn't have much choice but to sit and hope someone offers him a job.

The idea that any MLB team is legally obligated to offer any type of free agent player a job for any reason is legally false. It is the same as if, during the era of the reserve clause, a team was legally allowed to force a player no longer under contract to sign a new one if said player decided he would rather just retire. MLB is not legally enforced to offer a player a roster spot if they don't want too as long as it is for clearly legal reasons. Also, any player who decides he does not want to sign a contract with a certainteam has that right as well. it works both ways.

Bonds doesn't have a legal to a right a major league job, that wasn't the issue, that wasn't my point. The issue is whether or not 2 or more teams discussed Bonds and the possibility of his employment. In otherwords did Selig get up at the owners meeting and tell the owners to not sign Bonds? If he did he violated the CBA. Article XX expressly forbids players acting in concert with other players and teams acting in concert with other teams over any player not a mass of players but any player at all.

[KHenry14]

Once again, teams know that Barry Bonds is an egomaniac, clubhouse cancer, and all-around distraction.

This is a common misconception by people who didn't follow the Giants closely. Bonds was no clubhouse cancer in SF, no matter what hear, it's not true. Did he get along with everyone? Nope, but who does? But the Giants had the best run since the team moved west while Barry was on the team, that has to mean something. And if he was such a distraction, why was the team 5 outs away from a WS Title? How would that be possible?

And the overwhelming number of his teammates liked having Barry as a teammate. He went out of his way to help the younger guys with their hitting, and time and again you'd see quotes in the press from the kids talking about how much they appreciated his help. But he doesn't hang out with the guys, so maybe the press thinks that's because he's not welcome, but that's not the case.

But he's not getting a gig for other reasons besides the one you mentioned.

[Mattingly]

mattingly: Bonds is despised primatily because of his cheating allegations, but also due to his oversized elbow guard, and perceptions that he couldn't care less about the fans.

so, how did fans feel towards bonds before the allegations?
his elbow guard is a source of scorn? you really believe that the thousands who have booed bonds cite his right elbow protector?
Basically, the huge elbow guards were like "Side B" of what fans didn't like about him. "Side A" would be the shattering of the HR record, and strong allegations that he'd cheated.

I believe you'd mentioned in a prior thread when I'd said that many fans didn't care for Bonds (to say the least), that this was of no concern to him. If that's the case, then his being unemployed right now is fine by me. He doesn't seem to be the least bit concerned with what we think, so his being on the sidelines (and still uninterested in what we have to say) makes me happy.

If he wants fan support, he may try speaking with them and not ignoring them so much. Of course, if fan support isn't his thing, then I suppose he won't mind if fans don't make radio show call-ins, letters to sports writers or letters to the editor to insist that he plays for their team. If fans aren't of much importance to him, then the baseball world can travel very far without him.

[Mattingly]

westlake: Most team's fans dont want him signed, and I dont blame GMs for taking that into consideration.

the flip side is that fan favorites are consistently dealt away.
I think there's a huge difference between dealing away a hometown favorite, such as Boston with Nomah, and signing a player many fans despise. With Nomah, it was about his refusal to sign a $60m/4 yr deal, which was gigantic by those times (around 2003-04, since only in 2000-01 could he have gotten more).

It was a chance that they took, and they got other players who helped them win.

I think that Boston would have lots of trouble convincing fans that they were going to replace the highly admired and affable David Ortiz with Barry Bonds.

[Mattingly]

[COLOR="Black"]tenorman: clubhouse poison .... liability and baggage .... Why contaminate that by signing a clubhouse pariah, a prima donna who seemingly has no concept of a "team player" mentality.

you are singing some wrong notes, tenorman - bonds does not bring poison into a clubhouse; he is not a pariah.

what bonds does bring, though, is a freaky/freakish fascination that attracts reporters and photographers. bonds' baggage ought not be a handicap for professionals. you claim that bonds is tempermental. ok; so what? the same bonds that is presently unsigned is the same bonds who lead the giants into the world series not that long ago. he's the same guy. deal.
There are simply some young players who want to simply play the game, then go back into their lives. Not everyone wants to be interviewed how they feel about Barry Bonds, nor do all fans want to hear about him. The fact that the Giants, who play in a very weak NL West, haven't hopped on that deal, I believe, shows that his most likely chance for continuing his career is lost.

He may be the same person, but what's unknown is his physical condition. Are you expect him to put up a 1.994 OPS like he did in the 2002 WS? I have no idea what kind of leading he's expected to do right now, especially since in mid-July, he remains unsigned, hasn't faced live MLB pitching since last September.
As for possible collusion? It is just as possible that 30 GMs have all come down with a bad case of common sense...

possible, but very unlikely, considering that the gm had at least one conference call to specifically discuss bonds.
Do you know what that conference call was about? Unless teams were ordered to not sign him, or all insisted that he not be signed, I would think that they would have to discuss him. Didn't he personally appear before them at the GMs' meeting? If so, then should they have ignored his presence?

I still think that the "nobody wants him" thing still works.

[Mattingly]

Collusion has nothing to with legality. It has to do with the terms of a negotiated contract.

Racial discrimination would be an entirely different kind of lawsuit and that would in fact be in front of a real judge in a real court system.
If Bonds ever tried arguing racial discrimination, then that would mean that no other black ballplayers were being signed. If even an underperforming got offered a contract in 2007, then I don't see how valid that point would be.

To me, it boils down to one thing: do teams want him or not? The answer to me is a resounding "No". While I'll admit being slightly surprised that no AL team has wanted him to DH/PH, I'll also insist that if Bonds makes his bed, he has to lie in it, even if there are thorns of his own doing in the rosebed.

[Ubiquitous]

If Bonds ever tried arguing racial discrimination, then that would mean that no other black ballplayers were being signed. If even an underperforming got offered a contract in 2007, then I don't see how valid that point would be.

Civil rights are individual rights not group rights. The hiring process and who is employed would definitely be used to prove innocence or guilt but discrimination does not require "that no other black ballplayers were signed". It would simply have to do with a hiring process based on or in part on color.



To me, it boils down to one thing: do teams want him or not? The answer to me is a resounding "No". While I'll admit being slightly surprised that no AL team has wanted him to DH/PH, I'll also insist that if Bonds makes his bed, he has to lie in it, even if there are thorns of his own doing in the rosebed.

Again though that isn't what it boils down to, it has one more boiling process. It isn't simply whether or not "A" team wants him it is whether or not two or more teams got together and decided not to want him. If Steinbrenner calls up Larry and says he doesn't want Barry and Larry shouldn't hire him, then that is collusion. If George calls up Arte and says he doesn't plan on signing any free agents then that is collusion.

[giantsrule]

if he does sign to a team and all their fans hate him...

the first homerun would win them all over...

[west coast orange and black]

transplanted fan: What they don't know is how much Bonds, about to turn 44 years old, has left in the tank.

you have your mind made up on a few things. that's cool.
but it is curious to me that you find not intrigue in finding out whether bonds can put up decent numbers.

Bonds carries a small country's worth of baggage and is, more likely than not, washed up. Why would any team want that?

the baggage claim might be somewhat valid, but "washed up"? on what do you base this? teams sign players to all kinds of contracts, looking to see what sticks. why would signing bonds be different?

[west coast orange and black]

mattingly: I believe you'd mentioned in a prior thread when I'd said that many fans didn't care for Bonds (to say the least), that this was of no concern to him.

i will wager my home that the majority of players feel the same way.

[west coast orange and black]

mattingly: I think there's a huge difference between dealing away a hometown favorite, such as Boston with Nomah, and signing a player many fans despise. With Nomah, it was about his refusal to sign a $60m/4 yr deal, which was gigantic by those times...

your selection of garciaparra is simply that: a selection.
many giants fans are still ticked about matt williams leaving the club, and williams was on very good terms with ownership. it was a business decision.
signing bonds would be a business decision.

I think that Boston would have lots of trouble convincing fans that they were going to replace the highly admired and affable David Ortiz with Barry Bonds.

it would not be up to boston's brass; it would be up to bonds' bat.
numbers have a way of changing people's thinking.

[west coast orange and black]

mattingly: There are simply some young players who want to simply play the game, then go back into their lives. Not everyone wants to be interviewed how they feel about Barry Bonds...

"no comment."

nor do all fans want to hear about him
so don't

He may be the same person, but what's unknown is his physical condition.

how ironic.

Are you expect him to put up a 1.994 OPS like he did in the 2002 WS? I have no idea what kind of leading he's expected to do right now, especially since in mid-July, he remains unsigned, hasn't faced live MLB pitching since last September.

not expecting anything from bonds except what bonds could put up.
the 7-game world series is just that: 7 games.
ever hear of mike benjamin?

Do you know what that conference call was about? Unless teams were ordered to not sign him, or all insisted that he not be signed, I would think that they would have to discuss him.

teams were not "ordered."
why do you think that the owners would "have to" discuss bonds?

Didn't he personally appear before them at the GMs' meeting? If so, then should they have ignored his presence?

that's not the way that it works. sometimes players go to the winter meetings to pitch themselves. they have scheduled interviews.

[west coast orange and black]

mattingly: If Bonds ever tried arguing racial discrimination, then that would mean that no other black ballplayers were being signed.

so, if one couple is rented an apartment and another couple of the same heritage is refused based on heritage, then that's cool with you?
c'mon, man.

To me, it boils down to one thing: do teams want him or not?

except, it's not quite that simple.
it is one thing to not want to sign bonds, it is an entirely different matter if teams discussed and then agreed not to.
the first can exist without problem. the second may provoke a lawsuit.

[Old Sweater]

WCOB>but it is curious to me that you find not intrigue in finding out whether bonds can put up decent numbers.


Would have been really intriging if the Yanks had signed him!!!!!

A Rod/Bonds/Bombs
or
Bonds/A Rod/Bombs

DeJa Vu all over again baby!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Mattingly]

mattingly: I believe you'd mentioned in a prior thread when I'd said that many fans didn't care for Bonds (to say the least), that this was of no concern to him.

i will wager my home that the majority of players feel the same way.
Which players would that be? I'm just glad that there are players who have an interest in the fans, and fas do notice when players are nasty to them, such as for autograph requests.

If the best Bonds can do is supposedy have the least liked personality characteristic shared by others, then that's like saying "I've seen worse", or "so does everyone else". Well, there are players like Junior who are fan favorites. I look at how beloved Bernie Williams will always be, ever the really classy fan favorite, you can put his picture there alongside Yogi and Gehrig as the epitome of class for baseball players.

Plese let me know when you're willing to bet the house that Bonds gets called very classy, is beloved as a person, not just known for his offensive stats, and somewhat offensive and surly attitude. He wouldn't even speak to the media once around 2006 when they had a special day for him.

Thank goodness for the baseball players who truly appreciate the fans, and the fans who appreciate them right back! No need, in my opinion, for anyone who couldn't care less about us, and no need to have him play for our team, regardless of which team that is.

Bon voyage, Mr Bonds. See you in the distant future, and the 23% club from the BBWAA can have a new member in just a few short years, with Mark McGwire being the current recipient. Gee, I wonder why? :D

[Mattingly]

mattingly: I think there's a huge difference between dealing away a hometown favorite, such as Boston with Nomah, and signing a player many fans despise. With Nomah, it was about his refusal to sign a $60m/4 yr deal, which was gigantic by those times...

your selection of garciaparra is simply that: a selection.
many giants fans are still ticked about matt williams leaving the club, and williams was on very good terms with ownership. it was a business decision.
signing bonds would be a business decision.
I'm not sure what the story was with Wlliams. Care to elaborate on the situation, please?

Most people are familiar with Nomah, so that's why I used that example. It was one I felt that people could relate to, wasn't just another selection, as you've indicated.
I think that Boston would have lots of trouble convincing fans that they were going to replace the highly admired and affable David Ortiz with Barry Bonds.

it would not be up to boston's brass; it would be up to bonds' bat.
numbers have a way of changing people's thinking.
The fans influence the brass, such as sports radio call-in shows. Fans want to like their players. In Boston's case, they consider themselves, per some of what they say in commercials, to be gritty, blue-collared guys. I don't see Bonds fitting in there.

I consider Ortiz, for all the damage he's done to Yankee pitching, an excellent personality. People love and admire him, he says pleasant things about the fans, he does have the horse's "rear" attitude thing like Schilling does. I don't see any disdain for the fans from him.

As to the numbers, people have seen Bonds' numbers for awhile now, since he was with Pittsburgh, and the most gaudy numbers imaginable from 2001-05. If people wanted him doing that for their team, don't you think he'd have been signed by now? Or at least made a serious offer?

The man occupied thread after thread under CE just 2-3 years ago, and ESPN seemed to be transformed into his own on-field reality show, the way he was mentioned non-stop.

If you feel that fans who've wanted their pitchers to walk him, didn't want him at bat, much less reaching 1B, will all of a sudden be cheering for him once he starts hitting some 2-out, 2-run doubles, then I have doubts on that happening from the fans, and his ability to mash as he'd so easily done before.

I won't say he's washed up, as did another forumer in this thread, but I don't even have an assurance that he's going to miraculously re-adapt to live MLB pitching, which he hasn't seen in 10 months. If he can, more power to im. However, I'm not the least bit interested or curious to see if he can do this.

Bonds just going away, as Palmeiro and McGwire have done, but as Canseco is unable to do even in retirement, is my only interest.

[west coast orange and black]

mattingly: Which players would that be?

you want names?
wouldn't it be easier for you to name all of the players, then, whom you feel are not interested in the fans?

Thank goodness for the baseball players who truly appreciate the fans, and the fans who appreciate them right back! No need, in my opinion, for anyone who couldn't care less about us, and no need to have him play for our team, regardless of which team that is.

while plenty of fans believe that the majority of the players appreciate the fans, i think that the majority of the players prefer to not be bothered with fan apprciation stuff.

griffey continues to be mentioned as A+ material. that's cool. but the reality is that there have been plenty of times when he was at least abrupt and rude; his name continues to be mentioned when honest discussions of ped use take place; griffey loves barry bonds.

[west coast orange and black]

mattingly: I'm not sure what the story was with Wlliams. Care to elaborate on the situation, please?

no; it's well-publicized.

Most people are familiar with Nomah, so that's why I used that example. It was one I felt that people could relate to, wasn't just another selection, as you've indicated.

ok. but the fact remains that it is but one selection.

I don't see Bonds fitting in there.

the business that is baseball overrides public sentiment.
see "matt williams".

If you feel that fans who've wanted their pitchers to walk him, didn't want him at bat, much less reaching 1B, will all of a sudden be cheering for him once he starts hitting some 2-out, 2-run doubles, then I have doubts on that happening from the fans, and his ability to mash as he'd so easily done before.

sounds as though you missed the crowds on the road booing bonds, only to boo their own pitcher for four-fingering him.
you probably also missed the road crowds that booed while clapping as bonds jogged the bases after a home run.

dude. if a player helpd his team win, the fans get into that.

I don't even have an assurance that he's going to miraculously re-adapt to live MLB pitching, which he hasn't seen in 10 months.

consider players who suffer serious injury and get operations that remove them from the game for long periods of time. certain parts of the game become second nature to players and amazingly high levels of play can be reached in relatively short periods of time. tony gwynn can roll outta bed tomorrow and hit close to .300 for a month.

bonds, who has been running and strength-training for months and has seen live pitching throughout could probably tune it up in about 2 weeks and not embarass himself out there.
think about it: this is the same guy whom many claim that his ego became his downfall. why would he step into the box unless he believed in his abilities?

[Mattingly]

mattingly: If Bonds ever tried arguing racial discrimination, then that would
mean that no other black ballplayers were being signed.

so, if one couple is rented an apartment and another couple of the same heritage is refused based on heritage, then that's cool with you?
c'mon, man.
I don't see how one couple could be refused an apartment rental or home ownership based on race, color, heritage, or however it's termed, then another person of the same heritage is allowed to rent or own, and the heritage discrimination still be valid. Either they discriminate against all or the claim is not very valid as I see it.

To me, if you're not going to rent to one black, Hispanic or Jew, then you won't rent or sell to others either. Once you do, the claim is diluted, I believe. If anything, there could be other factors, such as neighbors' complaints, a history of late rent or mortgage payments, bad credit history, lack of sufficient earning power, or other things unrelated to race.

I don't see how Bonds could make a racial claim. If Frank Thomas worked this season, and he has nuch less capabilities, Sheffield is still working, then how can the racial claim be validly made?

Didn't Torri Hunter just get some huge contract for $18m/yr, a salary some here on BBF said was higher than he deserved, as they did for Barry Zito's contract? Or is Barry Bonds the only black ballplayer affected by not being signed?

If anything, I haven't seen any systematic patterns in MLB of refusing to sign or re-sign black vet ballplayers, so Mr Bonds should not try using that as an excuse. If anyone else has noticed this, instead of questions, they should try providing examples of this.

If race were a factor, then it's like saying people suddenly realized he was black. All of a sudden, just one black MLB player is singled out to not be signed, and it's him? It's either this or possibly, quite a few people are tired of his act.
To me, it boils down to one thing: do teams want him or not?

except, it's not quite that simple.
it is one thing to not want to sign bonds, it is an entirely different matter if teams discussed and then agreed not to.
the first can exist without problem. the second may provoke a lawsuit.
What evidence is there that the discussions between GMs centered upon a joint agreement by them to not sign him? You can allege this, but unless you heard the telephone conversation(s) and/or group meeting(s), is your guess one bit better than mine or anyone else's?

I could just as easily say that Bonds is guilty of using all kinds of undetectable PEDs, but I'd need evidence before omitting the word "allegedly" from that claim. No positive proof, no valid claim, in either case; just suspicions.

[west coast orange and black]

mattingly: What evidence is there that the discussions between GMs centered upon a joint agreement by them to not sign him?

as far as i can tell, no one here has made that claim.

You can allege this, but unless you heard the telephone conversation(s) and/or group meeting(s), is your guess one bit better than mine or anyone else's?

is your explantion of what a co-worker recently did at work more credible than that from one who is not a co-worker?

[TonyK]

Confucious say it is far better to buy stocks than bonds right now.

[spark240]

It seems that folks are mostly falling into two schools of thought,

1. Bonds is so great, it's obvious several teams could really benefit from having him. Therefore the simple fact that nobody has signed him itself suggests collusion against signing him,

or,

2. Bonds is so problematic, it's obvious why teams wouldn't want him, or would shy away from signing him even if they think he still has on-field value.

I'm with this second camp. Here's my question for the first.

Suppose you are the owner of a team which is currently within striking distance of the 2008 playoffs. (If it helps, assume this is an American League team.) If you really think Bonds would be an asset, why would you let other owners talk you out of it?

Is it not true that collusion only works if each owner believes that the collective action is serving his own selfish interest? This was at least plausible in the case of restraining free agent salaries.

[west coast orange and black]

If you really think Bonds would be an asset, why would you let other owners talk you out of it?

if collusion occurred as believed, it occurred during winter meets, which were before the start of this season.

[Ubiquitous]

Suppose you are the owner of a team which is currently within striking distance of the 2008 playoffs. (If it helps, assume this is an American League team.) If you really think Bonds would be an asset, why would you let other owners talk you out of it?

Is it not true that collusion only works if each owner believes that the collective action is serving his own selfish interest? This was at least plausible in the case of restraining free agent salaries.


Considering that the owners have now done collusion 4 times now I would say that owners let other owners or leagues talk them out of signing players that will help them in the season.

Winning is not the only goal of owners. Another goal could quite possibly be to keep the poster child for steroids out of the game so that the government doesn't step in. Or it could be they view him as a black eye and they don't want him around. Or it could simply be that they don't like him. REgardless of the reason why if they talked about it it is collusion.

[Mattingly]

mattingly: What evidence is there that the discussions between GMs centered upon a joint agreement by them to not sign him?

as far as i can tell, no one here has made that claim.
Well, if the GMs didn't decide with one single voice not to hire Barry Bonds, then how could there be collusion allegations? Wouldn't they have just said that they weren't going to employ him, making the collusions allegations true?
You can allege this, but unless you heard the telephone conversation(s) and/or group meeting(s), is your guess one bit better than mine or anyone else's?

is your explantion of what a co-worker recently did at work more credible than that from one who is not a co-worker?
I don't understand what you mean by this. If I was at work and witnessed what a co-worker did, you're asking me if that's more accurate than someone who wasn't there?

Who would be the co-worker, and who would be the person who wasn't there, according to what you're saying?

[Mattingly]

mattingly: I'm not sure what the story was with Wlliams. Care to elaborate on the situation, please?

no; it's well-publicized.

Most people are familiar with Nomah, so that's why I used that example. It was one I felt that people could relate to, wasn't just another selection, as you've indicated.

ok. but the fact remains that it is but one selection.

I don't see Bonds fitting in there.

the business that is baseball overrides public sentiment.
see "matt williams".
That's fine, doesn't surprise me at times. If you have no interest upon elaborating upon someone, then would you mind not mentioning the person's name in the first place?

It's as if you introduce a person's name to a topic, then when someone asks for the relevance, you insist that they have to do the footwork on a topic that *YOU* have introduced?
If you feel that fans who've wanted their pitchers to walk him, didn't want him at bat, much less reaching 1B, will all of a sudden be cheering for him once he starts hitting some 2-out, 2-run doubles, then I have doubts on that happening from the fans, and his ability to mash as he'd so easily done before.

sounds as though you missed the crowds on the road booing bonds, only to boo their own pitcher for four-fingering him.
you probably also missed the road crowds that booed while clapping as bonds jogged the bases after a home run.
Booing while clapping? Who boos and claps at the same time? If you're talking about at Dodger Stadium, there may have been LAD fans who booed and SFG fans who clapped. Are you telling me that fans of the opposing team (home or on the road) both clapped and booed?
dude. if a player helpd his team win, the fans get into that.

I don't even have an assurance that he's going to miraculously re-adapt to live MLB pitching, which he hasn't seen in 10 months.

consider players who suffer serious injury and get operations that remove them from the game for long periods of time. certain parts of the game become second nature to players and amazingly high levels of play can be reached in relatively short periods of time. tony gwynn can roll outta bed tomorrow and hit close to .300 for a month.
Are you going to offer an example of this also, or do I need to look for an example for you? Which players have been out of the game for an extended period of time, then came back strong?

What evidence do you have that Tony Gwynn, who retired after 2001, could come back and hit .300?
bonds, who has been running and strength-training for months and has seen live pitching throughout could probably tune it up in about 2 weeks and not embarass himself out there.
think about it: this is the same guy whom many claim that his ego became his downfall. why would he step into the box unless he believed in his abilities?
Barry Bonds has seen live pitching from who? Who are the pitchers that he's been working out with? Are these guys his friends? Minor Leaguers? Who are they, and what is their level of professional experience as baseball pitchers?

[Mattingly]

Considering that the owners have now done collusion 4 times now I would say that owners let other owners or leagues talk them out of signing players that will help them in the season.

Winning is not the only goal of owners. Another goal could quite possibly be to keep the poster child for steroids out of the game so that the government doesn't step in. Or it could be they view him as a black eye and they don't want him around. Or it could simply be that they don't like him. REgardless of the reason why if they talked about it it is collusion.
I thought that collusion meant that they not only asked the others if they were going to hire Bonds, but if they, as one, decided against hiring him. I thought that collusion meant that they just wanted to keep him out of the game, regardless of the reason for this.

[Zagi-CRO]

Confucious say it is far better to buy stocks than bonds right now.

Does the Yankees knows that?? :twocents:

Bonds goes to the Yank, I'm sure.

[Mattingly]

Does the Yankees knows that?? :twocents:

Bonds goes to the Yank, I'm sure.
I doubt it. I really don't think that Hank wants to really upset the fans like this. Considering that many don't see anything wrong with the current historic stadium that's slated for the wrecking ball, then going into a new stadium where seats will cost quite a bit more, can they afford to turn off any fans?

I think that if anyone is really interested in seeing Bonds play, or hopes that anyone else would have such interest, then I have the perfect solution:

Have the City of San Francisco bring him back for another 1/2 season. He can then return to the only crowd which has enthusiastically applauded him while he was playing for their team.

[Zagi-CRO]

I doubt it. I really don't think that Hank wants to really upset the fans like this. Considering that many don't see anything wrong with the current historic stadium that's slated for the wrecking ball, then going into a new stadium where seats will cost quite a bit more, can they afford to turn off any fans?

I think that if anyone is really interested in seeing Bonds play, or hopes that anyone else would have such interest, then I have the perfect solution:

Have the City of San Francisco bring him back for another 1/2 season. He can then return to the only crowd which has enthusiastically applauded him while he was playing for their team.

Carry us, please: Barry Bonds. The Yankees’ offense this season is mediocre, and Richie Sexson’s problems are related more to bat speed than attitude, so he’s not the answer. With Hideki Matsui out, the Yankees need a left fielder with pop. And, hey, he’ll sign for the minimum, right?
from http://sports.yahoo.com/mlb/news;_ylt=AiU69bCI8UNRO0vsSZSGvYURvLYF?slug=jp-contenders072108&prov=yhoo&type=lgns

[Mattingly]

Carry us, please: Barry Bonds. The Yankees’ offense this season is mediocre, and Richie Sexson’s problems are related more to bat speed than attitude, so he’s not the answer. With Hideki Matsui out, the Yankees need a left fielder with pop. And, hey, he’ll sign for the minimum, right?
from http://sports.yahoo.com/mlb/news;_ylt=AiU69bCI8UNRO0vsSZSGvYURvLYF?slug=jp-contenders072108&prov=yhoo&type=lgns
All a team has to do to win a game is to score 1 more run than their opponent does by the end of the top half of the 9th or later innings at home, or on the bottom of the same at home or on the road. That's it.

I think that if our guys start clicking again on all cylinders, people like Jose Molina continue (or should I say "begin"?) batting well, and Chad Moeller does well at least in pitch calling and selection, if Johnny Damon provides useful offense as the DH, since he's like a spark plug for this team, then Jeter, Abreu, Rodriguez, Cano, Melky, Betemit all hit well, then Farnsworth, Veras, Ramirez, Hawkins, the other relievers can be consistent, then I believe we'll win games.

Merely inserting Barry Bonds into your lineup, to me, isn't a cure-all. If people can't score on his hits, if nobody can drive him in, or if the #5-9 guys in the lineup are swinging away or hitting into DPs, I don't see what the advantage is. If he's supposed to be the missing piece of the puzzle, I'd suggest there are many other missing pieces.

If I were to pick a player who we need and is attainable, it would be for Chien-Ming Wang to return from the DL, not for Barry Bonds to join our boys. With Wang, Pettitte, Moose, Joba, the Ponson or Rasner in the #5 spot, I'd say we have a much better chance of winning than taking a chance on mere claims that someone is ready, none of which claims have been supported.

There are 30 teams presently not in need of Bonds' service, and if that continues until the end of next season, will simply slowly fade away from the game and public spotlight.

Bonds, if he's so willing to play for some minimum wage, can just go join one of the independent leagues. He'll make 1/10th of the MLB rookie pay, he'll have to ride in a bus, not first class, nor any luxury hotels. If he truly feels he wants to play, then he should be easily able to do that. However, if his pride and exposure to a lack of creature comforts gets in the way, then another season of more debates but no MLB baseball appears to be in his future. :D

[Ubiquitous]

I thought that collusion meant that they not only asked the others if they were going to hire Bonds, but if they, as one, decided against hiring him. I thought that collusion meant that they just wanted to keep him out of the game, regardless of the reason for this.

Read Article XX of the CBA it states that Players and Clubs shall act solely and not in concert with others. IF I am owner X and you are Owner Y and I tell you I won't spen more then 1 million on player Z that tells you something. If I say I won't sign player Z at all again that tells you something. YOu as owner Y are no longer acting alone. During free agency bidding you can't call me up and ask me how much I offered Player Z. The last round of collusion that the owners lost was similar to this. The GM's were all rounded up and made to declare whar their plans were for the upcoming free agency season.

[Mattingly]

Read Article XX of the CBA it states that Players and Clubs shall act solely and not in concert with others. IF I am owner X and you are Owner Y and I tell you I won't spen more then 1 million on player Z that tells you something. If I say I won't sign player Z at all again that tells you something. YOu as owner Y are no longer acting alone. During free agency bidding you can't call me up and ask me how much I offered Player Z. The last round of collusion that the owners lost was similar to this. The GM's were all rounded up and made to declare whar their plans were for the upcoming free agency season.
I think it would be difficult to prove that a player received much less than what he should've expected, since the big-name players have been making ridiculous free agency fees. Look at Messrs Zito, Hunter, Soriano, Santana, Andruw Jones.

For players making much less, such as a $2m player who's expected to reach $5-6m via FA, then if the owners act in concert, as you say, to limit that players' earnings to $4m/yr, then I would consider this to be collusion.

I sometimes wonder f that has been going on already. I remember Selig said he'd wanted to keep the FA salaries down, since players in the same position would have their market fee raised. That's what the Yanks were accused of doing, so I wonder if other teams hadn't sought to keep those saaries lower, while the Yanks paid more.

Has a player ever sued to say that he was essentially unable to work because the owners refused to hire him? I recall vaguely that Curt Flood, the player most responsible for doing away with the Reserve Clause, was denied work, likely as punishment for his lawsuit.

[Ubiquitous]

Yes several players have won lawsuits against MLB for being blackballed by them. But that was back in the days before a CBA. It had to do with the Mexican league just after WWII. Curt Flood wasn't blackballed, he played for Washington and for a nice sum too.

I think it would be difficult to prove that a player received much less than what he should've expected, since the big-name players have been making ridiculous free agency fees. Look at Messrs Zito, Hunter, Soriano, Santana, Andruw Jones.


Again this isn't really the X-Files and what is or could be happening isn't some deep masonic secret. You have agents who have been neck deep in negotiations for decades and it doesn't take a rocket scientist to see a shift in teams thinking and willingness to pay. After that all you really have to do is look and you will find meeting records and people saying yes we did talk about this or that. Owners and GM's are not some secret evil cabal but ordinary people who will most likely tell the truth when forced too. And before somebody accuses me of being all pie in the sky with this check out what happened in all the other collusion hearings.

[White Knight]

I doubt it. I really don't think that Hank wants to really upset the fans like this. Considering that many don't see anything wrong with the current historic stadium that's slated for the wrecking ball, then going into a new stadium where seats will cost quite a bit more, can they afford to turn off any fans?

I think that if anyone is really interested in seeing Bonds play, or hopes that anyone else would have such interest, then I have the perfect solution:

Have the City of San Francisco bring him back for another 1/2 season. He can then return to the only crowd which has enthusiastically applauded him while he was playing for their team.

It wouldn't upset this Yankee fan. The casual fans don't care about the PED past, they didn't boo other users. They booed Bonds because he's not a good person. However, once he hits his first HR, that changes.

[Honus Wagner Rules]

Again this isn't really the X-Files and what is or could be happening isn't some deep masonic secret. You have agents who have been neck deep in negotiations for decades and it doesn't take a rocket scientist to see a shift in teams thinking and willingness to pay. After that all you really have to do is look and you will find meeting records and people saying yes we did talk about this or that. Owners and GM's are not some secret evil cabal but ordinary people who will most likely tell the truth when forced too. And before somebody accuses me of being all pie in the sky with this check out what happened in all the other collusion hearings.

So Bud Selig isn't the "Cigarette Smoking Man"? :confused:

[Mattingly]

Yes several players have won lawsuits against MLB for being blackballed by them. But that was back in the days before a CBA. It had to do with the Mexican league just after WWII. Curt Flood wasn't blackballed, he played for Washington and for a nice sum too.
I remember hearing about the Mexican Leagues. I think that there was a term called "barnstorming" or something similar, meaning that MLB players would illegally play in the Mexican Leagues for extra money on the side. Weren't these games played in the offseason? If I remember correctly, Babe Ruth was one of the most (in)famous of those players caught doing this.

Were there other main reasons of relevance during the WWII era why MLB players were blacklisted?
Again this isn't really the X-Files and what is or could be happening isn't some deep masonic secret. You have agents who have been neck deep in negotiations for decades and it doesn't take a rocket scientist to see a shift in teams thinking and willingness to pay. After that all you really have to do is look and you will find meeting records and people saying yes we did talk about this or that. Owners and GM's are not some secret evil cabal but ordinary people who will most likely tell the truth when forced too. And before somebody accuses me of being all pie in the sky with this check out what happened in all the other collusion hearings.
Well, I haven't even watched many editions of the X Files in awhile now, but only remember a few friends watching it religiously on Saturdays. Had you mentioned the Twilight Zone, then you'd have a Rod Serling classical Sci-Fi show I am more familiar with.

So when you say that there's a shift in how much that owners are willing to pay, based upon what vet agents have noticed, are you referring to for individual players, or the player market in general?

For example, following the 2000 season, Manny Ramirez ($160m/8 yrs), Alex Rodriguez ($252m/10 yrs) and Derek Jeter ($189m/10 yrs) signed oversized deals totallying 28 years and ~$600m, setting the bar quite high for A-List corner outfielders and shortstops. Neither Nomah Garciaprra nor Miggy Tejada were able to take advantage, since their contracts weren't up for a few years.

Are you saying that the market for oversized contracts shifted? Or that the player markets, such as for aces, #2, #3 pitchers, corner and middle infielders, CFers and others had suddenly taken an overall downward spiral?

I haven't actually followed other collusion hearings in baseball and/or other sports. Would there be some reliable sources online where I could get some good preparatory info? Something to get me up to speed on this is what I'm asking for. Thanks in advance for any help that you can provide on this. :)

[Ubiquitous]

I remember hearing about the Mexican Leagues. I think that there was a term called "barnstorming" or something similar, meaning that MLB players would illegally play in the Mexican Leagues for extra money on the side. Weren't these games played in the offseason? If I remember correctly, Babe Ruth was one of the most (in)famous of those players caught doing this.

No, it was a competing league after WWII. Chandler demanded that all MLB players to return to the MLB within 10 days or be banned for 5 years. Vern Stephens played 2 games in the Mexican LEague in order to get the raise he wanted out of the Browns. SEveral players get banned, they sue, and then drop the suit when Chandler lets them back in.


Were there other main reasons of relevance during the WWII era why MLB players were blacklisted?

I'm sure there was, it wasn't that hard to get blacklisted when there are no rules against it. We know players in the 20's got blacklisted.


Take a look at the 2003 era of free agency. Many of the pitchers were getting the same contract. 4 years and around 7 million dollars. Hitters were not getting big contracts either. The agents and then the union screamed collusion. In the CBA the owners agreed to pay to have the suit dropped.

[Ubiquitous]

I haven't actually followed other collusion hearings in baseball and/or other sports. Would there be some reliable sources online where I could get some good preparatory info? Something to get me up to speed on this is what I'm asking for. Thanks in advance for any help that you can provide on this. :)

Lords of the REalm is a great baseball history book that goes pays particular attention to the business side of baseball. I believe Zimbalist now has several books on the business side of baseball and I think one or two of them touch on this.

[sturg1dj]

I remember hearing about the Mexican Leagues. I think that there was a term called "barnstorming" or something similar, meaning that MLB players would illegally play in the Mexican Leagues for extra money on the side. Weren't these games played in the offseason? If I remember correctly, Babe Ruth was one of the most (in)famous of those players caught doing this.

Were there other main reasons of relevance during the WWII era why MLB players were blacklisted?

Well, I haven't even watched many editions of the X Files in awhile now, but only remember a few friends watching it religiously on Saturdays. Had you mentioned the Twilight Zone, then you'd have a Rod Serling classical Sci-Fi show I am more familiar with.

So when you say that there's a shift in how much that owners are willing to pay, based upon what vet agents have noticed, are you referring to for individual players, or the player market in general?

For example, following the 2000 season, Manny Ramirez ($160m/8 yrs), Alex Rodriguez ($252m/10 yrs) and Derek Jeter ($189m/10 yrs) signed oversized deals totallying 28 years and ~$600m, setting the bar quite high for A-List corner outfielders and shortstops. Neither Nomah Garciaprra nor Miggy Tejada were able to take advantage, since their contracts weren't up for a few years.

Are you saying that the market for oversized contracts shifted? Or that the player markets, such as for aces, #2, #3 pitchers, corner and middle infielders, CFers and others had suddenly taken an overall downward spiral?

I haven't actually followed other collusion hearings in baseball and/or other sports. Would there be some reliable sources online where I could get some good preparatory info? Something to get me up to speed on this is what I'm asking for. Thanks in advance for any help that you can provide on this. :)



1. Mexican League - was a league in Mexico that tried to compete with MLB. MLB used its monopoly power to stop players from competing in that league by banning them from returning for 5 years. The deal was that the Mexican league was willing to pay nearly what MLB was paying (sometimes more). This wasn't hard since MLB controlled salaries. The problem with the mexican league was the quality of life for the players was much worse than in MLB, and when players tried to return they were met with the 5 year ban. Danny Gardella actually won a lawsuit (well actually MLB settled).

2. collusion - check out this wikipedia article (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baseball_collusion) I know wikipedia isn't always the best source, but here its pretty accurate. Also at the bottom is its references, so check them out as well.


its important to realize that things like this have happened before, and to just write off what is going on right now is not looking at the history of baseball.

my favorite thing about collusion is that is was something that the OWNERS originally wanted in the CBA because they were afraid of multiple stars joining together in contract negotiations (like Koufax and Drysdale did).

[sturg1dj]

Lords of the REalm is a great baseball history book that goes pays particular attention to the business side of baseball. I believe Zimbalist now has several books on the business side of baseball and I think one or two of them touch on this.

Lords of the Realm is an excellent source for collusion info...and Zimbalist has books on both the business and a great read on the hisory of the commissioner's office.

Also Marvin Miller's biography. Its obviously one-sided, but its a great read. And if you read that and want the other side then you read Bowie Kuhn's biography...which is not as good of a read.

[SHOELESSJOE3]

We should keep one thing in mind here, lets wait and see. It's possible there was some collusion and maybe not. It's possible a number of teams don't want Barry for their own reason, thats not a stretch.
And it's possible there could be some collusion and we may never find out.
My answer, I don't know, no one knows at this time, I don't lean either way.

[Old Sweater]

We should keep one thing in mind here, lets wait and see. It's possible there was some collusion and maybe not. It's possible a number of teams don't want Barry for their own reason, thats not a stretch.
And it's possible there could be some collusion and we may never find out.
My answer, I don't know, no one knows at this time, I don't lean either way.

Some collusion!!!!!!:):):)

Cm'on Joe......the guy led the MLB in OBP last year and had 28 HR's in less then 400 AB's

100% collusion with no doubt >>>>>>>>>>IMO

[SHOELESSJOE3]

Some collusion!!!!!!:):):)

Cm'on Joe......the guy led the MLB in OBP last year and had 28 HR's in less then 400 AB's

100% collusion with no doubt >>>>>>>>>>IMO

Thats your opinion, my opinion is more on the mark, that is I don't know at this time. I don't say there is or is not, how could anyone say with certainty that there is or is not, whats your source. It wouldn't be shock if some owners had reasons of their own and there was no collusion.

[Old Sweater]

Thats your opinion, my opinion is more on the mark, that is I don't know at this time. I don't say there is or is not, how could anyone say with certainty that there is or is not, whats your source. It wouldn't be shock if some owners had reasons of their own and there was no collusion.

Common sense. There hasn't been in the history of MLB a player led the league in OBP with 28 HR's and hasn't been offered a job the next year. Only player I can think of is Carew that was shunned by MLB owners?????>never did understand the Carew deal at all>guy was great for the game.

It wouldn't be shock if some owners had reasons of their own and there was no collusion.

Any reason=collusion

[sturg1dj]

the fact that the Yankees have not inquired about Bonds I think shows that something is up. A player's personality never stopped them before. Neither did contract. And they could use a lefthanded DH that can slug like that.



Bonds personality flaws seem to be predicated on being the center of attention and constantly being harassed by the media. Of course that will happen in New York, but at the same time after the first week or so the reporters would have to go back to trying to dig up dirk on A-Rod or the other stars on the team.

[Mattingly]

Read Article XX of the CBA it states that Players and Clubs shall act solely and not in concert with others. IF I am owner X and you are Owner Y and I tell you I won't spen more then 1 million on player Z that tells you something. If I say I won't sign player Z at all again that tells you something. YOu as owner Y are no longer acting alone. During free agency bidding you can't call me up and ask me how much I offered Player Z. The last round of collusion that the owners lost was similar to this. The GM's were all rounded up and made to declare whar their plans were for the upcoming free agency season.
Here's the 2007-11 CBA which I'd found from the web (this is a PDF file requiring Adobe Acrobat):

http://mlbplayers.mlb.com/pa/pdf/cba_english.pdf (page 69)
ARTICLE XX—Reserve System
A. Reservation Rights Of Clubs
Subject to the rights of Players as set forth in this Agreement, each Club may have title to and reserve up to 40 Player contracts. A Club shall retain title to a contract and reservation rights until one of the following occurs:
(1) The Player becomes a free agent, as set forth in this Agreement;
(2) The Player becomes a free agent as a result of
(a) termination of the contract by the Club pursuant to paragraph 7(b) thereof,
(b) termination of the contract by the Player pursuant to paragraph 7(a) thereof,
(c) failure by the Office of the Commissioner to convey to the Player, by Central Tender Letter submitted to the Association, the Club’s tender of a new contract within the time period specified
in paragraph 10(a) of the contract (see Attachment 9), or
(d) failure by the Club to exercise its right to renew the contract within the time period specified in paragraph 10(a) thereof; or
(3) The contract is assigned outright by the Club.

* * *

I can understand owners and GMs not sharing information as to how much they'd planned to sign a particular player, if even signing that player at all.

As to front office people not being able to find out how much they were offering one particular player, I think that if a team is negotiating for that player's rights, then one party may just ask the player "What's the best offer you've received so far". I remember that's what the Yanks asked Giambi after the 2001 season re Oakland, and he got a $16m/yr deal without a no-trade. The Yanks paid him $17.1m/yr with a no-trade (the deal maker or breaker, according to Giambi).

Are you saying that a team cannot say how much one particular player is making (or scheduled to be making that season)?

Also, if one GM or owner says that he refuses to go above $__ for Player A, I don't consider that in of itself to be collusion. Wouldn't the other manager you'd referred to need to be in on the deal and do the same thing? If the other GMs are willing to deal with the player, give him a salary based upon what we consider to be "fair", then I don't see much issue of this.

If Player A could easily be a $5m player, then I don't see why he wouldn't be. All it would take is an old-fashioned bidding war. If you're saying that owners would refuse to bid higher than a certain amount, then if they're acting together, I would say that this action would be illegal.

Now how do you get owners to declare their player plans? Do they have to say what kind of player they have interest in? How much they're willing to pay for each one?

[Mattingly]

the fact that the Yankees have not inquired about Bonds I think shows that something is up. A player's personality never stopped them before. Neither did contract. And they could use a lefthanded DH that can slug like that.

Bonds personality flaws seem to be predicated on being the center of attention and constantly being harassed by the media. Of course that will happen in New York, but at the same time after the first week or so the reporters would have to go back to trying to dig up dirk on A-Rod or the other stars on the team.
Why the Yankees, as opposed to the Rays, Tigers, Oakland, Twins or any other club?

I'll admit that Sheffield and Mondesi were far from the most pleasant, but Bonds seems really anti-fan, like how Albert Belle used to be. I think that right now, we like to enjoy our players, such as Cano, Melky, Damon. Yes, even Giambi.

I have no idea how well Bonds can still slug, and I simply don't like him much. I haven't seen anyone do more than claim how he's fully ready to be ready to start hitting.

So you think that A-Rod would overshadow Barry Bonds? The same Barry Bonds who took over the entire sports media from around 2003-06? Sorry, whether Alex Rodriguez hits or not wouldn't compare to the upcoming Barry Bonds trial, whether he used designer steroids or not, why Greg Anderson was in jail and not co-operating, then mundane stuff like did Barry trip and fall in the clubhouse. It would be like a 24-hour media barrage.

I'd much rather that some other team be expected to sign Barry Bonds. It's bad enough that Steinbrenner has to pay revenue checks to other teams, and now he's being drafted as the team to hire someone that nobody else wants? I don't see that. Let another team be the one who wishes to do this.

[Mattingly]

No, it was a competing league after WWII. Chandler demanded that all MLB players to return to the MLB within 10 days or be banned for 5 years. Vern Stephens played 2 games in the Mexican LEague in order to get the raise he wanted out of the Browns. SEveral players get banned, they sue, and then drop the suit when Chandler lets them back in.
I found something on this from the parent site:

http://www.baseball-almanac.com/legendary/Mexican_League.shtml
I'm sure there was, it wasn't that hard to get blacklisted when there are no rules against it. We know players in the 20's got blacklisted.
Who got blacklisted like this?
Take a look at the 2003 era of free agency. Many of the pitchers were getting the same contract. 4 years and around 7 million dollars. Hitters were not getting big contracts either. The agents and then the union screamed collusion. In the CBA the owners agreed to pay to have the suit dropped.
Were some of these pitchers much better than the others? Do you think that any of them should've made $10m/4 yrs?

For getting the lawsuit tossed, were any contracts voided?

[sturg1dj]

Why the Yankees, as opposed to the Rays, Tigers, Oakland, Twins or any other club?

I'll admit that Sheffield and Mondesi were far from the most pleasant, but Bonds seems really anti-fan, like how Albert Belle used to be. I think that right now, we like to enjoy our players, such as Cano, Melky, Damon. Yes, even Giambi.

I have no idea how well Bonds can still slug, and I simply don't like him much. I haven't seen anyone do more than claim how he's fully ready to be ready to start hitting.

So you think that A-Rod would overshadow Barry Bonds? The same Barry Bonds who took over the entire sports media from around 2003-06? Sorry, whether Alex Rodriguez hits or not wouldn't compare to the upcoming Barry Bonds trial, whether he used designer steroids or not, why Greg Anderson was in jail and not co-operating, then mundane stuff like did Barry trip and fall in the clubhouse. It would be like a 24-hour media barrage.

I'd much rather that some other team be expected to sign Barry Bonds. It's bad enough that Steinbrenner has to pay revenue checks to other teams, and now he's being drafted as the team to hire someone that nobody else wants? I don't see that. Let another team be the one who wishes to do this.

i am not sure you really read my post. I am not saying anything about how the yankees should be the team..its more I am looking at the history of the Yankees with a Steinbrenner leading the way and it shows that Steinbrenner fears nothing from a player. Why is it he never shied away from a player before and all of the sudden he is?

[dl4060]

i am not sure you really read my post. I am not saying anything about how the yankees should be the team..its more I am looking at the history of the Yankees with a Steinbrenner leading the way and it shows that Steinbrenner fears nothing from a player. Why is it he never shied away from a player before and all of the sudden he is?

I can't think of any player Steinbrenner signed who was, rightly or wrongly, as controversial as Bonds. Reggie Jackson was not even close. Everyone has their limit, just because Steinbrenner has not shied away in the past does not mean he does not have a limit. To say Steinbrenner fears nothing from a player is a bit domain complete, so to speak.

If Bonds were still producing at his 2003-04 rate and playing 130-140 games a year....It might be more tempting. There is no doubt Barry can still play, he just is not quite what he was. That, coupled with the limited number of games he could be expected to play, makes the risk less appealing.

[sturg1dj]

I can't think of any player Steinbrenner signed who was, rightly or wrongly, as controversial as Bonds. Reggie Jackson was not even close. Everyone has their limit, just because Steinbrenner has not shied away in the past does not mean he does not have a limit. To say Steinbrenner fears nothing from a player is a bit domain complete, so to speak.

If Bonds were still producing at his 2003-04 rate and playing 130-140 games a year....It might be more tempting. There is no doubt Barry can still play, he just is not quite what he was. That, coupled with the limited number of games he could be expected to play, makes the risk less appealing.

when the Yankees signed Roger Clemens the first time the media and fans were up in arms because Clemens was known as a cancer.

then you have those former Mets who ended up doing quite well for the Yanks.

Steve Howe comes to mind

[SHOELESSJOE3]

when the Yankees signed Roger Clemens the first time the media and fans were up in arms because Clemens was known as a cancer.

then you have those former Mets who ended up doing quite well for the Yanks.

Steve Howe comes to mind

I knew this name had to come up, we can also toss in Strawberry, I did not care for all the chances Howe and Strawberry were given. Now we may get into another debate over my point, Bonds is another issue. A great number of fans, real fans and luke warm fans see Bonds in a whole different way. I'm sure a great number wodered what the heck the Yanks were doing with these two guys, Steve and Darryl, how many chances do these two get.
Again, Barry is viewed in a more negative way by many more, probably because the media blitz on Barry and the whole steroids issue that blew up made more aware of that situation.
Darryl and Steve were seen as two losers with their own problems. I don't think their situation can be compared to Barry's fair or not. I'm not surprised the Yanks chose to stay out of this one.

[lovethegame]

In a day an age when "JOE S%^#T the Ragman" is worth $750,000 any owner that passes on Bonds in a pennant race is shorting his paying fans

[Old Sweater]

In a day an age when "JOE S%^#T the Ragman" is worth $750,000 any owner that passes on Bonds in a pennant race is shorting his paying fans

Collusion at it's finest!!!!

Was hoping the Yanks would sign him to see how it would be to cheer just once for this man when he was in the batters box instead of sweating bullets and calling him an arrogant SOB for once......:)

Never did like him but being a baseball fan I sure liked watching him!!!

All MLB fans are being shorted of seeing that stroke.

[SHOELESSJOE3]

Collusion at it's finest!!!!

Was hoping the Yanks would sign him to see how it would be to cheer just once for this man when he was in the batters box instead of sweating bullets and calling him an arrogant SOB for once......:)

Never did like him but being a baseball fan I sure liked watching him!!!

All MLB fans are being shorted of seeing that stroke.

Any proof at this time. Could it be, yes it could but we don't know at this time.

A different standard because they are the owners, convict them with no proof.

I think Barry and Roger used PED's but at least I treat them fair. What I think does not matter, at this time they are both innocent.

[Old Sweater]

Any proof at this time. Could it be, yes it could but we don't know at this time.

A different standard because they are the owners, convict them with no proof.

I think Barry and Roger used PED's but at least I treat them fair. What I think does not matter, at this time they are both innocent.

Proof or no proof. At this point in time it can only be collusion.

Guess CNN just had Steinbrenner saying he was going to look at Bonds on their bottom line crawler.

[Evangelion]

Proof or no proof. At this point in time it can only be collusion.

Guess CNN just had Steinbrenner saying he was going to look at Bonds on their bottom line crawler.
You have no proof yet it must be collusion? There's no proof Bonds did steroids, but he must have done steroids then.

In short, can it not be concluded that you like Barry Bonds and believe collusion is happening just for the fact that you like Bonds for whatever reason? Or, will you post a bunch of statistic while ignoring all the evidence why he hasn't been signed. You seem to either be ignoring or underestimating all the reasons why teams haven't sign them. Good that you believe the pros outweighs the cons, but that's just you.

Stating collusion is the reason Bonds is not employed is no better than stating Player X did steroids without any proof he did steroids other than coming up with superficial reasons like "Decline HR production" or "He's past the age of prime!"

[Mattingly]

i am not sure you really read my post. I am not saying anything about how the yankees should be the team..its more I am looking at the history of the Yankees with a Steinbrenner leading the way and it shows that Steinbrenner fears nothing from a player. Why is it he never shied away from a player before and all of the sudden he is?
Well, you have a point that I'd looked at it as being something about the team itself. However, I did get your point that the player's persona didn't get in the way, since I'd mentioned Raul Mondesi and Gary Sheffield, since both were asked to fill the void of a big RH bat in RF. Sheffield obviously filled it better than did Mondesi, despite both having racial complaints about Joe Torre after they'd left.

We've seen quite a bit of PED attention put on Roger Clemens, Andy Pettitte, Gary Sheffield, and Jason Giambi's agents having insisted that the word "steroids" be removed from the contract, so that any use of this by him would not be reason for voiding of this. Even journeyman reliever Felix Heredia was caught using steroids.

Since George Steinbrenner is no longer the deciding voice of the Yankees (did you see him at the All-Star Game?), then it would be between the sons, Hank & Hal, GM Brian Cashman and the other baseball people.

I see the Yanks acquiring or promoting younger position players who can slug, and would be elated if Nady or Hallady were available for a more reasonable price in terms of players being requested via trade.

I don't see the Yanks having a great interest in an older DH, particularly the one who for the past 8 seasons been the poster child for both the steroid era, and grumpy behavior. Perhaps if he'd accepted the Yanks' offer after 1993, when he'd spurned them in favor of his beloved godfather's old team, then that may have been different. The only serious prior shot the Yanks had for him was around 2004 as a free agent, but his then agent Boras wanted $100m/4 yrs, which he had no chance of getting.

I get the impression that since the Yanks, unlike Boston and Cleveland, Seattle in the past with Edgar, don't have a full-time DH, then they may not need someone to just mash. All of our DHs of late, be it Giambi, Damon, Posada, are all position players. The DH is open to anyone returning from injury.

I actually believe that Johnny Damon would make a great DH for the Yanks. He loves to win, and when healthy, can hit well (even to the upper deck), runs very quickly. Since his arm isn't as strong, he would be ideal. Whenever Matsui returns, he can also DH. The Yanks have often had a surplus of DHs, which means position players (often corner outfielders) whose bats are strong, but whose glove, wheels or arm isn't that strong. I don't like acquiring a DH specialist.

I think that a player's roster spot is better spent for someone who can field well (or at least reasonably well) and slug, not just mash. Other than Boston & Cleveland, presuming Ortiz' return to the lineup this weekend is successful, most AL clubs don't had a top-hitting DH, and Hafner hasn't been hitting well. This leaves few if any AL teams with a top slugging DH.

[west coast orange and black]

mattingly: Booing while clapping? Who boos and claps at the same time?

you missed the show.
giants road games featured fans who did both simultaneously.

[west coast orange and black]

shoelessjoe: It's possible there was some collusion and maybe not. It's possible a number of teams don't want Barry for their own reason, thats not a stretch.
And it's possible there could be some collusion and we may never find out.
My answer, I don't know, no one knows at this time, I don't lean either way.

what we do know, though, is that conference calls were made to discuss how to approach certain players.
whatever the outcome is rolled in fishwrapper.

[west coast orange and black]

shoelessjoe: It wouldn't be shock if some owners had reasons of their own and there was no collusion.

both can be simultaneously present.

[west coast orange and black]

mattingly: Who would be the co-worker, and who would be the person who wasn't there, according to what you're saying?

co-worker: an attendee of the winter meets.
the person who was not there: one who was not at the winter meets.

[Old Sweater]

what we do know, though, is that conference calls were made to discuss how to approach certain players.
whatever the outcome is rolled in fishwrapper.

Yeah and it stinks!!!!!! Treating the fans like they can't add 2+2..... There isn't one reason they could come up with that I wouldn't consider BS.

[SHOELESSJOE3]

shoelessjoe: It wouldn't be shock if some owners had reasons of their own and there was no collusion.

both can be simultaneously present.

That is a possibility. One thing should be remembered here, a number who do not like him but he should treated like any other player, no dealing behind closed doors, phone calls. I certainly hope there was no collusion.

[Old Sweater]

^ guys who lead MLB in OBP with 28 HR's usually don't sit around this long waiting for a job. Bonds has been balckballed so far.

[four tool]

Look at the Bonds situation this way:

You are a NL owner and you have a chance a to get a 43 year-old that his own team doesn't want--would you think maybe that team knows something you don't know?

You're an AL owner--see see earlier posts re DH.

Those you talking collusion--are you saying that you would actually take that player? How would you use him? Is he worth putting in left field? Just being a PH? a DH?

[Ubiquitous]

Look at the Bonds situation this way:

You are a NL owner and you have a chance a to get a 43 year-old that his own team doesn't want--would you think maybe that team knows something you don't know?


If we follow that logic half the reclamation projects out there would never get signed.

[Mattingly]

mattingly: Booing while clapping? Who boos and claps at the same time?

you missed the show.
giants road games featured fans who did both simultaneously.
How often did this go on, and in which years? I presume that you're referring to visiting fans doing the booing and clapping, correct?

What did you make out of the booing part? Scorn? Followed by cheers of respect for a longball or RBI double? Please describe, including which stadiums this occured in.

[four tool]

If we follow that logic half the reclamation projects out there would never get signed.

The question was not a we!

[west coast orange and black]

four tool: You are a NL owner and you have a chance a to get a 43 year-old that his own team doesn't want--would you think maybe that team knows something you don't know?

the giants decided mid-season not to re-sign bonds, then made it public after the season ended.
the decision by the giants and whatever was discussed and possibly agreed upon at the winter meets are 100% unrelated.

[four tool]

I notice no one is actually saying that, as an owner, he or she would take Bonds.

[Ubiquitous]

Okay, if I was an owner of one of about 20 or so major league teams I would sign him.

[sturg1dj]

what is funny is Bonds' agent is doing what Andre Dawson's agent did years ago when collusion was going on. He is giving the terms of the contract to the media and showing how little he would cost.


worked for Dawson, he got to leave the expos and go to the cubs.




and lets look at the Yankees for a moment. they got Richie Sexon who is awful and who would make more than the pro-rated minimum that Bonds wants. And now they traded one of their best minor leaguers for Xavier Nady. hmm....

[Ubiquitous]

Actually Sexson is getting the pro-rated minimum from the Yankees. Seattle released him and they have to pay the bulk of his contract.

Many consider the Xavier Nady deal a steal for the Yankees.

[Mattingly]

what is funny is Bonds' agent is doing what Andre Dawson's agent did years ago when collusion was going on. He is giving the terms of the contract to the media and showing how little he would cost.

worked for Dawson, he got to leave the expos and go to the cubs.
Was Andre Dawson considered one of the least liked superstars in the sports world? Was he accused of cheating to enhance his stats to monumental numbers?

Even my non-baseball loving NFL & NCAA football & hoops fans when I mentioned baseball, frowned and mentioned Barry Bonds. Did people scorn Dawson that way? I'm referring to people openly questioning the legitimacy of the game of baseball because of 1 man. I don't think that the Hawk deserves such ill treatment, unlike Barry Bonds. That is, treatment resulting from Bonds' own actions and attitude.
and lets look at the Yankees for a moment. they got Richie Sexon who is awful and who would make more than the pro-rated minimum that Bonds wants. And now they traded one of their best minor leaguers for Xavier Nady. hmm....
Richie Sexson isn't considered by many to be a cheater, especially one of the best cheaters out there. Unlike Bonds, he actually plays a position, 1B. He is also 6'8", making him an easy target for the other infielders on ground balls. It's hoped that he can resurrect his career here, since he was making $14m. He also hits well against lefties.

We also took Sidney Ponson off the scrap heap for the 2nd time. Does that mean we are expected to sign Bonds? Last I heard, most teams will give a so-so player a low-risk, hi-reward chance if they don't have options for a big star, presuming the player isn't considered to be a major pain.

What is the suspicious "hmmm" that you speak of? We got Xavier Nady, a much-desired RFer with .900+ OPS. One whom the Mets had to give up to get Oliver Perez, their #2 SP. Other teams were in pursuit of him, but you're telling me that because the all-important and surly Barry Bonds is still unsigned, that we shouldn't get him? Do the NY Yankees owe Barry Bonds a huge favor why Cashman is expected to sign him but not others?

We also got Damaso Marte in the same 6-player trade from the Pirates, and he's the only southpaw in our pen. Our only other LHP is Andy Pettitte.

As to one of our best farm guys, Phil Hughes and Ian Kennedy are both stil in our organization, as is Austin Jackson. There's a Nady thread and a farm thread under the Yankee forum if you'd like to get further details. José Tabata, once consideed one of our best farm guys, has struggled of late, as has Russ Ohlendorf. You have to give good quality to receive the same, so I'll accept this as an excellent trade for the Yanks.

In either case, I don't see any reason whatsoever what Bonds' remaining unsigned should have to do with GM Brian Cashman filling holes, some more gaping than others, which he's expected to do to keep the team in playoff contention. Perhaps if people would stop acting like everything revolves arounds an unpleasant and unliked slugger, actually look at what the Yanks and other teams are trying to accomplish, things could make more sense.

Ponson is like the #5 pitcher, and Darrell Rasner does the same thing. Xavier Nady fills the spot for a good-hitting power guy in the corner OF. with Damon limping around on Saturday and Matsui likely needing season-ending knee surgery, our needs for a solid player in LF is at a premium. We can't just keep using Christian in LF and Cabrera in CF, only expecting Abreu to get our OF hits and win games. This move also strengthens our bench with another good defensive LF/CF guy in Christian.

Our need for a DH, I wouldn't say is as great, since we can still put Giambi in there. Thus, Barry Bonds is expendable and unimportant to the Yanks this year. Can he hit as well as Xavier Nady? Likely only to those who wish for his every hit and walk as if they're fascinated, starry-eyed. For others, I see Nady filling the additional slugger's role, so why add a likely problematic player when that's not even needed?

Marte is our LHP in the pen, fanned Big Papi on Saturday. Those are their roles, they filled the holes that Cashman had in the team, just as José Molina and Chad Moeller are our backstops, not Jorge Posada, who's on the DL.

I don't see Barry Bonds' name logically in the Yankees' picture, unless you count fans who realize that their own team won't have anything to do with him. If nobody on 29 other teams, including 13 other AL clubs, don't want him, then I see no reason why the Yankees should be the 30th and final team who then has to take him. Why not the SF Giants? If they don't want him for their own reasons, then perhaps other clubs, including the Bronx Bombers, have an equaly good reason for not having any interest in him.

Is anybody saying that the Yanks should be first in line should Dan Haren, Albert Pujols, Roy Halladay or Ichiro Suzuki miraculously be available via trade? If not, then I don't see any reason to penalize them by expecting them to sign someone nobody else wants. Perhaps an overexagerration, but if no benefit favoring the Yanks, then no penalty disfavoring them either, is my point.

Roles to fill, people to fill them, games to win. Let Barry go the way of the McGwires, Palmeiros, Sosas and other undesirables out there. I could do without him.

[SHOELESSJOE3]

Why is it so hard to believe, to imagine that maybe 8 or 10 teams were considering Bonds but chose not to pick him up and there was no collusion.

I could think collusion a possibility but would not be surprised if there was none.

Not to get into the who likes and who doesn't like Barry but it's obvious some don't want him because of how he is viewed in recent years.

[four tool]

Okay, if I was an owner of one of about 20 or so major league teams I would sign him.
Thanks Ubie.

[sturg1dj]

Was Andre Dawson considered one of the least liked superstars in the sports world? Was he accused of cheating to enhance his stats to monumental numbers?

Even my non-baseball loving NFL & NCAA football & hoops fans when I mentioned baseball, frowned and mentioned Barry Bonds. Did people scorn Dawson that way? I'm referring to people openly questioning the legitimacy of the game of baseball because of 1 man. I don't think that the Hawk deserves such ill treatment, unlike Barry Bonds. That is, treatment resulting from Bonds' own actions and attitude.

Richie Sexson isn't considered by many to be a cheater, especially one of the best cheaters out there. Unlike Bonds, he actually plays a position, 1B. He is also 6'8", making him an easy target for the other infielders on ground balls. It's hoped that he can resurrect his career here, since he was making $14m. He also hits well against lefties.

We also took Sidney Ponson off the scrap heap for the 2nd time. Does that mean we are expected to sign Bonds? Last I heard, most teams will give a so-so player a low-risk, hi-reward chance if they don't have options for a big star, presuming the player isn't considered to be a major pain.

What is the suspicious "hmmm" that you speak of? We got Xavier Nady, a much-desired RFer with .900+ OPS. One whom the Mets had to give up to get Oliver Perez, their #2 SP. Other teams were in pursuit of him, but you're telling me that because the all-important and surly Barry Bonds is still unsigned, that we shouldn't get him? Do the NY Yankees owe Barry Bonds a huge favor why Cashman is expected to sign him but not others?

We also got Damaso Marte in the same 6-player trade from the Pirates, and he's the only southpaw in our pen. Our only other LHP is Andy Pettitte.

As to one of our best farm guys, Phil Hughes and Ian Kennedy are both stil in our organization, as is Austin Jackson. There's a Nady thread and a farm thread under the Yankee forum if you'd like to get further details. José Tabata, once consideed one of our best farm guys, has struggled of late, as has Russ Ohlendorf. You have to give good quality to receive the same, so I'll accept this as an excellent trade for the Yanks.

In either case, I don't see any reason whatsoever what Bonds' remaining unsigned should have to do with GM Brian Cashman filling holes, some more gaping than others, which he's expected to do to keep the team in playoff contention. Perhaps if people would stop acting like everything revolves arounds an unpleasant and unliked slugger, actually look at what the Yanks and other teams are trying to accomplish, things could make more sense.

Ponson is like the #5 pitcher, and Darrell Rasner does the same thing. Xavier Nady fills the spot for a good-hitting power guy in the corner OF. with Damon limping around on Saturday and Matsui likely needing season-ending knee surgery, our needs for a solid player in LF is at a premium. We can't just keep using Christian in LF and Cabrera in CF, only expecting Abreu to get our OF hits and win games. This move also strengthens our bench with another good defensive LF/CF guy in Christian.

Our need for a DH, I wouldn't say is as great, since we can still put Giambi in there. Thus, Barry Bonds is expendable and unimportant to the Yanks this year. Can he hit as well as Xavier Nady? Likely only to those who wish for his every hit and walk as if they're fascinated, starry-eyed. For others, I see Nady filling the additional slugger's role, so why add a likely problematic player when that's not even needed?

Marte is our LHP in the pen, fanned Big Papi on Saturday. Those are their roles, they filled the holes that Cashman had in the team, just as José Molina and Chad Moeller are our backstops, not Jorge Posada, who's on the DL.

I don't see Barry Bonds' name logically in the Yankees' picture, unless you count fans who realize that their own team won't have anything to do with him. If nobody on 29 other teams, including 13 other AL clubs, don't want him, then I see no reason why the Yankees should be the 30th and final team who then has to take him. Why not the SF Giants? If they don't want him for their own reasons, then perhaps other clubs, including the Bronx Bombers, have an equaly good reason for not having any interest in him.

Is anybody saying that the Yanks should be first in line should Dan Haren, Albert Pujols, Roy Halladay or Ichiro Suzuki miraculously be available via trade? If not, then I don't see any reason to penalize them by expecting them to sign someone nobody else wants. Perhaps an overexagerration, but if no benefit favoring the Yanks, then no penalty disfavoring them either, is my point.

Roles to fill, people to fill them, games to win. Let Barry go the way of the McGwires, Palmeiros, Sosas and other undesirables out there. I could do without him.

there is are two old ideas that I think of in this situation one is all is forgiven with winning and the other is everyone deserve another chance. Yet, for some reason this applies to all other baseball players and not Barry Bonds. Barry Bonds may have cheated. Brett Myers beat his wife....which is worse?

I know that the comparison is not truly valid, but over the years players have come back to baseball after doing bad things. Why is Barry Bonds different?

[SHOELESSJOE3]

there is are two old ideas that I think of in this situation one is all is forgiven with winning and the other is everyone deserve another chance. Yet, for some reason this applies to all other baseball players and not Barry Bonds. Barry Bonds may have cheated. Brett Myers beat his wife....which is worse?

I know that the comparison is not truly valid, but over the years players have come back to baseball after doing bad things. Why is Barry Bonds different?


Because Barry is a whole different case. There may have been others who did some worse things but why is this one so hard to understand, the difference between some others mentioned and Barry. The others were not splashed all over the news, newspapers, TV and not only sports channels like ESPN for weeks, for months. Barry was often mentioned, spoken of on the national evening news, CBS, NBC and ABC, more than a few times. More in the public including those who were not even sports fans, followers of the game of baseball knew Barry's case.

What other baseball player other than Roger Clemens who came later was so exposed to the public for alleged rule breaking than Barry.

Call it unfair, it doesn't matter what some others did, no where even close to the exposure of Barry. Some clubs might feel that his image would not go over well. What is so hard to understand, why they chose some players who were not as good as Barry, looks easy to me. It's the media's presentation of him to the public. His flippant comments about steroids in the game over the years...''none of the people's business what the players do".... "there are worse things, heroin and cocaine", didn't help his image. Can you think of any other player that got the print, the press Barry did in the last couple of years, it's easy to see.

[sturg1dj]

what about some dude named John Rocker. After all of the hoopla. After all of the fan hatred. Not only was he signed as a free agent after that but he was all trade for.

[SHOELESSJOE3]

what about some dude named John Rocker. After all of the hoopla. After all of the fan hatred. Not only was he signed as a free agent after that but he was all trade for.

What John did, said was terrible but still like a blip compared to Barry for notoriety and length of time. John's bad print had a short life compared to Barry. I haven't seen anyone get the negative press that Barry did for the length of time that he did. Does anyone remember, every day, for weeks, how about for months, in the news, TV, all over he boards, like it would never end.

[Mattingly]

there is are two old ideas that I think of in this situation one is all is forgiven with winning and the other is everyone deserve another chance. Yet, for some reason this applies to all other baseball players and not Barry Bonds. Barry Bonds may have cheated. Brett Myers beat his wife....which is worse?

I know that the comparison is not truly valid, but over the years players have come back to baseball after doing bad things. Why is Barry Bonds different?
For the simple reason that some sins are more unforgiveable than others. Just as pickpocketing may be a misdemeanor but armed robbery is a felony.

Betting on games in unforgiveable, but we've had huge debates here about whether Rose belongs in the Hall. Some even forgave him, since he'd calculatingly mentioned he'd bet on his team to win, not lose. Either way, his stats support an induction, but his gambling, to me, does not. Even Aaron seemed to believe Rose should be in, as he'd said Rose had the career numbers.

We also had a thread about narcotic drugs vs PEDs, asking why were the cokeheads and weed smokers allowed back, but steroids users weren't.

My feeling is that if you're a pro athlete, taking narcotic drugs meant you were careless, reckless, disrespected your body and capabilities. Mickey Mantle damaged his liver, could've been far better had he not drank liquor so often. Yet he's still idolized and beloved by countless who saw him hit the ball hard, ran like a gazelle, then passed down those stories to the next 2-3 generations.

If you take steroids, HGH, andro, any kind of designer drugs, regardless of how they're termed, as far as I'm concerned, you intended to cheat. You weren't hurting yourself, you went out of our way to artificially inflate your stats for selfish reasons, with money and one's place amongst the greats being two primary incentives.

Just as a person whose brakes on a truck failed, yet 4 lives are unfortunately lost, the driver may not be charged. Why not? Since the intention wasn't to kill or maim. However, if someone pays $50,000 to a hitman to kill someone for insurance purposes, even if that attempt fails, no life is lost, both the financer of the murder attempt and the hitman will stand trial if caught. This is for the simple purpose of the obviousness of what was intended to be done.

With Bonds, for those wo believe he's as guilty as sin, he wanted to inflate his already HoF-worthy numbers to the insanely eye-popping level.

With other guys, such as former Met and Yankee stars Dwight Gooden and Darryl Strawberry, they both infamously had quite a few narcotic problems, and both were said to be future HoFers. Gooden missed the 19()95 season since he'd failed drug tests once too often. Yet Gooden (Sheffield's uncle) came back in 1996 as a Yankee, got a much-celebrated no-hitter.

Straw got innumerable chances by Steinbrenner to return. Only the Yanks seemed to care about him then, despite his wasting opportunity after opportunity. Steinbrenner was even criticized by some in the anti-narcotic abuse community as hurting Straw by giving him all those chances. Still, Straw was seen as a kind-hearted but weak-minded person lacking focus, emotional strength and willpower. Kind of like an uncle or brother you felt sorry for, but others saw how badly he'd thrown away his skills.

I don't like it when players do either thing, but in Gooden's and Straw's cases, I felt like I'd been cheated of seing the next Bob Gibson and Mickey Mantle. The unfulfilled dreams or potential never realized will forever follow them. However, they never cheated. They were merely highly irresponsible and disrespected their great potential.

Does Barry deserve another chance? To change his ways or more of the same? When Gooden returned, I remember him not taking drugs. Straw kept returning to infamy with drugs, jail, even accused of fooling around with a woman other than his wife while in jail. His out-of-control behavior cost us a young player, since his ex-wife, Lisa, changd their son, Darryl Strawberry, Jr rom a baseball to a basketball play, just called him DJ. Who wouldn't have wecomed Straw, Jr? He was supposedly a very good baseball player too.

Will Barry return to his allegedly cheating ways? Will he still by the same anti-social character? Respected only for what he does, yet not as a human being, feared, yet unloved? If that's the best he can do, I say let him hang up his cleats. I can do without the 3-ring circus atmosphere. I'll wait for PT Barnum to roll into town for that act.

When someone didn't like him toppling the recordbooks, I see no reason to want to see him repeating just that, getting more hits, more RBI, HRs, etc. It's like giving a crackhead a pipe, in that you're allowing him to continue doing what you didn't want him to do.

To me, the last thing I wanted Straw to do was continue using drugs, yet he continued. The last thing I wanted Rose to do was to keep gambling for and/or against his team. The last thing I want to see Bonds do is continue hitting.

So long as future 1st ballot HoFer Rickey Henderson made about $40k playing for the relatively unknown Newark Bears, an unaffiliated Minor League team, which proved that despite his declining skills, he did it for the mere love of the game. If Barry Bonds were to do this, I wouldn't mind his returning as much. However, I don't see Barry's ego allowing him such discomfort.

I think it's up to Barry to redeem himself somehow. If he chooses not to, feels he can scoff at the fans paying his salary, that's fine. His salary merely won't be paid. Then what will he complain about?

I expect the exact same attitude from Barry, including the same defenders of his trying to spin things as if we're supposed to enjoy someone continue to artificially inflate the recordbookss. I don't want him, he didn't care in the least about us, and all of a sudden, the self-important Barroids Bonds wants me to consider him when he's unemployed? No thank you. If he didn't care much for us then, I won't care much for him now. Favor returned.

Please stay away from the game, Barry. There are many others who can contribute without cheating, so perhaps your selfish ways have finally caught up to you at last. If you build a bed of roses, the more thorns, the thornier your bed will be when you lay down at nights. That's all I see in Bonds right now: all prickly thorns, very little beauty, all by his own hand. Blaming others for their power of observation won't work anymore, Mr Bonds. Please leave and just go way. The 2008 & 2009 seasons will be much better off without your attention-grabbing negativity and interference.

Hopefully, we'll be still having this discussion at the end of August and in early September. Who could he possibly help by then? Not even himself, obviously.

[sturg1dj]

What John did, said was terrible but still like a blip compared to Barry for notoriety and length of time. John's bad print had a short life compared to Barry. I haven't seen anyone get the negative press that Barry did for the length of time that he did. Does anyone remember, every day, for weeks, how about for months, in the news, TV, all over he boards, like it would never end.

I am not comparing what they did I am instead comparing the fan and media attention they received. John Rocker's attention went away after he finally left baseball.

but my point stands, even with the headache that was John Rocker he still got a couple more chances even without producing!

[sturg1dj]

For the simple reason that some sins are more unforgiveable than others. Just as pickpocketing may be a misdemeanor but armed robbery is a felony.

Betting on games in unforgiveable, but we've had huge debates here about whether Rose belongs in the Hall. Some even forgave him, since he'd calculatingly mentioned he'd bet on his team to win, not lose. Either way, his stats support an induction, but his gambling, to me, does not. Even Aaron seemed to believe Rose should be in, as he'd said Rose had the career numbers.

We also had a thread about narcotic drugs vs PEDs, asking why were the cokeheads and weed smokers allowed back, but steroids users weren't.

My feeling is that if you're a pro athlete, taking narcotic drugs meant you were careless, reckless, disrespected your body and capabilities. Mickey Mantle damaged his liver, could've been far better had he not drank liquor so often. Yet he's still idolized and beloved by countless who saw him hit the ball hard, ran like a gazelle, then passed down those stories to the next 2-3 generations.

If you take steroids, HGH, andro, any kind of designer drugs, regardless of how they're termed, as far as I'm concerned, you intended to cheat. You weren't hurting yourself, you went out of our way to artificially inflate your stats for selfish reasons, with money and one's place amongst the greats being two primary incentives.

Just as a person whose brakes on a truck failed, yet 4 lives are unfortunately lost, the driver may not be charged. Why not? Since the intention wasn't to kill or maim. However, if someone pays $50,000 to a hitman to kill someone for insurance purposes, even if that attempt fails, no life is lost, both the financer of the murder attempt and the hitman will stand trial if caught. This is for the simple purpose of the obviousness of what was intended to be done.

With Bonds, for those wo believe he's as guilty as sin, he wanted to inflate his already HoF-worthy numbers to the insanely eye-popping level.

With other guys, such as former Met and Yankee stars Dwight Gooden and Darryl Strawberry, they both infamously had quite a few narcotic problems, and both were said to be future HoFers. Gooden missed the 19()95 season since he'd failed drug tests once too often. Yet Gooden (Sheffield's uncle) came back in 1996 as a Yankee, got a much-celebrated no-hitter.

Straw got innumerable chances by Steinbrenner to return. Only the Yanks seemed to care about him then, despite his wasting opportunity after opportunity. Steinbrenner was even criticized by some in the anti-narcotic abuse community as hurting Straw by giving him all those chances. Still, Straw was seen as a kind-hearted but weak-minded person lacking focus, emotional strength and willpower. Kind of like an uncle or brother you felt sorry for, but others saw how badly he'd thrown away his skills.

I don't like it when players do either thing, but in Gooden's and Straw's cases, I felt like I'd been cheated of seing the next Bob Gibson and Mickey Mantle. The unfulfilled dreams or potential never realized will forever follow them. However, they never cheated. They were merely highly irresponsible and disrespected their great potential.

Does Barry deserve another chance? To change his ways or more of the same? When Gooden returned, I remember him not taking drugs. Straw kept returning to infamy with drugs, jail, even accused of fooling around with a woman other than his wife while in jail. His out-of-control behavior cost us a young player, since his ex-wife, Lisa, changd their son, Darryl Strawberry, Jr rom a baseball to a basketball play, just called him DJ. Who wouldn't have wecomed Straw, Jr? He was supposedly a very good baseball player too.

Will Barry return to his allegedly cheating ways? Will he still by the same anti-social character? Respected only for what he does, yet not as a human being, feared, yet unloved? If that's the best he can do, I say let him hang up his cleats. I can do without the 3-ring circus atmosphere. I'll wait for PT Barnum to roll into town for that act.

When someone didn't like him toppling the recordbooks, I see no reason to want to see him repeating just that, getting more hits, more RBI, HRs, etc. It's like giving a crackhead a pipe, in that you're allowing him to continue doing what you didn't want him to do.

To me, the last thing I wanted Straw to do was continue using drugs, yet he continued. The last thing I wanted Rose to do was to keep gambling for and/or against his team. The last thing I want to see Bonds do is continue hitting.

So long as future 1st ballot HoFer Rickey Henderson made about $40k playing for the relatively unknown Newark Bears, an unaffiliated Minor League team, which proved that despite his declining skills, he did it for the mere love of the game. If Barry Bonds were to do this, I wouldn't mind his returning as much. However, I don't see Barry's ego allowing him such discomfort.

I think it's up to Barry to redeem himself somehow. If he chooses not to, feels he can scoff at the fans paying his salary, that's fine. His salary merely won't be paid. Then what will he complain about?

I expect the exact same attitude from Barry, including the same defenders of his trying to spin things as if we're supposed to enjoy someone continue to artificially inflate the recordbookss. I don't want him, he didn't care in the least about us, and all of a sudden, the self-important Barroids Bonds wants me to consider him when he's unemployed? No thank you. If he didn't care much for us then, I won't care much for him now. Favor returned.

Please stay away from the game, Barry. There are many others who can contribute without cheating, so perhaps your selfish ways have finally caught up to you at last. If you build a bed of roses, the more thorns, the thornier your bed will be when you lay down at nights. That's all I see in Bonds right now: all prickly thorns, very little beauty, all by his own hand. Blaming others for their power of observation won't work anymore, Mr Bonds. Please leave and just go way. The 2008 & 2009 seasons will be much better off without your attention-grabbing negativity and interference.

Hopefully, we'll be still having this discussion at the end of August and in early September. Who could he possibly help by then? Not even himself, obviously.



I guess it has to be said again

1) it has not been proven he ever cheated...maybe in Cuba he could be banned for life and thrown in jail but here you are innocent until proven guilty

2) changing his ways? how about giving away all of his pay to buy tickets for underprivileged kids. That what he says he will do with the money.

3) Rickey Henderson went back to the minors because he wasn't good enough for the bigs anymore. More power to the guy, I love his love for the game. Barry Bonds was still an elite hitter last season and right now he could be signed at the minimum. Worried about his health? He could be the world's best pinch hitter. Think he will act out? well then you can cut him and it would be like cutting a utility player.

he is so cheap right now there is no reason not to sign him since you can release him basically at any time. And while he is on the team your stadium and every stadium you travel to will be sold out.

[SHOELESSJOE3]

I am not comparing what they did I am instead comparing the fan and media attention they received. John Rocker's attention went away after he finally left baseball.

but my point stands, even with the headache that was John Rocker he still got a couple more chances even without producing!

Thats exactly what my point is. Barry is shunned more than Rocker, Steve Howe or any other that did some bad things "because" his case was given more press, more overall media attention and what seemed like for all time, went on for months. The public, fans and people who were not fans are all familiar with his case.

Thats the difference, he was viewed by the public fair or not fair as the bigger bad guy, so why so hard to understand that others were given another chance and not him.

[Mattingly]

I guess it has to be said again

1) it has not been proven he ever cheated...maybe in Cuba he could be banned for life and thrown in jail but here you are innocent until proven guilty
Then this must also be said:

I don't want him playing again. I want to see him go way.

I am not asking for him to be thrown away in jail, melting the key. Neither Rose, McGwire, Clemens, Palmeiro nor Sosa are in jail, so I don't get the conviction part, unless you're discussing his upcoming trial.

I just don't want him playing the game. When someone's stats go up that much from 2000-2001, then cheating was obviously done. Either that or he's found some injectable youth serum he'd purchased from BALCO.
2) changing his ways? how about giving away all of his pay to buy tickets for underprivileged kids. That what he says he will do with the money.
Since he's made $18m for several years in a row, why doesn't he just give away a sizeable portion of that to needy kids? So I'm expected to want support him returning to his sneering and anti-social ways because he's chosen one of countless kids' charities? No thanks, I'm sure that George Steinbrenner and other owners could help those very same kids.

I don't see him changing his ways. Now all of a sudden, he wants to continue bashing the record books while supporting underpriviledged kids? No thanks, other sources of funding would seem much more deserving.

Your saying Bonds is innocent is like my saying that John Gotti, Jr, the son, was never a Gambino mobster because the feds couldn't convict him. Everybody I knew felt he was guilty.
3) Rickey Henderson went back to the minors because he wasn't good enough for the bigs anymore. More power to the guy, I love his love for the game. Barry Bonds was still an elite hitter last season and right now he could be signed at the minimum. Worried about his health? He could be the world's best pinch hitter. Think he will act out? well then you can cut him and it would be like cutting a utility player.
Bonds was still a "good" hitter, but until you hit .320, crank out 40 bombs, drive in 100 runs, have a 1.000 OPS, I wouldn't use the term "elite" so loosely. He *WAS* an elite hitter before 2007, obviously.

If he could be the best pinch hitter, will he get a hit after all this time off? Which team will sign him? I don't see him returning after all that time then be as good as before. Can he even hit better than Sheffield or any other slugger whose arm isn't that good defensively anymore?

You have a point that Henderson's tremendous skills eroded with age, but at least he was honest enough to accept this and not take PEDs to artificially prolong his career. Why do you think people are so enthusiastic about the day he enters the Hall, in 2009, I think? Because he played the game right, didn't cheat. Can Bonds say that?

I would much rather deal with Rickey Henderson and his lesser skills than Bonds and his very strong allegations of PED usage, as well as late career jumps in stats which support those allegations.
he is so cheap right now there is no reason not to sign him since you can release him basically at any time. And while he is on the team your stadium and every stadium you travel to will be sold out.
Any team signing the publicity nightmare known as Barroids Bonds will also have t deal with his spin doctors telling us how great he is. Barry can do this, Barry will do that. No live MLB pitching in 10 months, yet he'll step intoo the box, somehow mash just like it's 2003 all over again, with very little preparation time, right?

So a team has to send someone down or cut a player to put Bonds on their payroll? Meanwhile, his only skill is hitting, since he can't field anymore. He won't be replacing a position player, so if he's cut the team has to replace the part-time DH who was cut, or cal someone back up. All this because someone wants to see a player very few even like, play?

Have I mentioned that I'm a Yankee fan? We already sell out all home and road games, sometimes posting road attendance records. If some other team needs this that requires Bonds being on their team, feel free to encourage them to sign him.

I certainly hope that he enjoys all the attention. The more the merrier from the sidelines, and he can donate the pro-rated league minimum to the kids as a charitable gift anytime he feels like it, presuming he actually wants to help those kids.

[SHOELESSJOE3]

I see some getting on the Yanks for picking up some players in the past that had a negative image with the public and yet passing on Barry.

May I repeat one more time, no one player in recent years got as much negative publicity as Barry and for the longest length of time, his case was bigger. The fact that he has yet to be a proven user means nothing in the court of public opinion, does not matter that it may be unfair, it's called life. This is probably one of the reasons the Yanks passed and so did some others.

Being a Yankee fan, I'm happy, the Yankee organization getting some negative posts because they passed on Barry.

You can bet had the Yanks picked him up, they would get blasted even more.
It would be the story line that the Yankee organization is at it again. Steve Howe, Strawberry and some other bad boys found no matter what you do, you can always find a home with the Yanks, now it's Barry.

[Mattingly]

Thats exactly what my point is. Barry is shunned more than Rocker, Steve Howe or any other that did some bad things "because" his case was given more press, more overall media attention and what seemed like for all time, went on for months. The public, fans and people who were not fans are all familiar with his case.

Thats the difference, he was viewed by the public fair or not fair as the bigger bad guy, so why so hard to understand that others were given another chance and not him.
So you're saying that if Clemens had made the offer to work for free, he should also be given a chance to do so?

I remember that when Rocket showed up at some Houston traning camp a few months ago, the media had a field day wit him. That's one reason why, to my knowlwdge, the 'Stros declined further involvement with Clemens: his presence would be too much of a heaache.

That's the reason I believe that nobody wants Barry Bonds. Who would want to play on a team where one guys gets more attention than the whole team?

Steve Howe was a cocaine user, right? Please see my earlie post re Rose, Gooden and Strawberry about how I saioid that players were viewed based upon what the'd done.

Clemens was strongly accused of cheating in 2007, while Bond' accusations go back to 2001. Had Clemens broken any pitching records while others weren't anywhere near him in accomplishments, your point would be valid. However, neither Ryan's 5,714 K's, nor Young's 511 wins were as celebrated as Aaron's 755 HRs, and Clemens isn't close to either pitching record. I would put the career of Walter "Big Train" against Clemens any day. I'm not sure you can say that about Bonds if compared to other slugging greats.

I presume that fans think that PEDs mostly help position players, and Clemens is a pitcher.

Thankfully, Clemens has learned to go away, and perhaps he can take Barry Bonds with him as they ride off into the sunset..

[SHOELESSJOE3]

So you're saying that if Clemens had made the offer to work for free, he should also be given a chance to do so?

I remember that when Rocket showed up at some Houston traning camp a few months ago, the media had a field day wit him. That's one reason why, to my knowlwdge, the 'Stros declined further involvement with Clemens: his presence would be too much of a heaache.

That's the reason I believe that nobody wants Barry Bonds. Who would want to play on a team where one guys gets more attention than the whole team?

Steve Howe was a cocaine user, right? Please see my earlie post re Rose, Gooden and Strawberry about how I saioid that players were viewed based upon what the'd done.

Clemens was strongly accused of cheating in 2007, while Bond' accusations go back to 2001. Had Clemens broken any pitching records while others weren't anywhere near him in accomplishments, your point would be valid. However, neither Ryan's 5,714 K's, nor Young's 511 wins were as celebrated as Aaron's 755 HRs, and Clemens isn't close to either pitching record. I would put the career of Walter "Big Train" against Clemens any day. I'm not sure you can say that about Bonds if compared to other slugging greats.

I presume that fans think that PEDs mostly help position players, and Clemens is a pitcher.

Thankfully, Clemens has learned to go away, and perhaps he can take Barry Bonds with him as they ride off into the sunset..

No never thought that about Clemens. I think you missed my point. I've been reading your posts it looks like we're both on the same page regarding Barry, the Yanks and some other teams, they don't want him and it easy to see why, he was the biggest story and a bad image.

Maybe the confusion comes in because I replied to your post but it was not directed at you. It was in regard to posters who believe that Barry is not being treated by the Yanks the same as some other bad boys. And I answer that by pointing out that two examples Howe and Strawberry had some personal problems not perceived as cheaters or rule breakers, thats the difference.

I closed my previous post by saying that if they did pick up Barry the board would be loaded with shots at the Yanks, for giving a home to another player with a negative image. The Yanks lose either way, but they lose even bigger had they picked up Barry.

[deadball-era-rules]

I think it's obvious why Bonds isn't working right now: He's a media nightmare, his ego would overwhelm any club he ended up with and he's a cheater. Even in the AL as a DH, who wants to put up with that prima donna act? Not me.

[sturg1dj]

my point is that the negative isn't as bad as people are trying to say. Media circus? Cancer in the clubhouse? So what? if it gets too bad then you can release him, and since he would be making the minimum it would be no big deal. On the other hand he could start hitting and lead you to the playoffs and beyond. Profits would increase all would be good.

people got to realize that if Barry is signed the team that signed him is not stuck with him if things go to hell. At the league minimum any team can afford to release him even with the guaranteed contracts of baseball.

[Ubiquitous]

I think it's obvious why Bonds isn't working right now: He's a media nightmare, his ego would overwhelm any club he ended up with and he's a cheater. Even in the AL as a DH, who wants to put up with that prima donna act? Not me.

I won't dispute the media coverage but where is the proof that his ego would overwhelm any club and where is the proof that he is a prima donna to the point where it is an intolerable act?


I keep trying to find all these baseball players that view him as a cancer or a problem and I can't find them. I keep trying to find former teammates of his that say this and I can't. You would think that a player who is so widely believed to be all of these things by fans and pundits that there would be some actual proof or testimony to this effect.

[sturg1dj]

I won't dispute the media coverage but where is the proof that his ego would overwhelm any club and where is the proof that he is a prima donna to the point where it is an intolerable act?


I keep trying to find all these baseball players that view him as a cancer or a problem and I can't find them. I keep trying to find former teammates of his that say this and I can't. You would think that a player who is so widely believed to be all of these things by fans and pundits that there would be some actual proof or testimony to this effect.

I guess Jeff Kent and Andy Van Slyke. The only one of those I take seriously is Van Slyke, while Kent himself has been seen as somewhat of a cancer.


Barry Zito loved Bonds. Gary Sheffield even after all of the stuff that happened between them still says he respects Bonds. Leyland still loves the guy.

[Ubiquitous]

I guess Jeff Kent and Andy Van Slyke. The only one of those I take seriously is Van Slyke, while Kent himself has been seen as somewhat of a cancer.


Barry Zito loved Bonds. Gary Sheffield even after all of the stuff that happened between them still says he respects Bonds. Leyland still loves the guy.


Van Slyke is not a strike against Bonds. Van Slyke has done interviews in which he has claimed that he and Bonds are okay with each other. Bonds has done interviews in which he has said that he and Andy are okay with each other.

Van Slyke's version is that Bonds and him did not get along initially. They had an argument (which some other claimed turned physical which Andy denies) then the two sat down and talked it out and worked it out. Probably not to the level of friends or anything like that but they reached an understanding.

As for Kent what has he said publicly? I haven't heard much from Kent himself, again I've heard from a bunch of fans and pundits but little from Kent.

[sturg1dj]

Van Slyke is not a strike against Bonds. Van Slyke has done interviews in which he has claimed that he and Bonds are okay with each other. Bonds has done interviews in which he has said that he and Andy are okay with each other.

Van Slyke's version is that Bonds and him did not get along initially. They had an argument (which some other claimed turned physical which Andy denies) then the two sat down and talked it out and worked it out. Probably not to the level of friends or anything like that but they reached an understanding.

As for Kent what has he said publicly? I haven't heard much from Kent himself, again I've heard from a bunch of fans and pundits but little from Kent.

Van Slyke a couple of years ago made some very negative comments regarding Bonds. He did it while coaching the Tigers


Kent made comments in SI saying how selfish Bonds is.


here is an article about Kent

Daily News (New York)

October 23, 2002, Wednesday

NOBODY LOOKS UP TO THIS GIANT KENT WHIFFS AS A PLAYER AND PERSON

BYLINE: BY JOHN HARPER

SECTION: SPORTS; Pg. 65

LENGTH: 796 words

SAN FRANCISCO - Even during this magical run for the Giants, Jeff Kent manages to annoy, irritate, and even exasperate the people around him, much the way he did from the moment he arrived as a Met until the day he was traded.

Worse than that for the Giants, he's not hitting much at all in this postseason, and not many teams win the World Series without help from their No. 3 hitter, even a team that has Barry Bonds hitting fourth.

So Kent, 1-for-9 in the first two games against the Angels - the hit being a home run - and hitting .234 with two RBI in 47 post-season at-bats, suddenly finds himself coming under scrutiny by the media - the people he considers his mortal enemies.

One local columnist ripped him yesterday, calling him a Hall of Faker, challenging him to deliver now after piling up numbers this season only after Dusty Baker moved him into the No. 3 spot ahead of Bonds.


The Bay Area media was waiting to see if Kent would respond as he did earlier this season after a critical story about him - by mooning reporters in the locker room.

You would think these would be the best of times for Kent. Yet controversy has followed him around this season, starting with his infamous "carwash" motorcycle spill that he lied about when he broke his wrist in the spring.

In June he got into a shouting match with David Bell, an ugly spewing that prompted Bonds to shove him against the dugout wall for all the world to see.

More recently Kent angered Peter Magowan by criticizing the owner's pride and joy, Pac Bell Park, calling it "brutal" because of the sometimes chilly and windy conditions.

And then there was the team party after the Giants won the NLCS to advance to their first World Series in 13 years. Kent was the only player who didn't show.

All of this may or may not be significant since Kent is a free agent this winter. Bonds has chosen to overlook their differences, publicly calling for the Giants to re-sign him, but Magowan has indicated it would be a problem financially.

Kent, for his part, sounds as if he was resigned to leaving before this World Series run, and seems to wonder now if the climate has changed enough for him to stay.

"These playoffs and World Series have definitely thrown a wrinkle, a positive wrinkle, into my decision-making," he said on Monday's off-day, "and everything is a possibility.

"You forge some emotional relationships in the postseason that have more weight than the regular season."

That doesn't sound like a particularly happy man, but then, that's Kent.

He's never seemed to care much what anybody thinks about him. Kent, you may remember, was an outcast in the Mets' clubhouse almost from the day he arrived from the Blue Jays as part of the David Cone trade in 1992.

A week or so after the trade the Mets' veterans hid his clothes, along with those of other rookies, during a game in Montreal, and replaced them outrageous outfits they were expected to wear on the plane trip home.

Silly as the prank may be, it's a baseball tradition, and rookies don't dare to protest. Except Kent had been similarly hazed only a few weeks earlier by the Blue Jays' veterans, and so he refused to play along this time.

A stalemate ensued, as Kent demanded his clothes be returned, and manager Jeff Torborg finally had to intervene on his behalf. Teammates never quite forgot.

All these years later it seems not much has changed. Kent did win an MVP award in 2000, which might have made the Mets look foolish for trading him to the Indians for Carlos Baerga in 1996.

But it's hard to imagine the second baseman could have thrived in New York, such was his relationship with his teammates and the press.

Then again, his rocky relationship with Bonds has been well-chronicled, and the consensus among Giants-watchers is that bad Barry is more well-liked in his own clubhouse than is Kent.

Just this week Bonds downplayed any problems, saying that the two of them feed off each from a competitive standpoint like other championship couplings.

"Michael Jordan had Scottie Pippen, Magic Johnson had Kareem," Bonds said on Monday. "There's always got to be somebody to help that other person become a better player or challenge themselves."

Likewise, Dusty Baker tried to make light of their problems, comparing them to Sidney Poitier and Tony Curtis in the 1958 movie "The Defiant Ones," who after being handcuffed together, went from enemies to friends because "they realized they needed each other."

Kent, typically, rejected any such notion.

"We're both good enough players," he said, "that I don't need Barry and Barry doesn't need me."

If the Giants are to win this World Series, however, they might need both. So far only Bonds is doing his part.

E-mail:

jharper@edit.nydailynews.com



what I have seen a lot of is

1) Barry Bonds does not like to be the center of attention. Many people will say his ego says different, but when he is abrasive its usually in defense of his privacy.

2) Barry constantly praises other players unless that player says something bad about him. In this article he says good things about Kent and in my sig you see what he said about Griffey.

[deadball-era-rules]

Look at the Giants. They revolved around Bonds while he was there. He had to have special conditions with everything. He wanted special training, and even though it broke team policy, they allowed Greg Anderson in the training room with Bonds. Bonds ran that team while he was there, demanding everyone bend to his will and they did. Now look at them. I thnk that Bonds is partly the reason that the Giants are so bad. Zito another big factor but you need to stop picking things apart like that. The media stories surrounding Bonds are the evidence of what bonds does to a team. What more proof could you possibly want? Bonds, when playing with the Pirates once got on a teammate's case when they got hurt. In response another player told Bonds to grow up. Bonds picked up the pizza he was eating and smashed it in that guy's face. This is to his own teammates. He's scum and that's why he isn't playing for anyone- another piece of evidence to his rotten personality to begin with.

[Ubiquitous]

Look at the Giants. They revolved around Bonds while he was there. He had to have special conditions with everything. He wanted special training, and even though it broke team policy, they allowed Greg Anderson in the training room with Bonds. Bonds ran that team while he was there, demanding everyone bend to his will and they did. Now look at them.
Yes, look at them. With Bonds almost every single year until the end they were in contention. Now without Bonds they are a bottom dwelling team.

What more proof could you possibly want?
How about a lack of winning seasons? How about not going to the World Series? How about actual real live teammates saying Bonds is a cancer? How about his managers saying he is a cancer?

[sturg1dj]

and lets not forget he got the special treatment because at the end he was the only thing bringing in the fans. He was surrounded by average players at best.


Nobody approached his talent so it was easy to get away with things. Put him on a team where the talent around him is as good or better (like the Yankees) and he wouldn't be able to get away with those things.


and if he demanded special treatment you could cut him and it would be like cutting a utility infielder money-wise since he would be making the league minimum.

The guy always says how he wants to be left alone. He won't go out of his way to stir things up. If he were with a team sure the media would be crazy and sure you could expect a couple of comments that make you cringe, but he wouldn't go out of his way to be put ahead of the team because as he has said over and over again he does not want the attention.

[deadball-era-rules]

Ubiquitous, I already gave you the example of a teammate saying Bonds was a jerk. Are you even reading these posts before you start sending these ridiculous barrages of questions asking for proof of things? You we're doing this to that poor Dalkowski guy in the thread about pitchers too. We're here to have useful discussion, and you're not helping anyone get anywhere. Try to keep your questions helpful and informed, otherwise they're just annoying.

The Giants are a bottom-dwelling team because the franchise had all its money tied up in Bonds, and paid a bunch of over-the-hill veterans ridiculous salaries as well. Bonds leaving isn't the main factor. It's the bad management of money that put the Giants in their sorry position. They were in a great spot to start fresh when Bonds left, but instead they gave the team payroll to Zito, and there they sit at the bottom of the standings.

[Ubiquitous]

Ubiquitous, I already gave you the example of a teammate saying Bonds was a jerk. Are you even reading these posts before you start sending these ridiculous barrages of questions asking for proof of things? Where is this statement where a teammate said Bonds was a jerk? Who was this teammate that made this statement?


You we're doing this to that poor Dalkowski guy in the thread about pitchers too. We're here to have useful discussion, and you're not helping anyone get anywhere. Try to keep your questions helpful and informed, otherwise they're just annoying.


You got the wrong guy on that one.


The Giants are a bottom-dwelling team because the franchise had all its money tied up in Bonds,
Wrong.

and paid a bunch of over-the-hill veterans ridiculous salaries as well. Half-right, they paid over the hill players money but it wasn't ridiculous salaries.

[Ubiquitous]

Are you even reading these posts before you start sending these ridiculous barrages of questions asking for proof of things?

Okay I just checked and it appears the shoe is on the other foot. You have made three posts in this thread and in none of those posts have you made a claim that a teammate called Bonds a jerk except for your last post when you make the claim that you already made that claim.

[sturg1dj]

Okay I just checked and it appears the shoe is on the other foot. You have made three posts in this thread and in none of those posts have you made a claim that a teammate called Bonds a jerk except for your last post when you make the claim that you already made that claim.

we should check all of his posts...since there are only 72

[Ubiquitous]

we should check all of his posts...since there are only 72

Don't have to there are only 6 of his posts in which he mentions Bonds and in none of them does he make the claim that somebody called Bonds a jerk.

Now to be fair the claim he made was that some mystery teammate told Bonds to grow up. But I saw no reason to play fair since he was making several charges about me in a post that was devoid of accuracy.

By the way the mystery teammate with the stinging proof was RJ Reynolds. Apparently if those are the standards for not letting players play ball in the bigs then players like Babe Ruth, Reggie Jackson, Ty Cobb and many others would have been black balled out of the game.

[Ubiquitous]

Before people go slamming Bonds and his behavior in regards to his team and teammates they should read about Michael Jordan and how he treated his teammates. Makes Bonds look like a choir boy. The only difference between the two was that Jordan was on much better terms with the media then Bonds, and that does in fact make all the difference in the world.

[Death to Crawling Things]

Yes, yet Giambi is still knocking down, what, $20 mil on your team anyways. And Clemens (and Sheffield?) used to. Pettitte?


Well one difference can be argued on steroids when comes to Giambi vs. Bonds. Giambi stood up and came clean about what he had done in those hearings if I remember. Bonds was deny, deny, deny. People tend to want to forgive the guy who did wrong and admitted it, and get behind him when he tries to make ammends.

[Death to Crawling Things]

Fans like Milton Bradley? Fans like Vince Coleman?

Did Chicago fans like Dennis Rodman?

Yet all these players get signed. Fans love and hate depends greatly on what that player can do for your team. If Bonds hits the fans will accept him, I would think any baseball exec having been around baseball for awhile knows this.



Actually with Rodman, quite a few Chicago fans did like him. If I remember.

Fans went against Coleman largely due to the firecracker incident. (Course a .300 OBP when you're a decent paid leadoff man isnt enduring either)