MLB PA Claims Evidence of Collusion Against Bonds

[philkid3]

Least surprising news story ever.

NEW YORK (AP) — The baseball players' union says it has found evidence teams acted in concert against signing Barry Bonds but it reached an agreement with the commissioner's office to delay the filing of any grievance. (http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5gy-fHFugSvgRab54rUSQMVaHKYogD93RUEU01)

[KevinWI]

Here's the big off season story....

[philkid3]

Here's the big off season story....

In some circles it was the big regular season story.

[Los Bravos]

I will really be interested to see what they have. Several people around here are going to feel very vindicated if this pans out.

[philipthegreat]

Bonds is going to spend even more time with his lawyer now. :banghead:

[gman5431]

Does this make anyone else sick. This is the dumbest story ever. Since when did baseball become MTV. Barry Bonds sucks and no one wanted to sign him. Get bent.

G Man

[KCGHOST]

Yep, poor mistreated Barry.

[BradC34]

Does this make anyone else sick. This is the dumbest story ever. Since when did baseball become MTV. Barry Bonds sucks and no one wanted to sign him. Get bent.

Blame it on the MLBPA and getting rid of the reserve clause. If those greedy owners had gotten their way we wouldn't be sitting here talking about this now would we.

[SamtheBravesFan]

Yes, Barry Bonds is a jerk and few people in the world like him, but, unfortunately, that doesn't mean everyone can't discuss a strategy to not sign him and do it. Through the whole thing, I thought that everyone was just avoiding him because of the legal troubles, without consulting each other. I'm now willing to accept that may not be true.

Still, I don't think a lawsuit will benefit Bonds much, though. If Barry is found to have been colluded against, I doubt he'll be playing again because no matter in how good a shape he's in, he'll still be 43-44 years old if he plays in 2009.

[Imgran]

If he was 35, he might win this arugument. In his mid-40's though I would be shocked if there was a realistic possibility that the owners were so thickly in cohorts with each other that there isn't a plausible deniability based on age.

[sturg1dj]

they have an easy case imho.

all they have to do is prove one owner talked to another, not all of them. And remember it was the owners who put this in the CBA originally so they wouldn't have a repeat of the Koufax-Drysdale joint negotiations.

I know many people don't like him, but that does not change the fact that the owners broke the rules. Of course breaking the rules is not enough, they need to be caught...just ask Bonds about that.

[SamtheBravesFan]

So what is going to be the result of this trial if it's open-and-shut? Does Bonds get money? Is some team going to be forced to give him a contract or something?

[BradC34]

Having just watched Ken Burns' Baseball and hearing about the collusion case in the late 1980s, I'm really not sure what would happen. I think MLB had to pay something like 200 million dollars in settlements (lost wages) to MLB players. Now I don't know if that money went straight to the players or if the MLBPA got it, or for that matter if just the players that had filed for FA got it or it was dispersed over the whole league. In this case I assume a settlement in lost wages would go to Bonds, who was requesting what, $8 million a year? I imagine the settlement would be a few less than that.

[joshfan]

Geez it's not exactly a case for Columbo
Bonds, like him or not, was still in 07 as feared a hitter as there was in mlb
Maybe he had slipped defensively but there are over a dozen al teams he could have helped in a big way as a dh
Guys like sexton got multiple chances yet bonds who publicaly said he'd play for the minimum got overlooked
foolish

[joshfan]

You don't need columbo to prove this one
Bonds in 07 was still as feared a hitter as there was in MLB
Maybe he was not the fielder he was but there is entire AL that he could have vastly improved as a DH

[spark240]

If the MLBPA really has evidence of real collusion between two or more teams to deny offers to Bonds (which one or more of said teams would otherwise have made), then I will indeed be interested to see it.

The fact that Bonds was able to play baseball, and had (some) on-field value as a player, and was not offered a contract, is not itself evidence.

If the case can be made, then of course I will concede that collusion occurred, and the owners involved should be penalized. I'm always in favor of getting the truth out. Until the case is made, however, I still maintain that it is not necessary for collusion to have occurred for Bonds to have not been offered a contract.

[Imgran]

Maybe he had slipped defensively but there are over a dozen al teams he could have helped in a big way as a dh

There are only 14 AL teams. I find this difficult to believe.

Most of those teams already HAD a full-time DH under contract, including two of the prime candidates to sign Bonds -- TB and TOR -- and both are on the record at the time saying they didbn't want to bring in Bonds because of character and health concerns.

In fact, let's go right down the list.

AL East:

Boston: Papi
New York: Last thing they need is another aging LF/DH
Tampa: Floyd
Toronto: Starting the season, Frank Thomas
B'more: Bonds wouldn't have saved them

AL Central:

White Sox: Thome
Indians: Hafner
Tigers: Sheffield
Twins: Bonds might have helped them, but it's in character for them to avoid big name FA's
Royals: Bonds wouldn't have saved them

Angels: Had an OF/DH rotation
Mariners: Bonds wouldn't have saved them
Rangers: Offense was the least of their worries
Athletics: Beane is the only alpha male allowed on the Oakland Athletics team.

There are only three teams Bonds could have realistically put over the edge, and all of those teams had other reasons for not signing a Barry Bonds as a matter of GM policy..

[108stitches]

The MLB PA may be the only gourp that gives a rip about whether Bonds played or not. EVERYONE ELSE has enough common sense to understand WHY he didn't get signed. It is easy math.

[joshfan]

There are only 14 AL teams. I find this difficult to believe.

Yes, but most of those teams already HAD a full-time DH under contract, including two of the prime candidates to sign Bonds -- TB and TOR -- and both are on the record at the time saying they didbn't want to bring in Bonds because of character and health concerns.

In fact, let's go right down the list.

AL East:

Boston: Papi
New York: Last thing they need is another aging LF/DH
Tampa: Floyd
Toronto: Starting the season, Frank Thomas
B'more: Bonds wouldn't have saved them

AL Central:

White Sox: Thome
Indians: Hafner
Tigers: Sheffield
Twins: Bonds might have helped them, but it's in character for them to avoid big name FA's
Royals: Bonds wouldn't have saved them

Angels: Had an OF/DH rotation
Mariners: Bonds wouldn't have saved them
Rangers: Offense was the least of their worries
Athletics: Beane is the only alpha male allowed on the Oakland Athletics team.

There are only three teams Bonds could have realistically put over the edge, and all of those teams had other reasons for not signing a Barry Bonds as a matter of GM policy..be serious most of those multi million dollar guys are job hunting when your team has a chance to get barry bonds at 350gs

[sturg1dj]

The MLB PA may be the only gourp that gives a rip about whether Bonds played or not. EVERYONE ELSE has enough common sense to understand WHY he didn't get signed. It is easy math.

if you had been a member longer and read the Bonds threads you would know that this is not true. There are plenty of fans that want to see Bonds on the field, and there are plenty of fans who want to ownership to play fair.

[Imgran]

be serious most of those multi million dollar guys are job hunting when your team has a chance to get barry bonds at 350gs

uhh, care to repeat that in English?

Are you seriously telling me teams would throw their existing contracts with competenht full-time DH's overboard for Barry Bonds no matter HOW cheap the contract was?

[sturg1dj]

uhh, care to repeat that in English?

Are you seriously telling me teams would throw their existing contracts with competenht full-time DH's overboard for Barry Bonds no matter HOW cheap the contract was?

i think the point is that there were many players who were less talented that were paid more that were signed as free agents this year.

[philkid3]

In this case I assume a settlement in lost wages would go to Bonds, who was requesting what, $8 million a year? I imagine the settlement would be a few less than that.

Actually, he was requesting minimum wage. But I'll bet damages would be closer to what an arbitrator would find his worth to be.

[gman5431]

If the owners did collude, they are idiots. No one should have WANTED to sign this moron in the first place.

G Man

[philkid3]

Rangers: Offense was the least of their worries

But improving your offense (without hurting your defense even more) is always a good thing. It's a failure of a strategy to say, "well, our offense is already good, so lets to see how much it would take to get this 170 OPS+ to play for us because we don't need to improve our offense. Even for league minimum, offense is too good. Can't make it better."

But the Rangers signing Bonds would make more sense in another way: they could flip him. They're a rebuilding team that's right on the cusp. If they could have gotten Bonds for as cheap as he claimed, something they would find out had they made him an offer (you can't say a guy wants too much until he tells you), and he's putting up a 170 OPS+ again in July, then they have a great bargaining chip to extort even more prospects from a team that's actually in conention.

As it turns out, I don't know that Bonds would have been a good idea for us in hindsight. I wanted him in the preseason, but that would force Bradley to take the field, where I'm not sure he would have been healthy, and would have taken at-bats from guys like Murphy and Boggs, or he would have played left and it would have been the same thing, or he would have played first and taken at-bats from Chris Davis. In the end, the positives of having a player we could flip I think may have been outweighed by the negatives.

But as far as I know, Jon Daniels never had the option to make that mistake and that bugs me. I clamored for them to make Bonds an offer in the pre-season, and I'll admit it was a good idea not to, but only if it was Daniels who decided not to. But early in the season, Tom Hicks came out and said he's the only player he would nix if Nolan Ryan (another can of worms) wanted to bring him in.

That's what bugged me. The fact that the owner publicly came out and said no, picking on one, single (awesome) player. That's what originally got me suspicious, and even if there wasn't actually collusion it makes me hate Tom Hicks.


TL;DR: "Too much offense already," is no argument against the Rangers getting Bonds, and I'm pissed if Tom Hicks is the only reason they didn't go after him, even though in hind sight they shouldn't have.

[philkid3]

If the owners did collude, they are idiots. No one should have WANTED to sign this moron in the first place.

G Man

Yup. No one should have wanted a 170 OPS+ on their team for league minimum.

[gman5431]

But improving your offense (without hurting your defense even more) is always a good thing. It's a failure of a strategy to say, "well, our offense is already good, so lets to see how much it would take to get this 170 OPS+ to play for us because we don't need to improve our offense. Even for league minimum, offense is too good. Can't make it better."

But the Rangers signing Bonds would make more sense in another way: they could flip him. They're a rebuilding team that's right on the cusp. If they could have gotten Bonds for as cheap as he claimed, something they would find out had they made him an offer (you can't say a guy wants too much until he tells you), and he's putting up a 170 OPS+ again in July, then they have a great bargaining chip to extort even more prospects from a team that's actually in conention.

As it turns out, I don't know that Bonds would have been a good idea for us in hindsight. I wanted him in the preseason, but that would force Bradley to take the field, where I'm not sure he would have been healthy, and would have taken at-bats from guys like Murphy and Boggs, or he would have played left and it would have been the same thing, or he would have played first and taken at-bats from Chris Davis. In the end, the positives of having a player we could flip I think may have been outweighed by the negatives.

But as far as I know, Jon Daniels never had the option to make that mistake and that bugs me. I clamored for them to make Bonds an offer in the pre-season, and I'll admit it was a good idea not to, but only if it was Daniels who decided not to. But early in the season, Tom Hicks came out and said he's the only player he would nix if Nolan Ryan (another can of worms) wanted to bring him in.

That's what bugged me. The fact that the owner publicly came out and said no, picking on one, single (awesome) player. That's what originally got me suspicious, and even if there wasn't actually collusion it makes me hate Tom Hicks.


TL;DR: "Too much offense already," is no argument against the Rangers getting Bonds, and I'm pissed if Tom Hicks is the only reason they didn't go after him, even though in hind sight they shouldn't have.

Tom Hicks is a fool but..... you hate him because he said he would nix getting a player who you admittedly as saying it was a good move NOT to acquire? Sounds like he hit the nail on the head. Especially if he wasnt colluding.

G Man

[philkid3]

Tom Hicks is a fool but..... you hate him because he said he would nix getting a player who you admittedly as saying it was a good move NOT to acquire? Sounds like he hit the nail on the head. Especially if he wasnt colluding.

G Man
Because I don't want the owner telling the GM "there's one player I won't allow you to sign." He has a smart GM, he needs to let him decide what will win games and what will lose games.

Or the president, since that was directed towards Ryan (which is another problem I have with Hicks, the suspicion he's giving Nolan more power than JD).


I want Bonds not back in baseball because no GM thinks he would make the team better. Not because an owner says so because he's a "bad man."

[gman5431]

Because I don't want the owner telling the GM "there's one player I won't allow you to sign." He has a smart GM, he needs to let him decide what will win games and what will lose games.

Or the president, since that was directed towards Ryan (which is another problem I have with Hicks, the suspicion he's giving Nolan more power than JD).


I want Bonds not back in baseball because no GM thinks he would make the team better. Not because an owner says so because he's a "bad man."

Hicks may be a idiot but he was right on this one. You are right in the fact that he shouldnt be telling the GM what he can and cannot do. Hopefully they had discussion on the subject that we are not privy too. In the end Bonds not playing ever again was a decision that was right for everyone and right for the game.

G Man

[philkid3]

In the end Bonds not playing ever again was a decision that was right for everyone and right for the game.

There's no proof of that, and that's definitely wrong if it was via collusion.

[Los Bravos]

Long term observation tells me that any sentence that starts with "There is no way the owners would do something that stupid..." isn't going to hold water. Add Bud to the mix and you are really cooking. It really wouldn't surprise me if Selig actually sat down at his desk and wrote out a memo longhand.

As for the damages thing, according to the linked story: The players' association won three collusion grievances in which owners were found to have conspired against free agents following the 1985, 1986 and 1987 seasons. Management agreed in 1990 to settle those cases for $280 million and also agreed to a provision that future collusion would be subject to triple damages.


(Emphasis mine.)

[Scoops]

Yup. No one should have wanted a 170 OPS+ on their team for league minimum.
Because it's absolutely as simple as that. There are no other factors at all to consider.

[sturg1dj]

If the owners did collude, they are idiots. No one should have WANTED to sign this moron in the first place.

G Man

yeah, take that owners!

[philkid3]

Because it's absolutely as simple as that. There are no other factors at all to consider.

Just like it's as simple as "he brings lots of media and will absolutely make teams lose more."

[Imgran]

But improving your offense (without hurting your defense even more) is always a good thing. It's a failure of a strategy to say, "well, our offense is already good, so lets to see how much it would take to get this 170 OPS+ to play for us because we don't need to improve our offense. Even for league minimum, offense is too good. Can't make it better."

But the Rangers signing Bonds would make more sense in another way: they could flip him. They're a rebuilding team that's right on the cusp. If they could have gotten Bonds for as cheap as he claimed, something they would find out had they made him an offer (you can't say a guy wants too much until he tells you), and he's putting up a 170 OPS+ again in July, then they have a great bargaining chip to extort even more prospects from a team that's actually in conention.

As it turns out, I don't know that Bonds would have been a good idea for us in hindsight. I wanted him in the preseason, but that would force Bradley to take the field, where I'm not sure he would have been healthy, and would have taken at-bats from guys like Murphy and Boggs, or he would have played left and it would have been the same thing, or he would have played first and taken at-bats from Chris Davis. In the end, the positives of having a player we could flip I think may have been outweighed by the negatives.

But as far as I know, Jon Daniels never had the option to make that mistake and that bugs me. I clamored for them to make Bonds an offer in the pre-season, and I'll admit it was a good idea not to, but only if it was Daniels who decided not to. But early in the season, Tom Hicks came out and said he's the only player he would nix if Nolan Ryan (another can of worms) wanted to bring him in.

That's what bugged me. The fact that the owner publicly came out and said no, picking on one, single (awesome) player. That's what originally got me suspicious, and even if there wasn't actually collusion it makes me hate Tom Hicks.


TL;DR: "Too much offense already," is no argument against the Rangers getting Bonds, and I'm pissed if Tom Hicks is the only reason they didn't go after him, even though in hind sight they shouldn't have.


I intended to word that more along the lines of "offense isn't the thing the Rangers need to be spending their money on."

Any FA $$$ needed to go into pitching.

[SamtheBravesFan]

Just like it's as simple as "he brings lots of media and will absolutely make teams lose more."

I don't recall anyone saying he'd make teams "lose more". If there is collusion here and it is proven beyond a reasonable doubt, someone is going to pay.

If there is anything really going on here, it's that teams are still scared to death of the PR hit that will come with Bonds, collusion or not. Would having Bonds make a team more money? Yes. Would Bonds produce if given the chance? If he can still hit at 44 years old, he certainly would.

Though, is it all worth it in the end to be labelled as "the team that signed assumed steroid user and all-around jerk Barry Bonds in the post-Mitchell Report era"?

[philkid3]

I intended to word that more along the lines of "offense isn't the thing the Rangers need to be spending their money on."

Any FA $$$ needed to go into pitching.

So how do you feel about them signing Milton Bradley.

[redlegsfan21]

Yup. No one should have wanted a 170 OPS+ on their team for league minimum.

Exactly. I was hoping for a quick trade in June of Dunn and Griffey and maybe play Bonds and have him teach the new kids a few tricks on the basepaths and fielding and overall hitting. Bonds was a really good player in the 90s, the only member of the 500-500 club, 8 GGs, and still leads the world in walks.

[THE OX]

As for the damages thing, according to the linked story:

(Emphasis mine.)

Quote:
.....Management agreed in 1990 to settle those cases for $280 million and also agreed to a provision that future collusion would be subject to triple damages.

Let's see, $350K (his requested salary) x 3 (triple damages) = $1.05 million

$1.05 million divided by 30 teams equals $35K

$35K to keep an alleged steroid user (whose usefulness would be almost exclusively as a DH for an American League club) out of baseball? Sounds like a pretty good deal to me!

Collusion, my arse! 30 General Managers showing some intelligence, IMO!

[tinseltown]

Let's see, $350K (his requested salary) x 3 (triple damages) = $1.05 millionIANAL, but if the alleged collusion did take place, it is the cause of Bonds offering to play for the minimum salary. Thus I believe any awarded damages would not be based on this offer.

[philkid3]

[COLOR="DarkRed"][I]$35K to keep an alleged steroid user (whose usefulness would be almost exclusively as a DH for an American League club) out of baseball? Sounds like a pretty good deal to me!

Collusion, my arse! 30 General Managers showing some intelligence, IMO!
So all alleged steroid users should be kept out of baseball? That makes sense.

And it's great denying fans a better team for things like that.

[highpockets]

Collusion, my arse! 30 General Managers showing some intelligence, IMO!

I don't share your view, but I think 30 general managers simultaneously showing some intelligence would be prima facie evidence of collusion.

[THE OX]

I don't share your view, but I think 30 general managers simultaneously showing some intelligence would be prima facie evidence of collusion.

Nahhh! More like irrefutable evidence of the existence of miracles!

[philkid3]

Nahhh! More like irrefutable evidence of the existence of miracles!

I'm starting to wonder how objective you are on this.

[THE OX]

I'm starting to wonder how objective you are on this.

I make no pretense at objectivity. The absence of Barry Bonds from MLB this season (and for the foreseeable future) doesn't bother me one damn bit!

[The Splendid Splinter]

Quote:
.....Management agreed in 1990 to settle those cases for $280 million and also agreed to a provision that future collusion would be subject to triple damages.

Let's see, $350K (his requested salary) x 3 (triple damages) = $1.05 million

$1.05 million divided by 30 teams equals $35K

$35K to keep an alleged steroid user (whose usefulness would be almost exclusively as a DH for an American League club) out of baseball? Sounds like a pretty good deal to me!

Collusion, my arse! 30 General Managers showing some intelligence, IMO!


here you go... http://sports.yahoo.com/mlb/news;_ylt=AucyqNx.WDD3x3DsUhNKzJo5nYcB?slug=ti-bondscollusion101708&prov=yhoo&type=lgns

first 2 paragraphs on that article...

"Barry Bonds could seek $100 million or more if an arbitrator finds baseball owners colluded to end his career, according to the terms of the collective bargaining agreement, which allows for triple damages from lost earnings.

Bonds, who turned 44 in July, would likely argue baseball not only blackballed him in 2008 but also effectively shortened his career by two or even three seasons."

They won't use that 350 K salary, but instead his asking price during the offseason before the season or even use his salary from last year (15.5 mil).

Now lets use that number... 15.5 x 3= 46.5 mil per year.

Willie Mays said that Bonds could have played as many as 3 more years. The union will try to figure out how many more years Bonds could've played and maintain being productive. Lets do the max of 3 years.

46.5 x 3= 139.5 mil... Then 139.5 /30= 4.65 mil per team. Now that would be the max here... Bonds probably would've signed for like 10 mil which still make it like 90 mil.

Now I believe all this money will go to Bonds. I hope they (the owners/GMs) really didn't do that cuz otherwise, theyre looking at a big settlement.

If that happens, it could start with other players as well. Sammy Sosa (doubt it, but you never know) could file something and so on.

[The Splendid Splinter]

Also... just want to put this out here as well. I'm glad Bonds didn't play this year. I didn't think he was worth it until his agent said he would play for the minimum which I thought some team would sign him to be the DH or heck, a platoon LF. Bonds is a great player, but he needs to worry about his trial more than playing baseball.

Also... another thing, I don't know how the arb. guy can think that Bonds can play more than 1 year considering his trial is next year and probably can't play because of it so really, the trial would've ended his career anyway. I could see that they award him with collusion damages, but only for 1 year which will be like 30 mil or so... so each owner will have give out a mil.

[MyDogSparty]

Also... just want to put this out here as well. I'm glad Bonds didn't play this year. I didn't think he was worth it until his agent said he would play for the minimum which I thought some team would sign him to be the DH or heck, a platoon LF. Bonds is a great player, but he needs to worry about his trial more than playing baseball.

Also... another thing, I don't know how the arb. guy can think that Bonds can play more than 1 year considering his trial is next year and probably can't play because of it so really, the trial would've ended his career anyway. I could see that they award him with collusion damages, but only for 1 year which will be like 30 mil or so... so each owner will have give out a mil.

One thing you may want to consider with your resolution is when was the last time Bonds played over 150 games in a season? When you imply that he would have only been able to play 1 more year, I seriously doubt that he could hold up for an entire year given his history. I looked it up and he's only played over 150 games one time since 1999.

[sturg1dj]

all of this could have been avoided if teams did not collude and Bonds was allowed sign with a team.


Think about it. He could have had an awful season and actually given us some closure. But now, he is not going away any time soon.

[philkid3]

Also... just want to put this out here as well. I'm glad Bonds didn't play this year. I didn't think he was worth it until his agent said he would play for the minimum which I thought some team would sign him to be the DH or heck, a platoon LF.
I thought he'd be worth it long before then, at least worth making an offer to. That was where some of my early suspicion came from, though. Everyone kept saying "he wants too much money," but no one was making him an offer. You couldn't possibly know.

[Gregory Pratt]

Was there really any doubt that there was collusion against Bonds? Whether or not it's justified is up for debate but every team in baseball doesn't pass on a bat like his by fluke.

[philkid3]

Was there really any doubt that there was collusion against Bonds? Whether or not it's justified is up for debate but every team in baseball doesn't pass on a bat like his by fluke.
Even I think there's some doubt, just because there's no proof.

But pretty much since spring I've had a strong suspicion.

[joshfan]

i think the point is that there were many players who were less talented that were paid more that were signed as free agents this year.

Thank you for being clearer then I and the "murderers row" that was posted showing the various teams dhs was by July pretty well thinned out.
Bonds said in July he'd play for the prorated minimum.
Teams like Detroit that still had a chance but were injury plagued, see Sheff, could have had the greatest player, like him or not, we've seen for about 200grand
Jays in July were in the hunt and Thomas was long gone
Royals may not have had a chance but for what they pay in shrimp for the luxury boxes could have put a better more exciting team on the field for those who come to the park, maybe drawing some more paying customers enhancing thier farm team budgets

[108stitches]

Yup. No one should have wanted a 170 OPS+ on their team for league minimum.

This is the way I see the deal. A woman (BASEBALL)comes home and finds her loving, caring husband (BONDS) in bed with another woman (STEROIDS) and asks him if he wants to renew their vows.:banghead:

[NY16CATCHER]

they have an easy case imho.

all they have to do is prove one owner talked to another, not all of them. And remember it was the owners who put this in the CBA originally so they wouldn't have a repeat of the Koufax-Drysdale joint negotiations.

I know many people don't like him, but that does not change the fact that the owners broke the rules. Of course breaking the rules is not enough, they need to be caught...just ask Bonds about that.

And your proof the owners colluded? And I mean PROOF, by its actual definition, not some sort of "I like Barry, therefore it must have happened".

If you've got some real evidence, not circumstantial garbage, offer it up. Otherwise, until proven otherwise, you owe ownership an apology

[yamsi12]

Teams like Detroit that still had a chance but were injury plagued, see Sheff, could have had the greatest player, like him or not, we've seen for about 200grand



not anywhere near the greatest player.

[sturg1dj]

And your proof the owners colluded? And I mean PROOF, by its actual definition, not some sort of "I like Barry, therefore it must have happened".

If you've got some real evidence, not circumstantial garbage, offer it up. Otherwise, until proven otherwise, you owe ownership an apology

i don't have access to the evidence that the mlbpa has. but apparently they have something. btw..is this hank steinbrenner by any chance?

[highpockets]

And your proof the owners colluded? And I mean PROOF, by its actual definition, not some sort of "I like Barry, therefore it must have happened".

If you've got some real evidence, not circumstantial garbage, offer it up. Otherwise, until proven otherwise, you owe ownership an apology

If the owners could not share an understanding that it would be better for all concerned that Barry Bonds not play, without a smoking pistol, then they are more brain-dead than I thought. That's unlikely, but possible, I guess.

[sturg1dj]

not anywhere near the greatest player.

he said the best player that we've seen. In my lifetime that is true. His numbers also show that. Even before the huge years he was amazing and putting up unprecedented numbers.


if anything he will go down in history as one of the two most feared hitters of all time, the other being Babe Ruth.

[sturg1dj]

This is the way I see the deal. A woman (BASEBALL)comes home and finds her loving, caring husband (BONDS) in bed with another woman (STEROIDS) and asks him if he wants to renew their vows.:banghead:

I see it as a player who adapted to each era he played in, and dominated. I see it as owners who happily made money off of these players who were doping until it became unfavorable with the fans. I see it as making a scapegoat out of one player when the whole era was guilty.


if steroids is the reason then there are others playing who were caught using steroids. Players who they actually have proof against. if its the fact that he isn't admitting to it once again he hasn't been caught and it has not been proven. The people who have admitted to it had evidence against them.

what is humorous to me is we are told to not go after the owners because of lack of evidence, yet the reason for all of this is because of something that people think Bonds did even though there is lack of evidence. Of course, this explanation can be taken with a grain of salt because of lack of evidence.

[philkid3]

And your proof the owners colluded? And I mean PROOF, by its actual definition, not some sort of "I like Barry, therefore it must have happened".

If you've got some real evidence, not circumstantial garbage, offer it up. Otherwise, until proven otherwise, you owe ownership an apology
Where is your PROOF that Bonds used steroids?

[philkid3]

I see it as a player who adapted to each era he played in, and dominated. I see it as owners who happily made money off of these players who were doping until it became unfavorable with the fans. I see it as making a scapegoat out of one player when the whole era was guilty.


if steroids is the reason then there are others playing who were caught using steroids. Players who they actually have proof against. if its the fact that he isn't admitting to it once again he hasn't been caught and it has not been proven. The people who have admitted to it had evidence against them.

what is humorous to me is we are told to not go after the owners because of lack of evidence, yet the reason for all of this is because of something that people think Bonds did even though there is lack of evidence. Of course, this explanation can be taken with a grain of salt because of lack of evidence.
:applaud::applaud::applaud::applaud::applaud:

[slugger33]

Bonds was blackballed, I don't care what anyone says. Teams would have to be stupid to not sign a guy that hit 28 homers and had a .480 OBP.

[joshfan]

Bonds was blackballed, I don't care what anyone says. Teams would have to be stupid to not sign a guy that hit 28 homers and had a .480 OBP.
NO doubt about it in my mind whatsoever especially for the tip money he was willing to play for

[sturg1dj]

there is a long history of substance abusers getting many chances and there is also a long history of jerks getting many chances.


Baseball wanted to make an example out of Bonds, and instead of making examples like Goodell in the NFL Selig went in the direction of stupidity.

[joshfan]

there is a long history of substance abusers getting many chances and there is also a long history of jerks getting many chances.


Baseball wanted to make an example out of Bonds, and instead of making examples like Goodell in the NFL Selig went in the direction of stupidity.

No kidding, guys who took huge sums of money and did everything possible to destroy themselves ala Gooden,Strawberry, even guys like Mantle are not discounted but those who may or may not have done whatever it takes to be the BEST are outlaw bums
Foolish

[SHOELESSJOE3]

there is a long history of substance abusers getting many chances and there is also a long history of jerks getting many chances.


Baseball wanted to make an example out of Bonds, and instead of making examples like Goodell in the NFL Selig went in the direction of stupidity.

Not here to defend any of those others, Steve Howe, Gooden, Strawberry and some others, my opinion they were given too many chances.

The difference is, they were substance abusers, personal problems of their own doing but as far as I know they used no PEDs, thats the difference.

In the case of Bonds, at this time and I repeat he is innocent as far as we know but highly suspect and his substance is perceived to be used to boost production, gain an edge, it is related the game itself.

I certainly don't want to get into the pros and cons about some PEDs, what do they do, thats not why I respond.

I'm only pointing out the difference between what the others were using and what it's believed Barry did.

It is probably not fair to the image but in many eyes and minds the road he took is viewed as worse, supposed rule breaking to gain an edge, game related. It's easy to understand why he was not picked up. Was it collusion, we may find out but his image is greatly tarnished, has nothing to do with production, we all know he could have been of some value to some teams, it's his image.

[sturg1dj]

Not here to defend any of those others, Steve Howe, Gooden, Strawberry and some others, my opinion they were given too many chances.

The difference is, they were substance abusers, personal problems of their own doing but as far as I know they used no PEDs, thats the difference.

In the case of Bonds, at this time and I repeat he is innocent as far as we know but highly suspect and his substance is perceived to be used to boost production, gain an edge, it is related the game itself.

I certainly don't want to get into the pros and cons about some PEDs, what do they do, thats not why I respond.

I'm only pointing out the difference between what the others were using and what it's believed Barry did.

It is probably not fair to the image but in many eyes and minds the road he took is viewed as worse, supposed rule breaking to gain an edge, game related. It's easy to understand why he was not picked up. Was it collusion, we may find out but his image is greatly tarnished, has nothing to do with production, we all know he could have been of some value to some teams, it's his image.

what about the players who used PED's that are still in the league? the players who were caught that still have roster spots?

[SHOELESSJOE3]

what about the players who used PED's that are still in the league? the players who were caught that still have roster spots?


I'm not raising or lowering the bar. I've said this long ago, Barry is probably being treated unfairly because he is the big fish, the guy with the big numbers, the record breaker, he has the biggest target on his back.

Petitte, Giambi and some others no better, admitted users but they come off more acceptable in the public eye, probably because they did admit. True there was some evidence, with Petitte an eye witness physical trainer McNamee. Andy didn't choose to fight, he and Clemens the same witness points them out. Unlike Andy Clemens chose to fight, he comes off worse in the public eye for that reason. You can bet if Clemens had anything left in the tank, he would be out there with Barry.

How many times can I say, it's not fair it's the perception also the image over the years. Bonds and Clemens were not that popular with many even before the steroid accusations. It's called human nature, the way the public comes down harder on some than on others. It's so obvious these two are not viewed as mr nice guy by the public, thats why Barry was not snatched up, it's certainly not lack of ability.

I'm hoping no collusion, what ever the feelings about Barry he should be treated as any other player would be...........but in the real world, who can say.

[sturg1dj]

I'm not raising or lowering the bar. I've said this long ago, Barry is probably being treated unfairly because he is the big fish, the guy with the big numbers, the record breaker, he has the biggest target on his back.

Petitte, Giambi and some others no better, admitted users but they come off more acceptable in the public eye, probably because they did admit. True there was some evidence, with Petitte an eye witness physical trainer McNamee. Andy didn't choose to fight, he and Clemens the same witness points them out. Unlike Andy Clemens chose to fight, he comes off worse in the public eye for that reason. You can bet if Clemens had anything left in the tank, he would be out there with Barry.

How many times can I say, it's not fair it's the perception also the image over the years. Bonds and Clemens were not that popular with many even before the steroid accusations. It's called human nature, the way the public comes down harder on some than on others. It's so obvious these two are not viewed as mr nice guy by the public, thats why Barry was not snatched up, it's certainly not lack of ability.

I'm hoping no collusion, what ever the feelings about Barry he should be treated as any other player would be...........but in the real world, who can say.


you have made this argument a few times now, but how do you feel about what is being done? Is it deserved? We all get why its happening. We know Barry is a big name. Thats obvious. What we are saying is that is not a valid reason to do this. Just because he is the biggest name doesn't mean he should be yreated differently.

you are not giving us any new info by telling us that he is beaing treated different because of who he is. We know that, that is our point.

[NY16CATCHER]

Where is your PROOF that Bonds used steroids?

Where did I say he did? If I haven't accused him of anything, then I don't need to offer proof of anything, make sense?

Look, the rest of the league didn't want to sign him because of the media circus he is, the unwanted attention he'd bring to a franchise, his reputation (well earned) of being a giant a-hole to everyone around him and his divisivness. Nevermind the fact that as an outfielder, he's pretty well used up. He won't play 1st base, by his choosing. So, that makes him a paperweight in left field or a DH.

Any team is going to have to weigh the production they get, versus the rest of the factors and they apparently chose to pass on Bonds. Is it that hard to believe that there is actually a point where the value of his production doesn't equal the return?

Seems to me logic finally prevailed and Barry stayed home.

[Captain Cold Nose]

Where did I say he did? If I haven't accused him of anything, then I don't need to offer proof of anything, make sense?

Look, the rest of the league didn't want to sign him because of the media circus he is, the unwanted attention he'd bring to a franchise, his reputation (well earned) of being a giant a-hole to everyone around him and his divisivness. Nevermind the fact that as an outfielder, he's pretty well used up. He won't play 1st base, by his choosing. So, that makes him a paperweight in left field or a DH.

Any team is going to have to weigh the production they get, versus the rest of the factors and they apparently chose to pass on Bonds. Is it that hard to believe that there is actually a point where the value of his production doesn't equal the return?

Seems to me logic finally prevailed and Barry stayed home.

And the MLBPA claims? This isn't just some poster saying there's collusion, this is the union saying this.

[NY16CATCHER]

And the MLBPA claims? This isn't just some poster saying there's collusion, this is the union saying this.

And I was replying to his comment asking me to prove a statement I didn't make (that Bond's used steroids).

The person I was replying to had also stated that Bonds was colluded against as a statement of fact...which it is NOT at this time. Until evidence is provided that proves it as a fact it is nothing more than a meaningless accusation made by a group with some motives that could be described as less than altruistic.

It's time to seperate fact from accusation and the 2 shouldn't be confused as having remotely the same meaning.

[Scoops]

And the MLBPA claims? This isn't just some poster saying there's collusion, this is the union saying this.
Personally, I don't disagree that there may have been collusion. I just disagree with the assertion that there obviously was collusion because a (43 year old) slugger with a 170 OPS+ (and a history [and future] of private and professional problems and negative attention) couldn't get a job.

Could Barry Bonds have helped a completely neutral, rational team win a few more games? Probably. Are there any completely neutral, rational teams? No. They all have quirks and reasons why Bonds might not have fit with them. Might the Jays, for example, have pushed for the wildcard with Bonds? They probably could have. The thing is, the Jays management also started the year by dumping a player who one would have thought would have done that, simply because of his response to being benched for one game. They also, over the past few years, got rid of every other player who had conflicts with their manager. Bonds has not been known, historically, for getting along. Said manager also chose to use Gregg Zaun as his regular catcher rather than Rod Barajas, demonstrating effectively that the better player doesn't always get to play -- even when he's already on the team, let alone a free agent.

Most, if not all, of the teams in baseball can make some argument against signing Bonds. Some can go with, "We're already paying 6 guys to be corner OF/1B/DH. What's the point of adding another one? We still have to pay the guys we have." It's not a particularly good argument, if you believe that Bonds would put up numbers similar to his history, but it is a valid and legitimate one. Still others can say, "We're not going to contend this year, so why deal with the headache of the media scrutiny he'd bring?"

[SHOELESSJOE3]

you have made this argument a few times now, but how do you feel about what is being done? Is it deserved? We all get why its happening. We know Barry is a big name. Thats obvious. What we are saying is that is not a valid reason to do this. Just because he is the biggest name doesn't mean he should be yreated differently.

you are not giving us any new info by telling us that he is beaing treated different because of who he is. We know that, that is our point.

No it's not fair, he should be treated like anyone else but I think many teams think there would be a stigma attached to them if they pick him up. I just think the owners don't want to be seen as the one who gave him another shot.................only because he is unpopular with so much of the public.

I don't know how else it could be said, the general feeling with much of the public is he is a cheater( innocent as far as I'm concerned at this time), to say some dislike him would be an understatement

I have to bring this one more time, his own words over the many years, long before the steroid issue, fair or not fair made him disliked by many.

It's not just the big name, the numbers, he was already disliked by many. I'll say it again if some teams thought Clemens could still pitch and he wanted back, I doubt he would be picked up, not the most popular guy even before linked to steroids.

I don't know, it's called life, some are not treated the same as others, some are viewed in a more negative way.

[joshfan]

And your proof the owners colluded? And I mean PROOF, by its actual definition, not some sort of "I like Barry, therefore it must have happened".

If you've got some real evidence, not circumstantial garbage, offer it up. Otherwise, until proven otherwise, you owe ownership an apology
I don't like Barry but I see guys who can't hold a candle to him,peers agewise, being given big money with little or no return and a guy who last year was a dominating force offering to play for the minimum go wanting,it is plain to see.
Not to mention the atrocious "DeStalinization" the Giants did
Reaped his benefits by the millions then erased any vestige of him this year
That is a disgrace

[Captain Cold Nose]

And I was replying to his comment asking me to prove a statement I didn't make (that Bond's used steroids).

The person I was replying to had also stated that Bonds was colluded against as a statement of fact...which it is NOT at this time. Until evidence is provided that proves it as a fact it is nothing more than a meaningless accusation made by a group with some motives that could be described as less than altruistic.

It's time to seperate fact from accusation and the 2 shouldn't be confused as having remotely the same meaning.

I know what you were replying to, and you're right, one has nothing to do with the other in this case.

How is this, there is apparently evidence the owners did, in fact, collude against Bonds. While the Union certainly has its own interests at heart when making such statements, they would not have made a staement along those lines if there was nothing there. I can't and won't speak for them, but I am expecting to hear something. I don't expect them to just let it pass.

I have long been on the same page as you in regards to Bonds's lack of baseball employment this year. The stigma that goes with him as well as despite all the talk of how valuable he is, the Giants have not come close to contending the last few seasons, were marks against the aging outfielder. But I am waiting to hear this claimed evidence as if it were there. I'm not going to dimisss it simply because they haven't presented it. There has to be logic to that, the Union isn't going to play their hand when it's not absolutely necessary at this exact time. I don't think the owners are owed an apology. Yet.

[philkid3]

Look, the rest of the league didn't want to sign him because of the media circus he is, the unwanted attention he'd bring to a franchise, his reputation (well earned) of being a giant a-hole to everyone around him and his divisivness. Nevermind the fact that as an outfielder, he's pretty well used up. He won't play 1st base, by his choosing. So, that makes him a paperweight in left field or a DH.
Okay then, next, where is your PROOF there wasn't collusion?


Any team is going to have to weigh the production they get, versus the rest of the factors and they apparently chose to pass on Bonds. Is it that hard to believe that there is actually a point where the value of his production doesn't equal the return?
Yeah, actually. It's obviously possible, but that doesn't make it easy to believe.

[philkid3]

The person I was replying to had also stated that Bonds was colluded against as a statement of fact.
Where did I claim this?

[sturg1dj]

this would be a totally different situation if the anti-Bonds fans had been smart capitalists and shown their hatred by not going to his away games instead of being idiots and paying to boo him.

if fans didn't come in droves then it wouldn't be as big a deal. If fans avoided Bonds like the plague then it would be smart business not to sign him.

But in this case if you sign him not only do you most likely get great production (not guaranteed) but you actually would be guaranteed a spike in your attendance. So for one season of media craziness you would strengthen your team overall with more money.

[Scoops]

Okay then, next, where is your PROOF there wasn't collusion?

Yeah, actually. It's obviously possible, but that doesn't make it easy to believe.
You're just being absurd, demanding proof of a negative -- there's a reason courts don't work that way. Why don't you give us hard proof, not circumstantial conjecture, that collusion happened? That would be far simpler. Of course you can't, and it's not your fault. All we know is that the MLBPA says it happened, and that it's not an absurd accusation. I also don't think it's absurd that no team would want him, but belief (more so than truth) is in the eye of the beholder. I will wait for proof before making a decision, and that proof can only reasonably be expected to come from the "it happened" side.

this would be a totally different situation if the anti-Bonds fans had been smart capitalists and shown their hatred by not going to his away games instead of being idiots and paying to boo him.

if fans didn't come in droves then it wouldn't be as big a deal. If fans avoided Bonds like the plague then it would be smart business not to sign him.

But in this case if you sign him not only do you most likely get great production (not guaranteed) but you actually would be guaranteed a spike in your attendance. So for one season of media craziness you would strengthen your team overall with more money.
While I agree with your initial point regarding smart capitalists, there's probably significantly less attendance value in Bonds now that he's passed Aaron. If he were to come back and play, there are really only two home runs he could hit that would be "worth" seeing: Number 800 and his last career one*. Neither of those, I would think, are as big a draw as the march to the record breaker (and the other significant people he passed, like Ruth and Mays). The media circus with regard to his home run count (if not the rest of his life) certainly died off after 756, and I would guess (without looking at numbers) that attendance did as well.

There is probably still a spectacle factor to Bonds, but I don't think it's as great as it was before 2007.

* I suppose you could argue three, if you thought he'd catch Sadaharu Oh by playing a full season in 2008. Personally, I doubt that he'd hit 107 home runs, and his future playing beyond 2008 was already in doubt thanks to his legal stuff.

[philkid3]

You're just being absurd, demanding proof of a negative -- there's a reason courts don't work that way.
If someone's going to claim it absolutely did not occur, yes, I'm going to demand proof.


Why don't you give us hard proof, not circumstantial conjecture, that collusion happened? That would be far simpler.
Because there is none. Anyone who says there absolutely was collusion is being absurd. I'm not claiming that.

It's exactly the same as the steroids situation. Anyone who says absolutely that Bonds knowingly juiced is being absurd, as is anyone who says he absolutely did not. We don't know, all we have is speculation.

There are a lot of reasons to believe Bonds used steroids and a lot of reasons to believe baseball colluded. There's not enough reason for either to convict anyone (yet), but anyone who makes a definitive claim one way or the other is going to have to give proof.

He demanded PROOF of collusion but I never said there was absolutely collusion. If someone is going to play that card, I am, too.

[GordonGecko]

IANAL, but if the alleged collusion did take place, it is the cause of Bonds offering to play for the minimum salary. Thus I believe any awarded damages would not be based on this offer.

Whatever number you come up with, divide by 30 for each teams liability. Assuming of course that MLB doesn't have insurance to cover this sort of frivolous garbage lawsuit

[sturg1dj]

Whatever number you come up with, divide by 30 for each teams liability. Assuming of course that MLB doesn't have insurance to cover this sort of frivolous garbage lawsuit

its not just about monetary value. This would be just another example of the owners getting caught trying to screw the players and it would be another negative for Selig. It doesn't matter if you agree with the ends or not, this is another example of how the baseball owners/commish are steps behind other sports.


and btw, for those who think the players are greedy now, if this is proven then this will be just another in a long history of reasons why the players not only don't trust ownership, but want to get every dime they can out of the owners.

[GordonGecko]

You don't think there's any merit to this accusation do you?? I mean seriously, teams didn't want bonds because he's a washed up roid head that would bring shame to their club. All he's good for now is an illegitimate home run every 50 at bats. The biggest disgrace is in all this is the Giants who rode his bandwagon to the top of the asterix mountain and then completely turned their backs on him when he couldn't sell any more tickets for them

[NY16CATCHER]

If someone's going to claim it absolutely did not occur, yes, I'm going to demand proof.



Because there is none. Anyone who says there absolutely was collusion is being absurd. I'm not claiming that.

It's exactly the same as the steroids situation. Anyone who says absolutely that Bonds knowingly juiced is being absurd, as is anyone who says he absolutely did not. We don't know, all we have is speculation.

There are a lot of reasons to believe Bonds used steroids and a lot of reasons to believe baseball colluded. There's not enough reason for either to convict anyone (yet), but anyone who makes a definitive claim one way or the other is going to have to give proof.

He demanded PROOF of collusion but I never said there was absolutely collusion. If someone is going to play that card, I am, too.

Yet you'll accept somebody's claim that something did happen with no proof offered to back up the claim? You can't have it both ways.

[sturg1dj]

Yet you'll accept somebody's claim that something did happen with no proof offered to back up the claim? You can't have it both ways.

once again, since I don't have access to the same evidence as the MLBPA then I will use a little thing called common sense. Common sense talls me that the owners have always been in it for the money. Common sense tells me there is a history of owners signing players who have drug problems, whom they know used steroids and/or were jerks. They sign these players because it will help their business flourish.

regardless of age, Barry Bonds was still producing. At the league minimum he was a steal. If Julio Franco can get a job when he couldn't really hit and could only play 1st base when he was in his late 40's then Barry Bonds could be signed in his early 40's.


want more? to be collusion it doesn't have to be every team and the commish in cahoots...just two parties.

this one is obvious, and anyone who believes that all the owners had the same epiphany at the same time is dreaming.

[philkid3]

Yet you'll accept somebody's claim that something did happen with no proof offered to back up the claim? You can't have it both ways.
What are you talking about?

[NY16CATCHER]

What are you talking about?

I challenged you to prove that collusion had occured. Your reply to me was to ask me to prove it didn't happen. Aside from the fact you can't prove a negative, you seem to be willing to take the union's claim it happened as fact (That I am apparently suppose to disprove to you) without any evidence to support their claims being offered.

Simply put, you can't prove your statement, just as the union has offered no evidence to support their claim.

Come back when you can have a logical conversation and we'll have one.

[NY16CATCHER]

once again, since I don't have access to the same evidence as the MLBPA then I will use a little thing called common sense. Common sense talls me that the owners have always been in it for the money. Common sense tells me there is a history of owners signing players who have drug problems, whom they know used steroids and/or were jerks. They sign these players because it will help their business flourish.

regardless of age, Barry Bonds was still producing. At the league minimum he was a steal. If Julio Franco can get a job when he couldn't really hit and could only play 1st base when he was in his late 40's then Barry Bonds could be signed in his early 40's.


want more? to be collusion it doesn't have to be every team and the commish in cahoots...just two parties.

this one is obvious, and anyone who believes that all the owners had the same epiphany at the same time is dreaming.

Common sense says Barry juiced, are we suppose to apply your same logic regarding common sense to that situation as well? Because if that's the case, its all the more reason owners did not want to sign him to begin with.

[NYMets523]

If someone's going to claim it absolutely did not occur, yes, I'm going to demand proof.

Ever hear of the burden of proof? Anyone making an allegation has to present evidence of said allegation. They can't make an allegation and demand the defendant provide evidence of the contrary.

NY16CATCHER mentioned this but it is real and has its own legal term.

[sturg1dj]

just as the union has offered no evidence to support their claim.




whoa, now this is a falsehood

read the title of the thread, the union does have evidence. But unlike A-Rod last season the union has agreed to wait until the end of the world series to announce them.

[sturg1dj]

Ever hear of the burden of proof? Anyone making an allegation has to present evidence of said allegation. They can't make an allegation and demand the defendant provide evidence of the contrary.

NY16CATCHER mentioned this but it is real and has its own legal term.

you mean like Barry Bonds and steroids? people want him to prove he didn't but he doesn't have to...instead the league and the government have to prove he used....and they can't.

[sturg1dj]

Common sense says Barry juiced, are we suppose to apply your same logic regarding common sense to that situation as well? Because if that's the case, its all the more reason owners did not want to sign him to begin with.

1. Would Barry be the only player that juiced?

2. If caught, would he be the only one in the league playing after being caught?


yet, he would be the only player that got this kind of punishment for it.

[NYMets523]

you mean like Barry Bonds and steroids? people want him to prove he didn't but he doesn't have to...instead the league and the government have to prove he used....and they can't.
Not having to prove yourself innocent doesn't mean you are innocent.

[sturg1dj]

Not having to prove yourself innocent doesn't mean you are innocent.

doesn't really matter. He is being blackballed by baseball for something that a bunch of people on this site and in this thread are sure he did...but has not been proven.

[NYMets523]

doesn't really matter. He is being blackballed by baseball for something that a bunch of people on this site and in this thread are sure he did...but has not been proven.
He's being blackballed because he's a 43-year-old clubhouse cancer that isn't worth the headache he gives everyone around him.

[sturg1dj]

He's being blackballed because he's a 43-year-old clubhouse cancer that isn't worth the headache he gives everyone around him.

so clubhouse cancers are now being blackballed? I guess we should tell Jeff Kent that. I seem to remember Gary Sheffield having a job.

and so what if he's 43...thats only a number, and not an important one. A more important one would be his 170 ops+ and his .480 OBP.



btw...its steroids until you point out that a lot of people use steroids....then the reason changes. Man I wonder if I brought up race what would be said...I think I will avoid that.



steroids don't matter to owners

the clubhouse thing has been overstated (many sources say that Bonds is a great teammate)

Age doesn't matter unless you perform.

[philkid3]

Ever hear of the burden of proof? Anyone making an allegation has to present evidence of said allegation. They can't make an allegation and demand the defendant provide evidence of the contrary.

NY16CATCHER mentioned this but it is real and has its own legal term.
Yeah, we're not in a court of law. I'm not saying the owners should be convicted, am I? I'm saying you don't know it definitely didn't occur, so don't say it didn't. Otherwise you're pretending to know something as a fact that you don't, and if you do, please provide proof.


If what you're saying is how everyone should think than no one should be even discussing the possibility of Bonds using steroids. I don't claim he didn't because I don't have proof (and I think he did, anyway, but that's beside the point).

[philkid3]

I challenged you to prove that collusion had occured.
I have yet to claim I know that it did. I don't pretend to know for a fact that I don't.

Anyone who says there wasn't collusion is.


Come back when you can have a logical conversation and we'll have one.
Don't insult me because you're putting words in my mouth. Please, go find where I said I know there was collusion and do not believe there is any other possibility.

[philkid3]

Not having to prove yourself innocent doesn't mean you are innocent.
Just like the owners and collusion allegations.

[NYMets523]

Yeah, we're not in a court of law. I'm not saying the owners should be convicted, am I? I'm saying you don't know it definitely didn't occur, so don't say it didn't. Otherwise you're pretending to know something as a fact that you don't, and if you do, please provide proof.
Doesn't matter if we're in a court of law. It's a cop out to say "prove it isn't true". What proof do you have there is collusion?


Just like the owners and collusion allegations.

Union has to prove they're guilty which is incredibly difficult.


Some of you are too dense and stubborn to bother having a conversation with. I'm done.

[sturg1dj]

Some of you are too dense and stubborn to bother having a conversation with. I'm done.

where did that come from?

as far as I can remember we were talking about if there was collusion or not. Then we who thought there was were told matter of factly that unless we can prove it then it didn't happen. So that pretty much pushed the discussion into the wrong direction...didn't it?




basically what I have found with this discussion is that there are 3 types of people.

1. The people who hate Barry Bonds and because of that think he deserves everything he gets regardless of proof and fairness.

2. The people who hate Barry Bonds, but want him to be treated fairly.

3. The people who do not hate Barry Bonds who want him to be treated fairly.

[Scoops]

4. People who don't let their opinion of Bonds enter into it, but through examination of what is known have drawn tentative conclusions as to what happened last year. These people will also review their conclusions when further evidence is presented.

[philkid3]

Doesn't matter if we're in a court of law. It's a cop out to say "prove it isn't true". What proof do you have there is collusion?
When have I claimed to know if there was or wasn't?




Union has to prove they're guilty which is incredibly difficult.
How do you know how difficult it's going to be? Have you seen the evidence? It might be difficult. It might not be. It might also be hard to prove Bonds used steroids. Same thing.

That's irrelevant, though. The point is, and I'll say it in bold this time, not a single one of us knows for a fact whether there was or was not collusion and anyone who claims they do has to prove it.


Some of you are too dense and stubborn to bother having a conversation with. I'm done.
Well you sure are the picture of maturity. Put words in someone's mouth and then call them names when they challenge you.

[philkid3]

4. People who don't let their opinion of Bonds enter into it, but through examination of what is known have drawn tentative conclusions as to what happened last year. These people will also review their conclusions when further evidence is presented.
I personally take that to be pretty much the same as #2 and #3.

[joshfan]

so clubhouse cancers are now being blackballed? I guess we should tell Jeff Kent that. I seem to remember Gary Sheffield having a job.

and so what if he's 43...thats only a number, and not an important one. A more important one would be his 170 ops+ and his .480 OBP.



btw...its steroids until you point out that a lot of people use steroids....then the reason changes. Man I wonder if I brought up race what would be said...I think I will avoid that.



steroids don't matter to owners

the clubhouse thing has been overstated (many sources say that Bonds is a great teammate)

Age doesn't matter unless you perform.dude , the folks don't want common sense
Sexon, among others, gets multiple spots this year and his best years were laughable by Bonds standards
Bonds is worth 10000 extra tickets from fans, just plain curious and haters, but no team is wanting that "burden"
The guy was a force last year not 1973 Willie Mays, but no team needed a lefthanded hitter who gets on base roughly 45-50% of the time and when pitched to is deadly.
Oh and by the way he'll play for 6 figures, low six figures at that when baseballs avg salary is 2mil plus
If Jack Clarke and Andre Dawson won thier case this was a case that if filed a law student could win

[Scoops]

whoa, now this is a falsehood

read the title of the thread, the union does have evidence. But unlike A-Rod last season the union has agreed to wait until the end of the world series to announce them.
The PA claims to have evidence. The original statement is correct: No evidence has been provided. Yet. They might have incredibly flaky hearsay from some guy who knows a guy. They might have signed memos from several GMs. To presume that their evidence is rock solid -- without really having any idea what it is -- is silly.

I personally take that to be pretty much the same as #2 and #3.
People 2 and 3 "want Bonds to be treated fairly." I suppose you could say that I'm #2, except that I haven't seen any evidence that he's been treated unfairly.

[sturg1dj]

The PA claims to have evidence. The original statement is correct: No evidence has been provided. Yet. They might have incredibly flaky hearsay from some guy who knows a guy. They might have signed memos from several GMs. To presume that their evidence is rock solid -- without really having any idea what it is -- is silly.


People 2 and 3 "want Bonds to be treated fairly." I suppose you could say that I'm #2, except that I haven't seen any evidence that he's been treated unfairly.



you cannot say the union doesn't have evidence yet, which is what I was replying to. They have evidence. You are right, they have not shown it yet, but that is only because they are waiting until the series is over so they don't overshadow it.

[Scoops]

Bonds is worth 10000 extra tickets from fans, just plain curious and haters, but no team is wanting that "burden"
Having just gone to BB-Ref to look up numbers, since I didn't the last time attendance came up. Attendance at Giants home games dropped about five to ten thousand per game after Bonds hit 756 (from about 42,000 to between 33,000 and 37,000). The Giants maintained those same (lower) attendance figures this year. To me, this indicates that post-record Bonds is actually not any help in the ticket sales area, as I had theorized.

So yes, before August 7, 2007, Bonds was worth about 10,000 extra ticket sales per game. Afterward he was not. This can not be reasonably used as an argument for signing Bonds in 2008.

Also: You can characterize what some of us have done as "changing arguments" but I personally don't think that's what's happened. No one was saying Bonds was not signed only because he's clubhouse poison, or only because of the PED cloud, or only because of his defense, or his age, etc. Bonds problem is he is ALL of those things, and they can all -- simultaneously -- be contributing factors. You can address them point by point, but they add up to a compelling argument against him. You can't debunk it by saying Kent is a jerk or Pettitte did PEDs or Sexson can't hit to save his drowning mother. Bonds can hit. For one year (maybe). He can't field. He's a pain in the ass. He gets hurt frequently. He's a PR nightmare. He won't help attendance. He has one positive factor that could have helped a handful of teams. He also has several negatives that help no one, least of all himself.

This may all be moot if Tampa can't win another game. We may soon get actual evidence that Bonds was blackballed in a coordinated way. My point remains that, without more evidence, simply hammering on his 170 OPS+ last year doesn't mean he had to get signed this year. What if you got 2005 Bonds instead? His OPS+ was even higher at 174... Of course, he also only played in 14 games. What if you sign him, go through all the media shitstorm you will face, and get that version of Bonds? Is that worth it, even at the minimum?

[Scoops]

you cannot say the union doesn't have evidence yet, which is what I was replying to. They have evidence. You are right, they have not shown it yet, but that is only because they are waiting until the series is over so they don't overshadow it.
Go look at the post I quoted you from. NYCATCHER said they have offered no evidence, not that they have no evidence. The PA has not, thus far, offered any evidence. They claim, as was put in the thread title, that they have evidence. I don't doubt that they think they do, but I want to see exactly what their evidence is before I consider accepting it. I could claim to have evidence that Bonds molests collies, but until I provide it to you, it is only a claim.

He is correct, you are incorrect on this point.

Also: I think it's likely that the PA has some decent evidence. I can't see why they'd pull something like this with weak evidence. I am simply not a fan of jumping to conclusions. Until we see the evidence, that is what you are doing by blindly accepting their accusation.

[sturg1dj]

Go look at the post I quoted you from. NYCATCHER said they have offered no evidence, not that they have no evidence. The PA has not, thus far, offered any evidence. They claim, as was put in the thread title, that they have evidence. I don't doubt that they think they do, but I want to see exactly what their evidence is before I consider accepting it. I could claim to have evidence that Bonds molests collies, but until I provide it to you, it is only a claim.

He is correct, you are incorrect on this point.

Also: I think it's likely that the PA has some decent evidence. I can't see why they'd pull something like this with weak evidence. I am simply not a fan of jumping to conclusions. Until we see the evidence, that is what you are doing by blindly accepting their accusation.





ok, I'll accept that


it looks as though I was answering something that was not asked.


I was answering the tone, which was a leap on my part. Sorry.

Where I felt the conversation was going was I was being criticized for taking my position since the Union had no evidence.

[philkid3]

The PA claims to have evidence. The original statement is correct: No evidence has been provided. Yet. They might have incredibly flaky hearsay from some guy who knows a guy. They might have signed memos from several GMs. To presume that their evidence is rock solid -- without really having any idea what it is -- is silly.
Agreed. As is pressuming it's worthless and dismissing it.

[philkid3]

What if you sign him, go through all the media shitstorm you will face, and get that version of Bonds? Is that worth it, even at the minimum?
To me, yeah. If your team actually becomes worse (which I doubt, but won't rule out) it's not going to hurt much to release him.

[Scoops]

Agreed. As is pressuming it's worthless and dismissing it.
My point is that you can't use evidence you don't have as a basis to draw a conclusion. If their statements had offered a little more info, I might be inclined to give more weight, but without that I'm left with two things: Who Bonds is and what the various MLB teams need.

To me, yeah. If your team actually becomes worse (which I doubt, but won't rule out) it's not going to hurt much to release him.
This is the point of view I just don't get. I'll assume from your avatar that you're a Rangers fan. Why would you want Bonds on your team last year? I realize I have the benefit of hindsight, but Bonds wasn't going to close the 21 game gap to the Angels or the 16 games to the wildcard. You have a young, talented outfield and your DH was almost as good as 2007 Bonds. Why would the Rangers sign Bonds, even for the minimum? What benefit would he give the team? You'd only miss the wildcard by ten games? Remember, we knew before the season that Bonds would be standing trial in 2009 and therefore is not a reasonable option past 2008.

This is why I said earlier that I could accept the idea of some generic team wanting Bonds. I get that a team full of 32 year olds with 100 adjusted OPSes in a league full of 32 year olds with 100 adjusted OPSes would benefit from Bonds. The problem is that there is no generic team. Exactly which actual team(s) do people feel had a compelling reason to sign Bonds for the 2008 season? This leaves aside my personal, and basically unfounded, belief that Bonds wouldn't have played for just any team (like say, the Royals -- no offense Royals fans).

[sturg1dj]

My point is that you can't use evidence you don't have as a basis to draw a conclusion. If their statements had offered a little more info, I might be inclined to give more weight, but without that I'm left with two things: Who Bonds is and what the various MLB teams need.


This is the point of view I just don't get. I'll assume from your avatar that you're a Rangers fan. Why would you want Bonds on your team last year? I realize I have the benefit of hindsight, but Bonds wasn't going to close the 21 game gap to the Angels or the 16 games to the wildcard. You have a young, talented outfield and your DH was almost as good as 2007 Bonds. Why would the Rangers sign Bonds, even for the minimum? What benefit would he give the team? You'd only miss the wildcard by ten games? Remember, we knew before the season that Bonds would be standing trial in 2009 and therefore is not a reasonable option past 2008.

This is why I said earlier that I could accept the idea of some generic team wanting Bonds. I get that a team full of 32 year olds with 100 adjusted OPSes in a league full of 32 year olds with 100 adjusted OPSes would benefit from Bonds. The problem is that there is no generic team. Exactly which actual team(s) do people feel had a compelling reason to sign Bonds for the 2008 season? This leaves aside my personal, and basically unfounded, belief that Bonds wouldn't have played for just any team (like say, the Royals -- no offense Royals fans).


I get what you are saying here. If we operate under the assumption that Bonds would only play for certain teams and perform a certain role then its a different story. The problem is we cannot operate under that assumption because he received no offers. Zero offers. It would be one thing if the Royals said they would offer him the minimum to be a pinch hitter and he refused, then he would have no argument. The problem is no team offered him anything. For the league minimum he could have been a pinch hitter and spot starter. Many would assume he wouldn't go for that, but you can't do that because we have no idea...he was never given that chance.

[riredsox]

Why do I smell Jeff Borris (or whoever his agent is) in this? Honestly, not only would signing Bonds have little to no positive affect (effect?) on this, but his clubhouse cancer is the perfect way to turn contenders into also-rans. It's like bringing anthrax cupcakes into your clubhouse and asking the players to eat them by the dozen. If ther was any collusion, it was that the 30 MLB clubs, acting on their own, independantly came to their own conclusions that Bonds wasn't the right guy for them. We went through the same thing with Manny-good/declining bat, but personality was too terrible to outweigh production. As it turns out, we got a better replacement in Jason Bay. Why bring in a cranky 40-something, when you can bring in a model citizen?

[sturg1dj]

Why do I smell Jeff Borris (or whoever his agent is) in this? Honestly, not only would signing Bonds have little to no positive affect (effect?) on this, but his clubhouse cancer is the perfect way to turn contenders into also-rans. It's like bringing anthrax cupcakes into your clubhouse and asking the players to eat them by the dozen. If ther was any collusion, it was that the 30 MLB clubs, acting on their own, independantly came to their own conclusions that Bonds wasn't the right guy for them. We went through the same thing with Manny-good/declining bat, but personality was too terrible to outweigh production. As it turns out, we got a better replacement in Jason Bay. Why bring in a cranky 40-something, when you can bring in a model citizen?

the 2002 Giants certainly weren't hurt by having not only Barry Bonds, but even a bigger clubhouse cancer in Jeff Kent.

makes you think, A.J. Piersinski was let go from the Giants because he was a clubhouse cancer...if Bonds is so bad, how bad is A.J.?

[NY16CATCHER]

the 2002 Giants certainly weren't hurt by having not only Barry Bonds, but even a bigger clubhouse cancer in Jeff Kent.

makes you think, A.J. Piersinski was let go from the Giants because he was a clubhouse cancer...if Bonds is so bad, how bad is A.J.?

Difference between A.J. and Bonds....Bonds put butts in the seats at that point in his career. It's one thing to be a total a-hole and put fannies in the stands, its quite another to be an a-hole that doesn't bring any extra paying customers through the gate.

[NY16CATCHER]

I get what you are saying here. If we operate under the assumption that Bonds would only play for certain teams and perform a certain role then its a different story. The problem is we cannot operate under that assumption because he received no offers. Zero offers. It would be one thing if the Royals said they would offer him the minimum to be a pinch hitter and he refused, then he would have no argument. The problem is no team offered him anything. For the league minimum he could have been a pinch hitter and spot starter. Many would assume he wouldn't go for that, but you can't do that because we have no idea...he was never given that chance.

If you look at some of the most "logical" (and I use that term somewhat sarcastically) places he could have gone, he just didn't fit. Plain and simple. He wasn't wanted. Remember every team in the league passed on Manny for nothing not too many years ago. All they had to do was claim him. Not one team took him.

[philkid3]

This is the point of view I just don't get. I'll assume from your avatar that you're a Rangers fan. Why would you want Bonds on your team last year? I realize I have the benefit of hindsight, but Bonds wasn't going to close the 21 game gap to the Angels or the 16 games to the wildcard. You have a young, talented outfield and your DH was almost as good as 2007 Bonds. Why would the Rangers sign Bonds, even for the minimum? What benefit would he give the team? You'd only miss the wildcard by ten games? Remember, we knew before the season that Bonds would be standing trial in 2009 and therefore is not a reasonable option past 2008.

This is why I said earlier that I could accept the idea of some generic team wanting Bonds. I get that a team full of 32 year olds with 100 adjusted OPSes in a league full of 32 year olds with 100 adjusted OPSes would benefit from Bonds. The problem is that there is no generic team. Exactly which actual team(s) do people feel had a compelling reason to sign Bonds for the 2008 season? This leaves aside my personal, and basically unfounded, belief that Bonds wouldn't have played for just any team (like say, the Royals -- no offense Royals fans).
That's just it: hindsight. I'm not subscribing to hindsight.

I wanted them to at least make Bonds on offer because if he was willing to sign cheap it's quite simply a low-risk signing on the off chance your team gets lucky enough to contend, and if not, he gives you trade bait to real in more prospects late in the season.

In hindsight I don't really care that much, but I'm not talking about hindsight.


Also, the belief that Bonds wouldn't play for any team is also unfounded. Like many things, you just don't know.

I'm just appalled that so many people seem to let their hatred of Bonds allow them to refuse the fact that he could help a team, or that their might have been collusion. I don't like him either but that has nothing to do with this.

If we'd gotten him for a cheap contract for one year, we'd now either have more prospects or he'd be off the books and the low-risk gamble would have not payed off. And if he'd turned down a cheap, short contract, then we'd have a stronger ground to stand on to explain why Bonds didn't get to play this year.

[philkid3]

I get what you are saying here. If we operate under the assumption that Bonds would only play for certain teams and perform a certain role then its a different story. The problem is we cannot operate under that assumption because he received no offers. Zero offers. It would be one thing if the Royals said they would offer him the minimum to be a pinch hitter and he refused, then he would have no argument. The problem is no team offered him anything. For the league minimum he could have been a pinch hitter and spot starter. Many would assume he wouldn't go for that, but you can't do that because we have no idea...he was never given that chance.
Exactly.


I'm not sure how there's so much of an argument about this. It's quite simple: the MLBPA claims they have evidence of collusion. We will see if it's strong enough. No one knows yet. There's reason to suspect collusion, there's reason to suspect legitimate individual cases of no interest. No one knows and anyone who claims they do either needs to knock it off or show some proof, that goes for those saying the owners are absolutely innocent and for those saying they are absolutely guilty.

The MLBPA claims to have evidence of collusion. That is exactly all we know.

[joshfan]

OK Here Is The Bottom Line
Teams pay AAA maybes what Bonds asked for
Barry Bonds,PIA yep, distraction ok, superstar you bet ya, maybe some teams and thier fragile players could use a a lightning rod who wasn't all that upset over press sentiment to protect thier other stars.
Bonds for the price of a prospect, an unproven AAA players money and NOONE took a shot
Smells like blackballing to me

[sturg1dj]

OK Here Is The Bottom Line
Teams pay AAA maybes what Bonds asked for
Barry Bonds,PIA yep, distraction ok, superstar you bet ya, maybe some teams and thier fragile players could use a a lightning rod who wasn't all that upset over press sentiment to protect thier other stars.
Bonds for the price of a prospect, an unproven AAA players money and NOONE took a shot
Smells like blackballing to me

this is an important point.

people keep saying that most teams have no room for Bonds...point out teams have good DHs and good OFers. While I disagree with that, the point is that Bonds wouldn't necessarily take a starter's roster spot, he would take the 25th man's spot on the roster. He doesn't need to start. If this were the offer given to Bonds and he refused then I would not be on Bonds' side. However, he received no offers....zero.

if he made a fuss and complained and acted like a diva all you would have to do is cut him, which would be as easy as cutting any 25th man on any roster since he would be making the league minimum.

[joshfan]

this is an important point.

people keep saying that most teams have no room for Bonds...point out teams have good DHs and good OFers. While I disagree with that, the point is that Bonds wouldn't necessarily take a starter's roster spot, he would take the 25th man's spot on the roster. He doesn't need to start. If this were the offer given to Bonds and he refused then I would not be on Bonds' side. However, he received no offers....zero.

if he made a fuss and complained and acted like a diva all you would have to do is cut him, which would be as easy as cutting any 25th man on any roster since he would be making the league minimum.

Seems rather self evident to me but we seem to be alone in this
Makes about as much sense to me as passing on a 300 grand Bonds

[Scoops]

this is an important point.

people keep saying that most teams have no room for Bonds...point out teams have good DHs and good OFers. While I disagree with that, the point is that Bonds wouldn't necessarily take a starter's roster spot, he would take the 25th man's spot on the roster. He doesn't need to start. If this were the offer given to Bonds and he refused then I would not be on Bonds' side. However, he received no offers....zero.

if he made a fuss and complained and acted like a diva all you would have to do is cut him, which would be as easy as cutting any 25th man on any roster since he would be making the league minimum.
But why would you want Bonds as the last guy on the bench? You still get all the negatives, but without the value of Bonds batting everyday. If you cut him for the negatives, you just get that much more flak.

And again, I'm curious what actual teams people think should have gone after Bonds. The only team that really comes off the top of my head is the Mariners, who many thought were contenders and had a horrifyingly bad DH. The counter to that is that, for whatever reason, the Mariners claimed to be completely happy with Jose Vidro (that obviously didn't last all season, though). This is one of the fundamental problems with this debate. It's fine to say that teams should want a guy who can perform like Bonds, but that doesn't take the utter stupidity/insanity/etc. that is present in many teams' front offices into account.

[sturg1dj]

But why would you want Bonds as the last guy on the bench? You still get all the negatives, but without the value of Bonds batting everyday. If you cut him for the negatives, you just get that much more flak.

And again, I'm curious what actual teams people think should have gone after Bonds. The only team that really comes off the top of my head is the Mariners, who many thought were contenders and had a horrifyingly bad DH. The counter to that is that, for whatever reason, the Mariners claimed to be completely happy with Jose Vidro (that obviously didn't last all season, though). This is one of the fundamental problems with this debate. It's fine to say that teams should want a guy who can perform like Bonds, but that doesn't take the utter stupidity/insanity/etc. that is present in many teams' front offices into account.

from this response you seem to show you missed the point


every team could have used him in some way. Given him a chance to prove his worth and see if he would be a good citizen. You assume all of the crap would follow him. The media blitz, yes. Everything else is just an assumption. For all you know he could embrace his new role as a role player and LH pinch hitter, which would fit on many teams.



if the market were a free one in baseball, and he was not being colluded against then before Bonds announced his intentions of taking the league minimum he should have been offered it by teams trying to low ball him. they could have even made his role public saying he would be a pinch hitter/spot starter. If Bonds refused then not of this would happen.

[philkid3]

But why would you want Bonds as the last guy on the bench? You still get all the negatives, but without the value of Bonds batting everyday.
Because I'm not sure the negatives actually matter that much.


And again, I'm curious what actual teams people think should have gone after Bonds.
The A's are one example. The Mariners are another.

And the A's are a team with a GM who I don't think actually is so concerned with the attitude that he actually thinks Bonds would make his team lose more games.

I also think the Indians could have used him. It would probably be an outfield platoon (or maybe first?), but he'd still get as much playing time as he did last year. And they're yet another team where not even giving him an offer makes me suspicious.

I think the best team is the Rays, though. He would be better than Aybar and Floyd at DH, would have given them a low price player to flip for prospects if they were out of contention, or just say good by to at the end of the season if he didn't work out (and you don't know how cheap you can get him until you make him an offer). The fact that Maddon talked about wanting Bonds and then later came out and said that wasn't serious was enough to arouse even more suspicion.

They're also a team that could stand to do things to increase attendance.

[Scoops]

from this response you seem to show you missed the point


every team could have used him in some way. Given him a chance to prove his worth and see if he would be a good citizen. You assume all of the crap would follow him. The media blitz, yes. Everything else is just an assumption. For all you know he could embrace his new role as a role player and LH pinch hitter, which would fit on many teams.



if the market were a free one in baseball, and he was not being colluded against then before Bonds announced his intentions of taking the league minimum he should have been offered it by teams trying to low ball him. they could have even made his role public saying he would be a pinch hitter/spot starter. If Bonds refused then not of this would happen.
I dunno, I'd say hoping Bonds will morph into a quiet, happy role player at this point in his life is probably a bigger assumption than saying he'd keep being the same guy he's been. My understanding is also based on the fact that Bonds has, in the past, put conditions on his play -- not wanting to play first, for example. It's also worth noting that all the playing for the minimum talk started after the timeframe when teams were looking at Bonds (late February), from what I'm reading.

Because I'm not sure the negatives actually matter that much.
Personally, neither do I. I know they matter to some organizations more than they do to you or I, whatever their rationale. I have to account for how they think, rather than how I think.

The A's are one example. The Mariners are another.

And the A's are a team with a GM who I don't think actually is so concerned with the attitude that he actually thinks Bonds would make his team lose more games.

I also think the Indians could have used him. It would probably be an outfield platoon (or maybe first?), but he'd still get as much playing time as he did last year. And they're yet another team where not even giving him an offer makes me suspicious.

I think the best team is the Rays, though. He would be better than Aybar and Floyd at DH, would have given them a low price player to flip for prospects if they were out of contention, or just say good by to at the end of the season if he didn't work out (and you don't know how cheap you can get him until you make him an offer). The fact that Maddon talked about wanting Bonds and then later came out and said that wasn't serious was enough to arouse even more suspicion.

They're also a team that could stand to do things to increase attendance.
The A's I could buy, I suppose. Especially after they grabbed Frank Thomas when the Jays dumped him. I don't buy Cleveland, again because of the management staff. One of the frequent criticisms of the Indians that I saw this year was that they were too entrenched with "their guys". They had better options within their organization at some positions, but Wedge wouldn't use them. I'd put them in the camp of teams that could have legitimately used Bonds, except they're too blinded by their own ignorance to think about it. Seattle, as I mentioned earlier, was another such team. I've been looking around USS Mariner trying to find the utterly absurd quote I read earlier this year defending Vidro as an everyday DH. No luck so far. It was something along the lines of how some teams want a David Ortiz kind of guy as a DH, but they wanted to go a different way.

Honestly, in the Rays stories I read the team acknowledge that Bonds would be better than anyone they had at the start of the year, but say that the team didn't think it was an area of concern. Historically, this is how baseball teams think, for better or worse (often for worse).

I guess it comes down to me just not being suspicious enough to jump to the other side yet. Until we get past the he said/she said of MLB and the PA, or evidence comes from another party, this other stuff is just circumstantial and can still, I believe, be explained without much imagination.

[sturg1dj]

I dunno, I'd say hoping Bonds will morph into a quiet, happy role player at this point in his life is probably a bigger assumption than saying he'd keep being the same guy he's been. My understanding is also based on the fact that Bonds has, in the past, put conditions on his play -- not wanting to play first, for example. It's also worth noting that all the playing for the minimum talk started after the timeframe when teams were looking at Bonds (late February), from what I'm reading.


this is all moot since he was never give the opportunity. Bonds did not have the power to demand anything, so he could have been made an offer that was filled with stipulations; then if he refused then tough cookies for Bonds.

All it would have taken to prove to me and many other that no collusion happened was for a team like the Royals to offer him the league minimum filled with stipulations. NO OFFERS WERE MADE.....AT ALL.



he wanted to play this season so a team could name the stipulations. Play first base, a**hole clause, minimum games.

he could have been offered the worst contract(s) ever. Then he could have taken it or gone home no questions asked. Instead he got nothing!

[LAball]

BB may be a different hitter without the so called help.

[NY16CATCHER]

this is all moot since he was never give the opportunity. Bonds did not have the power to demand anything, so he could have been made an offer that was filled with stipulations; then if he refused then tough cookies for Bonds.

All it would have taken to prove to me and many other that no collusion happened was for a team like the Royals to offer him the league minimum filled with stipulations. NO OFFERS WERE MADE.....AT ALL.



he wanted to play this season so a team could name the stipulations. Play first base, a**hole clause, minimum games.

he could have been offered the worst contract(s) ever. Then he could have taken it or gone home no questions asked. Instead he got nothing!

WHO EXACTLY DO YOU THINK YOU ARE TO DEMAND THAT THE ENTIRITY OF MLB FRANCHISES HAS TO PROVE ANYTHING TO YOU? Teams should be innocent of charges of collusion and miscounduct until PROVEN WITH ACTUAL FACT to the contrary. This assumption of guilt is both ignorant and short sighted.

You clealry just don't get it. Writing clauses into an MLB contract like a conduct clause, a position clause, etc. is virtually impossible, due to the union's strength and position. Even if Barry was willing to accept those clauses personally, the union would never accept them. The idea that you could somehow craft a contract to insulate the team is a falsehood. Have you ever seen an actual player contract and read one?

And you really need to examine what the TRUE market was for Barry's services. Not every team even remotely had a need that COULD have been addressed potentially by his services. When you look at the true market for him, it was incredibly small. Essentially no more than 7 or 8 teams had a spot that Barry would even fit in the discussion about. And I don't think that that small number of teams passing on a players is at all unusual or extraordinary.

Why do people have such a hard time getting this thought through their head?

[Captain Cold Nose]

WHO EXACTLY DO YOU THINK YOU ARE TO DEMAND THAT THE ENTIRITY OF MLB FRANCHISES HAS TO PROVE ANYTHING TO YOU? Teams should be innocent of charges of collusion and miscounduct until PROVEN WITH ACTUAL FACT to the contrary. This assumption of guilt is both ignorant and short sighted.

You clealry just don't get it. Writing clauses into an MLB contract like a conduct clause, a position clause, etc. is virtually impossible, due to the union's strength and position. Even if Barry was willing to accept those clauses personally, the union would never accept them. The idea that you could somehow craft a contract to insulate the team is a falsehood. Have you ever seen an actual player contract and read one?

And you really need to examine what the TRUE market was for Barry's services. Not every team even remotely had a need that COULD have been addressed potentially by his services. When you look at the true market for him, it was incredibly small. Essentially no more than 7 or 8 teams had a spot that Barry would even fit in the discussion about. And I don't think that that small number of teams passing on a players is at all unusual or extraordinary.

Why do people have such a hard time getting this thought through their head?

So you basically are saying the Union has been lying?

None of us has the wherewithal at this time to say whether or not there is proof or not. MLBPA has made a statement. The owners haven't commented. Right now there is an agreement in place that is delaying filing a grievance. Regardless of markets and his ability to still play at 43, this goes a bit beyond that. I don't think it's a stretch to take what we know and go to just point B, the owners may well have actually taken it upon themselves to not offer Bonds anything, as opposed to simply letting it go which is what you're saying they did.

And, guys, please don't shout at each other. Not here.

[sturg1dj]

WHO EXACTLY DO YOU THINK YOU ARE TO DEMAND THAT THE ENTIRITY OF MLB FRANCHISES HAS TO PROVE ANYTHING TO YOU? Teams should be innocent of charges of collusion and miscounduct until PROVEN WITH ACTUAL FACT to the contrary. This assumption of guilt is both ignorant and short sighted.

You clealry just don't get it. Writing clauses into an MLB contract like a conduct clause, a position clause, etc. is virtually impossible, due to the union's strength and position. Even if Barry was willing to accept those clauses personally, the union would never accept them. The idea that you could somehow craft a contract to insulate the team is a falsehood. Have you ever seen an actual player contract and read one?

And you really need to examine what the TRUE market was for Barry's services. Not every team even remotely had a need that COULD have been addressed potentially by his services. When you look at the true market for him, it was incredibly small. Essentially no more than 7 or 8 teams had a spot that Barry would even fit in the discussion about. And I don't think that that small number of teams passing on a players is at all unusual or extraordinary.

Why do people have such a hard time getting this thought through their head?


your anger on the subject seems out of place.

why do you feel that the owners need to be innocent until proven guilty but Barry Bonds does not need to be?

you want to talk market? remove the name and age. Just look at production. How many teams could use a bottom of the bench left handed, power hitting, takes walks, pinch hitter? I would say most of them could...the whole National League could. We are not talking about someone who has the power to demand a starting spot, we are talking about someone begging for a job who is willing to work for the minimum. He has no power in this.

-----
at this point let me formerly welcome you to the world of message boards, where fans of different things talk about issues going on. We take different sides of each issue but really we do not have any real power. So when you say I'm demanding something....how do you mean? I have no power. I don't talk to the owners. Who am I? A fan who wanted his team to do better and saw an untapped resource available. I am also an amateur baseball historian (admittedly very amateur) who knows for a fact that the owners have done this before and been caught and handful of times. I also know that over the history of the league the owners have done more to hurt the players than the players have done to hurt the owners.



one last thought, who put about collusion in the CBA to begin with? It wasn't the players...it was the owners.

[Captain Cold Nose]

There's no need to be condescending toward each other, either.

[west coast orange and black]

gordongecko: Whatever number you come up with, divide by 30 for each team's liability.

poor giants.
they are probably the team with the best argument of not colluding, as they were the team that let bonds go.

[Scoops]

this is all moot since he was never give the opportunity. Bonds did not have the power to demand anything, so he could have been made an offer that was filled with stipulations; then if he refused then tough cookies for Bonds.
He doesn't have to have an offer made to him to discuss his own general terms. That's why we know that he eventually said he'd play for the minimum.

All it would have taken to prove to me and many other that no collusion happened was for a team like the Royals to offer him the league minimum filled with stipulations. NO OFFERS WERE MADE.....AT ALL.



he wanted to play this season so a team could name the stipulations. Play first base, a**hole clause, minimum games.

he could have been offered the worst contract(s) ever. Then he could have taken it or gone home no questions asked. Instead he got nothing!
No one offered Kenny Lofton a contract either. I realize he's not the hitter Bonds is (at all), but he's a guy who has had a productive career, is younger, and has never failed to catch on with a team or three before. Is MLB colluding to keep Kenny Lofton out of baseball? The Rays were reportedly looking at him at the same time as Bonds. Why didn't they offer him a contract? Why did none of the other teams? Couldn't someone have used a good defensive CF with speed?

[philipthegreat]

The owners are completely brain dead if they needed to leave a trail in order to keep Barry Bonds out of baseball.
My evidence for collusion is.
1) This isn't some player asking for way over what he is worth, he is asking for league minimum, which is paltry compared to what other inferior players get
2) As polarising as Barry Bonds is, there are many fans who would be willing (myself included) to see him play. I'm sure that if any team signed him for 300k, they would get of all of it back in a single series.
3) His production last year was just outstanding considering how old he is.
4) He keeps himself in amazing shape, which means he won't be some fat slob on his last legs.
5) Any run at a record would bring money...
6) He tries harder on the field then almost anyother player I have ever seen.
All this is purely circumstantial, but then again so is most of the evidence about his steroid use so it shouldn't too much of a barrier for people to believe.

[joshfan]

Jeez is this so hard to comprehd?
The best player over 10 years
a guy who was still on top last year said he'd play for 320 gs got not a whiff
Hamburgers that should shag his flies got 7 figures and still folks can make an argument that MLB didn't kiss him off
Anyone want to buy a bridge in Brooklyn?
Any fan of any team (especially AL)that isn't outraged that thier team could
have had Barry Bonds for prospect money is crazy

[NY16CATCHER]

Jeez is this so hard to comprehd?
The best player over 10 years
a guy who was still on top last year said he'd play for 320 gs got not a whiff
Hamburgers that should shag his flies got 7 figures and still folks can make an argument that MLB didn't kiss him off
Anyone want to buy a bridge in Brooklyn?
Any fan of any team (especially AL)that isn't outraged that thier team could
have had Barry Bonds for prospect money is crazy

Goodbye, Mr. Drama Queen.

[NY16CATCHER]

Before you go Mr. Drama Queen, lets just look at the oh so many AL teams that could have used Mr. Bonds...

East

Yankees- I am sure they needed one more DH/poor defensive outfielder to add to the mix of DH/outfielders they had already...

Boston- already has Papi.

Orioles- Huff had a tremendous year as a DH, 3rd baseman and can play 1st as well. If you look at Huff's numbers, there is no case there to replace him with a less versatile performer.

Toronto- Already had released a grumpy, aging DH in Frank Thomas and eventually moved Matt Stairs as well. They clearly were looking to get younger and it made no sense to plug in a player who didn't fit into their future when they were looking to evaluate their younger talent and see where they were as an organization.

Tampa- Seriously, it made no sense to bring in a distraction of a player when you had a young team, with good veteran leadership, that won on teamwork and chemistry. You can't argue with the formula, they won the AL pennant.

West-

Angels- Didn't need him, plain and simple.

Texas- Texas spent most of the season trying to evaluate the organization and actually kind of hung around the top of the division for a while. They are looking to get younger/cheaper and honestly offense wasn't really the problem there.

Seattle- The season there was over before it began and they were clearly looking to dump age and go younger.

Oakland- Might have been a fit, but I just don't think they wanted to go there. And they signed Frank Thomas right after he was released, they didn't need 2 aging sluggers.

Central-

White Sox- Can you see Ozzie putting up with the circus? Of course not. He wants guys who will bust their asses and put up with his antics. That's not Bonds.

Twins- Please. That organization hates non conformists. They have a way of doing things and if you don't do it that way, you don't play there. It's the only way they can be successful as a small market team.

Detroit- Detroit is looking to move older guys, not get them.

Cleveland- Already have enough DH types in Hafner and Garko (who masquerades as a 1st baseman). Why add a 3rd to the mix? They were talking about trying to move Hafner at the deadline but his value was so low they couldn't get anything of real help to them, and they were in the toilet early anyway.

Kansas City- It's a youth movement there and they already have enough headaches with a vet or 2 with an "attitude". And they have enough young bats that project as DH/1st base/LF types they need to see them and evaluate them, not bring in a guy who pushes them down the depth chart or to AAA.

So, of all the AL teams you think could have improved themselves by signing your beloved Barry Bonds, the number of actual fits is probably no more than 2 or 3, and that is if you stretch the situations to accomodate adding him to your roster. So, do you want me to completely disgrace you by doing the same review for NL teams, or are you going to just go away?

[sturg1dj]

Before you go Mr. Drama Queen, lets just look at the oh so many AL teams that could have used Mr. Bonds...

East

Yankees- I am sure they needed one more DH/poor defensive outfielder to add to the mix of DH/outfielders they had already...

Boston- already has Papi.

Orioles- Huff had a tremendous year as a DH, 3rd baseman and can play 1st as well. If you look at Huff's numbers, there is no case there to replace him with a less versatile performer.

Toronto- Already had released a grumpy, aging DH in Frank Thomas and eventually moved Matt Stairs as well. They clearly were looking to get younger and it made no sense to plug in a player who didn't fit into their future when they were looking to evaluate their younger talent and see where they were as an organization.

Tampa- Seriously, it made no sense to bring in a distraction of a player when you had a young team, with good veteran leadership, that won on teamwork and chemistry. You can't argue with the formula, they won the AL pennant.

West-

Angels- Didn't need him, plain and simple.

Texas- Texas spent most of the season trying to evaluate the organization and actually kind of hung around the top of the division for a while. They are looking to get younger/cheaper and honestly offense wasn't really the problem there.

Seattle- The season there was over before it began and they were clearly looking to dump age and go younger.

Oakland- Might have been a fit, but I just don't think they wanted to go there. And they signed Frank Thomas right after he was released, they didn't need 2 aging sluggers.

Central-

White Sox- Can you see Ozzie putting up with the circus? Of course not. He wants guys who will bust their asses and put up with his antics. That's not Bonds.

Twins- Please. That organization hates non conformists. They have a way of doing things and if you don't do it that way, you don't play there. It's the only way they can be successful as a small market team.

Detroit- Detroit is looking to move older guys, not get them.

Cleveland- Already have enough DH types in Hafner and Garko (who masquerades as a 1st baseman). Why add a 3rd to the mix? They were talking about trying to move Hafner at the deadline but his value was so low they couldn't get anything of real help to them, and they were in the toilet early anyway.

Kansas City- It's a youth movement there and they already have enough headaches with a vet or 2 with an "attitude". And they have enough young bats that project as DH/1st base/LF types they need to see them and evaluate them, not bring in a guy who pushes them down the depth chart or to AAA.

So, of all the AL teams you think could have improved themselves by signing your beloved Barry Bonds, the number of actual fits is probably no more than 2 or 3, and that is if you stretch the situations to accomodate adding him to your roster. So, do you want me to completely disgrace you by doing the same review for NL teams, or are you going to just go away?

having an old player is only bad if you are stuck with him for many years and if you are paying him a lot of money. Neither is the case for Bonds.

Also, once again you are making the assumption that Bonds has to be a starter. He doesn't have to be. For one season he is not going to ruin any prospects or kill a franchise. All he would have done is put butts in the seats for one season and given your team a better chance to win.

Everyone against Bonds are imagining him as a long term investment. He wasn't going to be that at all. One season, thats it. And during that one season if he played poorly or was a diva you could cut him and there would be no problem.

It was a chance that normally at least one team would take.

[NY16CATCHER]

having an old player is only bad if you are stuck with him for many years and if you are paying him a lot of money. Neither is the case for Bonds.

Also, once again you are making the assumption that Bonds has to be a starter. He doesn't have to be. For one season he is not going to ruin any prospects or kill a franchise. All he would have done is put butts in the seats for one season and given your team a better chance to win.

Everyone against Bonds are imagining him as a long term investment. He wasn't going to be that at all. One season, thats it. And during that one season if he played poorly or was a diva you could cut him and there would be no problem.

It was a chance that normally at least one team would take.

Tell me where I said long term or for big dollars? I was working on the 1 year pro rated concept of a potential contract.

Once season of development is a lot for a younger player and you shouldn't be so quick to dismiss that fact. If his presence delays or retards the development of a prospect, its likely a chance not worth taking, especially if you are a younger team and in the non contending development stage.

And at this point Barry is such a divisive figure that the extra butts he puts in the stands are likely offset by the number of butts that don't end up in the stands due to people's personal opinions on Bonds. Look at the attendance numbers in SF. Once he hit the big one, the people stopped coming through the gates at the rate they were. The drop off was big. The $$$ a franchise might bring in by his presence is so minimal that it would make no difference in their ability to spend on player contracts or playre development in any meaningful way. And to say his presence is going to win a meaningful number of games for a team is laughable.

And you could argue that his presence on a team sends the WRONG message to its fans just as easily as you could claim it signals something positive to them. If one of the teams I followed had signed Barry, I would have wondered WTF are they thinking?

[sturg1dj]

If one of the teams I followed had signed Barry, I would have wondered WTF are they thinking?

until he started hitting


trust me, I have dealt with Kenny Rogers and Gary Sheffield. People change, and success solves a lot.

[NY16CATCHER]

until he started hitting


trust me, I have dealt with Kenny Rogers and Gary Sheffield. People change, and success solves a lot.

I wouldn't be bragging too hard about Kenny Rogers and Sheff....they've been bigger pains in the ass for the Tigers than they have been key elements to success. And now your team is faced with tearing it apart and starting over, without a lot left in the farm system after giving up the ranch for Cabrera and Willis. How's that veteran thing working out for you now?

[sturg1dj]

I wouldn't be bragging too hard about Kenny Rogers and Sheff....they've been bigger pains in the ass for the Tigers than they have been key elements to success. And now your team is faced with tearing it apart and starting over, without a lot left in the farm system after giving up the ranch for Cabrera and Willis. How's that veteran thing working out for you now?

yup, keep telling me about my team

I would have traded the same people for just Cabrera, Willis was just thrown in.

Sheffield has done well, Rogers turned the team around.

We are no worse than we were a few years ago. Maybe if we had Bonds instead of Marcus Thames we could have had a better season.


the problem was the pitching. I doubt veterens had anything to do with Bondermans blood clot and Verlander's down year.

We basically traded away two centerfielders and a couple of starters for the players we got. I will admit Jair Jurrgens would be great to have, but where would the two centerfielders play? I'll take a franchise first basemen instead.


but of course none of this means anything to a know it all like you does it?

so lets end this discussion shall we. You are right, there was no place in the league for the player who lead the majors in OPS+ last season. No place for a guy with a .480 OBP. It was just that simple. The owners didn't talk to each other, just no owner could see a spot for the league's leading OPS+ and OBP guy even though he was asking for the league minimum. So whatever evidence the union thinks they have they should throw it out, because there is no way this could be true.


i'm done



edit:

on second thought how about we wait until we here what the union has? I mean nothing that has been argued in this thread is new to these boards, we have been arguing this since the beginning of the season.

[NY16CATCHER]

yup, keep telling me about my team

I would have traded the same people for just Cabrera, Willis was just thrown in.

Sheffield has done well, Rogers turned the team around.

We are no worse than we were a few years ago. Maybe if we had Bonds instead of Marcus Thames we could have had a better season.


the problem was the pitching. I doubt veterens had anything to do with Bondermans blood clot and Verlander's down year.

We basically traded away two centerfielders and a couple of starters for the players we got. I will admit Jair Jurrgens would be great to have, but where would the two centerfielders play? I'll take a franchise first basemen instead.


but of course none of this means anything to a know it all like you does it?

so lets end this discussion shall we. You are right, there was no place in the league for the player who lead the majors in OPS+ last season. No place for a guy with a .480 OBP. It was just that simple. The owners didn't talk to each other, just no owner could see a spot for the league's leading OPS+ and OBP guy even though he was asking for the league minimum. So whatever evidence the union thinks they have they should throw it out, because there is no way this could be true.


i'm done



edit:

on second thought how about we wait until we here what the union has? I mean nothing that has been argued in this thread is new to these boards, we have been arguing this since the beginning of the season.


The problem is you insist on looking at nothing but stats. I hate to echo any sentiment from a drama queen but he did have somewhat of a point when he said that far too many people try to judge everything by stats and have little to no understanding of BASEBALL as a whole, rather they have a good understanding in the area of STATISTICS, and the 2 are nowhere near the same thing.

There is a reason why a "MONEYBALL" team hasn't won anything in this sport. Because it fails to take intangibles that cannot be measured by any statistical formula into consideration. If the whole SABR bullcrap was as accurate as its supporters claim it is, every team in the league would be utilizing it as its operational and scouting base.

You are looking at this from a purely statistical standpoint and the proof of the weakness of your argument is that you can't get off of that point. Your argument has no depth to it. You can't put that stat into any meaningful context in terms of its application to the teams I've put into discussion. And you apparently cannot or will not acknowledge the fact that when assembling a team and making roster moves you have to consider a hell of a lot more than just some stat like OPS or OPS+ before you make the move.

There is a solid reason why someone like Bill James, who is nothing short of god to so many SABR stat heads, is not a GM of a major league club. It's because baseball is far more than stats generated out of someone's elaborate spreadsheet.

[sturg1dj]

The problem is you insist on looking at nothing but stats. I hate to echo any sentiment from a drama queen but he did have somewhat of a point when he said that far too many people try to judge everything by stats and have little to no understanding of BASEBALL as a whole, rather they have a good understanding in the area of STATISTICS, and the 2 are nowhere near the same thing.

There is a reason why a "MONEYBALL" team hasn't won anything in this sport. Because it fails to take intangibles that cannot be measured by any statistical formula into consideration. If the whole SABR bullcrap was as accurate as its supporters claim it is, every team in the league would be utilizing it as its operational and scouting base.

You are looking at this from a purely statistical standpoint and the proof of the weakness of your argument is that you can't get off of that point. Your argument has no depth to it. You can't put that stat into any meaningful context in terms of its application to the teams I've put into discussion. And you apparently cannot or will not acknowledge the fact that when assembling a team and making roster moves you have to consider a hell of a lot more than just some stat like OPS or OPS+ before you make the move.

There is a solid reason why someone like Bill James, who is nothing short of god to so many SABR stat heads, is not a GM of a major league club. It's because baseball is far more than stats generated out of someone's elaborate spreadsheet.

well I also believe in innocent until proven guilty and people deserve second chances.


but like I said, let's wait to see what the union has

[spark240]

Was there really any doubt that there was collusion against Bonds? Whether or not it's justified is up for debate but every team in baseball doesn't pass on a bat like his by fluke.

I think it's safe to say that it wasn't a fluke. It may have been collusion--we're waiting to see some evidence there.

this would be a totally different situation if the anti-Bonds fans had been smart capitalists and shown their hatred by not going to his away games instead of being idiots and paying to boo him.

if fans didn't come in droves then it wouldn't be as big a deal. If fans avoided Bonds like the plague then it would be smart business not to sign him.

Well, since there is no longer a visiting-team gate share, anti-fans in opposing ballparks wouldn't much benefit the team that signed him, only their opponents.

[sturg1dj]

I think it's safe to say that it wasn't a fluke. It may have been collusion--we're waiting to see some evidence there.



Well, since there is no longer a visiting-team gate share, anti-fans in opposing ballparks wouldn't much benefit the team that signed him, only their opponents.

yeah, but if the anti-fans didn't go they would send the message to their teams that they will not come if Barry is signed by them. That message was never sent, so it cannot be used as an excuse,

[NY16CATCHER]

yeah, but if the anti-fans didn't go they would send the message to their teams that they will not come if Barry is signed by them. That message was never sent, so it cannot be used as an excuse,

Really? You know this for fact? Your statement is baloney.

Check even the most unscientific sources for fan opinion data, such as message boards, and you'd see a "we don't want him here" sentiment clearly stated by fans of teams that were rumored to be interested in signing him.

Look at MetsBlog and search out the sentiment that was expressed when the Mets were rumored to be interested. It would have been a PR disaster.

Bottom line with Barry is that at some point the off field distractions (being under federal grand jury indictment is a distraction clearly), the clubhouse attitude he brings, and the potnential PR hit a team would take by signing him trump whatever he may be able to bring in terms of offense.

[sturg1dj]

Really? You know this for fact? Your statement is baloney.

Check even the most unscientific sources for fan opinion data, such as message boards, and you'd see a "we don't want him here" sentiment clearly stated by fans of teams that were rumored to be interested in signing him.

Look at MetsBlog and search out the sentiment that was expressed when the Mets were rumored to be interested. It would have been a PR disaster.

Bottom line with Barry is that at some point the off field distractions (being under federal grand jury indictment is a distraction clearly), the clubhouse attitude he brings, and the potnential PR hit a team would take by signing him trump whatever he may be able to bring in terms of offense.



dollars are what the owners care about, and there has been no sign that people will stop buying their product because of Bonds.


bottom line is the indictment is not clearly a distraction since it had no bearing on this season at all.

[NY16CATCHER]

dollars are what the owners care about, and there has been no sign that people will stop buying their product because of Bonds.


bottom line is the indictment is not clearly a distraction since it had no bearing on this season at all.

No sign? You mean people that posted to message boards, wrote articles on websites or called teams who were rumored to be interested in Bonds and asked for them NOT to sign him isn't a sign that people might just choose not to be associated with a team that signed someone they despised? I'll be honest with you, had one of the teams I follow signed Barry I would have burned every last bit of merchandise with their logo I had on it and sent it to the team with a note saying you've just lost a paying customer. Had it been the team I held a seasons seat package for (actually it was 3 seats, but who is counting), I would have returned the remaining tickets with a note to tell them to stick them where the sun don't shine.

And if you don't think the other 24 guys on a roster would get sick and tired of answering questions about Barry Bonds being on the team, and everything that is associated with Barry, you are sorely mistaken.

[sturg1dj]

No sign? You mean people that posted to message boards, wrote articles on websites or called teams who were rumored to be interested in Bonds and asked for them NOT to sign him isn't a sign that people might just choose not to be associated with a team that signed someone they despised? I'll be honest with you, had one of the teams I follow signed Barry I would have burned every last bit of merchandise with their logo I had on it and sent it to the team with a note saying you've just lost a paying customer. Had it been the team I held a seasons seat package for (actually it was 3 seats, but who is counting), I would have returned the remaining tickets with a note to tell them to stick them where the sun don't shine.

And if you don't think the other 24 guys on a roster would get sick and tired of answering questions about Barry Bonds being on the team, and everything that is associated with Barry, you are sorely mistaken.



exactly. no sign.


fans have been complaining for 8 years now, and yet showed no sign when it came to actually going to games.



so its either the fans are dumb, or they are not the majority....which one is it?

[NY16CATCHER]

exactly. no sign.


fans have been complaining for 8 years now, and yet showed no sign when it came to actually going to games.



so its either the fans are dumb, or they are not the majority....which one is it?


Look at the Giants attendance after the magic number was reached...then come talk. The drop was large, in case you are too lazy to go look it up. Fact of the matter is he stopped drawing in the 1 place on earth where he was supposedly loved like a god. And look at the reactions of fans in other ball parks when he came into town as a visiting player. Do you really think they are suddenly going to greet him and welcome him into their city and onto their favorite team? Right. Sure. Right after hell freezes over.

Your blind to reality.

[sturg1dj]

Look at the Giants attendance after the magic number was reached...then come talk. The drop was large, in case you are too lazy to go look it up. Fact of the matter is he stopped drawing in the 1 place on earth where he was supposedly loved like a god. And look at the reactions of fans in other ball parks when he came into town as a visiting player. Do you really think they are suddenly going to greet him and welcome him into their city and onto their favorite team? Right. Sure. Right after hell freezes over.

Your blind to reality.

or you are blind to your petty hatred of a man you don't know



I am looking at attendance and the drop is not really that extreme. After Bonds broke the record they averaged 38,877 fans per home game; which I would say is pretty darn amazing for a last place team playing down the home stretch in a park that seats 41,503 (at least that's the capacity they give).

That's a pretty darn impressive 27 game stretch.

Now if you believe this is a significant drop in attendance then I am not the one who is blind to reality.

[NY16CATCHER]

or you are blind to your petty hatred of a man you don't know



I am looking at attendance and the drop is not really that extreme. After Bonds broke the record they averaged 38,877 fans per home game; which I would say is pretty darn amazing for a last place team playing down the home stretch in a park that seats 41,503 (at least that's the capacity they give).

That's a pretty darn impressive 27 game stretch.

Now if you believe this is a significant drop in attendance then I am not the one who is blind to reality.

Look at the attendance before and after. Then look at road attendance. When you look at the whole picture, the drop off is more than noticeable.

I think the comment "steroid apologist" under your ID name about says it all as far as your ability to look at anything objectively on this subject. I pity you.

[Paulypal]

Its pretty obvious that something was going on with Bonds and team owner. To think otherwise,,,well your just not looking hard enough. Yes it would be a media circus for the short term, but that would too would pass. I am a Mets fan and they played much of the season with a gapping hole in leftfield. I would have rather had Bonds in left for 100 games or in a platoon of some sort.

In 2007 he had an OPS of 1.045.

How many players in history had an OPS of over 1.000 and couldnt get a job the following season? I am gonna take a wild guess at NONE.

There were several teams in 08 that could have used him at DH, but like was said earlier....no offers at all?

[sturg1dj]

Look at the attendance before and after. Then look at road attendance. When you look at the whole picture, the drop off is more than noticeable.

I think the comment "steroid apologist" under your ID name about says it all as far as your ability to look at anything objectively on this subject. I pity you.




but I thought you had already made your airtight point here

Look at the Giants attendance after the magic number was reached...then come talk. The drop was large, in case you are too lazy to go look it up. Fact of the matter is he stopped drawing in the 1 place on earth where he was supposedly loved like a god. And look at the reactions of fans in other ball parks when he came into town as a visiting player. Do you really think they are suddenly going to greet him and welcome him into their city and onto their favorite team? Right. Sure. Right after hell freezes over.

Your blind to reality.

[sturg1dj]

Look at the attendance before and after. Then look at road attendance. When you look at the whole picture, the drop off is more than noticeable.

I think the comment "steroid apologist" under your ID name about says it all as far as your ability to look at anything objectively on this subject. I pity you.

ok, I bit


here are the crunched numbers

teams Bonds played after breaking record - AVG attendance - AVG series attendance against Bonds after breaking record.

Season AVG vs. Bonds after record
Arizona 28,707 39399
Pittsburgh 21,594 25434
Atlanta 33,891 35482
Florida 16,920 23538
Washington 23,998 27566
Colorado 28,979 24292
LA 47,618 49630
San Diego 34,445 35869


you know what I see? I see only one series having lower than average attendance when they are playing Bonds, all others are increases.



and don't pity me. I am living in a happy world where I don't care what a baseball player does to his body or off the field or how he talks to reporters. I live in a world where I watch games and all I see is the game. Its a beautiful world.

[Scoops]

ok, I bit


here are the crunched numbers

teams Bonds played after breaking record - AVG attendance - AVG series attendance against Bonds after breaking record.

Season AVG vs. Bonds after record
Arizona 28,707 39399
Pittsburgh 21,594 25434
Atlanta 33,891 35482
Florida 16,920 23538
Washington 23,998 27566
Colorado 28,979 24292
LA 47,618 49630
San Diego 34,445 35869


you know what I see? I see only one series having lower than average attendance when they are playing Bonds, all others are increases.
I'd discount LA as well. The rivalry between the teams bumps attendance regardless of who is on the field.

In any case, road attendance doesn't help the team that signs him. I'd submit that if anything, this is an argument against colluding to blackball him. If I were a greedy, money hungry owner, I'd want someone -- preferably in my division -- to sign him, so that I can get some of this supposed Bonds hate at the gate. I'm sure whoever signs him would get some initial bump in sales, but the numbers in SF before the record, after the record and last season indicate that Bonds became a non-factor, attendance-wise.

All in all, I'm still waiting to see what evidence the PA has. Everything here is still reasonably explainable, to me. Some of it may be dumb, but not unbelievably so. Especially since most people ascribe some combination of greed, malice and incompetence to most MLB owners.

[sturg1dj]

I'd discount LA as well. The rivalry between the teams bumps attendance regardless of who is on the field.

In any case, road attendance doesn't help the team that signs him. I'd submit that if anything, this is an argument against colluding to blackball him. If I were a greedy, money hungry owner, I'd want someone -- preferably in my division -- to sign him, so that I can get some of this supposed Bonds hate at the gate. I'm sure whoever signs him would get some initial bump in sales, but the numbers in SF before the record, after the record and last season indicate that Bonds became a non-factor, attendance-wise.

All in all, I'm still waiting to see what evidence the PA has. Everything here is still reasonably explainable, to me. Some of it may be dumb, but not unbelievably so. Especially since most people ascribe some combination of greed, malice and incompetence to most MLB owners.

the point I was making was against the assertion that it was up to the fans to not come to the games to show their displeasure with Bonds and give the owner no financial reason to sign him. What I got was a response that called me lazy for not looking at the numbers after he broke the record because both home and road attendance dropped "drastically." Well I showed I was not lazy and actually crunched the numbers.

[Scoops]

the point I was making was against the assertion that it was up to the fans to not come to the games to show their displeasure with Bonds and give the owner no financial reason to sign him. What I got was a response that called me lazy for not looking at the numbers after he broke the record because both home and road attendance dropped "drastically." Well I showed I was not lazy and actually crunched the numbers.
Yeah, my point is just that home attendance did drop drastically (Giants home attendance dropped between 5,000 and 10,000 people per game post-record, and stayed at the same level for the more crappy, Bonds-less 2008 team), and road attendance doesn't generate money for the owner who is paying him.

My point is the "Bonds will bring money to your team" argument doesn't have any basis when looking at attendance figures. The best argument you can make, looking at attendance, is that Bonds brings money to other teams. That, to me, seems like an argument against colluding to keep him out of the league. You want him in the league, just not playing for you. Unfortunately, if everyone thinks that way, he ends up not in the league.

[sturg1dj]

Yeah, my point is just that home attendance did drop drastically (Giants home attendance dropped between 5,000 and 10,000 people per game post-record, and stayed at the same level for the more crappy, Bonds-less 2008 team), and road attendance doesn't generate money for the owner who is paying him.

My point is the "Bonds will bring money to your team" argument doesn't have any basis when looking at attendance figures. The best argument you can make, looking at attendance, is that Bonds brings money to other teams. That, to me, seems like an argument against colluding to keep him out of the league. You want him in the league, just not playing for you. Unfortunately, if everyone thinks that way, he ends up not in the league.


the attendance for SF home games before Bonds broke the record was

40,564

after it was

38,877

which is not a difference of 5,000 to 10,000 but a difference of 1,687

which could be explained as much with the team's place in the standings as anything.

this year they averaged 35,356

which is 3,531 fewer than when they had Bonds after he broke the record.



my point is that yes there was some drop off in attendance after the record, which would happen with any record or any other big moment in baseball; however, the drop off from losing Bonds altogether was larger than that.

[Scoops]

the attendance for SF home games before Bonds broke the record was

40,564

after it was

38,877

which is not a difference of 5,000 to 10,000 but a difference of 1,687

which could be explained as much with the team's place in the standings as anything.

this year they averaged 35,356

which is 3,531 fewer than when they had Bonds after he broke the record.
I'll take your averages, since I didn't do any math. I just rolled through the numbers on BBRef. I would add a couple of caveats that I probably should have before (which is a bit sneaky, I guess). When I say before the record, I really only looked at a couple of months leading into it -- the Giants are consistently drawing home crowds around 40,000 from June on despite being last in the division the entire time (so I don't think the record is causing the dropoff, they were bad before Bonds hit 756). There's also clearly an "afterglow" that tails off over the rest of season when you look at day-to-day numbers (ex. They went from 39,000-43,000-42,000 against Arizona at the end of June to 33,000-33,000-37,000 in mid-September). Also: A Dodgers series near the end is another little spike. That said, I will grant that the 2008 Giants did have abysmal attendance, worse than I really paid attention to, and that Bonds could have been a factor in that. More on Bonds playing vs attendance in a moment though.

Look at the trends, not just the average for the year. Around the time of the record, the Giants are selling out against the Nationals and Marlins and Pirates. For the entire 7 game home stand of the record breaker, they drew over 40,000 every game. After that, they only had 7 more games over 40,000 -- 3 against the Dodgers. It's also interesting to look at the mostly Bonds-less 2005 Giants attendance and see that it lacks the pronounced summer bump that 2007 has, but is probably better overall. In fact, without the record chase and the irregular number of fans for the Marlins/Nationals/Pirates games alone, they probably would have drawn fewer people than 2005. The 2006 Giants, with Bonds but with no record chase, were lower than Bonds-less 2005 in attendance (though still better than 2008).

Looking at the trends from 2005 to 2008, there is very clearly some kind of "record fever" at play. In 2007, they were a fifth place team (~12 GB), selling out against "unpopular" opponents where the third place team (~3 GB) of 2006 was drawing 5,000 to 10,000 fewer against the same teams. The fourth place team of 2008 (~12GB) did business like 2006 against those teams. The team without Bonds in 2005 (~8GB) did almost as well at the gate as 2007.

Anyway, I think we're going very far down the rabbit hole here. I really wish the PA would just present their evidence and get this over with.

[sturg1dj]

I'll take your averages, since I didn't do any math. I just rolled through the numbers on BBRef. I would add a couple of caveats that I probably should have before (which is a bit sneaky, I guess). When I say before the record, I really only looked at a couple of months leading into it -- the Giants are consistently drawing home crowds around 40,000 from June on despite being last in the division the entire time (so I don't think the record is causing the dropoff, they were bad before Bonds hit 756). There's also clearly an "afterglow" that tails off over the rest of season when you look at day-to-day numbers (ex. They went from 39,000-43,000-42,000 against Arizona at the end of June to 33,000-33,000-37,000 in mid-September). Also: A Dodgers series near the end is another little spike. That said, I will grant that the 2008 Giants did have abysmal attendance, worse than I really paid attention to, and that Bonds could have been a factor in that. More on Bonds playing vs attendance in a moment though.

Look at the trends, not just the average for the year. Around the time of the record, the Giants are selling out against the Nationals and Marlins and Pirates. For the entire 7 game home stand of the record breaker, they drew over 40,000 every game. After that, they only had 7 more games over 40,000 -- 3 against the Dodgers. It's also interesting to look at the mostly Bonds-less 2005 Giants attendance and see that it lacks the pronounced summer bump that 2007 has, but is probably better overall. In fact, without the record chase and the irregular number of fans for the Marlins/Nationals/Pirates games alone, they probably would have drawn fewer people than 2005. The 2006 Giants, with Bonds but with no record chase, were lower than Bonds-less 2005 in attendance (though still better than 2008).

Looking at the trends from 2005 to 2008, there is very clearly some kind of "record fever" at play. In 2007, they were a fifth place team (~12 GB), selling out against "unpopular" opponents where the third place team (~3 GB) of 2006 was drawing 5,000 to 10,000 fewer against the same teams. The fourth place team of 2008 (~12GB) did business like 2006 against those teams. The team without Bonds in 2005 (~8GB) did almost as well at the gate as 2007.

Anyway, I think we're going very far down the rabbit hole here. I really wish the PA would just present their evidence and get this over with.

this goes back to the original point I was making with the numbers...if such a majority of fans wanted Bonds gone and nowhere near their team then the way they could have expressed themselves would have been by not going to see him.

but what happened after the record was broken?
home attendance went down, which like I said in my last post makes sense, but the drop wasn't huge. So when someone says that Bonds couldn't draw in his own park (which was said earlier) it is not true.

road attendance, which is where I expected the biggest difference, was surprising. Only in Colorado was the attendance lower than average. In the seven other series' the attendance was higher than average. To me that doesn't show fans who hate Bonds, or at the very least shows a bunch of stupid fans who paid to boo him.

my point is that there is no negative trend toward attendance that would hurt an owner's pocketbook. There is actually a small positive trend.


So many people say that fans don't want him to play for their team, but the evidence is sketchy.

He was booed - but seriously its easy to get a crowd to boo someone. Someone starts, everyone else follows.

Message Boards - there is a reason we don't post on MLB.com sites and other fans sites. They are dominated by a handful of uninformed jerks.

Radio - are no better than message boards.



put him on your team, tough out the media blitz and wait for him to hit. Once he started hitting and the team went on a roll then the home team would cheer for him.


and if he didn't hit, then you cut him and you only lose the league minimum


but that cannot happen if you receive no offers.

[sturg1dj]

now I understand that some people hate Barry Bonds and have no problem if he was colluded against. The problem is that this does not end with Barry Bonds. The union and owners have always had a strained relationship, and things like this make it worse. When players try to get as much money as possible fans get upset at the players, but they are only doing so because they know they cannot trust the owners.

If the owners colluded, some may be happy there is no Bonds, but won't be so happy when there is future labor strife because the union wants more to counteract the owners who cannot be trusted.

[west coast orange and black]

sturg1dj: put him on your team, tough out the media blitz and wait for him to hit. Once he started hitting and the team went on a roll then the home team would cheer for him.

a statement of the obvious that needed to be said.

[spark240]

put him on your team, tough out the media blitz and wait for him to hit. Once he started hitting and the team went on a roll then the home team would cheer for him.

Maybe, but even if he does hit, I think a stigma would have attached to the team in question which would have long outlasted Bonds' career.

[sturg1dj]

Maybe, but even if he does hit, I think a stigma would have attached to the team in question which would have long outlasted Bonds' career.

would this be a similar stigma that the 1977 A's, 1972 Indians, 2001 Indians, 2002 Rangers, 2003 Rays endured?


teams sign controversial players. It doesn't change the team as much as some would like. Especially if it is one season.


maybe if Ugeth Urbina was signed I would change my tune...but last I checked Barry Bonds didn't try to kill anyone.

[dl4060]

sturg1dj: put him on your team, tough out the media blitz and wait for him to hit. Once he started hitting and the team went on a roll then the home team would cheer for him.

a statement of the obvious that needed to be said.


Except it is not quite that obvious. You may very well be correct, but in the case of Barry Bonds it is less certain than with most players. Ted Williams had periods where he was booed at Fenway, even when he was productive. It is far from a certain statement.

If the owners did indeed blackmail him they should be punished. I find it far from an implausible scenario. It is also possible that no one wants to deal with him. Sheffield and others who have been mentioned do not have nearly the baggage of Bonds. Is it right that Barry has been singled out for this? I don't believe so, but how I feel is pretty pointless.

I can't think of anyone on the last three teams mentioned who holds a candle to Bonds as far as controversy. The furor over Bonds would be much greater than Rocker. The Rocker incident was several years in the past, so I don't see it as a comparable situation. I'm not saying Bonds should generate more buzz than Rocker, just that he does.

Barry Bonds is such a polarizing and unique player that it is hard to find historical comparisons. It is not enough to simply list malcontents who have been accepted by fans and conclude that Barry would be the same. No one can really be certain of how fans would react.

If Pete Rose had been accused of gambling for years prior to breaking the hit record....and his play was suspicious(dropped fly balls at critical times, baserunning errors that seemed to strange to be believable...stuff like that).....and there was overwhelming circumstantial evidence that was not proven...Then we would have an interesting historical parallel. I can't think of anything remotely modern that compares.

Ugueth Urbina would probably be easier to sign(from a PR standpoint) than Bonds, as absurd as that is.

[RubeBaker]

Ok, I've skimmed through these posts, so I'll apologize now if somebody has already made this point.

What I don't get is why Bonds? Piazza is a sure fire HOFer, he was never signed. Sammy Sosa, has a very good chance of getting in, and had a very productive year last year, yet somehow he went totally unsigned. Kenny Lofton, a boderline candidate at best, but still a useful player, he goes unsigned as well. Where is the support for them? Why is the union not crying foul on their behalf? Furthermore, it further baffles me why they would treat Bonds as if he was their golden boy, when he isn't a part of their licensing agreement. But the fact remains is that he puts warm bodies in the seats, and this is not about the union looking out for it's players, but about greed.

Furthermore, those of you who think that Bonds could have been signed for league minimum are absolutely insane. The guy wanted 15 mil last offseason, and now suddenly he's gonna play for $350,000? I don't think there's any collusion, Bonds and his agent probably priced themselves right out of the market. This isn't a guy who is going to show up somewhere and help the youngsters out, this guy is more like Daunte Culpepper, he wants a starting job for a price more than he's worth.

Basically the only thing colluded on is that Bonds is not worth the price.

[philkid3]

Kenny Lofton, a boderline candidate at best, but still a useful player, he goes unsigned as well.
I no for a fact they looked in to Kenny Lofton's case, that was discussed a while ago.

Perhaps they didn't find any evidence against him and they did Bonds? We may find out, but Lofton was a focul point when this investigation was first announced.


Furthermore, those of you who think that Bonds could have been signed for league minimum are absolutely insane. The guy wanted 15 mil last offseason, and now suddenly he's gonna play for $350,000?
Well, his agent did come out and say he would play for league minimum. No one gave him an offer to find out if that was a lie, so. . .


Basically the only thing colluded on is that Bonds is not worth the price.
How do you know, unless you have evidence you haven't shared? How do they know the price if they didn't make him an offer?

[sturg1dj]

Ok, I've skimmed through these posts, so I'll apologize now if somebody has already made this point.

What I don't get is why Bonds? Piazza is a sure fire HOFer, he was never signed. Sammy Sosa, has a very good chance of getting in, and had a very productive year last year, yet somehow he went totally unsigned. Kenny Lofton, a boderline candidate at best, but still a useful player, he goes unsigned as well. Where is the support for them? Why is the union not crying foul on their behalf? Furthermore, it further baffles me why they would treat Bonds as if he was their golden boy, when he isn't a part of their licensing agreement. But the fact remains is that he puts warm bodies in the seats, and this is not about the union looking out for it's players, but about greed.

Furthermore, those of you who think that Bonds could have been signed for league minimum are absolutely insane. The guy wanted 15 mil last offseason, and now suddenly he's gonna play for $350,000? I don't think there's any collusion, Bonds and his agent probably priced themselves right out of the market. This isn't a guy who is going to show up somewhere and help the youngsters out, this guy is more like Daunte Culpepper, he wants a starting job for a price more than he's worth.

Basically the only thing colluded on is that Bonds is not worth the price.


1. Bonds publicly stated he would play for the minimum and even added that he would donate all earnings to buy tickets for children

2. Its not the fact that he was a HOF...if that were the case then maybe we'd be asking about Dave Winfield or Paul Molitor. Its because if you look at his numbers during his last season they were far superior than the others you mention and even put him amongst league leaders.

3. Unlike the others Bonds and his agent have multiple times stated that he is not retired and would play for the minimum but received no offers. The other players you have mentioned have not done that.

4. The union is helping him because he asked them to, like any union would. You have a grievance you go to the union.

and lets not think that this is only about Barry Bonds. The union is involved because this is about all players. If they didn't help Bonds it would set a bad precedent and weaken the union. Unions are only strong by not only protecting the good employees but the bad ones as well.

[NY16CATCHER]

If the union had 1 shread of evidence, it would have released the facts by now, especially now that we have entered the unrestricted free agent signing period. It would have helped their members and helped open the marketplace.

The union has had more than ample time to make their case of collusion, but their silence since their claim of having evidence speaks volumes about exactly how weak their case must be.

Just more smoke and mirrors from the union.

[sturg1dj]

If the union had 1 shread of evidence, it would have released the facts by now, especially now that we have entered the unrestricted free agent signing period. It would have helped their members and helped open the marketplace.

The union has had more than ample time to make their case of collusion, but their silence since their claim of having evidence speaks volumes about exactly how weak their case must be.

Just more smoke and mirrors from the union.

Union Accuses MLB of Collusion
The baseball players' union says it has found evidence teams acted in concert against signing Barry Bonds but it reached an agreement with the commissioner's office to delay the filing of any grievance.

The union expressed concern in May about the lack of offers to the home run king. Filing a grievance would trigger proceedings before arbitrator Shyam Das. Union general counsel Michael Weiner confirmed the deal with Major League Baseball, which was first reported by murraychass.com.

"There were numerous things that occurred that made me believe that the clubs were acting in concert," Bonds' agent, Jeff Borris, said Thursday. "When I testify as a witness in the case, I will delineate each and every one of them."

Bonds was indicted last Nov. 15 on charges related to 2003 grand jury testimony during which he denied knowingly using performance-enhancing drugs. No team signed Bonds when he became a free agent after the 2007 season.

Baseball attorneys repeatedly have denied that teams acted in concert against Bonds. Management lawyer Dan Halem said Thursday that MLB would have no additional comment. Bonds pleaded not guilty to 14 counts of making false declarations to a federal grand jury and one count of obstruction of justice, and his trial is scheduled to start March 2. Any grievance is likely to follow the trial.

The players' association won three collusion grievances in which owners were found to have conspired against free agents following the 1985, 1986 and 1987 seasons. Management agreed in 1990 to settle those cases for $280 million and also agreed to a provision that future collusion would be subject to triple damages.


the delay is because they signed an agreement with the commissioner's office. There are proper channels to go through when one has a union grievance. You do it wrong and you lose your case.


But seriously, answer me this....why do you have such a man-crush on the owners?

[NY16CATCHER]

the delay is because they signed an agreement with the commissioner's office. There are proper channels to go through when one has a union grievance. You do it wrong and you lose your case.


But seriously, answer me this....why do you have such a man-crush on the owners?

I don't have any "Man Crush" as you put it. What I do have is a serious problem with people from the Oliver Stone School of Conspiracy who just assume because the object of their man crush, Barry Bonds, doesn't get a contract offer from anyone it must be a case of collusion. He is easily the most divisive player to have been in the game in the last several generations, the man is under federal indictment, there are serious questions about how much of his production over the past several seasons are a result of the use of PED's. There are well documented issues of poor clubhouse behavior and his demands of special treatment. There is a significantly limited marketplace for his skills and his unwillingness to play a field position other than leftfield only narrows that field of possible fits. And there is his horrible relationship with the media and the public in general. Yet somehow, in spite of those obvious facts, it must be a case of collusion???? Seriously, how about just looking at the reality of it all for just a few minutes, beyond your pesonal man crush on Barry Bonds?

The union agreed to delay their so called claim until after the world series was over. In this day of media scrutiny and "leaks" if the union had a legit claim, the world would know it by now. Hell, if it was anything of substance you would have heard about it 3 minutes after the union did, its just how the media works these days. This is just another case of saber rattling by the union to attempt to sway public opinion in the favor of one of their members. They are hoping that people who are Barry fans soak up the claims and assert public pressure on owners to sign him. They are looking to make him a sympathtic figure among those who don't have strong opinions of him one way or another. It's failing. Only the truly die hard Barry fans, ownership haters, die hard union sorts, and those who just must deny reality are buying this cry of wolf from a union that has no credibility whatsoever.

[Mattingly]

the delay is because they signed an agreement with the commissioner's office. There are proper channels to go through when one has a union grievance. You do it wrong and you lose your case.


But seriously, answer me this....why do you have such a man-crush on the owners?
What in the world does a "man-crush" have to do with anything? Either something believes that Barry Bonds should be playing right now, or they don't. Can someone say that you have a "man-crush" on Barry Bonds because you favor his playing?

[sturg1dj]

I don't have any "Man Crush" as you put it. What I do have is a serious problem with people from the Oliver Stone School of Conspiracy who just assume because the object of their man crush, Barry Bonds, doesn't get a contract offer from anyone it must be a case of collusion. He is easily the most divisive player to have been in the game in the last several generations, the man is under federal indictment, there are serious questions about how much of his production over the past several seasons are a result of the use of PED's. There are well documented issues of poor clubhouse behavior and his demands of special treatment. There is a significantly limited marketplace for his skills and his unwillingness to play a field position other than leftfield only narrows that field of possible fits. And there is his horrible relationship with the media and the public in general. Yet somehow, in spite of those obvious facts, it must be a case of collusion???? Seriously, how about just looking at the reality of it all for just a few minutes, beyond your pesonal man crush on Barry Bonds?

The union agreed to delay their so called claim until after the world series was over. In this day of media scrutiny and "leaks" if the union had a legit claim, the world would know it by now. Hell, if it was anything of substance you would have heard about it 3 minutes after the union did, its just how the media works these days. This is just another case of saber rattling by the union to attempt to sway public opinion in the favor of one of their members. They are hoping that people who are Barry fans soak up the claims and assert public pressure on owners to sign him. They are looking to make him a sympathtic figure among those who don't have strong opinions of him one way or another. It's failing. Only the truly die hard Barry fans, ownership haters, die hard union sorts, and those who just must deny reality are buying this cry of wolf from a union that has no credibility whatsoever.

I wouldn't put this in the realm of conspiracy since this is something that has been proven to have happened three times prior. I think that this obviously in the realm of possibility...which is where I believe you and I differ the most. Over and over again you have said you think there is no chance at all,which seems silly. Its not like the whole idea of collusion is some made up abstract idea...it is something that has happened and the owners have a problem with.

Maybe you can help me here. I want to keep saying that no player has never been totally ignored because of attitude or situation or both. Could you show me where I am wrong? This is not me being sarcastic or anything, I seriously want to know because I am interested.

[sturg1dj]

What in the world does a "man-crush" have to do with anything? Either something believes that Barry Bonds should be playing right now, or they don't. Can someone say that you have a "man-crush" on Barry Bonds because you favor his playing?

this is not really about if someone believes he should have played or not...this is about if one beleives collusion happened or not. That is very different since there have been multiple people who have stated that they do not care if collusion happened, as long as he did not play. Which at this point is fine with me, since I cannot change their minds. The problem is that some people think collusion is out of the realm of possibilities, which is shocking to me.

[NY16CATCHER]

I wouldn't put this in the realm of conspiracy since this is something that has been proven to have happened three times prior. I think that this obviously in the realm of possibility...which is where I believe you and I differ the most. Over and over again you have said you think there is no chance at all,which seems silly. Its not like the whole idea of collusion is some made up abstract idea...it is something that has happened and the owners have a problem with.

Maybe you can help me here. I want to keep saying that no player has never been totally ignored because of attitude or situation or both. Could you show me where I am wrong? This is not me being sarcastic or anything, I seriously want to know because I am interested.

Collusion is conspiracy by its very definition. In order to be colluded against, 2 or more groups or individuals must act in concert with one another to a predetermined end (ie. preventing someone from being signed to a contract would be the end in this case). Has it happened in the past? Yes. That does not automatically mean it will happen again. And the fact that it has happened as frequently in the past actually makes it LESS likely to happen again, given the extent of punishment that can be metered out for such offenses, compared to in the past.

And I think your so called question is sarcastic and intended to be that way, despite your proclomations to the contrary. Look at John Rocker. Yeah he played his way out of baseball for a while. He went to non affiliated ball and pitched VERY well. He spent a year and never got the sniff he deserved....why? You can bet your ass its because of his famous SI comments about NY and various other subjects. How about Will Clark? Well known to be a total A-hole, he had a couple of good seasons left in the tank when he retired because no one wanted him due to his attitude. That's just 2 of many. It happens far more frequently than you seem to think it does.

The problem with any of this is you are living in a world of stats and perception based upon math, not the reality of assembling a major league roster and running a major league team. In a fantasy league where numbers are everything and everything else is simply not relevant, I'd agree with you that there are plenty of teams that could use the type of numbers Bonds puts up. But I live in the world of reality. I understand how front offices think, I understand how to view rosters. I've spent my life around people that do or did it for a living.

[sturg1dj]

Collusion is conspiracy by its very definition. In order to be colluded against, 2 or more groups or individuals must act in concert with one another to a predetermined end (ie. preventing someone from being signed to a contract would be the end in this case). Has it happened in the past? Yes. That does not automatically mean it will happen again. And the fact that it has happened as frequently in the past actually makes it LESS likely to happen again, given the extent of punishment that can be metered out for such offenses, compared to in the past.

And I think your so called question is sarcastic and intended to be that way, despite your proclomations to the contrary. Look at John Rocker. Yeah he played his way out of baseball for a while. He went to non affiliated ball and pitched VERY well. He spent a year and never got the sniff he deserved....why? You can bet your ass its because of his famous SI comments about NY and various other subjects. How about Will Clark? Well known to be a total A-hole, he had a couple of good seasons left in the tank when he retired because no one wanted him due to his attitude. That's just 2 of many. It happens far more frequently than you seem to think it does.

The problem with any of this is you are living in a world of stats and perception based upon math, not the reality of assembling a major league roster and running a major league team. In a fantasy league where numbers are everything and everything else is simply not relevant, I'd agree with you that there are plenty of teams that could use the type of numbers Bonds puts up. But I live in the world of reality. I understand how front offices think, I understand how to view rosters. I've spent my life around people that do or did it for a living.

Will Clark actually announced his retirement mid-season...so he didn't even give teams the chance to sign him.


John Rocker had two teams trade for him and one team sign him as a free agent after the comments, even though his play was awful.



but ahh, I see you spend your life around front offices....that explains your man crush

now to explain my man crush. I feel it is important for the players and the league that all players receive a fair chance to earn a living as long as they can perform.

one way around this would be if the commish's office went the Roger Goodell way and suspended him for being indicted...then no big deal...I could buy that. Black eye to the league. But Selig is a coward.

Or if Bonds came back and played terribly then he wouldn't deserve a roster spot.

What if Bonds received one terrible offer from a terrible team and he refused? Then this would also not be an issue.

But once again there are zero offers and no suspensions. So this is about the stats because you have a player surrounded by rumors yet has no black marks on his career.


but let me ask...do you think collusion is out of the realm of possibilities? Do you think there is a 0% chance? If you do then you are an idiot. You can keep on thinking that you don't care, or that you don't think its the most likely reason...whatever. But if you think there is no chance of collusion then I will say you are an idiot.

Do you at least think there is a 1% chance?
.5%chance?

[NY16CATCHER]

Will Clark actually announced his retirement mid-season...so he didn't even give teams the chance to sign him.


John Rocker had two teams trade for him and one team sign him as a free agent after the comments, even though his play was awful.



but ahh, I see you spend your life around front offices....that explains your man crush

now to explain my man crush. I feel it is important for the players and the league that all players receive a fair chance to earn a living as long as they can perform.

one way around this would be if the commish's office went the Roger Goodell way and suspended him for being indicted...then no big deal...I could buy that. Black eye to the league. But Selig is a coward.

Or if Bonds came back and played terribly then he wouldn't deserve a roster spot.

What if Bonds received one terrible offer from a terrible team and he refused? Then this would also not be an issue.

But once again there are zero offers and no suspensions. So this is about the stats because you have a player surrounded by rumors yet has no black marks on his career.


but let me ask...do you think collusion is out of the realm of possibilities? Do you think there is a 0% chance? If you do then you are an idiot. You can keep on thinking that you don't care, or that you don't think its the most likely reason...whatever. But if you think there is no chance of collusion then I will say you are an idiot.

Do you at least think there is a 1% chance?
.5%chance?

I've been around baseball all my life, I've spent virtually all my life around family who have served as amateur scouts, cross checkers, professional scouts and advanced scouts for 4 different organizations. I understand this game at a level most people don't only because I've been exposed to its innerworkings at a level most aren't. I'm not going to apologize for it, not in the least. However that does not disqualify me from having thoughts, opinions and ideas about this situation or expressing them. Nor does it make them any less valid, merely because of family association.

What you fail to mention or didn't know, was that Rocker's last stint in professional baseball (unaffiliated) ended not because of his performance (quite to the contrary, there were big league scouts sending glowing reports of his performances) but because no one wanted the stigma of signing him.

If you truly think that fairness plays a role in who plays and doesn't play in professional baseball, you are out of your mind. The world is littered with players who didn't get a fair shake for a million reasons, ranging from a less than honest agent, to the perception of a particular scout, and a host of other reasons, legitimate or otherwise. Fairness in the process of being scouted, becoming a professional player and in the world of professional baseball be it as a player, front office person, etc. is not a 100% guarantee or an absolute, just as its not in any other profession in the world.

As for your comment about no black spots, just rumors, with regards to PED's you are correct, aside from a federal indictment (of which he is innocent until proven otherwise). With regards to his other negatives, his unwillingness to play a position other than left, his boorish treatment of team officials (ranging from clubhouse guys to front office staff), his petulant behavior with regards to teammates, his open disdain for the media, and a few other assorted traits, those are well documented and they are certainly black spots with regards to the view potential employers may have of him. In many ways its no different than any other professional career, if you are viewed as a disruptive influence, a poor co-worker, disrespectful of superiors, etc. and its well documented, you are likely going to have trouble finding an employer, no matter how good you are at what you do.

Just as you say Bonds has "no black marks" and I concede that he is innocent until proven guilty in a court of law with regards to his involvement with PED's its hypocritical of you to refuse to extend to ownership the same "innocent until proven guilty" standard you expect everyone to grant to your man crush, Mr. Bonds. You can't play both sides of the street with such a blatant double standard.

I have no idea why you are so hung up on getting me to concede the possibility that collusion occured, other than to play some sort of "ah-ha" game with my words. I haven't seen any willingness on your part to concede that it is quite possible Mr. Bonds could be guilty as hell with regards to his involvment with illegal steroids (which by the way is a hell of a lot more probable than any collusionary activities undertaken by owners, considering enough evidence was offered to sustain a federal indictment in one case and not one shread of even circumstantial evidence of ANY sort (not to mention evidence that could hold up in a criminal or civil case) has been offered in the other, in spite of the unions claims to have such evidence.)

[sturg1dj]

What you fail to mention or didn't know, was that Rocker's last stint in professional baseball (unaffiliated) ended not because of his performance (quite to the contrary, there were big league scouts sending glowing reports of his performances) but because no one wanted the stigma of signing him.

what I didn't fail to mention is even though there was a stigma against him right after the article (fair or not) 2 teams traded for him and one signed him as a free agent. That is three more chances than Bonds got.



If you truly think that fairness plays a role in who plays and doesn't play in professional baseball, you are out of your mind. The world is littered with players who didn't get a fair shake for a million reasons, ranging from a less than honest agent, to the perception of a particular scout, and a host of other reasons, legitimate or otherwise. Fairness in the process of being scouted, becoming a professional player and in the world of professional baseball be it as a player, front office person, etc. is not a 100% guarantee or an absolute, just as its not in any other profession in the world.

agreed. and that is why the union has a role to play. In this case the union is filing a grievance against the owners for being unfair. Should they not do that?


As for your comment about no black spots, just rumors, with regards to PED's you are correct, aside from a federal indictment (of which he is innocent until proven otherwise). With regards to his other negatives, his unwillingness to play a position other than left, his boorish treatment of team officials (ranging from clubhouse guys to front office staff), his petulant behavior with regards to teammates, his open disdain for the media, and a few other assorted traits, those are well documented and they are certainly black spots with regards to the view potential employers may have of him. In many ways its no different than any other professional career, if you are viewed as a disruptive influence, a poor co-worker, disrespectful of superiors, etc. and its well documented, you are likely going to have trouble finding an employer, no matter how good you are at what you do.

the behavior specified is one that comes with a certain amount of power. The same power that is not enjoyed by someone making the minimum who is begging for a job. So if Bonds was signed, he could have a short leash since he has no power.

Just as you say Bonds has "no black marks" and I concede that he is innocent until proven guilty in a court of law with regards to his involvement with PED's its hypocritical of you to refuse to extend to ownership the same "innocent until proven guilty" standard you expect everyone to grant to your man crush, Mr. Bonds. You can't play both sides of the street with such a blatant double standard.


what I did was laid out the evidence that I have available to me and from that evidence I said that is seems very likely that collusion happened. I understand proof is necessary, and that is what I am waiting for from the union. That being said one of your initial replies to me is who the hell do I think I am and I owe the owners an apology.

do I owe the owners an apology? I don't think so. I have my opinions and absolutely no power to get them into any trouble. I am not saying without evidence we should find them guilty my argument has been that there is a chance and people who think differently are crazy.


I have no idea why you are so hung up on getting me to concede the possibility that collusion occured, other than to play some sort of "ah-ha" game with my words. I haven't seen any willingness on your part to concede that it is quite possible Mr. Bonds could be guilty as hell with regards to his involvment with illegal steroids (which by the way is a hell of a lot more probable than any collusionary activities undertaken by owners, considering enough evidence was offered to sustain a federal indictment in one case and not one shread of even circumstantial evidence of ANY sort (not to mention evidence that could hold up in a criminal or civil case) has been offered in the other, in spite of the unions claims to have such evidence.)


I have on more than one occasion stated on this site that I think Bonds used. It is no secret, but for me as long as he didn't fail a drug test then I have no problem.

so far we have basically heard the same amount of evidence regarding both collusion and Bonds' indictment, which is nothing. All we know is that in both there are claims to evidence. Yet you don't seem to be so against the indictment as you are against the collusion case.

[NY16CATCHER]

what I didn't fail to mention is even though there was a stigma against him right after the article (fair or not) 2 teams traded for him and one signed him as a free agent. That is three more chances than Bonds got.





agreed. and that is why the union has a role to play. In this case the union is filing a grievance against the owners for being unfair. Should they not do that?




the behavior specified is one that comes with a certain amount of power. The same power that is not enjoyed by someone making the minimum who is begging for a job. So if Bonds was signed, he could have a short leash since he has no power.




what I did was laid out the evidence that I have available to me and from that evidence I said that is seems very likely that collusion happened. I understand proof is necessary, and that is what I am waiting for from the union. That being said one of your initial replies to me is who the hell do I think I am and I owe the owners an apology.

do I owe the owners an apology? I don't think so. I have my opinions and absolutely no power to get them into any trouble. I am not saying without evidence we should find them guilty my argument has been that there is a chance and people who think differently are crazy.





I have on more than one occasion stated on this site that I think Bonds used. It is no secret, but for me as long as he didn't fail a drug test then I have no problem.

so far we have basically heard the same amount of evidence regarding both collusion and Bonds' indictment, which is nothing. All we know is that in both there are claims to evidence. Yet you don't seem to be so against the indictment as you are against the collusion case.

To me, the statements you have made in this thread epitomize the very reason why I think the MLBPA is a total farce and why its value as a union is slightly below that of whale crap on the bottom of the ocean. If the MLBPA really valued its members, it would treat them equally. They could file grievances on a nearly daily basis for every wrong, percieved or actual, that a union member might feel. The union only acts when it is in the best FINANCIAL, not moral, interest for itself and its coffers. The health, well being, and welfare of the majority of its members comes far down the list of union priorities.

And your statement about the other negatives I mentioned regarding Bonds being a right of power is absurd. No matter how good you are at something, eventually you will wear out your welcome if you act like a total a-hole all the time. At some point what you bring to the table in terms of positives is outweighed by the negatives you bring. There is a point where even at the absolute minimum wage, its not worth the bother. That's the corner Barry has painted himself into at this point in his career. He's got no one to blame for that but himself.

What evidence do you have laid out in front of you. I've asked you before, show me 1 shread of evidence. I even defined evidence for you. You have yet to produce any evidence of collusion whatsoever. You have provided your opinion (which is hardly evidence) and your conclusion of circumstances (which don't qualify as evidence either). You have nothing in terms of evidence, what you have is your disappointment at your man crush being unemployed. Nothing more. If you've got some evidence, bring it on, I'm sure the union would love to have something more than the big bag of wind they have now.

You sense of justice and your sense of right and wrong are both self serving and quite frankly not the least bit logical. You believe Bonds used, but because he didn't get caught with a MLB administered drug test, that's OK. Yet you believe he is innocent until proven guilty in a court of law. You are missing a big connection here. If he used (which you believe he did), he is guilty of a federal crime (however minor it may be). Yet you claim owners are colluding against him because, in your mind, they share the same conclusion that you have regarding his use. So what is it here? It's ok for fans, pundits, etc to come to a conclusion about what Bonds likely did or didn't do and chose to judge and treat him accordingly in the realm of public opinion, but its not OK for ownership to reach that conclusion and choose not to deal with him on that fact alone, nevermind the rest of everything? Are you missing this point? Your argument is irrational.

[sturg1dj]

To me, the statements you have made in this thread epitomize the very reason why I think the MLBPA is a total farce and why its value as a union is slightly below that of whale crap on the bottom of the ocean. If the MLBPA really valued its members, it would treat them equally. They could file grievances on a nearly daily basis for every wrong, percieved or actual, that a union member might feel. The union only acts when it is in the best FINANCIAL, not moral, interest for itself and its coffers. The health, well being, and welfare of the majority of its members comes far down the list of union priorities.

And your statement about the other negatives I mentioned regarding Bonds being a right of power is absurd. No matter how good you are at something, eventually you will wear out your welcome if you act like a total a-hole all the time. At some point what you bring to the table in terms of positives is outweighed by the negatives you bring. There is a point where even at the absolute minimum wage, its not worth the bother. That's the corner Barry has painted himself into at this point in his career. He's got no one to blame for that but himself.

What evidence do you have laid out in front of you. I've asked you before, show me 1 shread of evidence. I even defined evidence for you. You have yet to produce any evidence of collusion whatsoever. You have provided your opinion (which is hardly evidence) and your conclusion of circumstances (which don't qualify as evidence either). You have nothing in terms of evidence, what you have is your disappointment at your man crush being unemployed. Nothing more. If you've got some evidence, bring it on, I'm sure the union would love to have something more than the big bag of wind they have now.

You sense of justice and your sense of right and wrong are both self serving and quite frankly not the least bit logical. You believe Bonds used, but because he didn't get caught with a MLB administered drug test, that's OK. Yet you believe he is innocent until proven guilty in a court of law. You are missing a big connection here. If he used (which you believe he did), he is guilty of a federal crime (however minor it may be). Yet you claim owners are colluding against him because, in your mind, they share the same conclusion that you have regarding his use. So what is it here? It's ok for fans, pundits, etc to come to a conclusion about what Bonds likely did or didn't do and chose to judge and treat him accordingly in the realm of public opinion, but its not OK for ownership to reach that conclusion and choose not to deal with him on that fact alone, nevermind the rest of everything? Are you missing this point? Your argument is irrational.


if he used then he is guilty of a federal crime? The indictment is regarding perjury. What they need to prove is if Barry Bonds knowingly used steroids since he said he didn't knowingly use. If he used doesn't really matter, it is if he knowingly used.

but you know what, ok...once again I will say lets wait for the evidence. My evidence is all anecdotal which I know wouldn't put a nail in the owner's coffin...but then again that is not my job.

You keep attacking me like it is my job to put the owners away and yet all I want from you is for you to open your mind to the chance that collusion happened.

one last thing. You don't like the union? whatever. all I know is that with collusion cases they fight for anyone who file a grievance. Same goes for any player problem. Its never about money its about the players...we are just only hearing about the most high profile cases.

when the union talks strike or tries to change the amount of money players get paid, which players get the most from it. Well since there is no maximum I would say its the players who make the minimum.

you want the union to go away, that ain't gonna happen since there is such a long history of owner misdeeds. every one of these misdeeds makes the union strive to become stronger and get more from the owners. You want the union to back off, then get the owners to back off too.

[NY16CATCHER]

if he used then he is guilty of a federal crime? The indictment is regarding perjury. What they need to prove is if Barry Bonds knowingly used steroids since he said he didn't knowingly use. If he used doesn't really matter, it is if he knowingly used.

but you know what, ok...once again I will say lets wait for the evidence. My evidence is all anecdotal which I know wouldn't put a nail in the owner's coffin...but then again that is not my job.

You keep attacking me like it is my job to put the owners away and yet all I want from you is for you to open your mind to the chance that collusion happened.

one last thing. You don't like the union? whatever. all I know is that with collusion cases they fight for anyone who file a grievance. Same goes for any player problem. Its never about money its about the players...we are just only hearing about the most high profile cases.

when the union talks strike or tries to change the amount of money players get paid, which players get the most from it. Well since there is no maximum I would say its the players who make the minimum.

you want the union to go away, that ain't gonna happen since there is such a long history of owner misdeeds. every one of these misdeeds makes the union strive to become stronger and get more from the owners. You want the union to back off, then get the owners to back off too.

Yes, actually the possession of certain steroids, and any certain other prescription and non prescription drugs for that matter, is a federal crime. It's quite minor on the scale of the federal judicial system but it is none the less a crime. The Feds could have easily charged him with that as well, but the perjury count is far easier to prosecute in this instance and carries a far harsher punishment.

I keep attacking YOU?????? Is this really how you see this? What a pathetic statement. You are the one who has smeared, accused out of hand and insinuated against ownership at every turn of this thread. You plead for some concession on my behalf that collusion could have occured, but not for 1 second have you ever shown a willingness to concede that its quite possible (indeed likely) that it never happened at all. Yet, god forbid 1 person say anything the least bit negative (NO MATTER HOW FACTUAL IT IS) about your beloved Barry and you can't jump to your keyboard fast enough to defend him.

And your view of the MLBPA is both grossly uninformed. Do you really think you only hear of the grieviences the union files in support of high profile players? Well guess what, those are the only ones they do file. Why? Because the union is here to serve its members that best serve it in terms of its financial health and well being, and that's its most famous and highly paid members. If you really think its not about money and actually about the players when it comes to the MLBPA you are delusional at best.

You want to know who makes the money when the union talks about payscale? It's not the guys at the bottom. Look at the top end of the salary scale versus the bottom over the past 20 years. The top end has had a disproportionate increase in salary scale when compared to the bottom of the pay scale. It's laughable. Don't sit here and try to tell me the MLBPA is some sort of altruistic organization fighting for the little guy in its membership. That statement alone proves just how little you understand about how the MLBPA operates.

And as for the "past misdeeds of owners", we live in different times. You could make that statement about just about any professional union and at one time it was a valid and legitimate point. And if the union was actually just trying to insure a fair working environment for its members, I'd have little problem with it. If it was a fair partner with management in labor relations issues, I'd have no problem with it. However, I am sick to death of the MLBPA sitting by and passing the buck to ownership with regards to everything that is wrong with the game and its refusal to hold itself accountable to the sport and to its members on issues where it has played an intergral role in making a mess out of certain aspects of the sport.

[sturg1dj]

Yes, actually the possession of certain steroids, and any certain other prescription and non prescription drugs for that matter, is a federal crime. It's quite minor on the scale of the federal judicial system but it is none the less a crime. The Feds could have easily charged him with that as well, but the perjury count is far easier to prosecute in this instance and carries a far harsher punishment.

that is not what we are talking about. and no they couldn't have easily charged him with possession since they haven't caught him with anything on him.


I keep attacking YOU?????? Is this really how you see this? What a pathetic statement. You are the one who has smeared, accused out of hand and insinuated against ownership at every turn of this thread. You plead for some concession on my behalf that collusion could have occured, but not for 1 second have you ever shown a willingness to concede that its quite possible (indeed likely) that it never happened at all. Yet, god forbid 1 person say anything the least bit negative (NO MATTER HOW FACTUAL IT IS) about your beloved Barry and you can't jump to your keyboard fast enough to defend him.

are you the ownership? I mean you could be since I don't know you.

all I know is when I say something bad about the owners what I get in return are personal attacks about my credibility. Which is pretty funny to me since this is a message board where all I am doing is expressing my opinion and provided some anecdotal evidence. Once again I understand I realize I could not win the case in the real world with that type of evidence, but that is not my job.

Now unless I missed it, have you really provided any more evidence than me? Now I know in the real case the burden of proof would be on me...but this is a message board discussion so I would assume you would have some proof, as long as you want me to possess the smoking gun, which is something that there would be no way I would have access to.


And your view of the MLBPA is both grossly uninformed. Do you really think you only hear of the grieviences the union files in support of high profile players? Well guess what, those are the only ones they do file. Why? Because the union is here to serve its members that best serve it in terms of its financial health and well being, and that's its most famous and highly paid members. If you really think its not about money and actually about the players when it comes to the MLBPA you are delusional at best.

You want to know who makes the money when the union talks about payscale? It's not the guys at the bottom. Look at the top end of the salary scale versus the bottom over the past 20 years. The top end has had a disproportionate increase in salary scale when compared to the bottom of the pay scale. It's laughable. Don't sit here and try to tell me the MLBPA is some sort of altruistic organization fighting for the little guy in its membership. That statement alone proves just how little you understand about how the MLBPA operates.

yes, and you must truly be an expert on unions...since you are an expert on everything else. Sure, you have talked about how your experience comes from the other side, but sure I will take this at face value even though you have taken nothing at face value.



And as for the "past misdeeds of owners", we live in different times. You could make that statement about just about any professional union and at one time it was a valid and legitimate point. And if the union was actually just trying to insure a fair working environment for its members, I'd have little problem with it. If it was a fair partner with management in labor relations issues, I'd have no problem with it. However, I am sick to death of the MLBPA sitting by and passing the buck to ownership with regards to everything that is wrong with the game and its refusal to hold itself accountable to the sport and to its members on issues where it has played an intergral role in making a mess out of certain aspects of the sport.

I will admit, its about power not a fair partner. But you must also remember that no union just appears, they are formed because of things that the ownership does. When a group of employees are abused you cannot blame them for wanting as much as possible.

and you talk about that happening in a different time, this is only the last 30 years. Three collusion wins for the union have happened in the last 25 years. The current commissioner was involved with those cases. The union would be pretty dumb to forgive and forget that soon.



hopefully these statements made sense, its 8:36 and I just woke up. So if you reply right away I probably won't be able to answer for awhile. So take your time.

[NY16CATCHER]

that is not what we are talking about. and no they couldn't have easily charged him with possession since they haven't caught him with anything on him.




are you the ownership? I mean you could be since I don't know you.

all I know is when I say something bad about the owners what I get in return are personal attacks about my credibility. Which is pretty funny to me since this is a message board where all I am doing is expressing my opinion and provided some anecdotal evidence. Once again I understand I realize I could not win the case in the real world with that type of evidence, but that is not my job.

Now unless I missed it, have you really provided any more evidence than me? Now I know in the real case the burden of proof would be on me...but this is a message board discussion so I would assume you would have some proof, as long as you want me to possess the smoking gun, which is something that there would be no way I would have access to.



yes, and you must truly be an expert on unions...since you are an expert on everything else. Sure, you have talked about how your experience comes from the other side, but sure I will take this at face value even though you have taken nothing at face value.





I will admit, its about power not a fair partner. But you must also remember that no union just appears, they are formed because of things that the ownership does. When a group of employees are abused you cannot blame them for wanting as much as possible.

and you talk about that happening in a different time, this is only the last 30 years. Three collusion wins for the union have happened in the last 25 years. The current commissioner was involved with those cases. The union would be pretty dumb to forgive and forget that soon.



hopefully these statements made sense, its 8:36 and I just woke up. So if you reply right away I probably won't be able to answer for awhile. So take your time.

Am I ownership? Seriously, you are reaching so badly its pathetic. Like a MLB owner would actually be posting and debating labor relations issues on an internet message board. I suppose in some hyper paranoid moment I could see where that thought might somehow creep into the back of your mind, but I cannot fathom a train of thought that would actually cause that thought to become so imbedded in your head that you would bother to express it on an internet forum. Dear God man, just think about what you wrote for a second.

Attacking your credibility? Apparently simple disagreement with you or questioning the accuracy of your statements, in your mind, is questioning your credibility. If that's your definition so be it, nothing in this world is going to change it. But I'm not the one who has used terms like "idiot", etc. in this discussion. I may have described your thoughts as uninformed, etc., but I never made it personalized it in a way you have.

And, once again, you insist on me proving to you that something did not occur. You cannot prove a negative. It's not possible. What is so hard about that concept?

[sturg1dj]

Am I ownership? Seriously, you are reaching so badly its pathetic. Like a MLB owner would actually be posting and debating labor relations issues on an internet message board. I suppose in some hyper paranoid moment I could see where that thought might somehow creep into the back of your mind, but I cannot fathom a train of thought that would actually cause that thought to become so imbedded in your head that you would bother to express it on an internet forum. Dear God man, just think about what you wrote for a second.

um...yeah, my point exactly. the way that youare responding makes you sound like you actually think you are working on behalf of the owners and you think that you vanquishing me on this board will somehow make the Bonds collusion case go away. So, no I don't think you are an owner.

so how many more times are you going to say I am pathetic anyways?




[QUOTE]Attacking your credibility? Apparently simple disagreement with you or questioning the accuracy of your statements, in your mind, is questioning your credibility. If that's your definition so be it, nothing in this world is going to change it. But I'm not the one who has used terms like "idiot", etc. in this discussion. I may have described your thoughts as uninformed, etc., but I never made it personalized it in a way you have.

so, calling me pathetic and lazy is ok...but I am personalizing this?

you refuse to listen to a word I say, you keep asking for evidence that I could not possibly have.

and when I said idiot I said anyone who thinks there is a 0% chance of collusion is an idiot. That would be like you saying anyone who thinks there is a 0% chance Bonds didn't use is an idiot....that would be true. Idiots deal in absolutes. There is not a 100% chance that collusion happened.

And, once again, you insist on me proving to you that something did not occur. You cannot prove a negative. It's not possible. What is so hard about that concept?

how hard a concept is it for you to understand that very little is ever proven on a message board. I don't want you to prove anything, I want you to stop asking for the impossible. I wanted some evidence on your opinions of the union, but that was just in response to the magic evidence you were looking for me to come up with.

This site wouldn't exist if everyone had to come up with court-worthy evidence because we are outsiders.



ok, enough for now...its time to go to work

[Mattingly]

this is not really about if someone believes he should have played or not...this is about if one beleives collusion happened or not. That is very different since there have been multiple people who have stated that they do not care if collusion happened, as long as he did not play. Which at this point is fine with me, since I cannot change their minds. The problem is that some people think collusion is out of the realm of possibilities, which is shocking to me.
I never said anything about whether colluson occured or not. I replied to your post to NY16CATCHER re the word "man-crush" for the owners. By use of such word, are you stating that in this thread, that your debate oppnent has some kind of weird infatuation with the team owners?

Both sides (for or against Bonds playing, and whether collusion occured or not) have spent a lot of time in this thread, with yourself being no exception. Do you have a man-crush on Barry Bonds?

What to you is a man-crush, a hyphenated word you've used, and why would it apply to NY16CATCHER, but not yourself? I'm wondering if you're saying this to complain that your debate opponent is spending too much time in this thread, or if you simply don't like having him/her disagree with you.

[sturg1dj]

I never said anything about whether colluson occured or not. I replied to your post to NY16CATCHER re the word "man-crush" for the owners. By use of such word, are you stating that in this thread, that your debate oppnent has some kind of weird infatuation with the team owners?

Both sides (for or against Bonds playing, and whether collusion occured or not) have spent a lot of time in this thread, with yourself being no exception. Do you have a man-crush on Barry Bonds?

What to you is a man-crush, a hyphenated word you've used, and why would it apply to NY16CATCHER, but not yourself? I'm wondering if you're saying this to complain that your debate opponent is spending too much time in this thread, or if you simply don't like having him/her disagree with you.


did I reply to that? Sorry...I am not sure I meant to.

I agree the man-crush line was a mistake, and has been used against me more than I used it at this point, but I have nobody to blame but myself.



haha, is there any way we could lock this thread until evidence comes out since nothing new is being said, and the last 10 threads have basically been attacks on character (I am guilty too). Nothing really new has been said. I'll even give the other guy the last word.

[digglahhh]

This is an interesting case. I can certainly see why Bonds would think he's the victim of collusion. Barry's greatest downfall has always been his ego; that is what has been the motivating force for just about every one of his misbehaviors and errant judgments. So, in his head, 2+2=4. "I'm still better than a whole lot of these guys" (which he is) "So, why isn't anybody asking me to play? Must be collusion."

Now, there's a logical, circumstantial base for this line of thinking. And that based is strengthened when you consider professional athletics has always been as forgiving as any field can possibly be when it comes to surly parties, malcontents, or high-maintenance stars, even when acting as mercenaries... provided they produce.

However, with Bonds you have so many other variables that could actually function as legit reasons why a team would stay away. And, when you look closer, one must examine the anatomy of a team to determine whether staying away was even curious behavior. How many big-market teams in close playoff races in need of a power LF/DH bat were there; how many of THOSE teams passed. The fact that the Cincy Reds or Washington Nats passed is entirely irrelevant, even as circumstantial evidence.

There's going to have to an incriminating paper trail surface from ownership for this theory to gain major traction outside the megalomaniacal universe inside Barry's head.

That's not to say that collusion is out of the realm of possibility, just that's it got a long ways to go before it hits the tipping point (remember, new Gladwell 's new book releases tomorrow).

As for the Players' Union, remember that it is not their job to be fair, only to be measured enough to not threaten the stability of the sports itself as an institution. They are advocates of the players, and nothing more. The owners have their own hired guns operating entirely in their interest.

[NY16CATCHER]

um...yeah, my point exactly. the way that youare responding makes you sound like you actually think you are working on behalf of the owners and you think that you vanquishing me on this board will somehow make the Bonds collusion case go away. So, no I don't think you are an owner.

so how many more times are you going to say I am pathetic anyways?


[QUOTE=NY16CATCHER;1358921]



so, calling me pathetic and lazy is ok...but I am personalizing this?

you refuse to listen to a word I say, you keep asking for evidence that I could not possibly have.

and when I said idiot I said anyone who thinks there is a 0% chance of collusion is an idiot. That would be like you saying anyone who thinks there is a 0% chance Bonds didn't use is an idiot....that would be true. Idiots deal in absolutes. There is not a 100% chance that collusion happened.



how hard a concept is it for you to understand that very little is ever proven on a message board. I don't want you to prove anything, I want you to stop asking for the impossible. I wanted some evidence on your opinions of the union, but that was just in response to the magic evidence you were looking for me to come up with.

This site wouldn't exist if everyone had to come up with court-worthy evidence because we are outsiders.



ok, enough for now...its time to go to work

I've never said you as a person were pathetic, I said the train of thought you displayed was pathetic and some of your comments were pathetic. If you took it too personally, I am sorry to hear that.

You say 1 minute that you don't want me to prove anything, yet several posts earlier you ask me to prove that collusion did in fact not occur. Which goes way back to the earliest pages on this thread when I asked you to back up your assertation that collusion did in fact occur as you stated. You didn't do it then and you can't do it now, instead you attempted to push the ball back into my court with the old "I say it happened, prove that it didn't", and I may be giving you far too much credit on the whole "ask someone to prove a negative because its impossible to do it" debate tool, but that's how it worked out.

[sturg1dj]

I've never said you as a person were pathetic, I said the train of thought you displayed was pathetic and some of your comments were pathetic. If you took it too personally, I am sorry to hear that.

You say 1 minute that you don't want me to prove anything, yet several posts earlier you ask me to prove that collusion did in fact not occur. Which goes way back to the earliest pages on this thread when I asked you to back up your assertation that collusion did in fact occur as you stated. You didn't do it then and you can't do it now, instead you attempted to push the ball back into my court with the old "I say it happened, prove that it didn't", and I may be giving you far too much credit on the whole "ask someone to prove a negative because its impossible to do it" debate tool, but that's how it worked out.


1. the things I write are my opinion. Since I am not the one that is in charge of proving this I would think that is enough as long as I give reasons why I believe what I believe...which is something I have been doing. You ask for the same amount of proof that the union needs which I am in no way able to do since I do not have access. Yet somehow you think that makes your opinion more valid than mine.

2. The discussion only seems worth while for me when each side actually is open for different ideas. So when you say you are 100% certain no collusion happened that to me shows you are not open for any new ideas. For me I am 99% sure collusion happened which keeps me open to different ideas. For me the only thing shocking that you have said is there is 0% chance of collusion. I'm not asking you to admit it so I can have a small victory, because that is not a victory (especially since this isn't a contest). I just cannot take someone seriously who can say that he is 100% sure he knows what happened. Nobody is 100% except maybe the owners.

[Mattingly]

did I reply to that? Sorry...I am not sure I meant to.

I agree the man-crush line was a mistake, and has been used against me more than I used it at this point, but I have nobody to blame but myself.

haha, is there any way we could lock this thread until evidence comes out since nothing new is being said, and the last 10 threads have basically been attacks on character (I am guilty too). Nothing really new has been said. I'll even give the other guy the last word.
I'm glad you didn't mean to use that man-crush word any more. From what I've known of that word, it would take this thread into a few areas I wasn't interested in.

I have no intention to lock it. However, yourself and NY16CATCHER seem to be shouting at one another more than anything else. I've wanted to lock up a few more Barry Bonds threads before (and toss the key into the gutter), but that won't be happening here.

My advice, since this thread seems like a shouting contest, with not much listening from either of you two going on:

Both yourself and NY16CATCHER offer the Top 4 or 5 points to each of you about collusion and/or whether or not Barry Bonds should be playing in 2009, and should've played in 2008. Please make said points crystal clear and from both the heart and the mind.

Both of you take a deep breath (or take a 5-minute breather), treat it as a term paper. Write very carefully, check your spelling, present your points very accurately, in a non-argumentative manner, and double check that what you've written is exactly as intended.

Then please reply very respectfully to the next person's points, and in a non-antagonistic way, and not anything personal against your debate opponent.

Things should go pretty well from there. :D

[sturg1dj]

Why I think Barry Bonds is the victim of collusion

1. Production
In his final season he hit 28 home runs had a .480 obp and a 170 ops+ and he also led the league in walks and intentional walks.

2. Price Tag
Made the statement that he would be willing to play for the league minimum. What this does is gives teams more power over Barry Bonds. In SF he held a considerable amount of power because he was their meal ticket and because of his huge salary. This would not be the case this time around. The ease of cutting him would be too high for Bonds to act out. For those who think that he would anyway, what would you be afraid of if he were just cut?
Bonds would be in no position to demand anything from anyone, especially in the latter parts of the season. Instead Bonds would have to play ball and perform or a team could easily cut all ties.

3. Other Players signed
Richie Sexon
Matt Stairs was actually traded for by the Phillies late in the season.
These are just two examples. But what we all constantly forget is that Bonds does not need to be the starting LF or DH for a team, he could do as little as pinch hit for an NL team. The money he would make would make it so it wouldn’t be a waste. If he did not want to accept the role then he could be easily replaced. That is what bugs me. No team even had talks with him about a role change…he had no talks.

4. Attendance
As I have shown earlier the drop off between when Bonds broke the record and after was minimal and in many of the road games after he broke the record the teams drew bigger numbers.
The difference between after the record was broken and this season (or with Bonds and without Bonds) is greater than the difference between before the record and after the record. So even if you don’t buy into the idea that he fills the seats, one must still see that the fans showed no signs of displeasure through lack of sales.
5. History of Owners not being afraid of controversial players
After Alex Johnson had his problems with the Angels he played for five more teams; Dick Allen played for 5 teams after he left the Phillies, John Rocker played for 3 teams after he left the Braves. Teams have always been willing to give controversial players a chance to succeed again. Josh Hamilton got another chance and made good on it himself, and he was banned from the league. We all agree he deserved that chance. Barry Bonds has not been suspended and has no official black marks on his resume. If he did then I would assume his punishment would go through the proper channels.

Overrated Reasons against
1. Media attention
How does the old saying go? There is no such thing as bad publicity? This is one of those cases. For a bad team with little publicity this would finally bring some attention to the team. This would probably lead to more nationally televised games and more visibility. Let’s say he was a Royal this season. That would mean people would have probably noticed Mike Aviles’ fine season because of the attention the team got because of Bonds. Would he be overshadowed…yes…but would he still get more exposure…yes. This would lead to more jersey s being sold and more money for the team in the future. Heck, maybe one season with Bonds could pay for one big free agent in the future.

On the other hand, if a talented team got him you would imagine the stars on the team could handle the extra media coverage. Look at the Yankees. The New York media would go crazy..yeah…but any more crazy than when the Giambi mess was going on?

2. Fan reactions
I have stated before that all the fans needed to do was to show their disdain for Bonds by not going to his games and showing the owners that Bonds is not a viable economic alternative. So either the hatred of Bonds is overstated or fans are just plain stupid and think its smart to pay to boo him. I think it’s a combination of the two.

One sports cliché is that winning heals all. The idea that a player can be forgiven as long as he performs for a team and helps them win. As a fan I have seen this happen twice, with Kenny Rogers and Gary Sheffield. Steve Howe and Darryl Strawberry were embraced multiple times even with their drug problems. Barry Bonds has not gotten his chance at redemption. There is no telling what would happen if he succeeded, but it is my opinion that the fans would cheer for him if he was helping the team.

3. The indictment
This had no bearing on the season, and teams knew this for while. Like we have agreed on this thread he is innocent until proven otherwise so unless Bud Selig wants to enact some commissioner “for the best interest of the game” edict and suspend him I would say Bonds’ services should not be affected by this.

4. Other players not signed
A common complaint is why Barry Bonds? Why not Kenny Loften, Sammy Sosa or Mike Piazza? Well because as far as I know they haven’t been in the media constantly reminding teams that they are not retired and have not gone the extra mile

The most important part of this whole ordeal for me is that he had no offers. One crappy offer and this would be a non-issue. He couldn’t turn down the Royals or the Nationals. If he did he would have no collusion case.

[NY16CATCHER]

The case against collusion:

1. The ACTUAL Bonds marketplace was not all of MLB. In reality, when examing each teams 40 man roster (not just their 25 man roster, because had a team chosen to sign Bonds, it likely would bump someone from the 40 man roster as well), their needs, their payroll, their player development plans and their approach to assembling a roster the actual number of potential suitors is quite small. When you factor in his documented objections to playing a position other than leftfield, and the fact that he still believes himself to be an everyday position player, the market narrows even further. He's made it abundantly clear he doesn't want to be bench guy or a pinch hitter and really isn't genuinely interested in DH'ing. On the surface it seems inconcievable to many that an entire league passed on him, but when you look at it, it really boils down to probably no more than 6 or 7 teams that were ever logical destinations for him and when you look at them even further, its not all that shocking that each chose to pass for a variety of reasons.

2. PED's. My "opponent" in this discourse conceeds that Barry used PED's. I'll take that as fact for the discussion of this point. The decrease in production ,etc among those players who are suspected of using PED's during the steroid era is quite noticeable. Exactly how much of Barry's late career production can be attributed to PED's is a question that no one can answer, although it is virtually impossible to deny that they played a role in his performance. So obviously there is some question about exactly what kind of on field performance you could realistically expect from a clean Bonds. I don't find it all outside of the realm of possibility that the few teams that might (and I stress might) have been a fit for Barry chose to not gamble on what they were going to get in terms of performance.

3. The media. Barry has a well known disdain for the media. And in the era of internet, instant media, bringing in a player who is well known for his difficulty in behaving himself when it comes to dealing with the press is a gamble that many teams simply won't take. No one needs a prima donna, or a PR nightmare waiting to happen. And there is no compelling reason why a team would subject its players to having to deal with the same quesitons about Bonds day after day after day. There is no way that doesn't become a huge distraction at the least and at worst a destructive and divisive problem in the clubhouse.

4. His attitude. His poor treatment of team officials, front office staff, media staff, clubhouse staff, coaches and other players on a team are well documented. I don't find it hard to believe that more than a few teams looked at his track record in this regard and decided they didn't want any part of him. Why bring in a known pain in the ass and subject your organization to his behavior when in all probability he'd be gone a few months later and the organizations decision to let him come in and act like a total a-hole will linger in the minds of the organization long after his 5 lockers have been cleaned out and returned to their rightful owners. When you sign a player like that you send a dangerous message to the people in your organization about what you value and the belief system you have.

5. The union. My "opponent" has trumpted the need for the union to protect its members from unfair ownership action. He's also expoused a belief that a team could sign Bonds and then release him if they felt he became too much of a distruptive influence or if he stepped out of line. In theory, that's a wonderful concept but, unfortunately, on more than one occasion, the union has gone far beyond what is reasonable to attempt to "protect" one of its members from team administered disiplinary action. No team wants to invite union trouble and in some degree that's exactly what would happen if a team tried to discipline Bonds. You can see it from a million miles away. He files a grievience and the thing drags out for half a lifetime. Why bother?

6. Stigma. Face it, like him or not, he has a stigma attached to him. To many he represents an era of the game that isn't its proudest era. He is easily the most recognized name and face of the steroid era to the general public. By signing him you are choosing to associate your franchise and its reputation with its fan base and the sports world in general with that stigma. That is at best a risky proposition and in other ways PR suicide. How many scenes did we see of fans throwing syringes, holding up huge signs decrying his chase to the HR record (my personal favorite "Ruth did it on hot dogs and beer") and reminding him of his off the field issues? Suddenly GM's are faced with the fact that he is in their teams uniform. What a nightmare.

7. History. The ownership of MLB has already struggled to deal with 3 past collusion cases and in this era of ultra labor friendly arbitrators and judges I find it highly unlikely that the owners of MLB would make a concious decision to attempt to collude against Bonds in any way. It's not worth the economic risk to insure him not playing. There are far too many logical reasons as to why a team wouldn't sign him that there is no need to make any sort of organized effort to exclude him. He excludes himself in some ways.

In spite of this posts length, I attempted to keep it brief. I could probably write 4 or 5 thousand words on this subject and go into far greater detail but for the sake of brevity I will not. This is merely a bullet point overview.

In conclusion its important to remember what collusion is. It's people or a group of people acting together in an effort to prevent a person or organization from becoming part of or participating in an group or activity. By its definition it requires conspiracy. It's not merely the fact that a player goes unsigned in spite of fandom on the behalf of some.

[sturg1dj]

first let me start out by saying this level of discourse I like, and stop me if I move into the area were before


1. The ACTUAL Bonds marketplace was not all of MLB. In reality, when examing each teams 40 man roster (not just their 25 man roster, because had a team chosen to sign Bonds, it likely would bump someone from the 40 man roster as well), their needs, their payroll, their player development plans and their approach to assembling a roster the actual number of potential suitors is quite small. When you factor in his documented objections to playing a position other than leftfield, and the fact that he still believes himself to be an everyday position player, the market narrows even further. He's made it abundantly clear he doesn't want to be bench guy or a pinch hitter and really isn't genuinely interested in DH'ing. On the surface it seems inconcievable to many that an entire league passed on him, but when you look at it, it really boils down to probably no more than 6 or 7 teams that were ever logical destinations for him and when you look at them even further, its not all that shocking that each chose to pass for a variety of reasons.

If Bonds had the opportunity to turn down an offer of being a bench player then I would agree 100% with you. He was in no position to do so.


2. PED's. My "opponent" in this discourse conceeds that Barry used PED's. I'll take that as fact for the discussion of this point. The decrease in production ,etc among those players who are suspected of using PED's during the steroid era is quite noticeable. Exactly how much of Barry's late career production can be attributed to PED's is a question that no one can answer, although it is virtually impossible to deny that they played a role in his performance. So obviously there is some question about exactly what kind of on field performance you could realistically expect from a clean Bonds. I don't find it all outside of the realm of possibility that the few teams that might (and I stress might) have been a fit for Barry chose to not gamble on what they were going to get in terms of performance.

I feel that looking at the numbers it seems as though he has "fallen back to earth" as it were where his numbers are more like the era of pre-230 lbs.

that being said this would go back into the releasing aspect which I will go into further.


3. The media. Barry has a well known disdain for the media. And in the era of internet, instant media, bringing in a player who is well known for his difficulty in behaving himself when it comes to dealing with the press is a gamble that many teams simply won't take. No one needs a prima donna, or a PR nightmare waiting to happen. And there is no compelling reason why a team would subject its players to having to deal with the same quesitons about Bonds day after day after day. There is no way that doesn't become a huge distraction at the least and at worst a destructive and divisive problem in the clubhouse.

this one is hard to argue. All I would say is give him a chance, his teammates are professionals. See how much Barry wants a job by keeping him under tabs. Once again I will talk about release later.



4. His attitude. His poor treatment of team officials, front office staff, media staff, clubhouse staff, coaches and other players on a team are well documented. I don't find it hard to believe that more than a few teams looked at his track record in this regard and decided they didn't want any part of him. Why bring in a known pain in the ass and subject your organization to his behavior when in all probability he'd be gone a few months later and the organizations decision to let him come in and act like a total a-hole will linger in the minds of the organization long after his 5 lockers have been cleaned out and returned to their rightful owners. When you sign a player like that you send a dangerous message to the people in your organization about what you value and the belief system you have.

I think this is overstated, but that is just my opinion

5. The union. My "opponent" has trumpted the need for the union to protect its members from unfair ownership action. He's also expoused a belief that a team could sign Bonds and then release him if they felt he became too much of a distruptive influence or if he stepped out of line. In theory, that's a wonderful concept but, unfortunately, on more than one occasion, the union has gone far beyond what is reasonable to attempt to "protect" one of its members from team administered disiplinary action. No team wants to invite union trouble and in some degree that's exactly what would happen if a team tried to discipline Bonds. You can see it from a million miles away. He files a grievience and the thing drags out for half a lifetime. Why bother?

yes, when players get team administered suspensions the union has stepped in, especially in cases where the players lose pay and are not allowed to find other offers. In cases where they are outright released the union does not get involved unless the team tries to hold back some pay since the contracts are guaranteed. In this case Bonds would be making the minimum so paying his contract would be no big deal so the union would not get involved.


6. Stigma. Face it, like him or not, he has a stigma attached to him. To many he represents an era of the game that isn't its proudest era. He is easily the most recognized name and face of the steroid era to the general public. By signing him you are choosing to associate your franchise and its reputation with its fan base and the sports world in general with that stigma. That is at best a risky proposition and in other ways PR suicide. How many scenes did we see of fans throwing syringes, holding up huge signs decrying his chase to the HR record (my personal favorite "Ruth did it on hot dogs and beer") and reminding him of his off the field issues? Suddenly GM's are faced with the fact that he is in their teams uniform. What a nightmare.

this is 100% true, and even though my ideals of fairness have been called into question I must question whether this is fair. On the other hand it is only a PR nightmare when it ends up hurting the pocket books.


7. History. The ownership of MLB has already struggled to deal with 3 past collusion cases and in this era of ultra labor friendly arbitrators and judges I find it highly unlikely that the owners of MLB would make a concious decision to attempt to collude against Bonds in any way. It's not worth the economic risk to insure him not playing. There are far too many logical reasons as to why a team wouldn't sign him that there is no need to make any sort of organized effort to exclude him. He excludes himself in some ways.


this is similar to what was said after the 1st and the 2nd collusion. They did it, the union filed the grievance and the owners ignored it and did it again.


In spite of this posts length, I attempted to keep it brief. I could probably write 4 or 5 thousand words on this subject and go into far greater detail but for the sake of brevity I will not. This is merely a bullet point overview.

In conclusion its important to remember what collusion is. It's people or a group of people acting together in an effort to prevent a person or organization from becoming part of or participating in an group or activity. By its definition it requires conspiracy. It's not merely the fact that a player goes unsigned in spite of fandom on the behalf of some.

understood. We must remember though this does not need to involve all of the owners and commissioner; it needs to involve more than one front office official speaking to each other regarding the signing of Barry Bonds. So even though it could be hard to prove, one fax between Brian Cashman and Dave Dombrowski is all that is needed.




I will say that if Bonds were an average player there would be ample reason to not sign him...but he is an extraordinary player which in my mind trumps all. But that is only my opinion

[NY16CATCHER]

Why I think Barry Bonds is the victim of collusion

1. Production
In his final season he hit 28 home runs had a .480 obp and a 170 ops+ and he also led the league in walks and intentional walks.

2. Price Tag
Made the statement that he would be willing to play for the league minimum. What this does is gives teams more power over Barry Bonds. In SF he held a considerable amount of power because he was their meal ticket and because of his huge salary. This would not be the case this time around. The ease of cutting him would be too high for Bonds to act out. For those who think that he would anyway, what would you be afraid of if he were just cut?
Bonds would be in no position to demand anything from anyone, especially in the latter parts of the season. Instead Bonds would have to play ball and perform or a team could easily cut all ties.

3. Other Players signed
Richie Sexon
Matt Stairs was actually traded for by the Phillies late in the season.
These are just two examples. But what we all constantly forget is that Bonds does not need to be the starting LF or DH for a team, he could do as little as pinch hit for an NL team. The money he would make would make it so it wouldn’t be a waste. If he did not want to accept the role then he could be easily replaced. That is what bugs me. No team even had talks with him about a role change…he had no talks.

4. Attendance
As I have shown earlier the drop off between when Bonds broke the record and after was minimal and in many of the road games after he broke the record the teams drew bigger numbers.
The difference between after the record was broken and this season (or with Bonds and without Bonds) is greater than the difference between before the record and after the record. So even if you don’t buy into the idea that he fills the seats, one must still see that the fans showed no signs of displeasure through lack of sales.
5. History of Owners not being afraid of controversial players
After Alex Johnson had his problems with the Angels he played for five more teams; Dick Allen played for 5 teams after he left the Phillies, John Rocker played for 3 teams after he left the Braves. Teams have always been willing to give controversial players a chance to succeed again. Josh Hamilton got another chance and made good on it himself, and he was banned from the league. We all agree he deserved that chance. Barry Bonds has not been suspended and has no official black marks on his resume. If he did then I would assume his punishment would go through the proper channels.

Overrated Reasons against
1. Media attention
How does the old saying go? There is no such thing as bad publicity? This is one of those cases. For a bad team with little publicity this would finally bring some attention to the team. This would probably lead to more nationally televised games and more visibility. Let’s say he was a Royal this season. That would mean people would have probably noticed Mike Aviles’ fine season because of the attention the team got because of Bonds. Would he be overshadowed…yes…but would he still get more exposure…yes. This would lead to more jersey s being sold and more money for the team in the future. Heck, maybe one season with Bonds could pay for one big free agent in the future.

On the other hand, if a talented team got him you would imagine the stars on the team could handle the extra media coverage. Look at the Yankees. The New York media would go crazy..yeah…but any more crazy than when the Giambi mess was going on?

2. Fan reactions
I have stated before that all the fans needed to do was to show their disdain for Bonds by not going to his games and showing the owners that Bonds is not a viable economic alternative. So either the hatred of Bonds is overstated or fans are just plain stupid and think its smart to pay to boo him. I think it’s a combination of the two.

One sports cliché is that winning heals all. The idea that a player can be forgiven as long as he performs for a team and helps them win. As a fan I have seen this happen twice, with Kenny Rogers and Gary Sheffield. Steve Howe and Darryl Strawberry were embraced multiple times even with their drug problems. Barry Bonds has not gotten his chance at redemption. There is no telling what would happen if he succeeded, but it is my opinion that the fans would cheer for him if he was helping the team.

3. The indictment
This had no bearing on the season, and teams knew this for while. Like we have agreed on this thread he is innocent until proven otherwise so unless Bud Selig wants to enact some commissioner “for the best interest of the game” edict and suspend him I would say Bonds’ services should not be affected by this.

4. Other players not signed
A common complaint is why Barry Bonds? Why not Kenny Loften, Sammy Sosa or Mike Piazza? Well because as far as I know they haven’t been in the media constantly reminding teams that they are not retired and have not gone the extra mile

The most important part of this whole ordeal for me is that he had no offers. One crappy offer and this would be a non-issue. He couldn’t turn down the Royals or the Nationals. If he did he would have no collusion case.

I just wanted to touch on a few things you mention:

1. Having Bonds playing for the league minimum does not guarantee his employer any more or less control over him from the standpoint of situations like union grievences, etc. If anything, Bonds could easily claim "I'm playing for the minimum, I'll do what I want, just buzz off". I don't think its hard to imagine Barry doing something like that.

2. You mention Matt Stairs. The reason the Phils wanted Stairs was for leadership and experience as much as for his bat, if not more so. They made that comment at the time they made the deal and Manuel made no bones about Stairs' leadership and experience being an important part of the Phils success in the post season. That's something you don't get from Barry Bonds.

3. You make no difference between players with a history of drug addiction or chemical dependence and those who used steroids. To me there is a mile of difference between the 2 subjects. Addiction is a disease and at some level doesn't involve choice like steroid use does. While you may view the distinction as either non-existant or quite small, I think the difference is significant.

4. Media attention is a bigger influence than I think you factor into the equation. Yes, teams like the Yankees already had to deal with the fallout of Giambi's revelations. Using them as an example in this instance, if they were to sign Bonds not only would they have all the media attention that goes along with it but certainly a part of the whole Giambi situation would be re-lived right along with it.

And I don't agree that any media attention is good media attention. There is such a thing as negative media attention. Imagine a small market team like KC. Instead of getting media attention for anything positive, they would get grilled from bringing in a 43 year old, under indictment, reported steroid user, face of the steroid era. With a franchise trying to gain traction in its market, trying to establish relationships with its fan base and corporate partners in the area, these are not the headlines you want, but in a small market, that's exactly how it would be protrayed. Not very appealing.

5. You mention Aviles' fine season. Your right, he had a great seaon. And from a player development standpoint I'd much rather have a young player get the opportunity to develop out of the limelight, where every AB isn't scrutinized, where every error is over analyzed to the 10th degree. And I certainly don't want him to have to answer the same questions from the media over and over again about playing with Barry Bonds. And I don't want Bonds' negative influence to in any way impact his development as a player or the building of a clubhouse atmosphere and culture change which the Royals are attempting to build under Trey Hillman.

[sandlot]

As I wrote way, way back in this thread, there has been a conspiracy of self-interest going on: It's not that the teams all secretly agree not to hire Bonds, or wink and nod at each other when his name comes up; it's just that no team wants to be the one that brings him back into the fold. His presence, despite the positives he can still bring, is overall a distraction. And there is no guarantee that the Feds would sit back quietly and let him don a uniform. It is obvious to all with eyes to see that the prosecutors would not rest until he was out of the game. Now he is. If he came back in, I would fully expect the prosecutors would stop at nothing to get him back into court at the earliest moment on any pretext they could find. Owners and the leagues have to interact with the Federal government and law enforcement and the IRS on too many levels to undertake an action that makes life difficult for them. They don't want to have to answer the question "Why did you do it?" -- not to the Feds, the media, the fans or to other baseball execs with whom they work, socialize and try to make deals. Barry is out. Is it fair? Probably not. Is it collusion? In the absence of any proof, only if you want to call it passive collusion. Is it conspiracy? Yes, conspiracy of self-interest. Not a damn thing Barry can do about it. He's far from the first to experience this, not in baseball or many other professions, and he'll be far from the last.

[SHOELESSJOE3]

As I wrote way, way back in this thread, there has been a conspiracy of self-interest going on: It's not that the teams all secretly agree not to hire Bonds, or wink and nod at each other when his name comes up; it's just that no team wants to be the one that brings him back into the fold. His presence, despite the positives he can still bring, is overall a distraction. And there is no guarantee that the Feds would sit back quietly and let him don a uniform. It is obvious to all with eyes to see that the prosecutors would not rest until he was out of the game. Now he is. If he came back in, I would fully expect the prosecutors would stop at nothing to get him back into court at the earliest moment on any pretext they could find. Owners and the leagues have to interact with the Federal government and law enforcement and the IRS on too many levels to undertake an action that makes life difficult for them. They don't want to have to answer the question "Why did you do it?" -- not to the Feds, the media, the fans or to other baseball execs with whom they work, socialize and try to make deals. Barry is out. Is it fair? Probably not. Is it collusion? In the absence of any proof, only if you want to call it passive collusion. Is it conspiracy? Yes, conspiracy of self-interest. Not a damn thing Barry can do about it. He's far from the first to experience this, not in baseball or many other professions, and he'll be far from the last.

Not buying this one, the government scared teams off, don't pick up this guy. His rep and the way he is viewed by much of the public was enough to discourage some teams from taking on Bonds.
Your opinion, thats fine but how do we ever accept what you believe was a reason why Barry never came back.
He may have been treated unfairly but much of it was his own doing. The image he himself created over the years, some of his foot in mouth comments. He was already disliked by many and when it appeared he was a steroid user he looked even worse. Of course unfair to make him the steroid poster boy, there were others but the guy thats smashing records and with the big numbers is the guy with the target oin his back.
Here we go again, the government wants to hang him, thats why he's not in the game, same old story.

[digglahhh]

Not buying this one, the government scared teams off, don't pick up this guy. His rep and the way he is viewed by much of the public was enough to discourage some teams from taking on Bonds.
Your opinion, thats fine but how do we ever accept what you believe was a reason why Barry never came back.
He may have been treated unfairly but much of it was his own doing. The image he himself created over the years, some of his foot in mouth comments. He was already disliked by many and when it appeared he was a steroid user he looked even worse. Of course unfair to make him the steroid poster boy, there were others but the guy thats smashing records and with the big numbers is the guy with the target oin his back.
Here we go again, the government wants to hang him, thats why he's not in the game, same old story.

If the core of your arguments hold, then he wasn't treated unfairly; he got what he deserved.

There are reasons beyond performance why a prospective employee can find him/herself out of work.

The question is a balance of how egregious the non-performance related offenses/liabilities are vs. how stellar the production would be.

Those claiming collusion have determined this equation for themselves and determined something smells afoul. Those who deny collusion have as well. Ultimately, it's improvable either way because we're dealing with subjective determinations of that balance in individual cases.

Most arguments rely on anecdotal or circumstantial evidence, like "he would just bring too much negative attention," or "if Ray Lewis killed a mofo..."

[SHOELESSJOE3]

If the core of your arguments hold, then he wasn't treated unfairly; he got what he deserved.

There are reasons beyond performance why a prospective employee can find him/herself out of work.

The question is a balance of how egregious the non-performance related offenses/liabilities are vs. how stellar the production would be.

Those claiming collusion have determined this equation for themselves and determined something smells afoul. Those who deny collusion have as well. Ultimately, it's improvable either way because we're dealing with subjective determinations of that balance in individual cases.

Most arguments rely on anecdotal or circumstantial evidence, like "he would just bring too much negative attention," or "if Ray Lewis killed a mofo..."

What I meant by treated unfairly was the public's perception of him mostly in the beginning of the steroid blow up and how the spotlight shined on him even though there were others highly suspect. He was already disliked by many and I'm sure those who suspected him years ago were happy to see the heat put on him. Also as stated earlier, his numbers late in his career made him even more suspect. The older Barry matching some 3 year peaks put up by Babe Ruth and Ted Williams when they were much younger and in their prime.
As far as teams being scared off because the government was out to get him being the reason (posted earlier) I'm still not buying that one. His baggage, the image he created for himself over the years is enough to scare off some teams. It's not the government, it's Barry himself that made him not wanted.

[digglahhh]

Gotcha, Joe.

[sandlot]

Not buying this one, the government scared teams off, don't pick up this guy. His rep and the way he is viewed by much of the public was enough to discourage some teams from taking on Bonds.
Your opinion, thats fine but how do we ever accept what you believe was a reason why Barry never came back.
He may have been treated unfairly but much of it was his own doing. The image he himself created over the years, some of his foot in mouth comments. He was already disliked by many and when it appeared he was a steroid user he looked even worse. Of course unfair to make him the steroid poster boy, there were others but the guy thats smashing records and with the big numbers is the guy with the target oin his back.
Here we go again, the government wants to hang him, thats why he's not in the game, same old story.The first sentence that you chose to boldface begins with the word "And". Please re-read the immediately previous sentence, which you chose not to highlight: "His presence, despite the positives he can still bring, is overall a distraction." What follows the word "And" is an additional reason -- if a team hired Bonds, there's no way it could know with reasonable certainty how much of the season he'd actually be available to play.

As I went on to say -- but again you selectively highlight -- "They don't want to have to answer the question 'Why did you do it?' -- not to the Feds, the media, the fans or to other baseball execs with whom they work, socialize and try to make deals." You focus on the Feds again, but what you choose to ignore was the "the media, the fans or to other baseball execs..."

I never used the word fear, although that could well be present. In my view, it's a combination of avoidance, prudence, uncertainty and pragmatism. There is no point in creating problems that you don't need, or in making yourself answerable for something that you'd rather not have to answer, in exchange for a payback you can't be reasonably certain that you'll get. Businesses do not like uncertainty. That is why, much earlier on, I described Bonds as a liability of unknown proportions. From a team's point of view, there is little if any downside to letting him remain unemployed despite his remaining talent. But there's a lot of potential downside to hiring him.

If the Feds were not in the picture, who knows? Maybe there's someone who'd be willing to piss off a lot of people -- fans, media, other execs -- just to get his bat in the lineup for part of a season. But with the prosecutors in the picture, the equation changes. The opportunity-cost ratio is simply not attractive. Prudence and pragmatism. That's biz.

As for proof of how the Feds would act, well, we can look at the record. How many grand juries? Appeals? How many ways did they find to add up the number of alleged perjuries in Bonds's testimony -- which one judge already sent them back to recalibrate? What Bonds has done over the years is on one ledger. What the Feds have done and continue to do is on another. We should keep them separate.

[SHOELESSJOE3]

The first sentence that you chose to boldface begins with the word "And". Please re-read the immediately previous sentence, which you chose not to highlight: "His presence, despite the positives he can still bring, is overall a distraction."[/I] What follows the word "And" is an [I]additional reason -- if a team hired Bonds, there's no way it could know with reasonable certainty how much of the season he'd actually be available to play.

As I went on to say -- but again you selectively highlight -- "They don't want to have to answer the question 'Why did you do it?' -- not to the Feds, the media, the fans or to other baseball execs with whom they work, socialize and try to make deals." You focus on the Feds again, but what you choose to ignore was the "the media, the fans or to other baseball execs..."

I never used the word fear, although that could well be present. In my view, it's a combination of avoidance, prudence, uncertainty and pragmatism. There is no point in creating problems that you don't need, or in making yourself answerable for something that you'd rather not have to answer, in exchange for a payback you can't be reasonably certain that you'll get. Businesses do not like uncertainty. That is why, much earlier on, I described Bonds as a liability of unknown proportions. From a team's point of view, there is little if any downside to letting him remain unemployed despite his remaining talent. But there's a lot of potential downside to hiring him.

If the Feds were not in the picture, who knows? Maybe there's someone who'd be willing to piss off a lot of people -- fans, media, other execs -- just to get his bat in the lineup for part of a season. But with the prosecutors in the picture, the equation changes. The opportunity-cost ratio is simply not attractive. Prudence and pragmatism. That's biz.

As for proof of how the Feds would act, well, we can look at the record. How many grand juries? Appeals? How many ways did they find to add up the number of alleged perjuries in Bonds's testimony -- which one judge already sent them back to recalibrate? What Bonds has done over the years is on one ledger. What the Feds have done and continue to do is on another. We should keep them separate.

First, my apology for overlooking that previous sentence, no intention, not deliberate to pick what I want and to leave out any posters words to strengthen my case. It would be foolish to do so by design and then have to own up to that.

We have no proof that the government is out to get him " because" he happens to be Barry Bonds. Thats your take, I see it differently. Nothing out of the ordinary, the government being called out and make corrections or drop some charges, this happens to others not only big names.

I don't expect to change anyone mind, those that think the government is not playing by the rules, going out of their way to hang any individual. The problem is because it for sure has happened at times some believe it happens more than it actually does.

[sandlot]

First, my apology for overlooking that previous sentence, no intention, not deliberate to pick what I want and to leave out any posters words to strengthen my case. It would be foolish to do so by design and then have to own up to that.

We have no proof that the government is out to get him " because" he happens to be Barry Bonds. Thats your take, I see it differently. Nothing out of the ordinary, the government being called out and make corrections or drop some charges, this happens to others not only big names.

I don't expect to change anyone mind, those that think the government is not playing by the rules, going out of their way to hang any individual. The problem is because it for sure has happened at times some believe it happens more than it actually does.Thanks. Apology accepted. One problem with the entire Bonds discussion is that it has become so polarized that every position is viewed as either for or against. Me, I'm on both sides, sort of. I happen to think that Bonds has been a first-rate jerk on numerous occasions, has an ego the size of the Ritz, carries an even larger chip on his shoulder and is under the long shadow of PEDs. I also think he's arguably the best baseball player ever, a legitimate HOF player even if he'd retired halfway through his career, has very good reasons for at least some of hostility (which does not entirely justify his behavior but does help explain it), and has long been villified by some members of the media who could never achieve a fraction of attention without trying to tear down someone -- anyone -- who's infinitely better known that they are. Legally speaking, he is also innocent until proven guilty.

On the other side of the ledger, the Feds have trampled the Constitution, grossly and repeatedly abused the Grand Jury system, manipulated a willing press and engaged in nothing short of a vendetta. Successive prosecutors have behaved like inquisitors, IMO, with little to show for their efforts. We could all easily name a long list of players who could and arguably should be in the Feds' crosshairs, but they are not.

Bonds is not the first person to experience the blackball. Dave Kingman comes quickly to mind, but there have been others.

[KevinWI]

Barry Bonds to baseball world, "I'm not retiring".

Bonds 'not retiring,' slugger says (http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/news/story?id=3770739)

[spark240]

How many seasons can Bonds not play and still say he's "not retired," I wonder.

[digglahhh]

How many seasons can Bonds not play and still say he's "not retired," I wonder.

If there's one thing I've learned from being both a sports and hip-hop junkie (word to Nice and Smooth), it's that rappers want to be athletes and athletes want to be rappers.

The retirement phenomenon is a little quirky, Bonds is functionally retired, but wants to call himself active. Jay-Z flirts with calling himself retired, but remains functionally active. Maybe, "Barry Bonds" will remain retired, but he will use the hip-hop loophole, and come back as the "active" persona of Barry Bizzle.

[KevinWI]

Maybe his prison will have a baseball team?

Prisoners vs. Guards game, maybe?

The Longest Yard 2: The Longest Pitch. Starring Barry Bonds, filmed live and on location at FCI-Herlong (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Correctional_Institution,_Herlong).

[west coast orange and black]

spark240: How many seasons can Bonds not play and still say he's "not retired," I wonder.

let's ask rickey henderson.

[west coast orange and black]

ny16catcher: The case against collusion:

2. PED's. Exactly how much of Barry's late career production can be attributed to PED's is a question that no one can answer, although it is virtually impossible to deny that they played a role in his performance. So obviously there is some question about exactly what kind of on field performance you could realistically expect from a clean Bonds.

checking out bonds' 2007 numbers'll give one an idea of his 2008 abilities:
in 2007 bonds was among the most-tested players, if not the most-tested.

[NY16CATCHER]

ny16catcher: The case against collusion:

2. PED's. Exactly how much of Barry's late career production can be attributed to PED's is a question that no one can answer, although it is virtually impossible to deny that they played a role in his performance. So obviously there is some question about exactly what kind of on field performance you could realistically expect from a clean Bonds.

checking out bonds' 2007 numbers'll give one an idea of his 2008 abilities:
in 2007 bonds was among the most-tested players, if not the most-tested.

Well, its now Jan. 2009, and still not 1 bit of evidence has come forth from Bonds, his agent, his attorney or the MLBPA that even comes close to sustaining his claims of of collusion. In today's media driven world, it is virtually impossible that some small bit of "evidence" would have been leaked or emerged by now.

And production of the year previous is no certain guarantee of maintaining similar production the following season, especially with older players and players coming off of an injury or surgery and apparently in need of additional surgery, as evidenced by his recent hip surgery, which will not allow him to resume baseball activities (should someone actually sign him) until late April or early May.

And if you are going to quote me, quote me accurately, have the integrity to take the whole quote and discuss it, dont' bastardize it and take it out of context in some pathetic attempt to suit your argument.

[west coast orange and black]

^^
And if you are going to quote me, quote me accurately, have the integrity to take the whole quote and discuss it, dont' bastardize it and take it out of context in some pathetic attempt to suit your argument.

what part of this:
2. PED's. My "opponent" in this discourse conceeds that Barry used PED's. I'll take that as fact for the discussion of this point. The decrease in production ,etc among those players who are suspected of using PED's during the steroid era is quite noticeable. Exactly how much of Barry's late career production can be attributed to PED's is a question that no one can answer, although it is virtually impossible to deny that they played a role in his performance. So obviously there is some question about exactly what kind of on field performance you could realistically expect from a clean Bonds. I don't find it all outside of the realm of possibility that the few teams that might (and I stress might) have been a fit for Barry chose to not gamble on what they were going to get in terms of performance.
do you suppose i overlooked to get a different response from you? what was taken out of context?
what part did i need to include for my post to have integrity?
you obviously understood my point, how else could you have responded so pointedly; so succinctly?

[NY16CATCHER]

^^
And if you are going to quote me, quote me accurately, have the integrity to take the whole quote and discuss it, dont' bastardize it and take it out of context in some pathetic attempt to suit your argument.

what part of this:
2. PED's. My "opponent" in this discourse conceeds that Barry used PED's. I'll take that as fact for the discussion of this point. The decrease in production ,etc among those players who are suspected of using PED's during the steroid era is quite noticeable. Exactly how much of Barry's late career production can be attributed to PED's is a question that no one can answer, although it is virtually impossible to deny that they played a role in his performance. So obviously there is some question about exactly what kind of on field performance you could realistically expect from a clean Bonds. I don't find it all outside of the realm of possibility that the few teams that might (and I stress might) have been a fit for Barry chose to not gamble on what they were going to get in terms of performance.
do you suppose i overlooked to get a different response from you? what was taken out of context?
what part did i need to include for my post to have integrity?
you obviously understood my point, how else could you have responded so pointedly; so succinctly?


I recognized the words because I WROTE THEM. And I know exactly what I wrote and if you want to quote my comments to discuss them or to illustrate a point, you should at least have the integrity to take the whole quote, so that people can see the context in which it was made versus what you did, which was take a portion of the comment and quote it as if it were the entire comment, which it is clearly NOT. The first two sentences of the WHOLE quote make a big differnece in terms of the context of the quote. You chose to rather convienently exclude those from your quotation of my comment, because they suited your argument. When you factor in the noticeable drop in production among noted PED users, coupled with Bond's advancing age and injury issues, it puts a slightly different, but important, light on the entire discussion and the quote itself. Because you are a Bonds apologist, you chose to use the quote without including the discussion of PED's.

When you directly quote someone, you should at least have the integrity to quote the entire comment or include the salient parts which point to the context. It's about having integrity and about quoting someone accurately. I question whether or not you have the former, and am fairly certain you don't care about the latter much either.

[west coast orange and black]

^
you had several separate points and i addressed your question of what could be expected from a clean bonds. what i quoted can stand alone and can be a complete, separate, thought, so that is the portion that i quoted.

i suggested that 2007 would be a logical place, as bonds was tested perhaps more than any other player. what's the problem?

also, what's with the name-calling and sideways remarks?

[NY16CATCHER]

^
you had several separate points and i addressed your question of what could be expected from a clean bonds. what i quoted can stand alone and can be a complete, separate, thought, so that is the portion that i quoted.

i suggested that 2007 would be a logical place, as bonds was tested perhaps more than any other player. what's the problem?

also, what's with the name-calling and sideways remarks?

NO, you clearly don't get it. You CANNOT take someone's words and use them in that fashion. What part of ACCURATE do you not understand. You don't take a snippet out of context. You use the whole context. Don't for 1 minute attempt to use my words to attempt to illustrate a point of view that is CLEARLY not mine and CLEARLY not what I was attempting to illustrate with my words. You either use my words in their whole, and include the context and point of view from which they come or don't use them at all (or bastardize them as you did and get my angry response, your choice).

[west coast orange and black]

^
you being angry is your choice.

[west coast orange and black]

^^
addressong your question of what could have been expected from a clean bonds in 2008, i suggested that 2007 would be a logical place, as bonds was tested perhaps more than any other player with no announced positive drug test results.
do you disagree with the idea of looking at bonds' 2007 performance as a place to start?

[NY16CATCHER]

^^
addressong your question of what could have been expected from a clean bonds in 2008, i suggested that 2007 would be a logical place, as bonds was tested perhaps more than any other player with no announced positive drug test results.
do you disagree with the idea of looking at bonds' 2007 performance as a place to start?

Unless Bonds was in the league substance abuse program in 2007 (and therefore subject to additional testing), he wasn't tested any more than any other major leaguer in 2007. The testing was random. If he was singled out for additional testing, he'd be screaming at the top of his lungs about it.

Don't forget we are also in the post amphetimine era in baseball (something Bonds did test positive for) and you need to factor that in as well.

I think 2007 is a very loose starting point when you consider all the other factors to the equation.

At the end of the day you are a Bonds apologist and fan. That's fine. Fandom has its place in baseball. But fandom shouldn't be confused with reality in any shape or form when it comes to looking objectively at a player.

[spark240]

I keep checking this thread to see when that evidence of collusion is revealed...

[west coast orange and black]

ny16catcher: Unless Bonds was in the league substance abuse program in 2007 (and therefore subject to additional testing), he wasn't tested any more than any other major leaguer in 2007. The testing was random. If he was singled out for additional testing, he'd be screaming at the top of his lungs about it.
i do not not see how you can state that bonds tested positive for amphetimines but question whether bonds was included in mlb’s mandatory follow-up testing schedule (six additional tests to the mandated number, per baseball work agreement). those are the rules. are you saying that bonds was somehow exempt? if not, then bonds absolutely was among the most-tested in 2007.
additionally, bonds quite possibly was tested outside mlb work agreement mandates. this additional testing would have been in agreement between employer and employee, require bonds’ consent, and not because he was being forcibly singled out.
also, random scheduling is unrelated to the quantity of tests.

ny16catcher: I think 2007 is a very loose starting point when you consider all the other factors to the equation.

i think that 2007 makes for a decent springboard, as mlb did not identify bonds as testing positive for a second positive test result for amphetimines (players are not publicly identified for a first positive test for amphetamines) nor for an initial positive result for steroids and other ped (a positive test on steroids results in suspension/public knowledge).
no such announcements means that it is reasonable that bonds played 2007 clean.
bonds’ 2007 numbers are a good place to start when trying to figure what his 2008 would have looked like.