Beane hardly seems like the kind of GM who makes moves based on the wishes of MLB. In fact, he seems like the kind of GM that would would do the exact opposite of what MLB wants.

Unless he's threatened with being put on the suspended list, or otherwise punished (the owners would be fined millions of dollars).

If not, can we please stop saying that "Bonds will play for the minimum...if only the mean GMs would give him an offer"?

Can you show where anyone said that?

Beane hardly seems like the kind of GM who makes moves based on the wishes of MLB. In fact, he seems like the kind of GM that would would do the exact opposite of what MLB wants.
Unless he's threatened with being put on the suspended list, or otherwise punished (the owners would be fined millions of dollars).

Are you implying that MLB would suspend Beane?

If not, can we please stop saying that "Bonds will play for the minimum...if only the mean GMs would give him an offer"?
Can you show where anyone said that?

I shouldn't have put quotations around that--I was summarizing what numerous posts in this thread stated.

I recall from a Baseball Today podcast that Billy Beane told one of the reporters (I'm sorry, but I can't remember which one) that this year he had no interest in Bonds because of the effect that Bonds would have on a young team. He specifically mentioned the clubhouse issues and the media circus. Aren't these legitimate concerns?

Perhaps. (To be clear, I don't think they are myself, but I accept that it's possible Beane might, which would make them legitimate, yes. Of course, that would be nearly unprecedented.)

But the issue is not whether these are legitimate concerns; the issue is whether Beane honestly believes they are legitimate concerns, or is using them as a pretext.

You imply that Beane is part of this mass conspiracy. Beane hardly seems like the kind of GM who makes moves based on the wishes of MLB. In fact, he seems like the kind of GM that would would do the exact opposite of what MLB wants.

Well, I'm sure many of the GMs who weren't offering a contract to Andre Dawson two decades ago "seemed like" that also. But they still participated in collusion.

And you keep insinuating that Bonds will play for the league minimum. Please source the quote where his agent has stated this. From what I recall, his agent has only said "he hasn't received one offer". This is vastly different from saying that Bonds would play for the league minimum, but hasn't received such an offer.

Kind of hard to determine that Bonds won't play for the league minimum when you refuse to call his agent to find out. Borris said he has received zero interest and zero offers, at any price.

And if Bonds weren't being singled out, teams wouldn't be offering him a contract for the league minimum; at the least, they'd be offering him an incentive-laden deal.

Does anyone have a quote from Bonds or his agent specifying what exactly they are looking for in monetary figures. If not, can we please stop saying that "Bonds will play for the minimum...if only the mean GMs would give him an offer"?

Do you have a quote from a team official specifying they'd be interested in Bonds at the league minimum? If not, can we please stop saying that "Bonds will not play for the minimum"?

Once more: in order to find out whether Bonds will play for the league minimum, you have to... <gasp!>... ask him.

Once more: in order to find out whether Bonds will play for the league minimum, you have to... <gasp!> ask him.

Or Bonds' agent could...gasp!....tell them.

Are you implying that MLB would suspend Beane?

No, I was saying that if there is collusion, and MLB has said "X is the punishment for signing Bonds", and the punishment is severe enough, then Beane wouldn't sign Bonds. Suspension is the type of severe punishment that Beane would make dumb talk around "good clubhouse" and that type of stuff. Really, Beane is now about chemistry instead of performance?

Or Bonds' agent could...gasp!....tell them.

Are you paying attention? Borris tried to initiate talks with them, during which... <gasp!>... salary would be discussed, maybe even... <gasp!>... the league minimum.

They won't return his calls.

But the issue is not whether these are legitimate concerns; the issue is whether Beane honestly believes they are legitimate concerns, or is using them as a pretext.

So since Beane didn't sign Bonds, he must be lying about his reasons. That's a pretty big jump in reasoning.

Once more: in order to find out whether Bonds will play for the league minimum, you have to... <gasp!> ask him.

Or <gasp!> the agent can make a public statement. It works both ways.

Incidentally, Kenny Lofton had another above average year last year and has effectively received no interest. Is he also a victim of what you consider collusion, or is it just market forces in his case?

No, I was saying that if there is collusion, and MLB has said "X is the punishment for signing Bonds", and the punishment is severe enough, then Beane wouldn't sign Bonds. Suspension is the type of severe punishment that Beane would make dumb talk around "good clubhouse" and that type of stuff. Really, Beane is now about chemistry instead of performance?

Chris, you are tossing out some pretty serious accusations there. Do you have any proof to back this up?

And why is talking about "good clubhouse" dumb talk? It is not necessarily "dumb talk" to avoid putting one of the biggest clubhouse cancers in baseball (i.e. actually has a clubhouse posse) around young players.

That said, Bonds would be a great candidate for the Jays or Mets--teams going for it now with enough veterans (and a need to win immediately) to handle Bonds.

No, I was saying that if there is collusion, and MLB has said "X is the punishment for signing Bonds", and the punishment is severe enough, then Beane wouldn't sign Bonds. Suspension is the type of severe punishment that Beane would make dumb talk around "good clubhouse" and that type of stuff.

In that case, why wouldn't Beane just reveal the threat? He's part-owner, and he stands to lose more through the threat of a collusion finding than he does from basically any suspension that the MLB offices can levy against him. Besides, if he reveals the threat, how can they effectively take action against him without opening themselves to further legal action (in addition to a collusion case)?

Really, Beane is now about chemistry instead of performance?

Also, didn't Beane dump the lesser Giambi for reasons unrelated to on-field performance? Or did I imagine that 8 million post thread?

Are you paying attention? Borris tried to initiate talks with them, during which... <gasp!>... salary would be discussed, maybe even... <gasp!>... the league minimum.

They won't return his calls.

Ray, couldn't the reason that Borris has not made such a public statement be that Bonds is not prepared to accept the league minimum?

Judging by Bonds' accomplishments, my guess is that he would laugh at someone suggesting he should make less than John McDonald. I agree that they could ask Borris...but I also think that it would be just as easy for Borris to say that Bonds will play for the minimum.

Chris, you are tossing out some pretty serious accusations there. Do you have any proof to back this up?

Sure, I have proof, but instead of taking it to a major media outlet, I'm just gabbing about it in threads at BTF. ANd I didn't accuse ANYTHING. But yes, I think MLB is colluding against Bonds.

And why is talking about "good clubhouse" dumb talk?

Mostly from Beane - it goes 100% against everything he's been about in his career. That's a pretty severe aboutface.

It is not necessarily "dumb talk" to avoid putting one of the biggest clubhouse cancers in baseball (i.e. actually has a clubhouse posse) around young players.

That's a monstrous made up myth. That's an accusation, and you probably don't have any proof to back it up.

Really, Beane is now about chemistry instead of performance?

Despite what you may believe, chemistry and performance are not mutually exclusive.

That's a monstrous made up myth. That's an accusation, and you probably don't have any proof to back it up.

Talk to Jeff Kent.

Despite what you may believe, chemistry and performance are not mutually exclusive.

Well, when you can find me some predictive chemistry, let me know. Tell me in advance of winning which team has good chemistry, you'll be the first.

Incidentally, Kenny Lofton had another above average year last year and has effectively received no interest. Is he also a victim of what you consider collusion, or is it just market forces in his case?

I'm sorry, did Kenny Lofton post a 170 OPS+ last year?

Talk to Jeff Kent.

Yes, Kent's an angel in the clubhouse.

That's a monstrous made up myth. That's an accusation, and you probably don't have any proof to back it up.

And Mark Sweeney. I heard teammates love guys who toss them under the bus.

Talk to Jeff Kent.

Known good guy, Jeff Kent, thinks someone is a jerk? I'm convinced!

Yes, Kent's an angel in the clubhouse.

That's a monstrous made up myth. That's an accusation, and you probably don't have any proof to back it up.

Talk to Jeff Kent.

Known good guy, Jeff Kent, thinks someone is a jerk? I'm convinced!

For those of you who can't figure it out, the Kent remark was sarcasm.

I'm sorry, did Kenny Lofton post a 170 OPS+ last year?

No he didn't. But he did post a 105 OPS+ and can handle LF/CF. There are quite a few teams that could have used that performance, including the Cubs and Mets. He's also available for near the league minimum. Why isn't his absence viewed as a potential collusion case? He's more than qualified to handle at least a 4th OF job.

That's a monstrous made up myth. That's an accusation, and you probably don't have any proof to back it up.

Hey, buddy, you opened with that. And I accused Jeff Kent of being an "angel". Yes, that's some nastiness.

Hey, buddy, you opened with that. And I accused Jeff Kent of being an "angel". Yes, that's some nastiness.

Oh, I'm sorry. I thought you were being sarcastic. I'm glad you agree with Kent's assessment of Bonds.

No he didn't. But he did post a 105 OPS+ and can handle LF/CF. There are quite a few teams that could have used that performance, including the Cubs and Mets. He's also available for near the league minimum. Why isn't his absence viewed as a potential collusion case? He's more than qualified to handle at least a 4th OF job.

Because lots of players end their careers about like that. NO ONE ends their career as a top player. It's an absurd parallel, IMO. If Bonds had dropped far last year, and posted a 110 OPS+, you may have a point - he didn't. Lofton "could be useful"; Bonds would be an MVP candidate.

Oh, I'm sorry. I thought you were being sarcastic. I'm glad you agree with Kent's assessment of Bonds.

Can you cite a quote where Kent said that? Otherwise, you made it up, I guess.

Chris,

Do you approve of Bonds' tossing Mark Sweeney under the bus? Was he being a good teammate on that one?

Because lots of players end their careers about like that. NO ONE ends their career as a top player.

Wait, lots of guys end their careers with 105+ OPS full seasons (with very good baserunning) in CF while still looking for work? Like who?

Bonds would be an MVP candidate.

Bonds could be an MVP candidate. The aging/injury curve for 44 year old players can be quite steep. At that age, we have somewhere between very little and no data to draw from.

Do you approve of Bonds' tossing Mark Sweeney under the bus? Was he being a good teammate on that one?

Review what happened. Bonds didn't say Sweeney,; someone associated with Bonds did. Bonds apologized that Sweeney's name got in the papers, but Bonds didn't say that.

The aging/injury curve for 44 year old players can be quite steep. At that age, we have somewhere between very little and no data to draw from.

What is *likely* to happen?

Review what happened. Bonds didn't say Sweeney,; someone associated with Bonds did. Bonds apologized that Sweeney's name got in the papers, but Bonds didn't say that.

Here is the link to an article about this situation: http://www.tsn.ca/mlb/story/?id=191764

Unfortunately, the New York Daily News' article is not available online. I agree with your assessment that Bonds later stated that Sweeney had nothing to do with it. However, according to the NYDN article, Bonds did identify Sweeney. Also, I have not yet seen a retraction from the NYDN, but acknowledge that they might have done so (link anyone?).

I'm not sure where you are getting your conclusion that "Bonds didn't say Sweeney", unless you are taking Bonds' word over the NYDN. Right now, at best, it is debatable whether Bonds identified Sweeney (a he-said, she-said situation). Is that a fair assessment?

Approximately (not completely sure of all their stories): Alex Ochoa. Dante Bichette. Paul O'Neill. Devon White (who is a near perfect parallel to Lofton).

Approximately (not completely sure of all their stories): Alex Ochoa. Dante Bichette. Paul O'Neill. Devon White (who is a near perfect parallel to Lofton).

From what I recall, Bichette, O'Neill and White all chose to retire. They were not looking for league minimum offers, but simply had had enough.

Putting Ochoa on the list is laughable.

Right now, at best, it is debatable whether Bonds identified Sweeney (a he-said, she-said situation). Is that a fair assessment?

Absolutely not. The paper printed something and said Bonds didn't deny it (although not directly asked). There are others that demonstrate what I've said.

Also there's this from your link:
"Bonds and Sweeney appeared to be good friends, with Sweeney speaking to the slugger by phone recently this off-season.

"This year we had the best chemistry on the team. I felt like the team was clicking," Vizquel said. "

How about that?

From what I recall, Bichette, O'Neill and White all chose to retire. They were not looking for league minimum offers, but simply had had enough.

You'll pardon me if I don't just accept "what you recall."

kent was a deluxe buttmunch when he was with the astros. to put it mildly. and it was clemens, not those noted "good guys" bagwell and biggio that dealt with kent. kent didn't do much under the bus throwing in houston because clemens and pettitte kind of got in front of him

and bonds did NOT throw sweeney under the bus. he said - in front of the press - AND the mlb people agreed that bonds didn't say ANYTHING about sweeney. so please, lets stop that.

good grief

so who are all these people who just HATE bonds? and have come out and said they don't want him on their team? i mean, let's say in the past 10 years? because i don't give a rat's ass what andy van slyke thought 20 years back.

- but what i really want to know is - what COULD bud do to anyone who hired bonds? i mean, all the person would have to say was they got a memeo from the commissioners office that they weren't allowed to hire bonds and they refused to agree to collude. and then bud would be in deep doodooo

Wait, lots of guys end their careers with 105+ OPS full seasons (with very good baserunning) in CF while still looking for work? Like who?

Ryan, Kenny Lofton received interest from at least two teams this spring. He wasn't satisfied with the offers, so he walked away from the table. I fail to see how his situation is analogous to that of Bonds on any number of levels. They are worlds apart in performance, and, more to your point, Lofton did receive interest.

Quoting now:

Tampa Bay and Cincinnati expressed interest in Lofton this spring, but the money and other assurances failed to meet Lofton's expectations, so he took a pass. He recently shared his disappointment in an interview with Paul Hoynes of the Cleveland Plain-Dealer.

"The thing that makes me frustrated is I did my job last year," Lofton said. "I proved myself at 40 that I was better than a lot of guys who were 25. But I can't get a job.

"Everybody says, 'Why doesn't anybody sign Barry?' I say, 'Why doesn't anybody sign Kenny?'"

In front office circles, the consensus is that Lofton would already be with a club if he had been a little less choosy.

Chris,

As far as I can tell, the paper did not print something and say that Bonds' didn't deny it. Here is the quote from the TSN article I am referring to:

"According to a story in the New York Daily News, the San Francisco slugger failed an amphetamines test in 2006. The newspaper reported that when first informed of the positive result, Bonds attributed it to a substance he had taken from Sweeney's locker".

Where does this say that the NYDN did not directly ask Bonds? Where does it say that they did not get a quote from someone close to Bonds stating that Bonds pinned it all on Sweeney?

Can you show a source where the NYDN acknowledges that they simply printed that Bonds attributed the PEDs to Sweeney, without asking Bonds (or a source close to Bonds) first? My guess is no...but I hope you can prove me wrong.

Also, I agree that some guys may like Bonds as a teammate.

and bonds did NOT throw sweeney under the bus. he said - in front of the press - AND the mlb people agreed that bonds didn't say ANYTHING about sweeney. so please, lets stop that.

good grief

After researching this situation tonight, I agree that the scenario did not play out as I remembered, and that Bonds did not necessarily (or even likely?) toss Sweeney under the bus. But, until the NYDN prints a retraction (which maybe they did?), I don't think we can make a definitive conclusion one way or another. See, at least one BTF reader can acknowledge that he may have been wrong!

You're looking for a retraction from the collection of scum that is the New York Daily News?

You're looking for a retraction from the collection of scum that is the New York Daily News?

Good point.

-but what i really want to know is - what COULD bud do to anyone who hired bonds? i mean, all the person would have to say was they got a memeo from the commissioners office that they weren't allowed to hire bonds and they refused to agree to collude. and then bud would be in deep doodooo

I've been wondering why nobody's raised this question earlier. On the one hand, if you look at Bonds's record and lack of offers, it's hard not to suspect some sort of collusion.

But OTOH collusion would require such a complete and airtight conspiracy, with such farreaching negative consequences for baseball if it were proven, that it's hard to imagine that baseball executives would collectively be THAT stupid. As BBC implies, all it would take would be one little leak from any quarter, and the whole thing could come crashing down in an instant, and the damage to baseball would be inestimable. You'd need security on such a level of perfection that the KGB itself might have been green with envy.

But OTOH collusion would require such a complete and airtight conspiracy, with such farreaching negative consequences for baseball if it were proven, that it's hard to imagine that baseball executives would collectively be THAT stupid. As BBC implies, all it would take would be one little leak from any quarter, and the whole thing could come crashing down in an instant, and the damage to baseball would be inestimable. You'd need security on such a level of perfection that the KGB itself might have been green with envy.

Agreed, which may be why no one on the "it has to be collusion" side has bothered to respond to my comments to the same effect in 219.

ryan and andy

i kind of wondered that my own self

i would guess that any agreement MUST have been made in a room with just bud and the 30 owners and no recording or writing made.

but no threat could POSSIBLY have any force behind it.

i would guess that bud convinced the owners that their stooge, mitchell, basically proved that owners were totally innocent babies and it was all the players fault and they decided to center 100% of the blame on barry lamar bonds seeing as how there was obviously no agreement that they would all refuse to sign anyone ELSE associated with steroids

now it might could be that buddy boy knows all the owners dirty riods secrets and told each one individually that if he hired barry lamar then he would leak very damaging roid info to the media...

and the media are very VERY willing to throw shtt ONLY on barry lamar (and now roger) and completely ignore every other guilty player

so it might could be that blaming ONLY barry lamar for steroids seems to them all to be the easiest way to keep using the rest of the roiders and having the fans/media/congress leave it be

BBC, even if you imagine that Selig is every bit as venal and Machiavellian as all that, remember that the media are far from unanimous in their opinion of the Bonds case. Granted that there are tons of them out there who hate steroids, who detest Bonds, and who may not want Bonds in the HOF. I'm in two of those three categories myself, as you know.

But that doesn't mean that they'd therefore be knowingly complicit in a blackball which deprived Bonds of a chance to make a living, not to mention depriving a team a chance to improve itself.

Beyond that, have you ever heard of the word "Pulitzer?" It would be like stealing for any writer or broadcaster who broke a collusion story into the open.

And it would only take one leak to unravel the whole mess. One overheard boast or one alcoholic slip of the tongue.

All of which is why I keep coming back to square one: Logic and suspicion are not proof. And the chickenshlt factor may be bigger than many people believe. There's a boatload of semi-plausible excuses for an accusation of chickenshlism. There's no such working excuse if found guilty of participating in collusion.

And it's exactly the same quandry that the government finds itself in in the perjury case. Logic and suspicion can lead you on the trail, and can lead you far enough to make a concrete decision in certain circumstances: a HOF ballot not marked next to Bonds's name; an individual decision not to offer Bonds a contract. Unlike collusion, those are consequence-free actions. They need no legal backup.

But either in the courtroom or at the arbitrator's table, proof requires more than simple logic, no matter how seemingly obvious. And like that $100 bill that the economist left on the sidewalk, if it were redeemable at a bank, you'd figure that someone would have picked it up long ago and bought a few gallons of gas with it.

So if it really is collusion, then I think we'd all have to admit a certain amount of professional respect for the way that it's been kept so tightly under wraps, if nothing else. If the KGB itself may not have admired Selig for his control over everyone, at least the late R.M. Nixon might have.

And why is talking about "good clubhouse" dumb talk? It is not necessarily "dumb talk" to avoid putting one of the biggest clubhouse cancers in baseball (i.e. actually has a clubhouse posse) around young players.

Well, considering that almost one-third of the clubhouses he played in were on teams that reached the post season (Ken Griffey Jr.'s clubhouses reach the post season once a decade on average, Sean Casey's clubs are good for once every 12 years although he's got a shot at making it one year in every six this year due to his overwhelming amicability) I can't help but wonder just how toxic he makes the air.

I don't doubt that Bonds is a disagreeable cuss but it's obvious it hasn't hurt clubhouses that much. I mean, I'd like the throttle the anal discharges whose personality has kept the Jays out of the post season for almost these last 15 seasons.

Best Regards

John

Well, considering that almost one-third of the clubhouses he played in were on teams that reached the post season (Ken Griffey Jr.'s clubhouses reach the post season once a decade on average, Sean Casey's clubs are good for once every 12 years although he's got a shot at making it one year in every six this year due to his overwhelming amicability) I can't help but wonder just how toxic he makes the air.

On the one hand, there's starting off the season with an all-time great, in the prime of his career, even if he isn't the nicest guy in the world. You learn to get along with him. He wouldn't have replaced anyone, and there would be no clubhouse chemistry to upset. Ted Williams and Rogers Hornsby weren't the nicest guys in the world either, but I don't think they brought their teams down.

On the other hand, there's bringing someone in midseason, who's not a spring chicken anymore, when you're team either is already doing fine and/or already has a left fielder. I can see it being more of an issue in this case.

None of this applies to the Mets, of course. They aren't doing fine, they still have a chance to come back, and they don't have a left fielder. But it might be an issue on other teams.

In that case, why wouldn't Beane just reveal the threat? He's part-owner, and he stands to lose more through the threat of a collusion finding than he does from basically any suspension that the MLB offices can levy against him. Besides, if he reveals the threat, how can they effectively take action against him without opening themselves to further legal action (in addition to a collusion case)?

Are you at all familiar with the attitudes and behaviors of owners? They don't think there is ANY chance they will be caught. Ever pay attention to collusion the first time, or any labor disputes? Did you see the way MLB reported the number of failed drug tests to Congress just recently? The owners, while not stupid, tend to act like they think they are bullet-proof, or they "covered their tracks this time". As long as the media is on their side, and they are wrt Bonds, then no one is going to ask (media-wise). So, no, I don't think Beane has more to lose. And previous behaviors/actions are the best predictors of future ones.

But OTOH collusion would require such a complete and airtight conspiracy, with such farreaching negative consequences for baseball if it were proven, that it's hard to imagine that baseball executives would collectively be THAT stupid. As BBC implies, all it would take would be one little leak from any quarter, and the whole thing could come crashing down in an instant, and the damage to baseball would be inestimable. You'd need security on such a level of perfection that the KGB itself might have been green with envy.

This is , of course, untrue. It only requires that the primary pursestring holders be in agreement. It's not hundreds of people - it's about 40. Just the guy who says "No". And it's been done before with lots of success - in the timespace it took place.

They learned some from the previous event. Lots of criminals leave very few clues.

In front office circles, the consensus is that Lofton would already be with a club if he had been a little less choosy.

Well, that takes the wind out of that dungheap.

AND the mlb people agreed that bonds didn't say ANYTHING about sweeney. so please, lets stop that.

After researching this situation tonight, I agree that the scenario did not play out as I remembered, and that Bonds did not necessarily (or even likely?) toss Sweeney under the bus. But, until the NYDN prints a retraction (which maybe they did?), I don't think we can make a definitive conclusion one way or another.

Well, now I know what Andy means by chickensh1tism.

See, at least one BTF reader can acknowledge that he may have been wrong!

There is no "may have been" about it.

Are you at all familiar with the attitudes and behaviors of owners? They don't think there is ANY chance they will be caught. Ever pay attention to collusion the first time, or any labor disputes? Did you see the way MLB reported the number of failed drug tests to Congress just recently? The owners, while not stupid, tend to act like they think they are bullet-proof, or they "covered their tracks this time". As long as the media is on their side, and they are wrt Bonds, then no one is going to ask (media-wise). So, no, I don't think Beane has more to lose. And previous behaviors/actions are the best predictors of future ones.

Bingo!

Best Regards

John

I wouldn't really want to involve Hank Steinbrenner in any collusion plans I made. He seems crazy and completely likely to spill the beans if he ever felt wronged by Selig and/or MLB. I suppose they could just not tell him, though.

Except that the owners have been caught for these things, and there is a solid precedent for how the courts will handle and punish a finding of collusion on the part of MLB against the players union. There are also quite a few owners around who still remember the cost of collusion and (since they're not stupid, as you note), would rather avoid these costs again.

At a time when baseball revenue is enormous and growing, and players salaries are a rapidly decreasing percentage of revenue, why would the owners want to collude to keep a specific player out of baseball when it could:
a) Cost them millions of dollars ($280M in a negotiated settlement the last time)
b) Allow the players union to reopen the current labour agreement with a strengthened position
c) Risk government intervention in labour negotiations and the antitrust exemption.
d) Potentially decrease overall revenue due to unfavorable press coverage of legal proceedings

Chris, since you're so convinced that collusion has to be occurring, can you point to where the benefit is for owners to collude to keep Bonds out of the game?

Chris, since you're so convinced that collusion has to be occurring, can you point to where the benefit is for owners to collude to keep Bonds out of the game?

They incorrectly assume that since Bonds was the face of PEDs, that without him, they won't hear about it anymore. ESPN is pretty complicit in this.

How can you rationally look at the Mets LF situation and completely ignore Bonds (or Lofton) as an option? How does that analysis even work?

Except that the owners have been caught for these things, and there is a solid precedent for how the courts will handle and punish a finding of collusion on the part of MLB against the players union. There are also quite a few owners around who still remember the cost of collusion and (since they're not stupid, as you note), would rather avoid these costs again.

Really? Have you seen how labor negotiations have gone since 1972? the owners "know" how it will turn out, but *this time*, THIS TIME, it will be different.

You really have to ignore MULTIPLE times owners don't learn. These guys are rich and arrogant. You think Eliot Spitzer didn't know about precedent (etc)?

Ryan,

Isn't it obvious? The owners (who are generally faceless corporations whose only concern is making money) would collude against Bonds because he is evil!!!!

Right Chris?

The owners (who are generally faceless corporations whose only concern is making money) would collude against Bonds because he is evil!!!!

Right Chris?

To read your ill-informed posts about Bonds/Sweeney and "worst clubhouse cancer", it appears some think that way. And I already clarified that it is specific to small number of people, not some vast conspiracy.

Talk to Jeff Kent.

Can't. He's out washing his truck.

They incorrectly assume that since Bonds was the face of PEDs, that without him, they won't hear about it anymore. ESPN is pretty complicit in this.

As people around here are undoubtedly aware, a corporation's function is generally to maximize profits for its shareholders. And, as others have repeatedly pointed out, steroids have had no negative effects on revenues (and may actually be responsible for increasing them).

Why are the owners all of a sudden going to be concerned about ESPN? (especially over making money).

I find your new stance quite odd, considering that you have already blasted other posters for saying that the owners may be concerned about the media backlash. Your new position seems to agree that the owners' actions may actually be an exact result of media backlash.

By the way, where is your evidence for the following: "ESPN is pretty complicit in this". Do you have any proof that ESPN has not investigated your charges of collusion (or is covering up an investigation)? You keep laying out pretty hefty against some big corporations, without providing any factual basis.

WHERE IS YOUR PROOF THAT ESPN HAS BEEN "PRETTY COMPLICIT IN THIS"?

How can you rationally look at the Mets LF situation and completely ignore Bonds (or Lofton) as an option? How does that analysis even work?

Two ways:
1) Coming into the season, the Mets believed that they had an adequate solution in Alou, and whoever the 4th OF was.
2) Minaya doesn't want Bonds for reasons not related to on field performance.

I think the first one was valid coming into the season. The second may be a valid reason under the current situation - can Minaya really afford to draw more negative attention to the Mets at this point, which signing Bonds would, given his potentially precarious situation? After all, he's working for an owner who has been repeatedly shown to be strongly influenced by the local media.

Please note that the above doesn't mean I think that Bonds or Lofton wouldn't represent an improvement - they obviously would. However, baseball has never operated on a basis of 100% efficiency when it comes to the use of potentially available resources, and it's not necessary to use collusion to explain every decision with which we disagree.

Can't. He's out washing his truck.

Zing!

To read your ill-informed posts about Bonds/Sweeney and "worst clubhouse cancer", it appears some think that way.

Please show where I said Bonds was the "worst clubhouse cancer". If you are going to quote me, make sure I actually said the statement.

I'm not sure where you are getting your conclusion that "Bonds didn't say Sweeney", unless you are taking Bonds' word over the NYDN. Right now, at best, it is debatable whether Bonds identified Sweeney (a he-said, she-said situation). Is that a fair assessment?

No, it's not. Rather, it's a they said, nobody-said situation. (The NYDN did not report that they personally heard Bonds say this, so we can't take the NYDN's word, even if we believe them to be reliable.) Bonds said he didn't blame Sweeney, and so did Orza.

can Minaya really afford to draw more negative attention to the Mets at this point, which signing Bonds would, given his potentially precarious situation?

This wouldn't really be possible at this time. Every bit of attention focused on the Mets is negative and people are now calling for Omar's head along with Willie's. If anything, signing Bonds might distract from the shitastic product the Mets are running out on the field every night.

Please show where I said Bonds was the "worst clubhouse cancer". If you are going to quote me, make sure I actually said the statement.

"one of the biggest clubhouse cancers "

Sorry, perhaps you meant his size...

can Minaya really afford to draw more negative attention to the Mets at this point, which signing Bonds would, given his potentially precarious situation? After all, he's working for an owner who has been repeatedly shown to be strongly influenced by the local media.

*more negative attention*? What's more than 100%?

it's not necessary to use collusion to explain every decision with which we disagree.

That's a ridiculous misrepresentation of what I've said.

WHERE IS YOUR PROOF THAT ESPN HAS BEEN "PRETTY COMPLICIT IN THIS"?

I don't have "PROOF". I explained my interpretations of this.

I find your new stance quite odd, considering that you have already blasted other posters for saying that the owners may be concerned about the media backlash. Your new position seems to agree that the owners' actions may actually be an exact result of media backlash.

No, the owners just want it (the whole steroids thing) to go away. Not that they are afraid of backlash.

Now I see why you are so far off on the Bonds/Sweeney thing though.

it's not necessary to use collusion to explain every decision with which we disagree.
That's a ridiculous misrepresentation of what I've said.

Chris, can you please use the whole quotation? By taking out the first part, you are removing all context, and making a "ridiculous misrepresentation of what [Ryan Jones has] said".

Chris, can you please use the whole quotation? By taking out the first part, you are removing all context, and making a "ridiculous misrepresentation of what [Ryan Jones has] said".

Sorry, Stieb, that "and" fragment stood on its own. I did not misrepresent what he said, nor did I take it out of context.

That's a ridiculous misrepresentation of what I've said.

No, that's a brutally bad choice of phrasing on my part.

To clarify, in the case of Bonds, you have been strongly arguing that collusion is the only reasonable possibility as to why he hasn't been signed or contacted by a team. The sentence in question should have had qualifiers limiting its applicability to the current Bonds situation.

But OTOH collusion would require such a complete and airtight conspiracy, with such farreaching negative consequences for baseball if it were proven, that it's hard to imagine that baseball executives would collectively be THAT stupid. As BBC implies, all it would take would be one little leak from any quarter, and the whole thing could come crashing down in an instant, and the damage to baseball would be inestimable. You'd need security on such a level of perfection that the KGB itself might have been green with envy.

Congrats! You've just proven that collusion can never take place! Oops, but it has. On numerous occasions. I think you need to doublecheck some of your assumptions.

Like this one: what would the "farreaching negative consequences for baseball" be, exactly?

Beyond that, have you ever heard of the word "Pulitzer?" It would be like stealing for any writer or broadcaster who broke a collusion story into the open.

Really? How many Pulitzers were won for breaking the story of collusion in the 1980s?

Sheesh, Andy, you keep digging a sillier and sillier hole here.

No, the owners just want it (the whole steroids thing) to go away. Not that they are afraid of backlash.

Now I see why you are so far off on the Bonds/Sweeney thing though.

Chris, I acknowledged that my initial impression of the Bonds/Sweeney scenario was not entirely correct. Do you have a problem with someone admitting a mistake? How am I still "so far off"?

Also, very cute attempt to try to avoid acknowledging that you have now agreed that the owners may be trying to avoid a media circus.

Congrats! You've just proven that collusion can never take place! Oops, but it has. On numerous occasions. I think you need to doublecheck some of your assumptions.

Except the participants weren't able to keep it airtight, thus revealing the conspiracy.

Like this one: what would the "farreaching negative consequences for baseball" be, exactly?

$280M in negotiated settlements, and an increasingly militant union. (EDIT: Which also may have contributed to the 94/95 strike/lock-out and cancellation of the 94 World Series).

Again, how do the benefits of collusion against Bonds outweigh the potential costs of being caught for engaging in collusion against Bonds?

you have been strongly arguing that collusion is the only reasonable possibility as to why he hasn't been signed or contacted by a team. The sentence in question should have had qualifiers limiting its applicability to the current Bonds situation.

No, I am not. I have repeatedly asked when someone says (paraphrase for the more ignorant) "other consequences" what those other consequences could be. I am open to hearing a good reason. So far, I haven't heard one - I AM NOT saying there cannot be another one - just no one has presented a compelling one to me.

How am I still "so far off"?

You said you *may be wrong*. That's how. You ARE wrong. And it's your reading with comprehension that got you there. That's why you are misinterpreting my posts so horrifically.

So far, I haven't heard one - I AM NOT saying there cannot be another one - just no one has presented a compelling one to me

a) Potential cost
b) Age
c) Injury
d) Concerns about clubhouse chemistry
e) Suitable in-house alternatives
f) Media pressures
g) Advertising pressures
h) Personal dislikes
i) Associations with steroids/PEDs
j) Wrong point in the success cycle (or whatever it's called)

All of these represent potential contributing factors for teams in evaluating Bonds usefulness to them. Their decision as to whether to recruit him doesn't have to condense down to a single isolated factor.

Do you consider any of these items to be valid concerns in explaining why a team may not choose to pursue Bonds?

a) Cost them millions of dollars ($280M in a negotiated settlement the last time)

Well that was for lost salaries over three seasons for all of MLB--there was no punitive damages assessed. The penalty for a collusion would be Bonds' estimated salary for 2008 trebled to be paid to all the clubs--even assuming he'd earn $10 million this year that works out to about $1 million per club.

b) Allow the players union to reopen the current labour agreement with a strengthened position

How? There is a little consensus within the union and it's very weak right now with little muscle to sustain a job action. With new parks opening in New York, do you not think the clubs would love a shot at a salary cap to keep the Yankees from setting the price for talent higher than it is right now?

c) Risk government intervention in labour negotiations and the antitrust exemption.

Not with a Republican in the White House and especially if collusion were considered to be about removing the stain of drugs from the sport.

d) Potentially decrease overall revenue due to unfavorable press coverage of legal proceedings

It's Barry Bonds--most would side with MLB.

Best Regards

John

Except that the owners have been caught for these things, and there is a solid precedent for how the courts will handle and punish a finding of collusion on the part of MLB against the players union.

Courts have nothing to say about the matter. It's a matter for arbitrators.

There are also quite a few owners around who still remember the cost of collusion

Are there really? I'm not sure there are any. Steinbrenner Jr. by proxy, perhaps. Selig, if you count him even though he's no longer an owner. Reinsdorf? Pohlad. Wilpon. Giles. Okay, I concede there are a few.

and (since they're not stupid, as you note), would rather avoid these costs again.

If they weren't stupid, they'd be signing Bonds. Since they're not, I think we can dispense with that argument. Either they're stupidly not signing him because of collusion or because of general lack of brain activity.

At a time when baseball revenue is enormous and growing, and players salaries are a rapidly decreasing percentage of revenue, why would the owners want to collude to keep a specific player out of baseball when it could:
a) Cost them millions of dollars ($280M in a negotiated settlement the last time)

It cost them $280 million not because someone plucked an arbitrary number out of a hat -- this isn't a court case with a runaway jury -- but because that was the measure of damages because they colluded against scores of free agents. Bonds is a single player. (And as such, has a harder case to prove than the union did in the 1980s.) The damages would be much smaller. If a $10M contract is realistic for Bonds this year, trebled, we're talking about $1M/team. They spend more than that on veteran utility infielders.

b) Allow the players union to reopen the current labour agreement with a strengthened position

What would be the strengthened position?

c) Risk government intervention in labour negotiations and the antitrust exemption.

How and why would this happen? Why would this be bad for baseball? Congress favors the owners, not the players, on the steroid issue. Why wouldn't it be more realistic for owners to fear government intervention because Bonds's active status within the game makes it look like baseball tolerates steroid use?

d) Potentially decrease overall revenue due to unfavorable press coverage of legal proceedings

Setting aside the sheer ahistoricalness of such a claim on so many levels (*), that's purely a hypothetical if they get caught, versus the guaranteed unfavorable press coverage that Bonds's presence in the game elicits.


(*) The media supports the owners. Always. The media particularly doesn't like Bonds. "Unfavorable press coverage of legal proceedings" has never harmed baseball's finances at all.

Chris, since you're so convinced that collusion has to be occurring, can you point to where the benefit is for owners to collude to keep Bonds out of the game?

Sure: Bonds is a lightning rod for the press and public on the steroid issue; keeping him out of the game is the one thing they can do to most make it look like the issue is in the past. (And thinking long term, they keep the all-time HR record down, making it more likely it will be ultimately held by A-Rod, not Bonds.)

Are you at all familiar with the attitudes and behaviors of owners? They don't think there is ANY chance they will be caught. Ever pay attention to collusion the first time, or any labor disputes? Did you see the way MLB reported the number of failed drug tests to Congress just recently? The owners, while not stupid, tend to act like they think they are bullet-proof, or they "covered their tracks this time". As long as the media is on their side, and they are wrt Bonds, then no one is going to ask (media-wise). So, no, I don't think Beane has more to lose. And previous behaviors/actions are the best predictors of future ones.

I highlighted that one sentence because I think it points to one of the weak points in any collusion theory. "The media" are scarcely united on Bonds. There have been innumerable columns, op-eds, etc. posted right here on BTF that take issue with one or more of the following propositions:

(a) steroids are a big deal---you're not exactly unique in bringing up Mickey Mantle's greenies as a counterpoint

(b) Bonds is uniquely guilty---nearly nobody in the media has written or professed that to be the case

(c) Bonds is guilty at all---plenty of folks in the media have pointed out that he's never failed a steroids test and hasn't been found guilty of perjury

I don't see how that translates into a blanket "media" being likely to go along with the owners in suppressing any rumors or news of collusion. To be honest, this sounds no less rhetorical than political talk about "the right wing media" or "the left wing media"---as if the "media" were all of one Big Opinion.

But OTOH collusion would require such a complete and airtight conspiracy, with such farreaching negative consequences for baseball if it were proven, that it's hard to imagine that baseball executives would collectively be THAT stupid. As BBC implies, all it would take would be one little leak from any quarter, and the whole thing could come crashing down in an instant, and the damage to baseball would be inestimable. You'd need security on such a level of perfection that the KGB itself might have been green with envy.

This is , of course, untrue. It only requires that the primary pursestring holders be in agreement. It's not hundreds of people - it's about 40. Just the guy who says "No". And it's been done before with lots of success - in the timespace it took place.

Hmmmm, are all these guys in happy marriages with loving children, none of whom might be appalled at the idea of collusion, and likely to talk about it to their friends? Do they stay at home every evening? Are they friendless outside the baseball world? Are the media without resources? If many people within the media heard a rumor, wouldn't at least a few of them do their damndest to get to the bottom of it, and expose it if it were true?

How many people were involved in the Watergate burglary? Probably not even 30.

This isn't to say that conspiracies don't occur all the time. But they also unravel all the time, and get exposed. And with so much legitimate suspicion surrounding the current non-interest in Bonds---with so many people like yourself, with apparent access to inside information---the odds against perfect security would be very long.

Here's one minor example of what I'm talking about, right in one of your posts (#201) from just a little more than 16 hours ago:

As I said - not immune, but they can't manage their teams that way. Billy Beane does whatever he wants - for him to pick up THomas instead of Bonds reeks of orders. (And an A's underling hinted at as much, IIRC).

Right there you've gone outside the circle of the "40" guys you just referred to, unless that particular one underling (out of hundreds of MLB underlings) is a very exceptional underling.

And not only that, you've got an underling who's already dropping hints of collusion that even a layperson like yourself has noticed. Not exactly an underling who's too well schooled in the Criminal Code.

And of course by keeping the number at "40," you're saying that a mixture of 20 owners or GMs are themselves out of the loop---leaving no room for underlings at all. So what happens if one of those loopless GMs wants to make Bonds an offer? I guess the loop then gets expanded.

This can get messy real fast, at least if you're operating under the assumption that it requires enforced collusion to prevent Bonds from getting any offers.

How does this square with any theory of an air tight, tightly controlled, mediaproof conspiracy?
A conspiracy that to be effective would have had to have already been in place the day the Giants decided not to renew Bonds's contract. A conspiracy that will have to be maintained until everyone (and their confidants) dies.

There are only three possibilities:

1. These guys are f*ck*ng Mafialike in their ability to conspire and conceal. All 40 60 70 whatever number of them.

2. They only think they are, and it'll all soon unravel, and Bonds will be able to cash in at the arbitrator's table.

3. They aren't conspiring. Instead you've got some owners who don't want Bonds and others who are too chickenshlt to take what they imagine will be great heat for signing him, and rational numberscrunching be damned.

I still think that the last theory makes the most sense, until proven otherwise.

I find your new stance quite odd, considering that you have already blasted other posters for saying that the owners may be concerned about the media backlash. Your new position seems to agree that the owners' actions may actually be an exact result of media backlash.

This misunderstands the entire concept of collusion and collective action. If Bonds plays baseball, the benefit accrues solely to an individual team, whereas the PR costs are spread throughout baseball. (Though certainly borne more heavily by the team that signs him.) If Bonds doesn't play, then the PR benefit accrues to all teams evenly.

In front office circles, the consensus is that Lofton would already be with a club if he had been a little less choosy.

Well, that takes the wind out of that dungheap.

Yes, and if I were as immature as some of the posters in this thread, I'd whine that nobody responded to it.

Do you consider any of these items to be valid concerns in explaining why a team may not choose to pursue Bonds?

A team, Ryan. Not all 30 teams. Not all 30 teams deciding not to so much as place a phone call -- or return one.

And I'm glad to see that John and David dispensed with the ridiculous implication that colluding against Bonds would cost the owners on the order of $280 million in penalties.

Hell, an arbitrator's ruling that the owners colluded against Bonds wouldn't even get him back into the game.

a) Potential cost
b) Age
c) Injury
d) Concerns about clubhouse chemistry
e) Suitable in-house alternatives
f) Media pressures
g) Advertising pressures
h) Personal dislikes
i) Associations with steroids/PEDs
j) Wrong point in the success cycle (or whatever it's called)

All of these represent potential contributing factors for teams in evaluating Bonds usefulness to them. Their decision as to whether to recruit him doesn't have to condense down to a single isolated factor.

Do you consider any of these items to be valid concerns in explaining why a team may not choose to pursue Bonds?

Some of the things you mention (age, potential injury) are factors that go into deciding what sort of salary to offer a player, but not reasons not to sign the player at any price. It would be utterly unprecedented for an MVP candidate not to be signed because he's old, or because of "clubhouse chemistry."

If by "cost" you mean salary, then no. A team pays a player's actual salary, not his "potential" salary. Yes, in some cases a team knows that a player is going to get $10M (or whatever) on the market and so it doesn't bother to make an offer because that's out of its budget; that's legitimate. But here, teams knew that Bonds wasn't getting $10M, and they didn't make a $5M offer. Or a $2M offer.

Suitable in-house alternatives, yes, but I can think of only one team who fit that description going into the year -- Boston. Nobody else has alternatives to an MVP candidate everywhere you could play Bonds.

"Wrong point in the success cycle" is a theoretical argument against signing Bonds, but since you could offer him a one-year deal at a low salary, that only makes sense as an argument if he'd actually be blocking a young player you're trying to develop. Otherwise, all Bonds does is add low-cost wins to your team in a stopgap situation. The Orioles, for instance, are superficially a team where the "success cycle" argument would apply, except that they're running 30-year old Luke Scott and 35-year old Jay Payton out there in LF. (Not to mention 31-year old Aubrey Huff at DH and 36-year old Kevin Millar at 1B.) If the Orioles aren't signing him, it's not because of where they are in the success cycle.

So then you're left with about six ways of saying the same thing -- media, advertising, steroids, etc. Could these justify not signing an MVP candidate? No. Does that mean no team would make that calculation? No, it doesn't; we've seen over and over again that some teams do place heavy weight on intangibles. But for all teams to make that calculation would again be unprecedented.

The agent for Barry Bonds says that no team is interested in his client -- not even for a minimum salary -- and the circumstances for the lack of offers make him "suspicious."

"I've talked to all the teams numerous times," said Jeff Borris, Bonds' agent. "There's not a stone that I've left unturned."

"We were able to get him a $19.2 million contract [with the Giants] based on those 2006 numbers," Borris said. "And the numbers went up in 2007 -- and yet we can't even get him a $390,000 deal with any team. Not a single team has any interest. It makes me suspicious."

Link.

A team, Ryan. Not all 30 teams. Not all 30 teams deciding not to so much as place a phone call -- or return one.

Right. Each team may weigh the various factors differently in determining whether or not to extend an offer to Bonds. One team may weigh (lets say) items a, d, and h heavily, whereas another may b, e, and f. Teams conducting their own independent analysis may come to the same conclusion without collusion being the driver.

"We were able to get him a $19.2 million contract [with the Giants] based on those 2006 numbers," Borris said. "And the numbers went up in 2007 -- and yet we can't even get him a $390,000 deal with any team. Not a single team has any interest. It makes me suspicious."

I might give it a few more weeks, but at that point if I were Borris I'd consider investing a bit of spare change in some full page ads in The New York Times, the Wall Street Journal, and USA Today, posing those same suspicions, and asking a lot of pointed questions, utilizing all the statistical evidence and prior signings of lesser players as a backup.

He wouldn't have to make any accusations. He'd only have to lay out a working hypothesis and ask the right questions. And though those ads would be expensive, they'd not only be chump change to Bonds, they'd also generate a lot more in the way of free publicity---it could hardly be avoided.

If nothing else, I would think that such a move might inspire some of the more "controversy"-addicted media types to put the question out there. But nothing ventured, nothing gained.

Teams conducting their own independent analysis may come to the same conclusion without collusion being the driver.

Or may not.

Can you name the last player who had a season similar to Bonds in 2007 and, yet, received zero interest from any team at any price?

And Ray or David, how would you respond to the points I was making in # 293?

Re: chickensh1tism and what Billy Beane would or would not have the balls to do--

The 1980s in-his-prime George Steinbrenner, the hadn't-won-the-division-in-five-seasons George Steinbrenner, the constant-burr-under-MLB's-ass/never-a-problem-about-defying-consensus George Steinbrenner, who had lusted to put a Yankee cap atop Jack Morris' scowling head for years, didn't even call Morris' agent when he was a free agent. Now THAT'S an old boys' club. Billy Beane is a dutiful worker ant compared to that.

Many of 1987's major players are still present in MLB. You think they'd lose sleep worrying about a highly unlikely one-man collusion ruling that would, at worst, cost them 5% of the first penalty in real dollars?

Re: penalties/suspensions/horse's heads in one's bed for noncompliance--

As we saw with the sale of the Red Sox, Bud Selig has clout and invisible methods of reward and punishment that don't have to be officially delineated or defended. People with common interests and common fears don't need a bulletpointed memo to know what they're supposed to do.

Assuming Bonds still has a taste for playing, he might do well to follow the Andre Dawson example and make an open offer to the Mets, who are (for now) the most obviously needy team for his services. If the Mets decline, it could only strengthen a future collusion finding (as remote as that possibility is). What would be the nightmare scenario for Bonds? That he isn't allowed to play? That he publicly embarrasses baseball and makes them really, really mad at him? That Bonds jeopardizes his shot at becoming a manager? That the Mets unexpectedly agree and he gets stuck playing for only 1.5 million and maybe collects his 3,000th hit? Why, the NY Daily News and WFAN sports radio should pay Bonds the MLB minimum just to MAKE the offer.

Some of the things you mention (age, potential injury) are factors that go into deciding what sort of salary to offer a player, but not reasons not to sign the player at any price.

True, but we don't know the price.

If by "cost" you mean salary, then no. A team pays a player's actual salary, not his "potential" salary. Yes, in some cases a team knows that a player is going to get $10M (or whatever) on the market and so it doesn't bother to make an offer because that's out of its budget; that's legitimate. But here, teams knew that Bonds wasn't getting $10M, and they didn't make a $5M offer. Or a $2M offer.

Do you think that a team wants to risk publicly protracted contract negotiations with Bonds to find out his salary when any contact with him will result in a highly negative response among the press covering said team? Especially when there is no guarantee that said negotiations will be successful.

Also, why is the burden on the individual teams? Why can't Borris just hold a press conference and state "Barry Bonds will play for X dollars with Y conditions/incentives"? It's not like this would be unheard of for an agent to do.

Suitable in-house alternatives, yes, but I can think of only one team who fit that description going into the year -- Boston. Nobody else has alternatives to an MVP candidate everywhere you could play Bonds.

Why does suitable in-house alternatives have to mean equal to or better than Bonds? A player can represent a suitable alternative without being better than the original. It may be a younger player that they're trying to develop, or it may be a player of lesser production who is under contract for an extended period. Teams have many reasons why they play who they play.

Could these justify not signing an MVP candidate? No. Does that mean no team would make that calculation? No, it doesn't; we've seen over and over again that some teams do place heavy weight on intangibles. But for all teams to make that calculation would again be unprecedented.

Except the conditions around Bonds are also unprecedented - he's a 44 year old potential MVP candidate who is strongly associated with steroids, is believed to be a negative in the club-house, has a not insignificant injury on his record for which he essentially missed a full season, has a terrible relationship with the media, and has a federal indictment hanging over him. These may all cause a team to evaluate his condition differently than players without the same package of considerations.

I'm not sure why a lack of a leak of collusive behavior this early in the process has any bearing. Collusion I was following the 1985 season when Kirk Gibson, among others, received no offers. It was two years later that Tom Roberts issued his Award. Collusion II (Dawson, Morris, Raines) and III (Molitor, Jack Clark) likewise took two years each to get before the Aribitrator (George Nicolau). Then the post 2002 allegations of collusion were very quietly resolved four years later in the 2006 CBA. 3 months from the beginning of the season is barely time for the issue to percolate; not nearly enough time for "proof" to emerge.

Assuming Bonds still has a taste for playing, he might do well to follow the Andre Dawson example and make an open offer to the Mets, who are (for now) the most obviously needy team for his services. If the Mets decline, it could only strengthen a future collusion finding (as remote as that possibility is). What would be the nightmare scenario for Bonds? That he isn't allowed to play? That he publicly embarrasses baseball and makes them really, really mad at him? That Bonds jeopardizes his shot at becoming a manager? That the Mets unexpectedly agree and he gets stuck playing for only 1.5 million and maybe collects his 3,000th hit? Why, the NY Daily News and WFAN sports radio should pay Bonds the MLB minimum just to MAKE the offer.

That's a variant of what I was saying above. And you're absolutely right; what does Bonds have to lose?

3 months from the beginning of the season is barely time for the issue to percolate; not nearly enough time for "proof" to emerge.

It's not only about whether sufficient time has passed for evidence of collusion to occur - it's whether the failure a team to sign Bonds can only be explained through collusion.

Certain people are of the opinion that the only compelling reason identified to date is collusion, while others (which includes me) are of the opinion that the failure of Bonds to sign can be considered as a result of the combination of a wide variety of conditions and does not necessarily require collusion.

That's a variant of what I was saying above. And you're absolutely right; what does Bonds have to lose?

Nothing at all. Limiting it to the Mets is problematic, however, as we don't know if Bonds want to play there. I'm not sure about New York, but he did previously make statements about never wanting to play in Boston. A better alternative might be for Borris to send out a public statement listing the generic contractual requirements for Bonds' services for any team - let's say in USA Today. That would undercut any argument regarding teams being unsure if they could afford his demands.

As a question, how was the collusion in 1986 to 1988 revealed? Was it revealed through documentation or interviews, or was it argued statistically - based on previous free agency years and equivalent salaries?