It's pretty clear that the teams are colluding against Bonds. Very likely the collusion is instigated by Bud Selig, who Bonds has embarrassed by becoming the home run king with the help of steroids. What I would like to know is how Bud is enforcing it?

It's pretty clear that the teams are colluding against Bonds.

Which teams?

Early into the 2007 season there were at least three teams courting Roger Clemens. By this time last year a team had signed him to one of the richest contracts in MLB history. In 2008, he has received no offers, not even for the minimum salary.

It's a PR thing. Each of the 30 teams is more interested in making money than winning; no shock there, baseball is a business.* And, frankly, given the public perception of both Bonds and Clemens - partly from what they're accused of, partly from media perception/agendas/etc., partly from how they've chosen to behave over the course of their careers in the public arena - it should be no shock that any team would choose not to hire either of them.

And if it isn't a shock that any one team wouldn't even consider to hire either of them, why is it so hard to believe that each of 30 teams reached the same conclusion independent of each other?

* Yes, winning tends to bring the money. But that ignores the key middleman: the fans. Winning brings fans; fans bring money. If a player has the potential to be a huge PR problem, winning might not bring fans. Heck, it might turn fans away. Businesses also like to minimize risk, and the perceived PR risk is huge.

IF it is true that Bonds will play for the minimum, and give his salary to charity, then there's no question Seligula has laid his hammer down. Sure, many teams don't need him, many don't want to put up with the "circus," some may even want to punish him. But not one thinks it would pay off to have a half-season of Barry ###### Bonds for $200K which goes to buy tickets for poor kids? ########.

If I had the cash, I'd form the "Roid Ragers", sign all the players who have been convicted (at least in the court of public opinion) as steroid users, and see what a team on steroids could really do.

Wins all games = wow, roids are good
Wins about average = wow, roids are a waste of time

I can't believe he has literally offered himself to every team for free. If I had accomplished what he has, I would be too proud to do so, and I thought I was a lot more humble than Mr. Bonds...

Barry performed admirably in 2007.

I wonder how he'll perform when he has to pick up the bar of soap in the shower at San Quentin?

I doubt that there is any sort of collusion going on here; it's simply a matter of PR, as villageidiom said.

However, part of my original calculus was based on the assumption that Bonds was looking for something along the lines of $10 million (or whereabouts), which while a obscene bargain for someone of his batting ability in any other situation, still wouldn't be worth it for the sh*tstorm of negative publicity that would come to any team that signed him.

But if what Borris says is true - that Bonds would play for $500,000 and donate that to charity to buy ballgame tickets for kids - then I'm a little disappointed that somebody wouldn't take him up on that. As some may remember, I'm pretty strongly in the anti-Barry camp alongside Andy and Kevin: you can't erase his records but you can definitely put the metaphorical Asterisk Of Shame on them.

But this would be a pretty sweet narrative all around: Barry playing for mininum wage out of sheer love for the game (let's be honest, the man ain't got nothing left to prove at this point), donating his salary to bring inner-city kids (hopefully) to the ballpark and create new fans, maybe learning a little humility in his final year, and helping a team to go to the postseason.** Hell, if the Rays signed him, Barry could well push them over the edge to a ridiculously awesome World Series Championship.

It's probably still never gonna happen, but if Borris isn't BS'ing here, these are the terms under which I'd actually really enjoy seeing it happen.

**Any team that signs him should stipulate: no Lay-Z-Boy.

There is no way Barry can win. If he plays for free, everyone will just say that he's a douche who's trying to pad his stats and further taint his record and disrespect the game. If he takes what he rightfully should be making, people get angry that he's trying to pad his stats and further taint his record and disrespect the game...and he's greedy. People hate Barry that much.

For the record, I would love to see Barry play this year.

It's pretty clear that the teams are colluding against Bonds.

Which teams?

Let's go through a couple of teams with executives on the hot seat.
Team: Toronto. Executive: JP Riccardi. DH: Matt Stairs. OPS: 748
Team: Seattle. Executive: Bavasi (already fired). DH: Jose Vidro. OPS: 585
Team: Mets. Executive: Omar Minaya. LF: Angel Pagan. OPS: 720

Barry Bonds 2007 OPS: 1.045

Why haven't any of these GM's hired Bonds for the minimum to try and save their jobs?
The only reason I can think of is orders from above.

And as a couple of bonus stats:
Team: Cleveland. DH: Hafner. OPS: 676
Team: Detroit. DH: Sheffield. OPS: 691

i, for one, am glad he's not playing this season. his apologists remind me of the crazyassed clinton supporters @ hillaryis44.org and noquarterusa.net.

scott

what exactly is an apologist?

Where does the inactive Bonds rank on the list of 2008's most-talked-about baseball players? Tenth? Fifth? Higher? You're doing a heck of a job, Buddie.

Nice work by Borris, too. It'll be hilarious if MLB ends up having to pay Barry a few million more.

Why haven't any of these GM's hired Bonds for the minimum to try and save their jobs?
The only reason I can think of is orders from above.

If that's the case, then honestly you're not thinking too hard. Bavasi worked in THE MOST hippie liberal baseball town in America (San Francisco? Yeah, but Bonds was already a beloved player before things broke bad), and signing Bonds while working under the eye of a conservative Japanese ownership would = death knell. Not that Bavasi didn't deserve it. Ricciardi? Hanging on a similarly tenuous thread, unwilling to roll the dice and find out that Barry wasn't good anymore on top of the opprobrium accumulated from signing him. Mets? The most hostile media environment on the planet, with a fanbase already in the initial stages of calling for Minaya's head? You've got to be f*cking kidding me, buddy. Cleveland and Detroit? Well, those are a bit different - I have a feeling that their medias/fanbases would put up with a lot more than the other three you named. But Detroit's season is already in the tank at this point - what would Bonds really add? And Hafner is signed to a long-term contract - it wouldn't be the first time that GM refused to treat a bad signing as a sunk cost and stayed with a declining player.

But basically, in EVERY case you could conceivably mention, it boils down to the GM making the calculation "Bad PR + possibility Bonds will fall off the cliff = not worth risking my job, no matter what."

LF: Angel Pagan. OPS: 720

I wish. Pagan has been out since May 12th. Since then it's mainly a combo of Damion Easley (OPS .652), Marlon Anderson (.531), Fernando Tatis (.613), and Trot Nixon (.577).

But basically, in EVERY case you could conceivably mention, it boils down to the GM making the calculation "Bad PR + possibility Bonds will fall off the cliff = not worth risking my job, no matter what."

When a guy is sitting and waiting for the ax to fall, he might as well take a risk. Even if GMs with safe jobs are afraid of bad PR, the guys on the hot seat should be resorting to all sorts of desperate measures. Even more desperate than signing Trot Nixon

Too bad the NBA didn't collude to keep Jordan out of the league those final 2 years. Jordan made an ass of himself.

I'd be interested to see ZIPS take on Bonds' production if he played Indy ball..

I'm thinking somewhere along the lines of:

440/700/1200

I don't think I'm kidding either

I think if he signs, it will be in August after the trading deadline with a team that has an unexpected need for another bat and no other options.

If I had the cash, I'd form the "Roid Ragers", sign all the players who have been convicted (at least in the court of public opinion) as steroid users, and see what a team on steroids could really do.

So you'd form the baseball equivilent of the Oakland Raiders?

chad darling,

why do you think it would be that low???

hehhehheh

and by the way i sure do hope you are likeing your job i know you can't talk about it...

* Yes, winning tends to bring the money. But that ignores the key middleman: the fans. Winning brings fans; fans bring money. If a player has the potential to be a huge PR problem, winning might not bring fans. Heck, it might turn fans away. Businesses also like to minimize risk, and the perceived PR risk is huge.

I can't think of any baseball players with major felonies on their records, so let's look at other sports:
Ray Lewis was involved in a murder. Kobe Bryant was accused of rape.
Both were some of the best players in their sport, so those incidents have been quickly forgotten.

Michael Vick killed and tortured dogs. He was a mediocre disappointing quarterback, so he was vilified and dumped by his organization.
If he had realized his prospect potential, you can bet that the Atlanta Falcons would've stood by him.

Most fans only care about winning. Who here would honestly stop watching their team if they signed a bad (character) guy?

What I would like to know is how Bud is enforcing it?

Selig controls a central fund from (IIRC) luxury tax money. He doesn't have to explain publicly where that money goes. I believe it is supposed to be used for stadium construcion or improvement, but it is basically Selig's to dispense as he sees fit. I think that's the same leverage he holds over teams that won't pay over slot in the draft.

Michael Vick killed and tortured dogs. He was a mediocre disappointing quarterback, so he was vilified and dumped by his organization.

It used to amuse me how Lupica would always find some extraneous reason for fellating Vick on The Sports Reporters.

I think that's the same leverage he holds over teams that won't pay over slot in the draft

And yet teams go over slot all the time. Selig is also only Commisioner as a result of the 30 owners/representatives of the teams, many of which are reps for significant corporations. Do you honestly think that these organizations/corporations would put up with threats from Selig over his disbursement of discretionary funds? I don't.

That being said, if Borris is being truthful about Bonds offering to:
a) play for the minimum, and
b) donate his entire salary to charity
and no one wants him, then even if there isn't collusion, this will look bad.

I wonder how he'll perform when he has to pick up the bar of soap in the shower at San Quentin?

Pardon my idiocy, but did Bonds kill somebody? I think you actually have to do something serious to wind up at San Quentin.

Early into the 2007 season there were at least three teams courting Roger Clemens. By this time last year a team had signed him to one of the richest contracts in MLB history. In 2008, he has received no offers, not even for the minimum salary.

2006 - 113.1 IP, 193 ERA+, had expressed interest in playing again
2007 - 99 IP, 108 ERA+, had not expressed interest in playing again, had multiple mistresses publicly identified, and generally had his reputation trashed.

Also, there is no reason to think that Clemens would play for the minimum, given the way that he's held up teams the last three years.

even if there isn't collusion, this will look bad.

I don't think there is provable collusion and may not be colluion at all. As far as "looking bad" vis-a-vis the salary/charity issue, I think #9 has it right: Bonds has been demonized to such a huge degree (part of that is on him; part of it is not) that I don't think that angle will be taken seriously.

I don't think there is provable collusion and may not be colluion at all. As far as "looking bad" vis-a-vis the salary/charity issue, I think #9 has it right: Bonds has been demonized to such a huge degree (part of that is on him; part of it is not) that I don't think that angle will be taken seriously.

I don't think there is provable collusion either, and I agree that the public largely won't care if Bonds isn't in the league.

However, the issue for Bonds isn't about public opinion - it's about a lawsuit and damages if it can be shown that baseball conspired to keep him out of the league. It's also about the players union having the option to reopen the CBA if it can be shown that 5 or more teams conspired. Given 30 teams declined to sign Bonds for the minimum (and charity), his case just got stronger, as did that of the union (should they chose to pursue it).

Here's Bonds's problem in a nutshell.

Nobody cares. No significant number of fans from any team have been clamoring for their team to sign him. If that's not the case, then it's one of baseball's all-time best kept secrets.

It may be unfair that he's one of the few players in this predicament, since he's hardly been the game's only juicer. But then his reward to risk equation worked out pretty well for him, didn't it? What's one year of exile compared to the money that the juice helped him get?

But I still think that some team will sign him by late July or early August, especially if that minimum salary offer is legit.

And yet teams go over slot all the time. Selig is also only Commisioner as a result of the 30 owners/representatives of the teams, many of which are reps for significant corporations. Do you honestly think that these organizations/corporations would put up with threats from Selig over his disbursement of discretionary funds? I don't

All teams? I swear Mets fans have complained here that the Mets refuse to draft and pay over slot. I do believe that an owner that is building a new stadium would make sure to keep the commissioner happy to decrease the cost of building a stadium. Why don't you believe that?

What I love is how blindingly biased people are about this issue. First they claim that Bonds must be demanding a huge salary. Then when it's pointed out that Borris says that no team is interested in Bonds even at the minimum, people claim that Borris probably didn't really offer Bonds at the minimum. Then when Borris repeats that Bonds has been offered at the minimum, people claim that Bonds probably won't play for the minimum anyway.

What part of "Barry has been offered at the minimum salary" do people not understand? He's been offered to all 30 teams for the minimum. None of the 30 teams have accepted. People try to claim that Bonds won't really play for the minimum, but that skips a step: a team needs to accept his offer first. Only then will we find out whether Bonds is bluffing. To claim that the problem is that Bonds must be bluffing, rather than the problem being that no team has accepted his offer, is a bit silly and naive.

No significant number of fans from any team have been clamoring for their team to sign him.

Evidence?

#26

bonds (supposedly) took steroids and this is what made him into the great baseball player he was and even after being off roids for 3 years, it made him break babe ruth's Sacred Home Run Record

and this is the worst crime ever committed by any human being in the history of this planet which is why he should get a life sentence without parole in san quentin and get gang raped every day

duh

What I love is how blindingly biased people are about this issue. First they claim that Bonds must be demanding a huge salary. Then when it's pointed out that Borris says that no team is interested in Bonds even at the minimum, people claim that Borris probably didn't really offer Bonds at the minimum. Then when Borris repeats that Bonds has been offered at the minimum, people claim that Bonds probably won't play for the minimum anyway.

What part of "Barry has been offered at the minimum salary" do people not understand? He's been offered to all 30 teams for the minimum. None of the 30 teams have accepted. People try to claim that Bonds won't really play for the minimum, but that skips a step: a team needs to accept his offer first. Only then will we find out whether Bonds is bluffing. To claim that the problem is that Bonds must be bluffing, rather than the problem being that no team has accepted his offer, is a bit silly and naive.

Ray, perhaps you could show me these people who claim that Bonds probably won't play for the minimum. I can't seem to find them in this thread.

When a guy is sitting and waiting for the ax to fall, he might as well take a risk. Even if GMs with safe jobs are afraid of bad PR, the guys on the hot seat should be resorting to all sorts of desperate measures. Even more desperate than signing Trot Nixon

If someone is so close to being fired that they need to resort to a desperate measure to save their jobs, any risk they take needs to be something that will look good in the short term. If it's something that pays off in the long run, they likely won't be around to benefit from it.

While it's possible that fans will forgive, ignore, or otherwise dismiss the general negativity surrounding Bonds or Clemens, it's doubtful it'd happen in the short term. It's more likely that the short term will produce protests, boycotts, drops in ticket and merchandise sales, and potential drops in ad revenue - not the results a death row GM needs to get a stay of execution.

I can't think of any baseball players with major felonies on their records

So you're saying the only possible players with significant PR problems for a team are those with major felonies on their records? Or is your comment a non-sequitur?

Most fans only care about winning.

Most fans root for a team that hasn't won jack in the last five years, and can't reasonably be expected to win this year. Yet they still seem to care, a lot. Sure, they want their team to win, but they still root for their team if they don't.

Most fans are fans of baseball in addition to being fans of their team. Here and elsewhere, most fans have a preference on the issues of instant replay, the designated hitter, artificial turf, maple bats, interleague play, pitch counts, PEDs, home-field advantage for the WS, Pete Rose's eligibility for the HoF, and so on, their preference often having nothing to do with their team's chances of winning. Everyone wants baseball a certain way, for whatever reason - but mostly because, at some root level, they care about baseball. There is no evidence that they only care about winning, and plenty of evidence that they care about other stuff. Please, let's stop pretending that baseball fans are as simple-minded as you suggest.

Please, let's stop pretending that baseball fans are as simple-minded as you suggest.

It might help if a segment of baseball fans didn't continue to assert that Bonds' early retirement package is the coincidental result of 30 isolated, uncoordinated, and completely logical roster decisions.

I just want to endorse everything villageidiom wrote in #36, especially the part about baseball fans (yes, that includes the non SABR-savvy Joe Sixpacks who don't haunt baseball blogs) not being simpleminded "WINNNING IS ALL I CARE ABOUT" automatons. Some of you "collusion against Bonds!" diehards remind of uber-freemarket economists, who employ models that assume that consumers always act strictly on the basis of rational maximization of utility. Whereas in the real world, fan allegiance (and media controversies, and public sentiment, etc. etc.) are guided and driven on a much more contingent basis.

Michael Vick killed and tortured dogs. He was a mediocre disappointing quarterback, so he was vilified and dumped by his organization.
If he had realized his prospect potential, you can bet that the Atlanta Falcons would've stood by him.

BS. Atlanta ran away from him because (a) cruelty to dogs is not your typical PR hit, it is something that really does make a lot of people genuinely mad, as opposed to steroids which makes them sort of, kind of mad; and (b) THE DUDE WAS SENTENCED TO PRISON. Hard to stand by a guy when he is behind bars.

And if he has ANYTHING left when he comes back, somebody will sign him anyway.

Ray Lewis was involved in a murder.

Yes a felony, and he is in jail.

I think that you're thinking of another NFL player, Rae Carruth, who arranged the killing of his pregnant girlfriend. He's serving a life-sentence.

Ray Lewis, indicted in the murder of two people at a nightclub, got off with a year or two of probation on a plea deal for obstruction of justice despite witness testimony (from his limo driver) that he participated in the assault on one of the decedents.

EDIT: this post was in a response to Gambling Rent in #40, who apparently realized his confusion and removed his post.

EDIT: this post was in a response to Gambling Rent in #40, who apparently realized his confusion and removed his post.

Yeah thats what it was :)

..


I went back and read the original comments, and decided my post would start a #### storm, and that it wasn't worth it. Thats all

Heh, how dumb do you have to be to take an agent's bluster seriously?

If someone is so close to being fired that they need to resort to a desperate measure to save their jobs, any risk they take needs to be something that will look good in the short term.

Signing Bonds is a short term fix. This guy is not a prospect who needs development time.

While it's possible that fans will forgive, ignore, or otherwise dismiss the general negativity surrounding Bonds or Clemens, it's doubtful it'd happen in the short term.

Enough walk-off homers will generate any amount of forgiveness necessary.

So you're saying the only possible players with significant PR problems for a team are those with major felonies on their records? Or is your comment a non-sequitur?

I was trying to make a point that even (alleged) rape and murder are not enough for fans turn on a player if he contributes enough to winning.

Most fans root for a team that hasn't won jack in the last five years, and can't reasonably be expected to win this year. Yet they still seem to care, a lot. Sure, they want their team to win, but they still root for their team if they don't.

Most fans are fans of baseball in addition to being fans of their team. Here and elsewhere, most fans have a preference on the issues of instant replay, the designated hitter, artificial turf, maple bats, interleague play, pitch counts, PEDs, home-field advantage for the WS, Pete Rose's eligibility for the HoF, and so on, their preference often having nothing to do with their team's chances of winning. Everyone wants baseball a certain way, for whatever reason - but mostly because, at some root level, they care about baseball. There is no evidence that they only care about winning, and plenty of evidence that they care about other stuff. Please, let's stop pretending that baseball fans are as simple-minded as you suggest.

What you are arguing is that negative publicity caused by signing an unpopular, immoral and possibly criminal player will negatively impact revenues. We know that winning increases revenue. So you are arguing that the bad PR impact will be bigger than the extra wins impact.

Barry Bonds had 55 VORP last year while playing 3/4 of the time. Knock off some for aging, add back some for playing more as a DH in the AL, let's use 5 wins above replacement as an estimate of his value this year. According to this article, 5 wins for a bad team are worth around $4-5 million and for a playoff contender around 3 times that. So, for you to be correct, enough fans would have to stop watching and attending to cost more than $5 mil for Seattle or $10 mil for Detroit (taking two teams from my previous post as examples, see article for the dollar amounts). Sure, many fans would be disgusted by an unpopular player, but how many would actually stop following the team?

Let's start the fan survey with the most immediately available fans - you and me. I am a Red Sox fan, and, Villageidiom, I believe so are you.
How bad a sinner would the Red Sox have to sign for you to stop following them?
Would you stop watching Red Sox if they signed a wife beater?
Would you stop watching Red Sox if they signed somebody who stole laptops?
Would you stop watching Red Sox if they signed Barry Bonds?

Well, I haven't stopped watching the games, and all the complaints about Julio Lugo I hear are about his suckitude on the field and not about his domestic abuse incident. Are you going to stop watching?

If he'd really play for the minimum and donate it, I think it's a shame no one signs him. I'm not a Bonds fan and have been fine having a season without him. However, redemption is a great story line in sports and I'd much rather have a final image of a smiling Bonds on the field having helped a team win a title and a bunch of kids have some fun than the final image we now have.


He's the HR king, at least for a few years. It would be nice to be able to remember him better. Ah, well.


If there really was this collusion (and i think there may well be), that energy would have been better used if Bud had brought him back to an exciting young team under the circumstances described in the article.

That OPS was LAST year. Now what you got? Another year of spasmoidic roid breakdown, another year of statueesq immobility..only thing likely to get out of Bonds is a bad tude and dl vegetation..

heck. Schilling's better. Least he's comin back in January.

But I still think that some team will sign him by late July or early August, especially if that minimum salary offer is legit.

It isn't legit. It's just his agent's pathetic attempt to stir the pot and get his name out there and perhaps gain some sympathy for his client.

This has been a great baseball season so far. And you know what's even greater? It proves beyond a shadow of a doubt fans don't care about Barry Bonds.

He probably weighs about 9000 pounds by now anyway, mumbling "Rosebud" while watching replays of himself on his giant screen HD.

This couldn't have happened to a nicer guy. Sorry Barroid.

ekogan, you're a Red Sox fan. Have you noticed any spontaneous groundswell of voices in Boston urging the Red Sox to sign Barry Bonds?

And have fans of any other team noticed any similar grass roots sentiments?

It's really two sides of the same coin. Few fans would care much if their team did sign Bonds, but even fewer fans really want their team to sign him. To the extent that he even enters their thoughts, they're probably not unhappy that one way or the other, he's out of baseball. It's like hearing about the death of your nagging mother-in-law.

And as a result, what you get from an owner's or GM's point of view is a simple case of leaving well enough alone. This isn't "rational" by normal baseball standards, but then very few reactions to Barry Bonds have ever been along strictly rational numberscrunching lines. That's just the way it is.

Now that we know Barry's salary demands, as far as I'm concerned the collusion issue is settled. That's the end of the "He might be holding out for 15 million" argument.

In an entertainment business, the old saying is that "there is no such thing as bad publicity". That applies here as well. As much as some people want to think that fans don't want to see Barry Bonds, that is simply not the case. The Giants used to draw 39-40K fans per game. Without Barry, they are down to 34K this year. Of course you can never take a trend in San Francisco and apply it nationwide, that goes for baseball and any other question. People there are different. They are all Barry apologists who can see no wrong with their hero.

So how about Giants road attendance?
(in thousands per game)
2004: 36
2005: 31 (Barry misses most of season)
2006: 33
2007: 35
2008: 30

Whether they show up to cheer him or boo him, it's clear that if Barry Bonds is in town, the fans will come.

What we have here is owners/GM's refusing to try sign a player that will make their team win more games and make them more money.

i, for one, am glad he's not playing this season. his apologists remind me of the crazyassed clinton supporters @ hillaryis44.org and noquarterusa.net.

It's funny you say this, scott, because I think that the kevins of the world are the ones who come across this way.

Meanspirited? Check.
Dogmatic? Check.
Angry? Check.
Full of hyperbole? Check.

I have finally accepted that the owners are colluding against him.

Whether they show up to cheer him or boo him, it's clear that if Barry Bonds is in town, the fans will come.

I concur, and think that any team that signs him will see an increase in attendance due to his presence. Maybe a majority of the increase will be there to yell at him and dance around with big Styrofoam syringes, but they'll show up.

Yeah thats what it was :)

..


I went back and read the original comments, and decided my post would start a #### storm, and that it wasn't worth it. Thats all

Really? You mean you didn't post that Ray Lewis was involved in a murder and was in jail?

Where does the inactive Bonds rank on the list of 2008's most-talked-about baseball players? Tenth? Fifth? Higher? You're doing a heck of a job, Buddie.

The only people I know who talk about Barry Bonds every single day are a small handful of diehard sycophants here on the web site. Even in the mainstream media, hardly any of the reporters talk about him anymore. The only reason articles like this appear is because Bonds is clearly in a deep state of denial, and so keeps sending out this annoying agent that nobody in the game wants to talk to to give his "we're still here" press statements.

Nice work by Borris, too. It'll be hilarious if MLB ends up having to pay Barry a few million more.

If the players' union is really going to file this collusion grievance, they should just stop talking about it and do it already.

Personally, I don't believe it's ever going to happen. Most of the players hate his guts because of when he opted out of their merchandise deal, and also just because he's such a scum-sucking dirtbag.

The only people I know who talk about Barry Bonds every single day are a small handful of diehard sycophants here on the web site.

My smile for the day!

joey must consider himself a sycophant.

Really? You mean you didn't post that Ray Lewis was involved in a murder and was in jail?

see post 22

OK, GR, what about the prison part? I'm only trying to establish that you are confused. ;-)

Even in the mainstream media, hardly any of the reporters talk about him anymore.

Don't bother to read the crime section, eh Joey?

Most of the players hate his guts

I'd like to see some evidence for this.
and no Jeff Kent does not = Most of the players.
Most of the players might hate Jeff Kents guts, but i would like to see some evidence for your goobly gook up there.

OK, GR, what about the prison part? I'm only trying to establish that you are confused. ;-)

Is that what they're calling stone-cold batshit these days, Joe? Confused?

And have fans of any other team noticed any similar grass roots sentiments?

How are you supposed to prove this? There is rarely a "grass roots sentiment" by fans of any team to sign any player. Would you call USS Mariner's posts about Chris Antonelli a grass roots sentiment in favour of a particular GM candidate, even though it is the product of one website that isn't ready by a vast majority of Mariner fans (as most fans don't read blogs period, I would say). I don't think this is something that can ever really be demonstrated.

And, FWIW, callers to JP's weekly radio show have repeatedly asked Ricciardi about the possibility of signing Bonds, to the point where they don't take calls about the subject anymore. Of course, I'm sure lots of Jays fans wouldn't want the team to sign Bonds, but there also a good number who recognize what a healthy Bonds would bring offensively.

OK, GR, what about the prison part? I'm only trying to establish that you are confused. ;-)

yes, in a reply to #22, i incorrectly typed he was in jail. I was thinking Caruth, but eh .. it happens.

Should we get this notarized?

and no Jeff Kent does not = Most of the players.

Jeff Kent constantly defends Barry in the press. They don't hate each other. Sheffield and Sosa hate Barry, but there the only guys I know of that publically hate him. I read a long article once about Eckstein and Barry becoming friends, though that may be because Barry carried him around in a papoose one winter...

Is that what they're calling stone-cold batshit these days, Joe? Confused?

nobody was talking to you #########. you've just decided to attack me for what reason this morning?

though that may be because Barry carried him around in a papoose one winter

that made my morning lol

Should we get this notarized?

I don't think it would hurt.

I was listening to Imus yesterday (I wanted to hear if he further addressed his latest boo-boo), and he re-played an interview he did with George Carlin, back in December. Imus asked him what he thought about steroids in baseball, and mentioned that they were "illegal", and Carlin said "oh, I don't care about the legality of it, lots of laws are moronic." He went on to say that he was pro-steroids, because every other sport saw advances in equipment, and the players body were part of their equipment, so they should be able to do whatever they wanted. Sure , there would be deaths, he said, but, you're "gonna get that in sports." I laughed.

It's funny you say this, scott, because I think that the kevins of the world are the ones who come across this way.

Meanspirited? Check.
Dogmatic? Check.
Angry? Check.
Full of hyperbole? Check.

As opposed to the Joe C's of the world

Morally bankrupt? Check.
Ethically ambiguous? Check.
Intellectually lazy? Check.
Nihilistic? Check.
Philistine? Check.

Don't bother to read the crime section, eh Joey?

Stop talking to yourself.

I was listening to Imus yesterday (I wanted to hear if he further addressed his latest boo-boo), and he re-played an interview he did with George Carlin, back in December. Imus asked him what he thought about steroids in baseball, and mentioned that they were "illegal", and Carlin said "oh, I don't care about the legality of it, lots of laws are moronic." He went on to say that he was pro-steroids, because every other sport saw advances in equipment, and the players body were part of their equipment, so they should be able to do whatever they wanted. Sure , there would be deaths, he said, but, you're "gonna get that in sports." I laughed.

right here, at about the 7:40 mark he just goes on a tangent. great stuff.

I wonder how he'll perform when he has to pick up the bar of soap in the shower at San Quentin?

Pardon my idiocy, but did Bonds kill somebody? I think you actually have to do something serious to wind up at San Quentin.

Well, first you have to commit a crime. Then you have to be convicted of it in state court, because San Quentin isn't a federal prison.

So Kevin's rape humor can't even get the basic facts right.

Well, first you have to commit a crime. Then you have to be convicted of it in state court, because San Quentin isn't a federal prison.

Quentin is medium security now, too. It's not the hell hole it used to be. I mean, it's still a hell hole, but not a legendary one. I think the state decided sending inmates to Marin County was too nice.

And have fans of any other team noticed any similar grass roots sentiments?

How are you supposed to prove this? There is rarely a "grass roots sentiment" by fans of any team to sign any player.....

And, FWIW, callers to JP's weekly radio show have repeatedly asked Ricciardi about the possibility of signing Bonds, to the point where they don't take calls about the subject anymore.

Well, right there you've just given us some evidence of a bit of grass roots sentiment yourself. And it's entirely possible that there's more of this in Toronto or in other cities.

But compare this to the outcry from Yankee fans about A-Rod last winter, or Santana, or fans from several teams during the Dice-K auction. Or compare this to the buzz when a hot prospect in the minors is felt to be wrongly held back. These are cases of real grass roots sentiment demanding the pursuit of a particular player, and even though it isn't always universally shared, you don't need to conduct a poll to prove its existence.

Again, I don't deny that a certain number of fans have been wanting their teams to pursue Bonds. I'm only skeptical about the extent of that desire. And needless to say, none of this has anything to do with the inherent merits of the case from a strictly baseball point of view. As I said above, with Bonds it's never strictly about baseball.

Not signing Bonds is a reasonable business decision.

For a contending team to sign Bonds--particularly for the minimum--to help out at DH would also be reasonable business decision. I have never see any real evidence that the "circus" around Bonds affects his teams in a negative way in terms of the on-field performace. The Giants always seemed to win about as many games as the talent on the team suggested they should and of course the Pirates have been lousy ever since Bonds left.

As to the fan grassroots issue, that is impossible to measure. Casual fans, based on my exp, are not thinking about it all. Hardcore fans of teams who could use some help at DH are thinking about it.

Andy, the Red Sox don't need another DH, and Bonds isn't going to displace Manny, or Drew, and he can't play CF or RF, so why would they sign him?

Joe, that was a question addressed to fans of all teams, not just the Red Sox.

Joe, why couldn't Drew move to RF, and Bonds and Manny split LF/DH? Drew was in RF when Boston was last up in Toronto.

Joe, why couldn't Drew move to RF, and Bonds and Manny split LF/DH? Drew was in RF when Boston was last up in Toronto.

Joe's working on the assumption that Ortiz is coming back. If it becomes clear he's not, the equation changes.

Not signing Bonds is a reasonable business decision.

No, it isn't. Can we please stop saying this? This bad argument flew the coop when Borris told us that Bonds has been offered to all teams for the minimum salary.

We know that signing Bonds for the minimum is not a bad baseball decision. The only way it could possibly be a bad _business_ decision is if it would create a fan backlash such that the team would suffer a significant revenue drop.

And there is precisely zero evidence for that fringe lunatic position.

Oh, and I love how we're all supposed to seriously believe that Mr. "I'm black, and I'm keeping my money, because there aren't many rich black people in the world" is now willing to donate his entire paycheck to charity, especially when he's getting ready to pile up a series of legal bills that will probably come out to millions of dollars. Tell me another whopper, Barry.

we are talking about the prorated minimum. $150,000 .. $200,000. These guys wipe their butt with that much in ten dollar bills every morning.

Hell the San Diego Padres are swallowing $4 million dollars watching Jim Edmonds hit in Chicago. LA paid Shawn Green $10 Million to play for a division rival. we are talking prorated .. .. .. minimum! and still, he can't get a sniff.

And don't think for one minute that Bud Selig couldn't put an end to all of this with one phone call. He is a prideful man too.
He controls what, 4 teams now? Milwaukee, Kansas City, Florida and Washington. He is about ready to add the Cubs into the fold if somebody would just impregnate one of his siblings ...

This is nuts.

We are talking about, arguably, the greatest baseball player ever, being denied employment, over a measly $200,000, after the year he had ?? yeah I'm the crazy one.

Joe, that was a question addressed to fans of all teams, not just the Red Sox.

I have already answered that question I believe.

Oh, and I love how we're all supposed to seriously believe that Mr. "I'm black, and I'm keeping my money, because there aren't many rich black people in the world" is now willing to donate his entire paycheck to charity, especially when he's getting ready to pile up a series of legal bills that will probably come out to millions of dollars. Tell me another whopper, Barry.

do you have any idea how many millions Barry has donated to charity over the years?

we are talking about the prorated minimum. $150,000 .. $200,000. These guys wipe their butt with that much in ten dollar bills every morning.

That's gotta chafe.

f I had the cash, I'd form the "Roid Ragers", sign all the players who have been convicted (at least in the court of public opinion) as steroid users, and see what a team on steroids could really do.

This has basically happened in cycling

Cycling fans are, for the most part, even more rabidly anti-doping than any baseball fan except Kevin, but Rock Racing has a He-yuge cult following and have brought in a lot of casual-to-outside fans.

Pardon my idiocy, but did Bonds kill somebody? I think you actually have to do something serious to wind up at San Quentin.

Isn't San Quentin a state prison, anyway? Bonds wouldn't go there for a Federal conviction...

EDIT: I see Nieporent beat me to it.

anti-doping than any baseball fan except Kevin

Kevin is not anti doping. He is anti doping for every team except Boston.

i bet there is a word for that.

That's gotta chafe.

Not if the bills have been gently laundered.

If this is true... Then why the heck isn't Tampa all over this? They don't have much in the way of a DH, they could use the curiosity factor to get butts in seats, and as much as they're hanging with Boston right now, they're a young team and the Yankees are still capable of making their annual late-summer charge.

As a Red Sox fan, I really hope Tampa's front office doesn't realize this, but it makes way too much sense.

That's gotta chafe.

Not if the bills have been gently laundered.

I don't care how soft it is, wiping with 20,000 of anything will hurt. I mean, what is an average in the US? 5 or 6 sheets - I suppose it depends on what you eat. Maybe baseball players eat a lot of prunes.

I don't care how soft it is, wiping with 20,000 of anything will hurt. I mean, what is an average in the US? 5 or 6 sheets - I suppose it depends on what you eat. Maybe baseball players eat a lot of prunes.

Eew. This'll teach me to make a flip response to a scat reference.

If this is true... Then why the heck isn't Tampa all over this? They don't have much in the way of a DH, they could use the curiosity factor to get butts in seats, and as much as they're hanging with Boston right now, they're a young team and the Yankees are still capable of making their annual late-summer charge.

As a Red Sox fan, I really hope Tampa's front office doesn't realize this, but it makes way too much sense.

I have even gone so far as to suggest that ESPN pay Barry's salary. Bonds in Tampa makes too much sense. All those August and September games against New York and Boston would be a dream come true for the world wide leader. Ratings would be through the roof.


Tampa Bay
2-Sep vs NY Yankees
3-Sep vs NY Yankees
4-Sep vs NY Yankees
5-Sep at Toronto
6-Sep at Toronto
7-Sep at Toronto
8-Sep at Boston
9-Sep at Boston
10-Sep at Boston
12-Sep at NY Yankees
13-Sep at NY Yankees
14-Sep at NY Yankees
15-Sep vs Boston
16-Sep vs Boston
17-Sep vs Boston

I don't care how soft it is, wiping with 20,000 of anything will hurt.

Two Er, ah, ten Salmon P. Chases ought to do it, though.

Eew. This'll teach me to make a flip response to a scat reference.

You should know by now that that's how we roll here.

So, here's the question: who gets signed first, Bonds or Chacon? I mean, I guess it's not much of a question -- Chacon will get signed before Bonds. I suppose the real question is whether or not there's any way to spin that as "not suggestive of collusion against Bonds" if Chacon does get signed by another team. Of course, Chacon may not be signed (it's not like he's especially good) making the question moot, but let's say he does get signed (and I think there does remain a decent chance that he will). How does one interpret that in such a way that doesn't conclude that Bonds is being blackballed?

No, it isn't. Can we please stop saying this? This bad argument flew the coop when Borris told us that Bonds has been offered to all teams for the minimum salary.

We know that signing Bonds for the minimum is not a bad baseball decision. The only way it could possibly be a bad _business_ decision is if it would create a fan backlash such that the team would suffer a significant revenue drop.

And there is precisely zero evidence for that fringe lunatic position.

Well, I disagree. I think if you weigh all the factors, I can see teams saying "pass" a la Bill James and Bagwell.

OTOH, I think you can make a very good case that the Rays, Angels or Mets should go for it.

The Braves are getting next-to-no production from LF. They're somehow still in the division race thanks to the mediocrity of the NL East. Bonds theoretically could be the difference maker.

Cox, if any, could maintain a harmonious clubhouse even with Bonds. The Atlanta media and fans are laid-back and therefore Barry would be under less scrutiny. And there's the positive of inner city Atlanta youth getting tickets to the games.

Won't happen, but it makes some sense.

You should know by now that that's how we roll here.

In poop? That's it. I'm outta here.

Of course, Chacon may not be signed (it's not like he's especially good) making the question moot, but let's say he does get signed (and I think there does remain a decent chance that he will). How does one interpret that in such a way that doesn't conclude that Bonds is being blackballed?

It depends on the team which signs Chacon. If a team already has a competent set OF/DH, but a weak bullpen, it could remain a sound baseball decision to sign Chacon first, especially if the team has interpreted the Chacon incident as being the fault of management, rather than of Chacon.

What has Jim Wisinski said about this? He is the most well-known Raysfan poster here. Does he want his team to sign Bonds?