Barry Bonds’ agent, frustrated by the baseball-wide lack of interest in his client, said Monday that he has all but given up hope of finding a job for the home run king in 2008. Agent Jeff Borris said he recently offered Bonds’ services to “numerous” clubs for the major league minimum salary of $390,000. When Borris couldn’t find a taker, he concluded that Bonds will not be playing in the big leagues this season.
“I offered Barry at the minimum salary, and when I ran into a brick wall, that’s when I came to the conclusion that he will not be in a major league uniform in 2008,” said Borris, in New York for the All-Star Game.
“I’m not a negative person. I’m one of those ‘never say never’ guys,” Borris added. “But it seems pretty clear to me that it’s just not happening. We could go up and down the rosters of every single team and I could show you an awful lot of spots where he ought to be plugged in right now, but it’s just not happening.”
..."If everything were fair and equal in the world, Barry should get a fair market value offer,” he said. “But since everything is not fair and equal, I decided to offer him for the minimum. I thought for sure there would be a taker, and there were none. If that doesn’t raise the level of suspicion, I don’t know what does.”
..."The rumors about Arizona, the Mets and Boston are completely false. He never had a secret workout with the Red Sox,” Borris said. “I’ve had numerous conversations with all three organizations, back to the time when Barry became a free agent in November of ‘07, and none of those clubs are interested in him. Barry would play for any one of those clubs if they extended an offer. Would he make a difference in the standings? I think so, no matter what team he played for.”
Repoz
Posted: July 14, 2008 at 05:35 PM |
328 comment(s)
Related News:
General,
San Francisco,
Rumors,
Steroids
Reader Comments and Retorts
Go to end of page
Statements posted here are those of our readers and do not represent the BaseballThinkFactory. Names are provided by the poster and are not verified. We ask that posters follow our submission policy. Please report any inappropriate comments.
From today: Agent Jeff Borris said he recently offered Bonds’ services to “numerous” clubs for the major league minimum salary of $390,000.
So which one is it, Mr. Borris? And how many teams will it be on July 30th? Most, plenty, some, or few?
Oh SNAP. This is what we call OWND! How does it feel Mr. Borris? How does it feel to have someone on the internet question your integrity? Not too good I bet!!
He's an agent, he would be thrown out of the agent community if he was suspected of integrity.
Kevin would have pointed it out sooner or later, and I figured that I would save him some time. Besides, on a more topical note, doesn't it hurt any claims of collusion if a player's representative is inconsistent in his statements of who he's contacted?
Only this could rehabilitate his public image to the point where he would be deemed acceptable to a larger audience.
They need to sue the #### out of these owners, and Barry needs to be made commissioner as a result.
I'm not a Bonds' apologist but this is pretty much my take. It's not that I'm pro-Bonds, I'm anti-collusion (very anti-collusion); if it turns out that this isn't collusion my reaction will be "serves ya right--burn every bridge and eventually you'll have no place to go."
He's treated many people like they weren't worth his time--so I can't feel bad that the sentiment is now being reciprocated.
Best Regards
John
I can sympathize with this view - I'd rather have him playing, but I can understand why teams may not want him. The qualifier for me is that I don't think it is collusion. If it is collusion, however, I hope they take the owners apart.
Well, the fact that one party has acted petty and stupid doesn't make the next party acting petty and stupid's action any less petty and stupid.
Moreover, the issue to me isn't "feeling bad" for Bonds. This is a business. The interesting issue is the business case presented by the various teams that would beyond any reasonable question gain wins with Bonds on their roster, choosing not to gain wins at the major league minimum price.
we got Jeff Kent.
who else?
you guys have better memories than me. who else?
He should be in front of a different scribe everyday.
Speak out Borris, don't let the man HOLD YOU DOWN!
I certainly wouldn't say there isn't collusion. But I definitely wouldn't rule out the possibility that each team individually came to the same conclusion: He's not worth the trouble, and the negative publicity and hits ANY organization is going to take for signing him outweigh any positive value an organization can generate for itself by giving themselves a better chance to win.
IOW, while the upside on the field is potentially considerable, (though not a sure thing with a 44 year old that hasn't played in 9 1/2 months), the negatives just outweigh that. And every team individually came to that same conclusion, independently. Thats the conclusion that I came to, so to me it's not far fetched 30 other guys would do the same.
It seems to have been assumed by many people that Bonds would immediately start hitting like the Barry Bonds of old (or at least of 2007) if given a chance to play. However, given that
a) He'll be 44 years old in a few days
b) He hasn't had the benefit of spring training
c) He hasn't seen live pitching (at least MLB quality live pitching) since last year
d) He'll be (presumably) playing for a new team for the first time in 15 years
e) He could be playing in a different league
f) He could be playing a position he's unfamiliar with (1B or DH)
it may take a while for him to hit like Barry Bonds. Given all that, it's not unreasonable to expect that he'd deliver an unimpressive performance for the first few weeks, and given the pressure he'll be under, would a team stay with him long enough to see if he can get his stroke back?
I agree completely with Ryan Jones - I see no reason at all to think there's collusion going on right now, merely the (dubious) wisdom of crowds in action and a cautious allocation of perceived risk on the part of GMs. If there actually IS collusion (no dispositive evidence exists yet, needless to say), then nail the owners to the wall. But I really find the insistence of some Primates here that collusion MUST be going on to be outrageously thickheaded, an utter failure of empathy that speaks ill of their ability to step outside of their own bigotries see this controversy from the other side.
link
Of course it isn't.
But even if his performance is dramatically degraded from what it was last year, even if he loses 50 points of OPS+, he's still at 120. And a 120 OPS+ at the league-minimum salary is a tremendous, monumental bargain.
I'm not convinced there's been an "official" collusion. What I find interesting is the calculation that teams are making as to just how negative the Bonds baggage would be, to not give this offer a shot. It's as vivid a demonstration of the perceived "cost" of wins as has ever been presented.
Nice. And you only had to go back 25 years to find it! I think Bonds is probably the only person in history to act like a selfish dick when in his early 20's. Certainly the first athlete to do so.
Especially since the Giants' justification for letting him walk was how much payroll room it freed up.
* Jeff Kent
* some players from his college baseball team, when he was 19.
who else?
The guy has played with a lot of different ball players.
who else.
This thing is starting to remind me of 90's when everybody was looking for some reason, any reason, for the homer binge besides steroids. This is obviously collusion. Yes, it's possible that every team could each have individually decided Bonds is a d-bag and opted not to sign him for peanuts. That could happen in the same way it's possible Ana Ivanovic and Maria Sharapova secretly want to have a menage a trois with Bud Collins.
I'm living in the real world where 100% of teams do NOT pass on 1.000 OPS talents for minimum wage, even colossal d-bags. He's not worth the trouble for the Royals? For the Orioles? For the Blue Jays? How about the Mariners? Think the Pirates would be destroyed this so-called media hit? If the Pirates fell in the forest and nobody was there would they make a sound? Barry F. Bonds would be the best thing to happen to Pittsburgh since the day he walked away. Billy Beane can't get 200 AB out of him between now and the end of the year? Really? They were crapping themselves over Scott Freakin' Hatteberg and his .370 OPS of Doom.
Borris: Hi, Billy. This is Barry Bonds' agent. How'd you like to add Barry and his .450 OBP to your lineup?
Beane: What kind of dollars is Barry looking for here?
Borris: He'll play for the lowest amount of money you can legally pay him.
Beane: Doesn't sound like my kind of player.
Riiiight.
It seems to me either Beane has contracted a sudden case of stupidity or he's been told he can't go get him. Maybe he doesn't want him, granted. But the Royals, the Pirates? Where is the downside for these clubs? Those teams are at the point where if they were celebrities this would be an excellent time to get arrested or leak a sex tape. Hey, we're still alive over here! I fail to see the downside of making some small attempt at temporary relevance. As Dylan said, "When ya ain't got nothin', ya got nothin' to lose". This is obviously collusion.
Nada.
Oh and although Jeff Kent said bad things about Bonds, in the past few years he's changed stance and defends him. However, Ozzie Guillen says bad things about Bonds.
He has never played with the malcontent known as Barry, but he did say he met Bonds once at an all star game if memory serves. Curt has nothing but bad things to say about the great one. so we got
* Jeff Kent
* some players from his college baseball team, when he was 19.
* Curt Schilling (never played together)
who else
According to what I have read that whole ASU team was a bunch of young dicks, Bonds fit right in as the biggest blackest um . .
Isn't this what the article is about?
If memory serves, he and Danny Darwin got into a nasty altercation in Pittsburgh one day... only to make up later. So I guess Darwin doesn't count either.
The agent has already backed down from his "100%" claim, and now says "numerous" instead.
You think Bonds really wants to play for the Royals or the Mariners?
And the idea that the Pirates would have any use for him is ridiculous.
Ron Kittle?
The only really comparable situation would be the color line.
Granted, that GM has gone away, but remember that this was the team that TRADED for Matt Morris. And his salary. I can't imagine that two months of Bonds would be a worse maneuver.
No...it's not "obvious". And teams aren't staying away from Bonds because he's a D-bag. Thats not what I or other people are saying. Read # 24. Thats what owners think most people believe. And thats why he's not getting signed. It's bad business, from their viewpoint.
Look, I don't know for sure that it is or isn't collusion. Neither do you. We all have opinions, but without evidence of said collusion, the other theories are just as valid.
I love reading that. Where do I send the check?
March 2009. Bonds Trial date
The argument could be that the legal preparations may occupy his time, but the trial itself won't occur this season. Teams may be concerned about the public relations aspect of signing a guy under indictment, but they wouldn't have to worry about him missing games in 2008.
After he's been out of baseball for over a year, and he's 45, no team would touch him, and would have a good reason as to why - he's 45 and hasn't played MLB in over a year.
Actually, I believe everyone is 100% sure that he won't go to trial anytime earlier than spring 2009.
So Borris would get a credence/collusion revival?
I'm not CERTAIN of it, but the other theories have so many holes in them that it's impossible for me to take them seriously. For #24 to have merit, the front offices in MLB have to be even stupider than most people around here already think they are. How evil do the Giants fans think Barry was?
The minute he became a Blue Jay or an Oriole, Richard Griffin or Tom Boswell (or whoever) would commence their sky-is-falling columns and he'll be 90% accepted the first time he smacks one out of the park. You know why? Because those teams are tired of having their asses handed to them by the Yanks and the Sawks every year. You can safely bring in the hired gun in the black hat if he's helping you beat the two most obnoxious franchises in pro sports. I think any scientific poll of O's or Jays fans would confirm this. Those teams are in a gunfight every year with a table knife. Most the griping you'd hear would probably be division rivals saying "Blank you (Cashman/Espstein/whoever)! We could have had him!"
One of the best hitters in the world will play for almost free and suddenly nobody wants him. He's commanded $15+ million for years and now he can't get 2% of that. On what planet does that make sense?
Isn't the collusion theory based on the exact same premise as the theory in #24, that Bonds is so bad for the game's image that he should be excluded from each and every team?
Even if the owners have an agreement against in Bonds in place, I'm wondering how exactly that agreement could be enforced.
Well, my personal favourite is that Selig is threatening 30 rich and powerful owners using the Commissioners' discretionary fund, and that they're just sitting there and taking it.
Um, Ryan? Those two statements aren't inconsistent.
It's silly enough to play "gotcha!" using a hyperliteral interpretation of one's statements. But when the statements aren't even in conflict?
It's just a waste of everyone's time.
"Numerous", in this case, doesn't mean "all". Unless, of course, Posnaski is also in on the deal. Borris is changing his story.
As a side note, when you've contacted "all" your friends, do you say you've contacted "numerous" friends? Numerous implies less than all.
The A's lineup is heavily weighted with LH hitters already, including a guy with Bond's skill set (Cust). I do suspect that signing Barry would increase the A's attendence, but the A's have Cust and they are "rebuilding" so it's just not a good fit.
Moore could be fibbing or he could be pulling a Clinton and avoided taking any phone calls from Bonds agent, or yeah Borris might not have called everyone.
Gary Sheffield (also never played together)
That would be a stupid theory. Can you point to who said exactly that? The theory I posted was that Bud has a discretionary fund and that some teams may not choose to go against Bud's wishes because they don't want to be cut off from it.
When I pointed out that Met's fans here have complained that the Mets have previously not paid overslot in the draft, you didn't have a response. With the Mets building a new stadium, the owners have a desire to not be cut off from the private discretionary fund.
It doesn't matter that the Mets and other owners are rich and powerful. They all like free money. Pohlad is a billionaire and wouldn't build a stadium with his own funds.
My theory is that some teams that may have a slight interest in Bonds but won't do it because Selig controls money they would like access to and the owners know of Selig's feelings about Bonds. Selig doesn't have to threaten the owners. His feelings are clearly known.
It also doesn't have to be all 30 teams. Teams that may not care about Bud's slush fund may have their own legitimate reasons to not sign Bonds.
Now my theory is just a theory. I haven't read it anywhere that I know of, and it may smell of black helicopters. But the fact that there is a private slush funds invites the possibility of questionable behavior.
From the Pos:
This is not someone saying that he avoided the call. This is someone saying that they have not been called. Besides, what possible benefit can Moore gain from lying about this:
a) In general
b) To Posnanski
Borris could easily prove him wrong with something as basic as his cell phone bill.
First, Borris never said "all," at least not in the story you linked to; that was the AP's word, not his.
Second, assuming Borris used that word, you're just being overliteral for no reason other than to claim that Borris is changing his story.
Third, it's hard to analyze the context of Posnanski's statement, since you didn't link to it, but using your unique brand of hyperliteral analysis, maybe Moore himself hasn't heard from Bonds's people, but his assistants have. Or maybe Moore is lying -- why are we assuming that Borris is the liar? Or maybe Moore should be expected to know that Bonds was available at the minimum, since Borris told the entire world that weeks ago.
I say "all," even when I mean less than all. "All my friends are doing X." Again, in the real world, people don't speak so literally. You haven't found a smoking gun, I'm sorry to report.
yeah, where are these polls, btw? why are all mlb teams SOOO sure that bonds is bad PR, but there aren't any polls indicating this?
Well, what possible benefit could Moore gain by pretending the relevant issue is that Borris hasn't called him, when everyone knows that the relevant issue is that Moore hasn't called Borris, even after Borris loudly announced that Bonds is available for the minimum?
I don't see how a phone bill would show what was discussed during the phone call.
I had no idea that you had even voiced this theory. Where I saw it was here, as posted by Gambling Rent in #63:
To me, your theory as described is possible, as it allows that even the majority of teams have come up with legitimate reasons as to why they don't want/need Bonds. It also doesn't actually require co-ordinated collusion by the owners, as it is a form of self-censorship, and doesn't require Selig's participation. Would this even count as collusion, since there is no co-ordination or conversation between parties?
I still doubt that's what has happened, however.
Besides, Borris said in the paper "Bonds will play anywhere for the minimum." That *is* an offer to every team. Dayton Moore was certainly aware that Borris said "BOnds will play for the league minimum, and even donate the money." Now, if you want to claim that Dayton Moore thought "Well, he can't mean me..." I'm pretty sure EVERYONE knew what Borris said a few weeks ago. If Dayton Moore were interested, he should just call Borris and ask "Really?"
If Scott Boras came out tomorrow and said "ARod will play anywhere for the minimum", but not call each owner/GM, don't you think they'd be beating down his door?
Now Borris *specifically* targets teams where say the LF is constantly injured. He'd say "numerous". Those aren't contradictory.
Linked by Carl Spongberg in #52. Quoted by me in #64. Here's the link again, since you missed it the first time: Link
There is no benefit to Moore of saying that he wasn't called. Since there is no benefit, why would he bother lying about it?
It would show that Borris called, and would counter Moore's statement that he had not been called by Borris.
Oh, and Bud Selig was on teh Dan Patrick show this AM, and said he wasn't particularly surprised that no one wants to sign Bonds. And of course no team needs to get Bud's approval to do so...what an odd thing.
Hell, kevin isn't that stupid.
If A-Rod were available today, teams would be interested but since A-Rod:
a) Is 32, rather than 44
b) Plays 3rd
c) Plays it well, and doesn't use a late inning defensive replacement because he
d) Doesn't have an extensive injury history
e) Isn't linked to PEDs
f) Hasn't failed an amphetamines test
g) Wasn't named in the Mitchell Report
h) Isn't under federal indictment
i) Isn't viewed as a potential public relations disaster
We might be talking about a different situation.
Borris says that he's called everyone about Bonds playing for the minimum. Moore doesn't receive a call. Moore assumea from this that he's not considered to be on the list. Moore doesn't bother calling as a result.
Or, just possibly, Moore isn't interested in signing Bonds anyway.
Jesus H. Christ, Ryan. Moore never said he wasn't called by Borris. He said he wasn't called by Borris **about Bonds**.
And I don't know why you're so impressed by the statements of a GM who apparently didn't know that Bonds was available for the minimum, when the entire world has known that for weeks (even people like us, who don't have a responsibility to know that). If Moore were interested in Bonds at the minimum, he would have <shock!> called Borris to discuss it.
Pointing out that Bonds has more concerns around him than A-Rod is a sidetrack? In that case, could you give me a list of what topics are acceptable avenues of discussion, so I don't offend your sensibilities again?
Seriously, Bonds is different than A-Rod. Teams think about PR. These are issues which have to be considered when discussing Bonds.
Once again: this bad argument went out the window when Borris announced that Bonds is available for the minimum.
Yeah, because ARod doesn't carry a circus with him whereever he goes, isn't involved in any legal proceedings, and is the poster boy for good public relations.
Who are you kidding with this?
If events played out like this, Moore should be fired immediately for incompetence, for not placing a 25-cent phone call to find out whether he can sign Bonds for the minimum.
Why? Does performance not vary with age? Does position not matter? Or the need to carry an extra player to cover for Bonds late in games, or when his knee or back is bugging him?
Has A-Rod been indicted? Has he failed a drug test? Has he been named in the Mitchell Report? The general perception among fans and management of pro athletes seems to be that it's worse to be accused of PEDs than of cheating on ones wife.
Don't forget the last part of the quote: Or, just possibly, Moore isn't interested in signing Bonds anyway.
Oh. That's right. Any team which doesn't want to sign Bonds is evidence of collusion.
True. JP, however, has been consistent in his statements (since spring training) that he's not going to sign Bonds. Also, as many people have said here, he's not considered to be a good GM, and those who aren't good GMs make stupid decision.
God, Bonds would look good in Toronto right now.
And Hamilton is putting on the most amazing show I've ever seen.
See, Toronto Blue Jays (1992 - Jack Morris, 1993 - Rickey Henderson)
(although it wasn't really the Yankees/Red Sox, but it was a "must win now" mentality
That's why the ARod post you made isn't relevant. The point is an agent making a statement in the newspaper clearly communicates or "offers" his client's services to all the teams. Dayton Moore, when chatting with Pos about why he didn't pursue AROd wouldn't say "Well, Scott Boras didn't call me." Who the #### cares? If you need the player, sign him. If he's "just not interested", then say that, and not hide behind some horseshit "Borris hasn't called me", because some internet people will act like that means Bonds wasn't offered to all the teams. You KNOW he was - why even post your first post?
Have any owners or GMs actually said this was the justification for not signing Bonds? It seems like a very logical question to me.
Dayton Moore told me in an exclusive interview that he did not know was exclusive or an interview (we were just kind of talking) that the Royals absolutely, positively and definitely have not been called about Barry Bonds, and they absolutely, positively and definitely have not been offered Barry Bonds services.
Did Posnanski ask Moore the obvious question, "Would you want Bonds' services if they were offered to you for the league minimum"? I don't understand why people are dancing around the issue so much. It's a simple question.
* some players from his college baseball team, when he was 19.
* Curt Schilling (never played together)
* Gary Sheffield (also never played together)
* Andy Van Slyke
* Ron Kittle
who else
If I remember correctly, Ricciardi made some nebulous statement about Bonds not fitting in with their plans/clubhouse. I have no idea as to whether any other GMs have voiced their reasoning, but I would expect that all of them would say roughly the same things ("He doesn't fit with our needs", "We're focusing on next year", "We're trying out the youngsters", "We don't want to mess with the chemistry") that GMs always say.
If he did, it wasn't mentioned in the posting. Of course, to get an even better answer, we could get Borris to provide a list of teams which he called - those would be the teams that weren't interested for the minimum. It would also provide a good list for asking the earlier question of "Why?".
How are the considerations which surround a player irrelevant in determining whether a team will pursue said player? I interpreted what you wrote literally. I apologize if you apparently meant it in the abstract.
Eggs-actly. It's laughable that Ryan is acting like the issue is whether Borris called Moore, when everyone who's being serious knows the issue is whether Moore called Borris.
Would you agree that making the annoucement in the paper is sufficient?
It has nothing to do with "who would pursue ARod". It refutes the absurdity that somehow if Bonds' agent Borris didn't *call* Dayton Moore, then Bonds's services weren't offered to Moore. They were. Do you dispute that? (try to answer that).
Except that Borris started by saying he called every team. Moore merely confirmed that Borris didn't. Whether he called Borris is secondary to that statement, and based on the perceived needs of KC at this time.
Incidentally, Ray, do you believe that any team has a legitimate reason as to why they might not want to sign Bonds?
None of these things matter in a world where Bonds is offering to play for the minimum.
Ryan, you're making distinctions without differences. (You remind me of the lawyer who told the judge, "Your Honor, everything about this case is different from that one. Why, even the parties' names are different.)
What relevance is it that Bonds is <gasp!> U N D E R F E D E R A L I N D I C T M E N T, when (a) his trial wouldn't start until next year, and (b) nobody cares whether he's found guilty of perjury, since they already assume that he lied under oath?
What relevance is it that Bonds may have (I didn't follow this story and I'm not even sure it's true) failed an amphetamines test? This is intellectual dishonesty of the highest order, with you calling it a "drug test" as if it were steroids. Nobody cares about amphetamines. That's been established over and over again.
Named in the Mitchell Report? Worse to be accused of PEDs? That hasn't stopped the gazillion fans that have cheered Giambi, or Sheffield, or Jose Guillen, or Troy Glaus, or Rick Ankiel. Bonds himself was cheered in San Diego when he broke the record "by cheating" -- well, he wasn't cheered by He Who Would Not Order Collusion. It hasn't stopped teams from acquiring these players, which I established in the other thread.
True, Bonds is treated differently from other players by fans; but there is zero evidence that signing Bonds would hurt revenue.
Okay, here goes:
1) Borris says Bonds is available for the minimum.
2) Borris says he's called every team about this offer
3) Moore says he was never called about Bonds and this offer
4) Borris later changes it to "numerous" teams, of which KC apparently wasn't one, based on Moore's statement
This creates a conflicting set of messages ("I've called everyone to extend the offer of Bonds services, except for those I haven't").
Now, if Moore were interested, I agree that he should have called to ask. He apparently wasn't interested. That he didn't doesn't change Borris' misstating the extent of who he called about Bonds.
So we've got two distinct and separate issues here:
1) Borris apparently misstating who he called to offer Bonds
2) Moore apparently not following up on the availability of Bonds to KC, assuming that Moore is interested.
I also agree that this issue could be resolved by either Moore or Borris picking up the phone and asking the other.
From the link in #2 - "The outfielder, who turns 44 on July 24, has been offered by Borris to all 30 teams for a prorated share of the $390,000 minimum." and "Barry has been offered at the minimum salary and Barry's trial date is in March of 2009, so there would be no interruption of the 2008 season."
Actually, relative to his normal comments, it sounds like Ozzie loves Barry.
No, because when I contact "all my friends", I have still not contacted "numerous friends". I have contacted 3 friends.
two and three don't exclude each other. Many agents have a particular person they talk to when they call a certain club, its not always the GM, and it varies per team. Borris could have easily spoken to an assistant or even left a message and not received a phone call back. Borris did say he turned over his phones records, and his log of "non returned calls".
I think Ryan and Joe Po, are jumping to conclusions here, with out sufficient facts.
You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.
<< Back to main