At some point, the bloggers will be able to tap into the media monopoly of player relations... and when that happens, we will see MASSIVE changes that will force clubs to rethink a lot of things.

I love you John Brattain

another great post by John. Love the moral victory angle. Yes, teams that are going to lose at least 100 games (in a weak division) should be excited about victories. Teams with Barry Bonds should maybe act like they've been there. If a writer is going to use Giants' this year vs. last as evidence of anything, the conclusion would be Bonds is worth 10 wins, 100 runs, and half a million fans. See also the ussmariner chemistry post referenced on this page.

Bloggers are the fifth estate, and what makes them different from the old fourth estate is similar to what made the fourth estate so powerful in the past: it isn't as institutionally ossified as the monoliths it seeks to challenge. Before it was the ink-spattered wretches of the press asking what the government would not. Today the losers in mom's basement ask what the press will not. And what's fun in this case in that some of those losers are players and working press from inside the old old estate. But the low bar to entry that made for some pretty seedy journalism in the past now enables noxious clouds of bad writing to fill the same space. It takes some doing to filter out the crap, and not everyone bothers.

PS This sounds like bad copy from Wired. I think the whole Web 2.0 meme is a pile of crap, but I've been sitting in meetings all day and I needed to run around a little.

great, great read.

thanks John

Great piece. The one thing I would disagree with is this passage:
From 1998-BALCO/“Juiced”/Mitchell Report the press set us straight that baseball did not have a problem with performance-enhancing drugs. The players that came forward were either delusional, had an agenda or exaggerated... Oh sure, there may have been the odd bad (shrunken?) apple here or there that might have been tinkering around with the stuff but they were fringe guys—not the superstars who didn’t need that sort of help.

My experience is that the media did not so much trash those who spoke up about steroids in baseball as ignore them completely. You'd see Tony Gwynn pop up like a fish here, or the Fenway Park crowd would pop up there. And then they'd submerge, and the water line would go back to being flat and undisturbed. The exception to this would be what happened to the AP's Steve Wilstein; he took a gang beatdown for daring to "peek" into Real Life Paul Bunyan's locker. But after that unfortunate kerfuffle, the lack of coverage was more about good vibes and good times.

There are many reasons for the media's silence-- laziness, cluelessness, denial, good copy, herd mentality, maintaining access, the desire not to make waves-- but no good ones.

It was O.K. as fisking goes, but I think I would've liked it better if all references to the word "collusion" were edited out. No case was made.

I love Johns writing, but I think he is wrong on this collusion thing. I honestly do believe that it's a bad common sense decision made by the group mind think. What I mean is that someone, somewhere said that signing Bonds would be bad because it would cost more fans than bring in, would hurt team unity etc. And other people(gms) ran with that opinion without bothering to check whether it was true or not. Of course the strongest evidence to suggest collusion is the fact that Beane didn't try to sign him at all. I can understand old school guys not trying to sign him but Ricciardi or Beane not attempting at least gives one data point of evidence for collusion.


there are 30 teams in baseball, lets take a look. In the AL East you have Yankees (I seriously doubt they would even consider him), Red Sox (no spot for him to play) Orioles (I don't see Angelos paying any sum for Bonds) Blue Jays (good fit after losing Thomas) D-rays (why? I mean at this point in time there is some reason for them to pursue them to capitalize on their fast start, but before the season began, it would have made little sense)

AL Central Tigers (were expected to score tons of runs, no reason to add Bonds), Indians (hoping for a Hafner recovery, possibly a fit, but I don't see it) Twins (don't see that at all), White Sox (Their dh last year posted a 150 ops+, but I could see it as a possibility) Royals (no reason)

AL West A's(of course a good fit), Angels (A good fit, but not the type of player their owner likes), Rangers (they have Milton Bradley adding Bonds doesn't seem like a good idea) Mariners (a good fit)

NL East Mets (no spot), Braves (coming into the season their outfield looked to be good), Florida (not going to spend money), Washington(Why?), Philly (maybe a good spot for him)

NL Central Cubs(supposedly had a good outfield starting the season), Cardinals (ownership wouldn't allow it), Pirates (fans wouldn't allow it), Reds (no spot on the roster), Brewers (no spot on the roster), Astros (ownership wouldn't allow it)

NL West Giants(of course), Dodgers (not going to happen), Padres (made sense, not sure why not), Rockies (absolute last place you would want an immobile outfielder) Arizona (good fit except Byrnes is loved there)

quick looking I see Padres, Philly, A's, Seattle, and Blue Jays as legitimate good fits that would allow it to happen. If those four teams didn't pursue Bonds, then there is really no reason to question other teams not pursuing him pre-season. There is a reason to question why several teams haven't pursued him since the season began as he could be a difference maker.


I just don't see the obvious collusion, just a few gunshy teams.

Philly (maybe a good spot for him)
Where would you play him? They have 10+M invested in Burrell for the year.

move one to right field, only thing I could think of, they don't have a second corner outfielder. Geoff Jenkins doesn't keep you from acquiring Bonds. Mind you I agree it would have been a stretch, but I was hard pressed to come up with even four teams that I thought would honestly consider acquiring Bonds even without a mandate from the league.

8, the absurdity is how BAD some of the performances from DH/LF are where Bonds could be a difference maker. He's just too logical of a solution to ignore without outside interference.

Finally, the $10 million he refers to has been debunked early, often and repeatedly quite some time ago.

Did I miss something? The ONLY way its debunked is if Bonds signs for a lower amount. Until then, its all a bunch of blah blah blah.

8, the absurdity is how BAD some of the performances from DH/LF are where Bonds could be a difference maker. He's just too logical of a solution to ignore without outside interference.

I don't agree, there are some teams that have no reason to get Bonds (non-contenders primarily, or others who's owners or fans wouldn't allow it. The Astros, no matter what the situation, would never, ever acquire Bonds, it wouldn't matter if he offered to play for free, it's just not going to happen there. I feel Atlanta is probably another one, there is no way they could accept the guy who broke Hanks record. There are numerous factors to consider when acquiring Bonds, and honestly I think Beane set the precedent, his team needed Bonds more than anyone, his team was positioned to acquire Bonds, heck it's as natural of a fit as possible, and when Beane didn't pursue him (argue collusion or not) other teams followed his lead.


once again, I'm mostly going pre-season. Right now it's absurd in my opinion for the Rays not to at least be looking into acquiring him. They have to think they have a legit borderline wild card shot right now. But in my opinion claimiing collusion is looking at the situation too simplistic, it's on par with those who claim steroids are gone now and that is proven by the current lack of homeruns in baseball, because pitchers never used. (except Roger and Pettitte)

He's just too logical of a solution to ignore without outside interference.

That assumes that on-field considerations are the only considerations, which is pretty far from the truth.

Barry Bonds had pretty much one team where he was a good fit - the San Francisco Giants. Everywhere else, he would have been a major PR headache. I think a lot of people here underestimate the casual fans' feelings towards Barry Bonds.

Barry Bonds had pretty much one team where he was a good fit - the San Francisco Giants. Everywhere else, he would have been a major PR headache. I think a lot of people here underestimate the casual fans' feelings towards Barry Bonds.

well put. But I actually think that the gms/owners overestimate the casual fans feeling towards Barry Bonds. In St Louis, a town that despises Bonds, I have found more people that were willing to deal with him than were adamant against having him, which was somewhat surprising to me. (this was around the time when TLR was campaigning for him)

not too surprisingly, if a guy can transform a contender to a winner it really doesn't matter how much he is disliked. In the end, he may still be considered a dick, but he's our dick.

if a guy can transform a contender to a winner it really doesn't matter how much he is disliked. In the end, he may still be considered a dick, but he's our dick.

The problem is, if you're a GM, and you sign Barry Bonds (particularly if you give him an eight-figure contract), he'd better produce. He'd better be BARRY BONDS. That's the only way you're going to win over the fan base. Because if he shows his age, or he ends up on the DL for most of the season, you might as well just quit at the end of the season.

The problem is, if you're a GM, and you sign Barry Bonds (particularly if you give him an eight-figure contract), he'd better produce. He'd better be BARRY BONDS. That's the only way you're going to win over the fan base. Because if he shows his age, or he ends up on the DL for most of the season, you might as well just quit at the end of the season.

agreed with that, and it's another fine point to talk about. Making a mistake with an Alou or even a Fukodome isn't going to cost you your job. Making a mistake with Bonds probably does. The whole thing about Bonds isn't about collusion it's about risk adversion. Not many people want to take the chance of bad results, and you have a whole host of negatives siding with taking Bonds, versus the safe course of action is not to pursue him.

Once again, as a fan I don't care about his personality as long as he helps the team win. And when you break it down over 130 games if the team wins, Bonds will at least be appreciated by his new home team. And from a money point of view, attendence has followed Bonds around for years.

I love Johns writing, but I think he is wrong on this collusion thing. I honestly do believe that it's a bad common sense decision made by the group mind think. What I mean is that someone, somewhere said that signing Bonds would be bad because it would cost more fans than bring in, would hurt team unity etc. And other people(gms) ran with that opinion without bothering to check whether it was true or not. Of course the strongest evidence to suggest collusion is the fact that Beane didn't try to sign him at all. I can understand old school guys not trying to sign him but Ricciardi or Beane not attempting at least gives one data point of evidence for collusion.

CONCUR. I agree with most of John's article, but to have "collusion," you need a specific agreement between two or more teams not to sign Bonds. I don't think that's true -- or at least, I'm not aware of any evidence of it.

What John's piece shows is that there are teams who have made some really questionable decisions in not signing Bonds. That doesn't mean there is collusion; it is entirely possible that all the teams believe there is too much "baggage" in signing Bonds, even if that belief is false.

We know, for instance, that modern use of "closers" -- specifically only using them in 9th inning save situations -- isn't ideal, yet nearly every team does this. Groupthink can certainly apply to a choice not to sign Bonds.

move one to right field, only thing I could think of, they don't have a second corner outfielder. Geoff Jenkins doesn't keep you from acquiring Bonds. Mind you I agree it would have been a stretch
I'd call it a s---t---r---e---t---c---h. Burrell is painful enough to watch trying to cover LF, although his arm might be just enough to pretend to be a RF. You could not live with Bonds and Burrell in the same OF. The Flash would have trouble covering the gaps with those two. I remember a '62(IIRC) pre-season review of the Cardinals OF, worrying that Curt Flood would die of exhaustion between Stan Musial and Minnie Minoso.
The Phils have a 3-headed CF/RF of Werth, Victorino and Jenkins. If Victorino would start hitting, that's a pretty workable 3-some.

Casual fan (or bandwagon fan) love for any winning team > hatred for any player on their team

This is similar to chemistry perception. Usually when looking back on a winning team, well, they had good chemistry. When looking back on a losing team that was expected to win, well, they are missing Sean Casey.

A relatively low salary risk Barry Bonds (one year contract) would be absolutely hated on a losing team if he hit like Gary Sheffield, Travis Hafner, Frank Thomas, or Jim Thome have this season. He might be unceremoniously tossed. However, on a winning team, if he hits at all, he'll be tolerated. If he hits really well, he'd be loved if the team won. It would take a writer like Bruce Jenkins to say he was the problem on a losing team if he hits really well.

Silly you, facts and evidence are soooo Old Media.