Freebird!

Who has the burden of proof?
Collusion against Bonds seems to be pretty obvious, but would probably be hard to prove beyond reasonable doubt.

Who is worse: Bonds for allegedly doping or MLB for allegedly colluding? Doling out punishment selectively against only Bonds seems to be worse than his transgression would dictate. I think MLB needs to be reigned in and lose its anti-trust status.

(2) doesn't have to be proven "beyond reasonable doubt". They aren't going to criminal court, they'll go before an arbitrator.

I find the timing curious. Maybe they just got the evidence now, but I have to wonder if they let Bonds fester on the sideline and then bring it up when it won't allow him to compete, but will allow the union to benefit.

I find the timing curious. Maybe they just got the evidence now, but I have to wonder if they let Bonds fester on the sideline and then bring it up when it won't allow him to compete, but will allow the union to benefit.

Hard to say when they got various items of "evidence" (whatever it may be), but to the extent they controlled the timing, the timing seems to align to Bonds's benefit: Bringing a collusion case during the season wouldn't have helped Bonds get into uniform, that being his goal. But now that the season has ended and it's obvious no team will ever sign him, they might as well bring the grievance now.

Hard to say when they got various items of "evidence" (whatever it may be), but to the extent they controlled the timing, the timing seems to align to Bonds's benefit: Bringing a collusion case during the season wouldn't have helped Bonds get into uniform, that being his goal. But now that the season has ended and it's obvious no team will ever sign him, they might as well bring the grievance now.

How does this timing benefit Bonds? I guess you can say it doesn't hurt him, but how does bringing it now help him, particularly in his stated goal to play baseball?

How does this timing benefit Bonds? I guess you can say it doesn't hurt him, but how does bringing it now help him, particularly in his stated goal to play baseball?

I doubt any evidence (if it exists) was obtained early in the season - or else the Union would have brought it up earlier. I'm guessing the evidence came late in the season (or maybe immediately after), too late to have Bonds play. It wouldn't surprise me if somebody whose job was gone turned around and gave evidence to the Union, if they indeed do have evidence.

I doubt any evidence (if it exists) was obtained early in the season - or else the Union would have brought it up earlier. I'm guessing the evidence came late in the season (or maybe immediately after), too late to have Bonds play. It wouldn't surprise me if somebody whose job was gone turned around and gave evidence to the Union, if they indeed do have evidence.

That's probably the most likely scenario, if any evidence exists. It still doesn't answer how the timing helps Bonds though.

And it leaves open the question I had during the season. Why the hell would MLB collude when the benefits were minimal (Bonds out of uniform) and the risks were substantial (lawsuits, potentially reopening the collective bargaining agreement)?

And it leaves open the question I had during the season. Why the hell would MLB collude when the benefits were minimal (Bonds out of uniform) and the risks were substantial (lawsuits, potentially reopening the collective bargaining agreement)?

You're assuming a rationality to the collectivity of the owners that I'm not sure exists. These are mostly people who feel they are smarter than almost everybody else, who have been having their own way with getting politicians to give them massive amounts of money via stadiums. The only time they've really been slapped down in recent years was during Congressional hearings on steroids - and even then, the blame went primarily to individual players. I figure they assumed that colluding against the poster boy (albeit unproven, and still unlikely to be proven) for steroids would help with congress, with little to no risk. After all, that year that a bunch of vet outfielders got identical $3 million offers didn't really cost the owners anything - why would colluding against one particular player be different - especially since there were plausible enough reasons to convince an arbitrator, minus any actual smoking gun?

What a shocker. I doubt anyone could've seen this one coming.

They should allow Bonds to take 200 swings against Scott Elarton that count to make up for missing 2008. When A-Rod is nearing 762, I predict the public will like Bonds more at that point anyway.

And it leaves open the question I had during the season. Why the hell would MLB collude when the benefits were minimal (Bonds out of uniform) and the risks were substantial (lawsuits, potentially reopening the collective bargaining agreement)?

Oligopoly acts oligopolistically. Film at 11.

witch!

What a shocker. I doubt anyone could've seen this one coming.

Well, you'd be shocked how many people here have refused to believe it.

I must admit I didn't see this coming. Of course there's been collusion, but I would have thought that the owners would have been able to keep this among themselves.

But then again, what Akrasian says.

Oligopoly acts oligopolistically. Film at 11.

OK, I laughed out loud at that one.

Shouldn't it be oligopsony acts oligopsonistically?

I think the timing/delaying of the grievance has more to the post season then anything. Selig doesn't want anything to detract from it. Once the World series wraps up and it has been post mortemed to death then they can get to dealing with it.

No parties are harmed by the delay and I'm sure after the A-Rod opt out fiasco of last year that Fehr and Co. realize that there's little to be gained by intruding on baseball's showcase.

Best Regards

John

I'm confused about something - is/was Bonds even a member of the MLBPA? Isn't that why "Reggie Stocker" plays left field for the Giants in video games? And if he's not a member of their organization, then why is it any business of the MLBPA?

Bonds opted out of the licensing deal (baseball players aren't plumbers), so his likeness can't be used in video games. But he's still a member of the PA.

And if he's not a member of their organization, then why is it any business of the MLBPA?

On top of greenback's point, if the union actually has evidence of collusion, they can use it to beat the owners over the head and take their money. Neither side would pass up such an opportunity.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't the lack of a filed grievance cited repeatedly around here as evidence that there wasn't anything to this Bonds collusion thing?

I find the timing curious. Maybe they just got the evidence now, but I have to wonder if they let Bonds fester on the sideline and then bring it up when it won't allow him to compete, but will allow the union to benefit.

Here's a link from August 16 explaining the delay:

The players' union is investigating possible collusion against Bonds, the game's all-time home run king. That investigation, however, has slowed down at the request of Bonds' criminal attorneys, according to a source with knowledge of the situation.

Bonds' attorneys, the source said, are reluctant to draw further attention to their client while he awaits trial for allegedly lying to a grand jury when he denied knowingly using performance-enhancing drugs.

My general assumption is that baseball owners collude all the freakin' time - the contract freeze of the early aughts is incredibly suspicious - and I kinda wish that the union could have filed a grievance about bad acts that affected everyone in the union, not one guy who I don't like very much. But I'm rooting for the owners to get taken down, regardless of how I feel about Bonds.

EDIT: ooh, #23 fits me perfectly! Bonds is preventing his union from making their case and from fighting against labor violations by the owners. He's a jerk! The owners are jerks! Everyone wins.

Isn't that why "Reggie Stocker" plays left field for the Giants in video games?

I thought Reggie Stocker was a different player. Much younger than Bonds. Very good lefty hitter, but not in Bonds' class. I don't know where he was at the start of MLB06, but a few years into my player's progression, he played for the Angels.

It is a cool name though. Since there isn't a real MLB player with that name, one had to be invented.

Someone help me out with this because I am genuinely ignorant to the laws/codes governing this accusation. Why would any/all teams have to sign a player that they do not want? Whatever stage a team is going through (rebuilding, holding pattern, playoff contender etc.) why would they not be allowed to exclude Barry Bonds from that plan?

They can all do so independently. Just as a team is allowed, independently, to offer a one-year, five million dollar contract to a certain free agent OF.

The problem is that teams can't coordinate not to sign a player, just as they can't coordinate to all offer free agent outfielders one-year, five million dollar contracts.

Someone help me out with this because I am genuinely ignorant to the laws/codes governing this accusation. Why would any/all teams have to sign a player that they do not want? Whatever stage a team is going through (rebuilding, holding pattern, playoff contender etc.) why would they not be allowed to exclude Barry Bonds from that plan?

Any individual team can exclude Barry Bonds from their plan, assuming that they independently came to the conclusion that Bonds would not be a suitable part of that plan. In this case, the MLBPA is claiming that at least two teams (they're actually probably claiming a lot more than two teams did so) came to the mutual agreement that neither of them should employ Bonds, under any terms, which the CBA specifically disallows. It's not that a team has to sign Bonds, but that teams can't agree with other teams to not pursue players.

EDIT: Basically what MCoA said.

What a shocker. I doubt anyone could've seen this one coming.

versus

“We have the agreement about the timing of a potential grievance,” Weiner said.

Let's not ahead of ourselves just yet. If they have the goods on the owners, what's this weaselly #### about a tentative agreement on the possible timing of a potential grievance?

By the way, did everyone notice this gem: "Union general counsel Michael Weiner confirmed the deal with Major League Baseball, which was first reported by murraychass.com." Chass Lives!

Let's not ahead of ourselves just yet.

UM:

The baseball players’ union says it has found evidence teams acted in concert against signing Barry Bonds

The timing of the grievance won't make that go away. I cannot believe the Union said they have evidence if they do not have evidence. Even if it is weak evidence, the Union doesn't usually go that route (AFAICR).

The Union and MLB and Bonds may work out an agreement fo rhis honoring. I hope the evidence makes some teams that wanted him bust down the doors.

Now that the MLBPA's super-sleuth P.I.s have cracked this case, will we be treated to another November through March stretch of who should/shouldn't sign Bonds articles?

To be followed by the inevitable March through the trade deadline "why hasn't anyone signed Bonds?!" and "our local team's GM should be fired if we do/don't sign Bonds!!" articles.

And finally: "See-- I told you we needed/didn't need Bonds on this team to make the playoffs!"

"See-- I told you we needed/didn't need Bonds on this team to make the playoffs!"

New York says hello. both of them.

The players' union is investigating possible collusion against Bonds, the game's all-time home run king. That investigation, however, has slowed down at the request of Bonds' criminal attorneys, according to a source with knowledge of the situation.

Bonds' attorneys, the source said, are reluctant to draw further attention to their client while he awaits trial for allegedly lying to a grand jury when he denied knowingly using performance-enhancing drugs.

Thanks Ryan. I had forgotten that, but it clears up most questions I had about the timing.

I'll be curious as to what the exact nature of this evidence is, but if it's substantive, then the owners should pay through the nose. But until I see the smoking gun, I'll still have a hard time believing that anyone could ever be so stupid as to leave anything remotely resembling a traceable collusion trail.

Though since this is Major League Baseball we're talking about, I suppose anything is possible.

Now that the MLBPA's super-sleuth P.I.s have cracked this case, will we be treated to another November through March stretch of who should/shouldn't sign Bonds articles?

To be followed by the inevitable March through the trade deadline "why hasn't anyone signed Bonds?!" and "our local team's GM should be fired if we do/don't sign Bonds!!" articles.

And finally: "See-- I told you we needed/didn't need Bonds on this team to make the playoffs!"

I doubt it--a year's layoff at his age probably finishes him.

Best Regards

John

I doubt it--a year's layoff at his age probably finishes him.

lets hope not. I could see Barry as the DH in Oakland till he is 50.

#34 In collusion I there were clear paper trails. The arbitrator in collusion II said for the record that he felt various members of MLB lied to him.

Never bet against MLB shooting itself in the foot, reloading and looking for further targets.

New York says hello. both of them.

While you're probably right for the Mets, is there any reason to believe that Bonds was a full 6 games better than what the Yankees were running out there in LF and DH? It's not like Damon, Matsui, Giambi, Nady, and so on, were replacement level players.

Thanks Ryan. I had forgotten that, but it clears up most questions I had about the timing.

No problem. It was just a matter of dipping in to my extensive collection of Bonds-related bookmarks, which I keep for such an occasion as this.

I doubt it--a year's layoff at his age probably finishes him.

You're probably right. Even if an arbitrator could force some team to give him a shot, he probably doesn't have anything left. Maybe something like Babe Ruth's final season, but not enough to still be a factor.

My guess is Bonds does a few months of jail time in a plea deal, wins the California Penal League homerun title, then retires with one more big settlement check from MLB.

Collusion?

Uh, oh get ready for expansion teams in Portland and Las Vegas.

Uh, oh get ready for expansion teams in Portland and Las Vegas.

MONTREAL!!!!

(A guy can dream can't he?)

Best Regards

John

I doubt it--a year's layoff at his age probably finishes him.

I don't think so. His talent level was much higher than Jody Gerut's. More than enough to offset the age difference.

Matsui was injured, mostly, and they had to trade for Nady. The Yank's could of had Bonds for $175,000 .. It may not of helped in the long run, but Hank didn't know that then.

---While you're probably right for the Mets, is there any reason to believe that Bonds was a full 6 games better than what the Yankees were running out there in LF and DH? It's not like Damon, Matsui, Giambi, Nady, and so on, were replacement level players.---

Damon to center, Bonds in LF, Matsui as DH. does it get you 6 more wins? probably not, but it gets you a couple of them, and then the Yankees don't pack it in in September when Ponson was starting.

By the way, did everyone notice this gem: "Union general counsel Michael Weiner confirmed the deal with Major League Baseball, which was first reported by murraychass.com." Chass Lives!

I guess a website run by a crusty old newspaper writer is the only kind of internet reporting that doesn't get cited as "an internet report."

I'll be curious as to what the exact nature of this evidence is, but if it's substantive, then the owners should pay through the nose. But until I see the smoking gun, I'll still have a hard time believing that anyone could ever be so stupid as to leave anything remotely resembling a traceable collusion trail.

Though since this is Major League Baseball we're talking about, I suppose anything is possible.

Yes. That's kind of the point. They've been down this road before.

You're probably right. Even if an arbitrator could force some team to give him a shot, he probably doesn't have anything left. Maybe something like Babe Ruth's final season, but not enough to still be a factor.

An arbitrator wouldn't be able to force that. But I don't see why we should conclude that Bonds has nothing left. If there's one thing we know about Bonds, he's not like any other player; normal aging/time off patterns simply don't apply to him. He had a long way to fall from a 170 OPS+ in 2007, and I don't see why he couldn't perform well particularly as a DH.

I'll be curious as to what the exact nature of this evidence is, but if it's substantive, then the owners should pay through the nose. But until I see the smoking gun, I'll still have a hard time believing that anyone could ever be so stupid as to leave anything remotely resembling a traceable collusion trail.

Though since this is Major League Baseball we're talking about, I suppose anything is possible.

Yes. That's kind of the point. They've been down this road before.

And they want to be our latex salesmen....

Correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't the lack of a filed grievance cited repeatedly around here as evidence that there wasn't anything to this Bonds collusion thing?

If by "cited repeatedly" you mean Kevin and his sock repeatedly said it over and over and over again in a mocking tone, then I guess technically, yeah, you're right.

Now that the MLBPA's super-sleuth P.I.s have cracked this case, will we be treated to another November through March stretch of who should/shouldn't sign Bonds articles?

No, I think this year we're going to be treated to a stretch of United States of America v. Barry Bonds articles instead.

As far as baseball's super-sleuths go, from what I can tell the line is "We're leaking to you that we have this so-called evidence of the collusion, but we're not going to tell you what it is. And oh, by the way, even though we've got the goods, we're not going to file the grievance, because the commissioner is such a swell and wonderful guy that we're working out a deal with him."

Uh-huh. Bullsh*t walks, as we used to say in the neighborhood.

Uh-huh. Bullsh*t walks, as we used to say in the neighborhood.

funny, i felt the same way about that leaked crap the SF Chronicle called the game of shadows.

I'm not a big fan of schadenfreude but I do admit to a degree of glee that large segments of the sporting press have again been outed as Selig/MLB lapdogs that are so dense that they think an I.P. address is the location of a lavatory.

How do things like steroids/drug scandals and collusion keep occurring in MLB? Look at the buffoonery entrusted with covering the sport. It's no wonder MLB thinks it can get away with murder when the watchdogs are blind, deaf and possibly in early stages of decomposition when they're not at the feet of the bigwigs begging for a tummy rub.

If collusion is proven--how many will learn from this that they'll blow the whistle next time something looks fishy?

Best Regards

John

If collusion is proven--how many will learn from this that they'll blow the whistle next time something looks fishy?

None?

Funny, i felt the same way about that leaked crap the SF Chronicle called the game of shadows.

You mean all those documented grand jury transcripts? Those reporters were at least good enough to show us their evidence, even if they didn't give the source at first.

Let me know when these guys finally get around to bringing their case and showing what "evidence" they have. Until then, to me all they have is a big pile of bullsh*t.

I'm not a big fan of schadenfreude but I do admit to a degree of glee that large segments of the sporting press have again been outed as Selig/MLB lapdogs that are so dense that they think an I.P. address is the location of a lavatory.

How do things like steroids/drug scandals and collusion keep occurring in MLB? Look at the buffoonery entrusted with covering the sport. It's no wonder MLB thinks it can get away with murder when the watchdogs are blind, deaf and possibly in early stages of decomposition when they're not at the feet of the bigwigs begging for a tummy rub.

Fortunately you were there to blow the whistle, providing the evidence the MLB's player's union needed to right this terrible wrong.

If by "cited repeatedly" you mean Kevin and his sock repeatedly said it over and over and over again in a mocking tone, then I guess technically, yeah, you're right.

It was more than Kevin --- I said it, thinking the Union had closed the investigation. I even chided Brattain for continuing his articles without pointing fingers at the Union. However, someone showed me that the Union was indeed still investigating the matter. I owe John an apology/tip of the hat.

Sorry, John. It looks like you were right.

If collusion is proven--how many will learn from this that they'll blow the whistle next time something looks fishy

You wanna see some collusion?
Within the next week, most of those scribes will trot out a story about how horrible a person Barry was.

Chass used part of this piece to make you believe that Barry somehow had issues with his father.
I saw another opinion piece today, where an ESPN producer called Bonds “a pariah,” ..

Fortunately you were there to blow the whistle, providing the evidence the MLB's player's union needed to right this terrible wrong.

And I can leap tall buildings in a single bound! Would you believe short buildings with a running start? How 'bout a fire hydrant if there's a dog that can be used as stepping stool? It's a nerd! It's a pain! It's...

Sorry, John. It looks like you were right.

No biggie ... the thing is, I had history on my side and history says that owners for the most part are skunks.

You can't go too far wrong by working from the assumption that they'll act dishonourably whenever given the chance.

Best Regards

John

No biggie ... the thing is, I had history on my side and history says that owners for the most part are skunks.

You can't go too far wrong by working from the assumption that they'll act dishonourably whenever given the chance.

Not to be a dick, but shouldn't we at least wait to see what evidence they have, as well as the decision of the arbitrator? Currently, the only thing we've got is a statement from a rep saying that they've got proof which will be shown at a to-be-determined date. That's not exactly the same thing as having already demonstrated collusion.

While I'm willing to bet they've got something good, as the MLBPA is unlikely to make a move unless they're fairly confident of a finding in their favor, I'd still like to know what it is before we start proclaiming "Proof of collusion! There can be no doubt!".

And I can leap tall buildings in a single bound! Would you believe short buildings with a running start? How 'bout a fire hydrant if there's a dog that can be used as stepping stool? It's a nerd! It's a pain! It's...

John,

You were the most convinced that MLB was colluding of any writer I've seen. You also have a platform, perhaps not as big as some big media outlets, but bigger than some random blogger. Did you make any effort to do the kind of watchdog, investigative journalism that you are decrying our nation's sporting press' failure to do? If not, why?

AROM,
why on EARTH should barry plea bargain ANYTHING?

we are already seeing the usual vomiting of - oh, isn't barry this horrible person - stories

it sure does look like too many media persons are pretty much complicit (nice legal word yes??) with the collusion against bonds

i've always wondered why so many of the media side firmly with the billionaire owners vs the players. i disbelieve the owners would have got away with any collusion if is wasn't for the media helping them out

maybe it is the old thing - obviously hundreds of years old that athletes should not be paid or compensated in any way for athletic competition. that it should be "pure" like olympics which does not involve any money. or like college scholar athletes who just play because it is the part of a sound body healthy mind stuff and their pure self is completely immune from the evil moneygrubbers gambling on them

You mean all those documented grand jury transcripts? Those reporters were at least good enough to show us their evidence, even if they didn't give the source at first.

Joey no one is questioning whether or not you swallowed all that ######## known as the game of shadows. We know this.

I'm saying they couldn't get it past three different grand juries. Seven years later and the feds are strong arming grandmas for information. Apparently all that stuff in the game of shadows was, dare I say shadowy? It had a lot of Novitzky's opinion put forth to a grand jury, not cross examined.

The Mitchell Report has more facts. And thats saying something.

Not to be a dick, but shouldn't we at least wait to see what evidence they have, as well as the decision of the arbitrator? Currently, the only thing we've got is a statement from a rep saying that they've got proof which will be shown at a to-be-determined date. That's not exactly the same thing as having already demonstrated collusion.

While I'm willing to bet they've got something good, as the MLBPA is unlikely to make a move unless they're fairly confident of a finding in their favor, I'd still like to know what it is before we start proclaiming "Proof of collusion! There can be no doubt!"

Absolutely. I wrote just today at BDD:

"Yes, there is “evidence” but evidence is not proof. Bonds’ agent Jeff Borris stated in the piece linked above “There were numerous things that occurred that made me believe that the clubs were acting in concert … When I testify as a witness in the case, I will delineate each and every one of them.”

Obviously, Borris will be cross-examined and the evidence proffered will undergo scrutiny and conclusions will be drawn from that."

Did you make any effort to do the kind of watchdog, investigative journalism that you are decrying our nation's sporting press' failure to do? If not, why?

Yes I did. I spoke to a handful of team executives, contacted the MLBPA, MLB and spoke with a couple of agents.

I also had a few leads and leaks show up in my e-mail box that I followed up on. I've been writing about the game for about 10-12 years now off and on and have developed a web of contacts as well that are good for information.

I also spoke to a lot of folks in the MSM.

Best Regards

John

Yes I did. I spoke to a handful of team executives, contacted the MLBPA, MLB and spoke with a couple of agents.

I also had a few leads and leaks show up in my e-mail box that I followed up on. I've been writing about the game for about 10-12 years now off and on and have developed a web of contacts as well that are good for information.

I also spoke to a lot of folks in the MSM.

Good for you. Do you know that no one else was pursuing this?

One thing I've wondered all year long is whether Bonds was truly blackballed or whether some club might have offered him a small nothing-to-lose contract that he spurned. (In the latter case, though, why wouldn't the club have mentioned it?) It's still collusion if the player is hugely undervalued by clubs working in concert to restrain a free market for his services, of course, but it's a different level of seriousness than making the guy a total pariah.

To put it another way, if nobody offered Bonds anything, that tends to be explicable only by collusion. Why wouldn't the Royals offer him a Sosa-'07-like contract to DH for them? Bonds on one leg and with half a bat could well out-hit their DHs, even at the age of 44. If the Royals or somebody like that did offer him something, it could still be collusion, but only collusion to lowball him into staying home for the year.

Edit: and in the latter case, one could still argue that the market for a 44-year-old rickety HR champion is not like other more generic markets; who's to say how much he was worth, exactly?

You mean all those documented grand jury transcripts? Those reporters were at least good enough to show us their evidence, even if they didn't give the source at first.

Hint: the "documented grand jury transcripts" in Game of Shadows say nothing about Bonds; the only thing in there related to him is his own testimony -- which was that he didn't use steroids.

I know that Sock isn't really sophisticated enough for this thing some people call "reading," so I'm sure the above comment will go over his head, but just to clarify for others who can read: I am not making an argument here about who to believe or who not to believe. I'm just making a simple assertion: Bonds was not the target of the grand jury investigations revealed in Game of Shadows, and the grand jury witnesses were not asked about what Bonds did. The BALCO crowd were the targets, and the witnesses were asked about what Conte et al did. (Now, to be sure, there were later grand jury investigations targeting Bonds. But those weren't in Game of Shadows, because they post-date GoS, and because nobody was stupid enough to leak them this time around, given what happened to Ellerman.)

To further clarify: I am not saying that there's nothing in GoS about Bonds; there is. Many comments about what Bonds is believed to have done. But not the "documented grand jury transcripts" Sock imagines.

sosh-u

i was even more convinced than john. and yeh he is a MUCH bigger writer than me

thing is that john is a LOT more fair and balanced (sorry, but every now and then that particular saying is actually true) then me - because i am an out of the closet barry luvvvvver just like dial

the owners been colluding since there was owners to collude. and rich people who push others around they think they are bettern everyone else including their own laws

so when u see a baseball player with the quality of barry lamar, and won't nobody even return calls, won't even sign him for minimum - well, history being what is is, something is wrong when the OTHER mainstream writers don't even have the guts to suggest what is obvious.

just like they didn't have the GUTS to point out OBVIOUS steroid use. or investigate it.

Joey no one is questioning whether or not you swallowed all that ######## known as the game of shadows. We know this.

I'm saying they couldn't get it past three different grand juries. Seven years later and the feds are strong arming grandmas for information. Apparently all that stuff in the game of shadows was, dare I say shadowy? It had a lot of Novitzky's opinion put forth to a grand jury, not cross examined.

The Bonds case is now before a federal judge and will almost certainly be going to trial, and almost everyone else who was involved with BALCO has either been convicted and sent to prison or forced to make a plea bargain, you stupid schmuck.

Good for you. Do you know that no one else was pursuing this?

It's possible--I don't know for a certainty if that is the case.

The problem with this is that Bonds is such a polarizing figure and it really muddies the issue. Let's face it, the man is in all likelihood in need of a psychiatrist that minored in proctology and when you write something that would be of "benefit" to him folks assume that you're stumping for him.

I feel very strongly about collusion and agree with Marvin Miller's assessment about it.

I'd also be the first to tell you that Bonds has only himself to blame for it. Had he made a few allies instead of behaving like a man that's immune to retaliation chances are good he wouldn't be in the spot he's in. I wrote over a year ago:

Bonds may have occupied one roster spot, but he took up a lot of the clubhouse, both figuratively and literally. Players themselves acknowledged that Bonds brought a certain amount of tension. Now that’s gone. The Giants wanted to begin a new era in San Francisco and Bonds was an enduring symbol of the previous one. The Giants have moved on, but what is in store for Barry Bonds?

Major league baseball is a sheltered existence for the game’s elite players. As Howard Bryant once wrote, the player always is "in control … somebody else carries the luggage and they can turn their backs on anyone at any time.” The “anyone” remark refers to outsiders intruding on the player’s space. Bonds was sheltered within baseball’s sheltered existence. He could, in effect, turn his back on insiders as well—including teammates—without repercussions. Giants owner Magowan admitted: "Did Barry get special treatment? Of course he did."

He is now outside that protective bubble. For the first time in very a long time, he will be dependent on others if he desires to chase 3,000 hits—his best bet is doing it as a DH. If he wants a salary that reflects a team’s “respect for him” then he needs a team that can afford that. Toss in his stated quest for a World Series ring and factor in owners who are Bud Selig loyalists and it gets tricky. Bud’s reaction to HR No. 755 made it clear how he feels about Bonds. The commissioner likely wants Bonds gone, seeing as how he wants to get past the "steroid era" and Bonds is its biggest reminder.

... Further, Bonds will be a media circus simply by virtue of being Barry Bonds. With the expected flood of steroid revelations from the Mitchell Report, which will likely include information from the Jason Grimsley and Kirk Radomski affidavits, "Operation Raw Deal," plus the ongoing grand jury investigation involving Bonds, any team signing him will have to factor that level of distraction into the value of his 30 HR and 100 BB and the chase for No. 3,000.

I suspected that something like this might happen but I was weighing that against the fact that generally a player that can offer something generally finds work--even ones that turn off fans (John Rocker). I thought somebody would bite and when nobody did throughout the offseason I started asking questions.

The answers I got sounded fishy and inconsistent with past behaviour and the more I looked into things the more convinced I became.

Best Regards

John

I suspected that something like this might happen but I was weighing that against the fact that generally a player that can offer something generally finds work--even ones that turn off fans (John Rocker).

Right. As far as I can tell, there is zero precedent for a player, coming off the kind of season Bonds had, receiving zero interest despite expressing a desire to play (let alone, later, to play for free).

Well, except for collusion and segregation. But that only serves to drive the point home.

amusement

find me one, just ONE superstar who does not get "special treatment"

and yeh i know that some dicks are biggern others

One thing I've wondered all year long is whether Bonds was truly blackballed or whether some club might have offered him a small nothing-to-lose contract that he spurned. (In the latter case, though, why wouldn't the club have mentioned it?)

Bonds wasn't offered any contract, at any time, for any amount. Do people still believe this was not the case? Is there the slightest shred of evidence to the contrary?

find me one, just ONE superstar who does not get "special treatment"

I pointed that out on a few occasions regarding the Barcolounger. How was that any more evidence of being a clubhouse cancer than say ... Ken Griffey Junior's block of lockers.

I mean, Junior played GM (or tried to) in both Seattle and Cincy. It only became an issue when the front office wanted it to become one.

Best Regards

John

oh mercy mercy me

junior griffey the perfect???!!

the perfect exemplar of What A Real Baseball Player Should Be????

acted like people who are superstars in power?

imagine that

- i never EVER believed any of the horseshtt about the "umble" ballplayer

Sorry, John. It looks like you were right.

Careful, bb, you'll break the internet if you keep acknowledging you were wrong.

What I like about BB thread is that (unlike the politics threads) I can agree with the big-brained libertarian-types instead of his kevvy-ness.

One thing I've wondered all year long is whether Bonds was truly blackballed or whether some club might have offered him a small nothing-to-lose contract that he spurned.

Lance Parrish and Andre Dawson didn't help MLB in earlier collusion cases.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't the lack of a filed grievance cited repeatedly around here as evidence that there wasn't anything to this Bonds collusion thing?

Yeah, but the next time Joey B. spits out a rational, thoughtful, well-made argument will be the first, so I don't see why you'd expect much in the way of self-reflection, either. Remember that this is the person who complains ad nauseam about the number of Bonds threads yet posts like his pants are on fire in every single ####### one of them.

Sorry, John. It looks like you were right.

Blind squirrel, acorn...

Blind squirrel, acorn...

Visually impaired or not--I'm still duly proud of finding my nuts sir!

Best Regards

John

MLB gets nailed on collusion.

Bonds gets convicted.

Brattain gets Pulitzer.

What's not to like?

What's not to like?

What's not to like?

No line 4.

Zim wins lottery and builds BTF House on sugar plantation.

Line 5: Das awards Bonds Selig's left nut to be collected at the Yankees home opener.

Bonds tosses out the first ball.

Best Regards

John

But until I see the smoking gun, I'll still have a hard time believing that anyone could ever be so stupid as to leave anything remotely resembling a traceable collusion trail.

You have a hard time believing people do really stupid things?

I have a hard time believing it when people don't do really stupid things. I make a good living because a large percentage of the public does really stupid things on a regular basis.

and srul he could tell all yall doubters that there is such a thing as M.O. -

and the owners they sure done a whole lot of repeating the same ol MO.

I'm thinking the evidence will be more or less the no-team-made-at-least-a-minimum-major-league-contract-offer-variety. Where both sides of the Barry haters and lovers will stake some victory. Or is the bet that some one turned or there is a waylaid memo of some sort?

"See-- I told you we needed/didn't need Bonds on this team to make the playoffs!"

New York says hello. both of them.

Yeah, but we picked up Richie Sexson.

Oh, wait....

New York says hello. both of them.

This got me thinking about whether it was a pissed off GM who passed on the evidence... if Minaya wanted to pick up Bonds and mid-season and he was rebuked and now he barely missed the playoffs, putting his job in jeopardy... that could piss me off enough to pass on evidence that prevented me from doing well in my job. Especially because it might be hard to fire him right away under whistle-blower laws.

Or is the bet that some one turned or there is a waylaid memo of some sort?

I'm guessing it's some kind of memo from Selig that was sent to teams "having internal discussions about Bonds" reminding them that…

'…while a team is certainly free to sign whomever they wish, please bear in mind that the office of the commissioner feels very strongly that the game should be moving past the era of performance enhancing drugs and looking to the future instead of making decisions that--while they might pay short term dividends--would remind people of an unfortunate past that they certainly would prefer to forget.

Clubs should be mindful of setting a proper example of the importance of fair play--especially to young impressionable fans and that under no circumstances would teams wish to give them any thought that major league baseball in any way shape or form condones the use of anabolic steroids. If you wish to pursue the matter further I think it would be best to meet face to face to discuss the situation in greater detail. .'

Tim Brown at Yahoo thinks that Bonds could get as much as $100 million (Career shortened by three years costing salary and damages would be tripled).

Best Regards

John

John, where is that quite pulled from?

“We have the agreement about the timing of a potential grievance,”

To me, this is the most interesting piece of the whole puzzle. What is the content of this agreement -- what "timing" have they agreed to? As the article says, the hearing is "likely" to be after Bonds's trial. Which suggests to me that something in the evidence the union has links the alleged collusive behavior to the criminal allegations against Bonds. Some sort of memo or letter or document of some kind indicating that Bonds's legal troubles were a basis for at least one team not to act to sign him, and perhaps had been the subject of discussion at a meeting (an owners' meeting? a GMs' meeting?) at which someone or several someones discussed why their teams wouldn't (and perhaps other teams shouldn't) risk signing him with the criminal matter pending. That would indicate collusive activity, or at least collective consideration of the issue.

And it might be that something in whatever is in such a document (perhaps memorializing that discussion or meeting) indicates the belief that the team or teams had a legal basis for waiting the outcome of the criminal trial, and perhaps Bonds and/or the MLBPA believes there is some merit to that -- or at least that the outcome of the trial would have an impact on the potential outcome of the grievance. Else why wait to hold it until after the trial? I can't for the life of me figure out why the union wouldn't want to go forward right now, unless there is something about the evidence or legal theory that makes the trial outcome important, or at least relevant.

And even if Bonds wins, it's peanuts as far as the damages are concerned. Divided between all the teams? Bonds is just one player, and even generously his one-year salary wasn't going to be THAT much for 2008. At most, we're talking about a couple of million per team, and that's if they treble the damages.

i wouldn't be surprised one bit to find out that bud had sent out emails/memos just like that

and i also wouldn't be surprised one bit if he was willing to shrug off 100 mill as the price of revenge

the only thing that amazes me about bud is that there is anyone out there who defends him

John, where is that quite pulled from?

Um, where da sun don't shine ... I used the blockquote feature to make it look how something like that might appear.

Sorry for the confusion.

Best Regards

John

I can't for the life of me figure out why the union wouldn't want to go forward right now, unless there is something about the evidence or legal theory that makes the trial outcome important, or at least relevant.

They were pretty vague on that point. I thought possibly it was to delay it until after the World Series (bearing in mind the opt out fiasco of last year). I didn't get the impression that it had anything to do with the trial from the article (but I'm not a lawyer either).

Discussing his legal concerns at an owners' meeting doesn't strike me as collusive behaviour--heck, that would be simple common sense.

Best Regards

John

I'll just pop in to say that I'll see what the evidence is, but I still don't get how the owners (as a group) benefit from Barry Bonds being out of uniform. That's not to say that there is no collusion, but it just doesn't make sense to me. I mean, I could see how earlier collusion, which was directly about controlling payroll, worked in the owners' favor. If it's okay for Gary Sheffield and Jason Giambi and Roger Clemens and Miguel Tejada to still be playing baseball, how does Bonds hurt the owners' bottom line (which, after all, is all the owners really care about)?

I understood how signing Bonds would be a risky move all the way around for an individual team, but I don't see how collusion benefits anyone, which is why I doubted that there was collusion.

I thought possibly it was to delay it until after the World Series (bearing in mind the opt out fiasco of last year). I didn't get the impression that it had anything to do with the trial from the article

I assumed that the agreement on the timing of the grievance was related to the trial because of this line in the article:

Bonds pleaded not guilty to 14 counts of making false declarations to a federal grand jury and one count of obstruction of justice, and his trial is scheduled to start March 2. Any grievance is likely to follow the trial.

Now, that might not be because the issues are related (as I surmised), but simply because Bonds is focused on the trial (for good and sufficient reasons), and doesn't want to have to devote his attention to a labor grievance.

Discussing his legal concerns at an owners' meeting doesn't strike me as collusive behaviour--heck, that would be simple common sense.

It would depend entirely on how it was discussed. If some owner or official of the Commissioners' office made a presentation urging owners not to consider signing Bonds and a big part of the pitch was his legal problems, that is collusive behavior. It doesn't matter why they collude; it simply matters that they collude. And it wouldn't have to be that explicit; an arbitrator might well be able to draw inferences from mere discussions of Bonds's troubles depending on how the subject was raised, the context, and the conclusions that one or more teams drew from what was said (and perhaps what those teams put in writing after the meeting was done).

Missed that line--thanks for the heads-up Sam.

Best Regards

John

But until I see the smoking gun, I'll still have a hard time believing that anyone could ever be so stupid as to leave anything remotely resembling a traceable collusion trail.

You have a hard time believing people do really stupid things?

No, just things that are really, really, really that stupid. That would "really" be the Grand Coalition of the Low Information Magnates.

And even if Bonds wins, it's peanuts as far as the damages are concerned. Divided between all the teams? Bonds is just one player, and even generously his one-year salary wasn't going to be THAT much for 2008. At most, we're talking about a couple of million per team, and that's if they treble the damages.

At most, we're talking many times more than that. The CBA states that, in the event of five or more teams engaging in collusion, the MLBPA has the right to re-open the CBA. The early re-opening of the CBA, with the players being in possession of a finding of collusion, could easily cost the owners hundreds of millions of dollars.

The CBA states that, in the event of five or more teams engaging in collusion, the MLBPA has the right to re-open the CBA. The early re-opening of the CBA, with the players being in possession of a finding of collusion, could easily cost the owners hundreds of millions of dollars.

Ouch. That's very interesting to know -- of course, it assumes that the players would decide to detonate that particular button. You'd assume that in a "normal" collusion case they very well might, other things being equal. But this isn't a "normal" collusion case -- it's a one-player situation, and Bonds is no normal player. So that complicates the analysis considerably. And these are no normal times; I wonder whether the players would really want to risk reopening the CBA under the current economic climate. Just thinking out loud here, and wondering if that particular threat is truly realistic in this specific situation. Perhaps, and its mere existence is certainly leverage for the players to sit back, smile, and wait for a very lucrative offer to come their way.