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

The players had direct evidence (such as testimony under oath) and indirect evidence (no offers to free agents).

You talk about "equivalent salaries," but it's not that the owners were offering contracts at lower salaries; it's that they were not offering contracts _at all_.

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

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

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

I don't think anyone is arguing that Bonds has not ever been offered the minimum salary. The argument seems to be whether he would actually accept it. It's interesting that Borris does not say that Bonds would be willing to accept the league minimum. He just says that they have yet received such an offer.

Does anyone have any quote from Borris indicating what is client is willing to play for?

Edi: That should read "He just says that they have not yet received any offer".

Does anyone have any quote from Borris indicating what is client is willing to play for?

Sure. It's right there above. "[W]e can't even get him a $390,000 deal with any team."

I don't see why this is so hard. Borris has tried to get him even a minimum deal, and has been unable to do so.

All of this "Bonds won't play for the minimum" speculation is just a red herring. No team is interested, at any price. That's not a "Bonds won't play for the minimum" problem. It's a "teams won't offer him a contract" problem.

Sure. It's right there above. "[W]e can't even get him a $390,000 deal with any team."

That does not say that Bonds is willing to play for the minimum. It says that no team has offered the minimum. That's not the same.

You talk about "equivalent salaries," but it's not that the owners were offering contracts at lower salaries; it's that they were not offering contracts _at all_.

I know that almost no free agents were offered contracts in the collusion seasons. I was asking as to whether they used some analysis to determine what offers a player could have reasonably expected to receive in an uncorrupted market (offers which, as you note, were largely nonexistent in the collusion years), and used that as part of the basis for their grievance.

That does not say that Bonds is willing to play for the minimum. It says that no team has offered the minimum. That's not the same.

It says that Borris has tried to get him the minimum.

Steibferno, is there the slightest shred of evidence that teams are willing to offer Bonds a minimum contract but are not doing so because they are concerned that he won't accept it?

It says that Borris has tried to get him the minimum.

Steibferno, is there the slightest shred of evidence that teams are willing to offer Bonds a minimum contract but are not doing so because they are concerned that he won't accept it?

Ray,

It does not say that Borris tried to get the minimum. It says that they have not gotten any offers, including the minimum. If Borris had actually told the teams that Bonds would accept the minimum, don't you think he would say so on the record. For someone like yourself, who loves to parse language, how can you state that Borris and/or Bonds have told the teams that he will definitely play for the minimum. The above quotations just don't support that conclusion.

At what point did Borris announce that Bonds was willing to sign for the minimum to absolutely anyone who wanted him? Was it in December? February? After the season started?

There were several teams, when planning for the year, where it would have made sense to sign Bonds for the league minimum, if they could. As spring training progressed, and then once the season started, it can be argued that the number has continued to shrink considerably.

By the way, has Bonds ever given any indication that he might he want to play for a certain team, or in a certain city? I honestly don't know. That could impact on offers as well.

collusion would require such a complete and airtight conspiracy

I don't even buy this.

Get 30 owners and Selig in a room. Selig says something like this:

"You know, we really dodged a bullet on this one. Most of the attention is on the players in terms of the steroid problem. All we really have to do is make it look like we care and the MLBPA will cave to the media pressure. They've already made concessions to increase the penalties, and we gave up nothing for that.

The only way this could go poorly for us is if we made it look like we were insincere by signing a really high-profile FA that is embroiled in the steroid controversy. I wouldn't tell anyone to sign or not sign any particular player, but we all are hoping that this controversy will just go away, and as soon as some of the highest profile guys are retired for good, it probably will."

Of course, this isn't put in writing or recorded. How hard a secret is that to keep?

How hard a secret is that to keep?

Considerably, since these owners also have to tell their presidents, GMs, and so on down the chain, not to try and sign Bonds, no matter the price or need. Most of these people will ask questions, and some of them are not noted for being shy with the press - both on and off the record. The initial group of 30 who know will quickly expand out to 100+, and probably continue expanding from there.

Considerably, since these owners also have to tell their presidents, GMs, and so on down the chain, not to try and sign Bonds, no matter the price or need. Most of these people will ask questions, and some of them are not noted for being shy with the press - both on and off the record. The initial group of 30 who know will quickly expand out to 100+, and probably continue expanding from there.


GM: I'd like to sign Bonds.
Owner: Not for my club. I don't want the media attention.

(At this point, many GMs will change the subject. They'd rather make a decent decision with clear owner support than a good decision against the owner's wishes, because nothing is guaranteed, and if the worst comes to pass, it's better to have done what your boss would have thought was right. A particularly aggressive GM might go a little further.)

GM: He is a really good fit and I think he'd make a big difference, plus we'd get him fairly cheaply because of the PR issues.
Owner: I understand where you're coming from, but I just don't want to be dealing with the fallout of signing a guy under such scrutiny on a daily basis. This steroid issue is a nightmare for baseball and I don't want to be seen publicly supporting the player who has become the poster boy for steroids.

How complicated is this? The owner can add things like "if he were 27, it would be a different story" or "if we needed one piece for a WS, it would be a different story" or "if only it were raining in China, it would be a different story."

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

The evidence was all circumstantial, including comparisons of salaries offered and (lack of) player movement. No one testified that the owners agreed not to bid for the competitor's players. There was, however, evidence of discussion of rising salaries, etc. and "requests" from the PRC.

I used to have copies of the Roberts (Collusion I) and Nicolau (II and III) decisions, but in moving my offices recently managed to misplace them. A good review of what happened is contained in this law review article: http://www.marcedelman.com/EdelmanLoyolaEntLRev.pdf

In summarizing Roberts (Collusion I), the author states,

Factually, during the 1985–86 off-season, only one of twenty-nine eligible free agent players received a bona fide contract offer from a rival team, down from sixteen in the previous season. Although there did not exist a written plan among clubs that forbid the signing of free agents, the MLBPA showed evidence of a “common scheme” or motive against signing free agents. The MLBPA also introduced as evidence statements made by then-baseball Commissioner Peter Ueberroth, which encouraged owners to take “fiscally responsible” actions such as “avoiding long-term contracts and agreeing not to negotiate with other teams’ free agent[s].” Further, the MLBPA provided evidence that the league commissioner had berated owners and general managers that did not follow his message of “fiscal responsibility.” For example, prior to the 1985 owners’ meeting, the Kansas City Royals had pursued standout free agent Kirk Gibson; however, after stern warning at the meeting, the Royals’ interest in Gibson ceased.

In response, the clubs claimed that they never violated Article XVIII(H). According to the clubs, “Article XVIII(H) was drafted very narrowly, and only prevented clubs from forming small bargaining units to negotiate with free agents.” The clubs argued there was not sufficient evidence to prove an agreement under Article XVIII(H) because a lack of player movement emerged from “individually made rational independent decisions [based on] the general economic condition of the industry, certain changes in the Basic Agreement, and the least attractive pool of free agents in recent years.”

Nevertheless, on September 27, 1987 an arbitration panel led by Thomas Roberts found that baseball clubs indeed violated Article XVIII(H) of the Major League Agreement. In Arbitrator Roberts’ opinion, he rejected the clubs’ defense that their actions were the result of rational, independent decisions based on legitimate baseball, business management, and financial factors. Roberts’ opinion further stated that “[w]hat is prohibited, is a common scheme involving two or more [c]lubs and/or two or more players undertaken for the purpose of a common interest as opposed to their individual benefit,” and that such a prohibited, common scheme existed in the aforementioned case.

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

"May", yes. Likely? No.

There are at least three collusion occurrances?

Ryan, you see why your reasons don't take - owners simply don't learn not to do it. They learn ways they can't do it, and they try to do it another way.

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

Well, on your point that the media isn't united against Bonds, I'd laugh in your face.

As to the rest of your argument, it's as nonsensical as it was when you made it earlier in the thread. You can't prove that there's no collusion by arguing that nobody would collude because it's hard to keep it secret. And you certainly can't argue that it's hard to keep collusion secret in the very same post in which you argue that someone didn't exactly keep it secret. (As for GMs, they don't even have to be in on the collusion. If the owners collude, that's sufficient. Each owner simply makes known to his GM that he's not interested in having the team sign Bonds.)

"May", yes. Likely? No.

True, but unlikely is not the same as impossible. As mentioned before, Bonds represents a very special and largely unprecedented case.

I assume you're willing to admit that, independent of his on-field performance, there is the perception among baseball of significant off-field concerns with Bonds which may impact their interest in signing him? This could quite simply be a matter of teams weighing these off-field factors more heavily than the on-field one, as we've seen many of them do before.

That's not to say that they're right in doing so, but it is not unreasonable to think that they do nonetheless. As I've said before, I would be happy to have Bonds on the Jays, and they could use them. The fact that no one has signed him, I am prepared to consider as a sign of differing priorities, inefficiency in evaluation, and/or stupidity, rather than maliciousness.

There are at least three collusion occurrances?

Yes. They were in three consecutive years, and effectively form a single act of collusion. It took that long for the various grievances to be properly resolved.

Yes. They were in three consecutive years, and effectively form a single act of collusion. It took that long for the various grievances to be properly resolved.

Plus a fourth one in 2002 that was resolved with a eight figure settlement written into the 2006 CBA.

Edit: I understand that at the time of his death last year, Arbitrator Roberts was still supervising payouts from the $280m fund, so in that sense, the 1980s matters are still on-going. Steve Garvey's challenge against Robert's and the MLBPA went all the way to the Supreme Court. For the attorney's on board, that case was highly unusual in that the Supremes overturned the 9th Circuit decision (which had been in favor of Garvey) without briefing or argument on the merits, but rather just on the initial petition for writ of cert. Of course since the were ruling against Satan, briefs probably weren't necessary ...

"May", yes. Likely? No.

"May", yes. Likely? Quite possibly, given that there are only a few teams for it makes sense to sign him. All it takes is for the few teams for who it makes sense to sign a 43 year old left fielder to reach the same conclusion.

Quite possibly, given that there are only a few teams for it makes sense to sign him.

Hey, if we keep repeating this nonsensical point, someone might believe that it makes sense!

For the attorney's on board...

I wish I had reread that before the edit option went away.

"May", yes. Likely? Quite possibly, given that there are only a few teams for it makes sense to sign him. All it takes is for the few teams for who it makes sense to sign a 43 year old left fielder to reach the same conclusion.

I can't tell how much of this is intellectual dishonesty and how much is just being silly. At the right price, it made sense for approximately 29 teams to sign him. The Red Sox were the only team that it obviously made no sense, since (even though there was a good chance he'd be better than Ramirez) they obviously weren't going to bench Ramirez to find out.

There were other teams that didn't make sense at $18M, sure -- but as we've established, Bonds isn't sitting home because he stupidly rejected an $18M offer or a $10M offer. He's sitting home because he hasn't gotten any offer.

The only scenarios where one wouldn't sign Bonds, objectively, at the right price would be if:
(a) One has stars at DH and LF (and no way to move those players elsewhere, such as 1B/RF);
(b) One has good, expensive players at DH and LF that can't be moved, such that it would be a waste to bench them;
(c) One has prospects ready to play DH and LF who Bonds would be blocking <u>this season</u>.

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

Well, on your point that the media isn't united against Bonds, I'd laugh in your face.

Which would only show that you don't read half the stuff that gets linked here. No question that the vast majority of the media thinks that Bonds juiced, but beyond that simple point of agreement (which itself is denied by the "not proven" crowd) the consensus breaks down a lot faster than you seem willing to admit. And in case you haven't noticed, many of the owners are just as unpopular as Bonds is among the writers.

Just scan the entire roster of New York Times columnists, for example, and tell me even one of them who would play along with any such collusion if word of it ever leaked out. They're not fond of Bonds, but they'd be even less fond of an conspiracy to keep him out of baseball.

As to the rest of your argument, it's as nonsensical as it was when you made it earlier in the thread. You can't prove that there's no collusion by arguing that nobody would collude because it's hard to keep it secret.

The problem here is that I've never tried to "prove" that there isn't any collusion. I'm saying only that the facts and logic don't compel any such "collusion conclusion," and that it's up to the collusion theorists to prove it, if they feel so inclined. Until you've done that, your theory remains just that, no matter how compelling its logic may seem to you.

Along with Ryan, I'm simply saying that collusion isn't necessary. There are other explanations that involve far less risk to everyone.

And you certainly can't argue that it's hard to keep collusion secret in the very same post in which you argue that someone didn't exactly keep it secret.

On the contrary, if I'm noting (with a tip of the hat to Chris) that "someone didn't exactly keep it secret," I would think that that would be a piece of evidence that would demonstrate that "it's hard to keep collusion secret." Why on Earth would evidence of a leak be part of an argument against the prospect of leaking?

(As for GMs, they don't even have to be in on the collusion. If the owners collude, that's sufficient. Each owner simply makes known to his GM that he's not interested in having the team sign Bonds.)

Of course this assumes that any GM who wanted to sign Bonds is either incapable or unwilling to ask the simple followup question, "why not?" Or that if they ever got up the nerve to pose the question, they'd simply shrug their shoulders and take "because I said so" as a final answer. And it further assumes that 30 such casual directives would never leak out; that the coincidence would never be noted; and that nobody who noted this coincidence would ever care enough to follow up with a pointed question or observation.

In short, you really are assuming a whole lot of things, each individually plausible, but collectively more than farfetched, and so far wholly unproven. Of course I can't "prove" you're wrong about this, but in this case you're the one in need of "proof," not me.

Quite possibly, given that there are only a few teams for it makes sense to sign him. All it takes is for the few teams for who it makes sense to sign a 43 year old left fielder to reach the same conclusion.

As demonstrated, there's aren't "only a few teams". 60% or more in teh NL alone.

I assume you're willing to admit that, independent of his on-field performance, there is the perception among baseball of significant off-field concerns with Bonds which may impact their interest in signing him? This could quite simply be a matter of teams weighing these off-field factors more heavily than the on-field one, as we've seen many of them do before.

That's not to say that they're right in doing so, but it is not unreasonable to think that they do nonetheless. As I've said before, I would be happy to have Bonds on the Jays, and they could use them. The fact that no one has signed him, I am prepared to consider as a sign of differing priorities, inefficiency in evaluation, and/or stupidity, rather than maliciousness.

Right, and your items were adddressed face-to-face. That *ALL* teams came to the same conclusion on their own is highly improbable. I can flip a coin and get heads 30 straight times. Is it likely? No. Why 30 teams? Because your reasons account for those in "competition cycles" or whathaveyou. So using your list all 30 teams are eligible.

On the contrary, if I'm noting (with a tip of the hat to Chris) that "someone didn't exactly keep it secret," I would think that that would be a piece of evidence that would demonstrate that "it's hard to keep collusion secret." Why on Earth would evidence of a leak be part of an argument against the prospect of leaking?

What the A's guy said was "Why aren't we interested in Bonds? 'On the record'? We're going with youth."

Along with Ryan, I'm simply saying that collusion isn't necessary. There are other explanations that involve far less risk to everyone.

It isn't necessary, but the explanations require an amazing alignment of the stars. It's highly improbable that all 30 teams came to the same conclusion. It's more likely they were giving some incentive (or disincentive) to not sign Bonds. that wraps the not signing neatly. It's the simplest explanation for why an MVP candidate and all-time HR king doesn't get one last lap around the track for ANY offers (regardless of whether or not he'd accept them - I mean Kenny Lofton even got some token offers).

I can flip a coin and get heads 30 straight times. Is it likely? No. Why 30 teams? Because your reasons account for those in "competition cycles" or whathaveyou. So using your list all 30 teams are eligible.

I just want to point out that this is an absolutely moronic analogy. Coins are defined as being equally likely to come up heads or tails. Signing Barry Bonds, or any baseball decision, lacks that. Nobody wants to give me a contract either - that has about as much to do with your coins analogy as Bonds does.

It's the simplest explanation for why an MVP candidate and all-time HR king doesn't get one last lap around the track for ANY offers (regardless of whether or not he'd accept them - I mean Kenny Lofton even got some token offers).

1. A massive conspiracy is the simplest explanation?

2. Do we know that he hasn't gotten any offers?

Do we know that he hasn't gotten any offers?

His agent states that he has not received any offers. I believe that the collective agreement on this issue is that the agent isn't lying.

Some people were saying, apparently sincerely, that Sammy Sosa's corked bat was indicative of possible PED use. Now there's incredulity at the idea that a cabal that's already colluded might have colluded?

Just scan the entire roster of New York Times columnists, for example, and tell me even one of them who would play along with any such collusion if word of it ever leaked out. They're not fond of Bonds, but they'd be even less fond of an conspiracy to keep him out of baseball.

OIC. This is your usual approach of arguing a point nobody has made. Who's arguing that reporters wouldn't report that there was collusion if they had proof of collusion? Nobody. Is that even remotely germane to the discussion?

On the contrary, if I'm noting (with a tip of the hat to Chris) that "someone didn't exactly keep it secret," I would think that that would be a piece of evidence that would demonstrate that "it's hard to keep collusion secret." Why on Earth would evidence of a leak be part of an argument against the prospect of leaking?

It wouldn't. Who's arguing against the prospect of leaking? The rest of us are discussing collusion. Evidence of a leak would be part of an argument that there was collusion.

Of course this assumes that any GM who wanted to sign Bonds is either incapable or unwilling to ask the simple followup question, "why not?" Or that if they ever got up the nerve to pose the question, they'd simply shrug their shoulders and take "because I said so" as a final answer.

See Crosbybird's post 321.


As far as I can tell, you might be making one of two arguments (though neither one clearly):

1) There can't be collusion because nobody would collude because it would leak out.
2) There can't be collusion because if there were collusion it would have leaked out.

I don't know which one you're making (or another one, even less clearly), but neither argument makes any sense. As to the former, well, it's as ridiculous as saying, "Nobody could have used steroids because nobody would do that because they'd be caught." As to the latter, it's nonsensical; for any secret, there exists some point at which it hasn't been revealed yet.

Since I'm going out for the evening I'll reply in detail to all this later, but the long and short of it is that if you're "discussing collusion," you haven't proved a damn thing about it other than the fact that you think that it exists. But your theory is nevertheless drenched in eloquence, as usual.

What the A's guy said was "Why aren't we interested in Bonds? 'On the record'? We're going with youth."

And then they went out and got Frank Thomas.

I just want to point out that this is an absolutely moronic analogy. Coins are defined as being equally likely to come up heads or tails. Signing Barry Bonds, or any baseball decision, lacks that. Nobody wants to give me a contract either - that has about as much to do with your coins analogy as Bonds does.

When you put up a 170 OPS+ in the 2007 National League, let us know.

The coins analogy actually understates the case. How likely is it that a team can acquire the league's best hitter for virtually nothing, and, yet, fails to show the slightest bit of interest in him. I'd say the prospects of that happening with a team are far, far less than the 50% chance of a coin flip.

Now consider that it happened with 30 out of 30 teams.

Now consider that each team _continues_ to pass.

And, yet, people continue to try to claim that teams are scared off by his age or his injury record or such. Or they bizarrely predict (Bill James and then people gleefully signed on to this absurd argument like lemmings) that it's very likely Bonds has *already* fallen off a cliff.

And then they went out and got Frank Thomas.

Yes. They went out and got a guy who they knew wanted to be in Oakland, and who was available for the pro-rated league minimum, with no negotiations requried and no strings attached. More importantly, when that Bonds question was posed to the A's guy, there was (as you note) no way for them to have known in advance about Thomas' availability, or how Oakland would play early in the season. Circumstances changed, and Beane (smartly) reacted to it.

And, yet, people continue to try to claim that teams are scared off by his age or his injury record or such.

Does such include media relations, clubhouse chemistry, a federal indictment, and so on? While you may consider these items to be unimportant or non-existent, these are matters which GMs, owners, and their associates consider when determining who to add and who not to add. Someone can reasonably believe that Bonds will be a productive player and still not want to add him for reasons not related to collusion.

Incidentally, where did Bill James argue that Bonds has already fallen off a cliff? I haven't seen the article, and I'm curious about the reasoning he uses.

When you put up a 170 OPS+ in the 2007 National League, let us know.

The point is that neither one has anything to do with 50%. It might understate the case, or overstate it. Starting with the assumption that a given team is 50% likely to want to sign Bonds without collusion however is essentially starting with the assumption that there is collusion.

More importantly, when that Bonds question was posed to the A's guy, there was (as you note) no way for them to have known in advance about Thomas' availability, or how Oakland would play early in the season. Circumstances changed, and Beane (smartly) reacted to it.

But circumstances didn't change. Bonds -- a better player than Thomas -- was available at every step of the way.

And Bonds might not have wanted to be in Oakland? Since when? That's nearly the perfect location for him. Not only has he been playing in that area for the last 15 years, but the people there are already used to him and to the Pedro Gomezes of the world stalking him.

Bonds -- a better player than Thomas -- was available at every step of the way.

At an unknown price at an unknown level of interest, with additional baggage not carried by Thomas.

EDIT to respond to your edit: When has Bonds specifically stated that he wanted to play in Oakland?

But circumstances didn't change. Bonds -- a better player than Thomas -- was available at every step of the way.

For Oakland, we don't even need to get into PR issues. It's not clear that they could have afforded Bonds at all.

At an unknown price at an unknown level of interest, with additional baggage not carried by Thomas.

You keep saying "unknown," but I call bull####. To the extent that these things were "unknown," that was only because the A's refused to ask him.

EDIT to respond to your edit: When has Bonds specifically stated that he wanted to play in Oakland?

The comments people are making in this thread are surreal. When the !@#$ does a free agent "specifically state" that he wants to play for a team before the team calls him up and asks him?

Anyway, Borris said that he contacted ALL of the teams. And got no interest. So Borris called the A's and asked if they had interest, and, yet, you're still claiming that we don't know that Bonds is interested in playing in Oakland?

To the extent that these things were "unknown," that was only because the A's refused to ask him.

Possibly because of the additional baggage outside of salary concerns.

Or, as bibigon noted, because they felt that their salary constraints were such that they wouldn't have had a shot.

When the !@#$ does a free agent "specifically state" that he wants to play for a team before the team calls him up and asks him?

When he wants to play for a certain team. When he sees an opening which his skills can fill. When a reporter asks "Have you thought about playing for....". It happens, even if you don't think it does. It's called marketing yourself.

EDIT to respond to another edit: Did Borris say what salary he was asking? I know that there's the quote saying he couldn't get an offer for the minimum but, as previously noted, that doesn't mean he would have accepted an offer for the minimum in the offseason when big money was still being thrown around. It is perfectly reasonable to assume that, just as Borris probably wouldn't have accepted an offer for the minimum, teams wouldn't have bothered making an offer for the minimum because they were sure it wouldn't be accepted.

At this point in the season, the positions of both Borris and assorted teams may have changed.

Possibly because of the additional baggage outside of salary concerns.

Then stop claiming these things are "unknown" when the situation is that the teams don't WANT to know.

Or, as bibigon noted, because they felt that their salary constraints were such that they wouldn't have had a shot.

The Ryan - Bibigon school of dating. "Hey, don't ask that girl out. You probably don't have a chance."

The Ryan - Bibigon school of dating. "Hey, don't ask that girl out. You probably don't have a chance."

Nah. I can't speak for Bibigon but, in my case, it's "Hey, don't ask that girl out. Your wife would kill you."

Then stop claiming these things are "unknown" when the situation is that the teams don't WANT to know.

Do you know what Bonds wants? Neither do I. Neither do the teams. That makes these things unknowns. And the fact that these teams may not want to know does not lead automatically to collusion.

The Ryan - Bibigon school of dating. "Hey, don't ask that girl out. You probably don't have a chance."

We have no idea if they did "ask Bonds out" or not. They could have floated an idea of signing him at like $1M/year, and gotten no answer back for instance. That doesn't qualify as offer or anything, so Bonds isn't lying when he says no offers.

EDIT to respond to another edit: Did Borris say what salary he was asking? I know that there's the quote saying he couldn't get an offer for the minimum but, as previously noted, that doesn't mean he would have accepted an offer for the minimum in the offseason when big money was still being thrown around. It is perfectly reasonable to assume that, just as Borris probably wouldn't have accepted an offer for the minimum, teams wouldn't have bothered making an offer for the minimum because they were sure it wouldn't be accepted.

Ryan, at this point, the notion that any team was interested in Barry Bonds at any price is not supported by even a scintilla of evidence.

Incidentally, where did Bill James argue that Bonds has already fallen off a cliff? I haven't seen the article, and I'm curious about the reasoning he uses.

www.billjamesonline.com There are actually two columns, "The Bonds Problems" and "Back to Back Bonds." They are behind the pay curtain. They don't argue that he has fallen off the cliff, but suggest that it is not unlikely and if not reasonably imminent.

Quick summary:

1. He believes the distraction and bad teammate issues are "very real and serious",

2. He eliminates teams that are not in contention from consideration because, "I don’t believe in his future, I’m not convinced of his value in the present, and I’m not interested in the past. ... Unless you have a 40% or better chance to win this year, you make major decisions based on the long-term interest of the team."

3. He believes players with very narrow range of skills have a tendency to collapse suddenly rather than decline gracefully and cites to, among others, McGwire, Schmidt, Aaron, Musial, Mays, Greenberg, and Ruth.

We have no idea if they did "ask Bonds out" or not. They could have floated an idea of signing him at like $1M/year, and gotten no answer back for instance. That doesn't qualify as offer or anything, so Bonds isn't lying when he says no offers.

No.

I direct you to Jeff Borris's quote:

"Not a single team has any interest."

3. He believes players with very narrow range of skills have a tendency to collapse suddenly rather than decline gracefully and cites to, among others, McGwire, Schmidt, Aaron, Musial, Mays, Greenberg, and Ruth.

Not one of whom, with the exception of Ruth, can be said to be Bonds's equal as a hitter.

And all of whom either declined or were out of the game years before Bonds -- who has not yet shown such a decline.

I mean, citing Mark McGwire, who declined and was out of the game at age 37, when Bonds has had four great years after that point?

Claiming that it's likely Bonds would collapse in 2008 is ludicrous. By this logic, the very same thing could have been said before 2007, or before 2006, etc. If one predicts it every year, it will eventually be true, but that doesn't mean the prediction has any value whatsoever.

Ryan, at this point, the notion that any team was interested in Barry Bonds at any price is not supported by even a scintilla of evidence.

Ray, that does not automatically lead to it being an issue of collusion.

Claiming that it's likely Bonds would collapse in 2008 is ludicrous.

Based on the quick summary of the article, I'm inclined to agree. I would expect an unknown amount of decline but, even with his reduced set of skills and at his advanced age, Bonds still doesn't strike me a likely candidate for collapse.

As an aside, and for no other reason than getting bored with arguing over whether Bonds' current situation is or is not a result of collusion, what would be an expected decline for Bonds at his age with his skill set? I wouldn't expect him to repeat a 170 OPS+, but what would be a reasonable level of performance? 120? 140? 160?

Borris should have Bonds show up at ballparks looking to take batting practice. Have a big poster showing the standings of the relevant team. Ask why the local team isn't doing everything they can to win a title. Ask Pedro Gomez to tag along. I'd tune into Sportcenter to watch that.

As an aside, and for no other reason than getting bored with arguing over whether Bonds' current situation is or is not a result of collusion, what would be an expected decline for Bonds at his age with his skill set? I wouldn't expect him to repeat a 170 OPS+, but what would be a reasonable level of performance? 120? 140? 160?

I don't want to quote too much from a pay article, but James presented research (using Season Scores rather than OPS+; total value rather than rate stats) that players with an established performance level (60% last year, 30% the prior season, 10% to one before) of approximately the same as Bonds, who are 40 or older, lose 36% of their value the next year and 76% the following season.

I don't want to quote too much from a pay article, but James presented research (using Season Scores rather than OPS+; total value rather than rate stats) that players with an established performance level (60% last year, 30% the prior season, 10% to one before) of approximately the same as Bonds, who are 40 or older, lose 36% of their value the next year and 76% the following season.

The problem is that none of these players were as good as Bonds post-40, so it's kind of silly to project his performance using them. Bonds has been in uncharted territory for years. There is quite literally not a single example in baseball history that applies to him.

These very same predictions would have told us that Bonds would lose 36% of his value from 2006 to 2007. Instead, his performance increased in 2007.

The problem is that none of these players were as good as Bonds post-40, so it's kind of silly to project his performance using them. Bonds has been in uncharted territory for years. There is quite literally not a single example in baseball history that applies to him.

Ray you are focusing on OPS+ to the exclusion of overall value. That is a mistake.

Win Shares is an easily available metric providing evidence of overall value. Bonds was 38th in the NL last year. He wasn't durable, wasn't a baserunner, and was below average defensively. Looking at the Season Scores averages for the groups James selected, the players had similar - but admittedly slightly less - total value to Bonds; but it isn't the landslide comparison that a mere rate stat that focuses exclusively on what happens in the batters box (and treats IBB as having the same value as an unitentional BB) suggests.

These very same predictions would have told us that Bonds would lose 36% of his value from 2006 to 2007. Instead, his performance increased in 2007.

Increasing rate stats is not the same as increasing performance.

Bonds Win Shares since 2004 have been 53, 2, 27, 21. If he declines the same amount from '07 to '08, that puts him at 15 win shares. In 2007, NL outfielders who had 16 to 14 WS include Junior Griffey, Jeremy Hermida, Andre Ethier, and Jayson Werth. That is not select company.

Edit: Win Shares taken from THT web site and I acknowledge that it is not a perfect uberstat.

He wasn't durable, wasn't a baserunner, and was below average defensively.

He wasn't durable? He got 450 PAs, and sat much of Sept after he was told he wasn't getting a contract on a stinko team. I think that changes plenty with a different situ. Bonds had 55 VORP and -9 on defense. Bill James' website days Bonds was a + baserunner in 2007 (and 2006). Not a great runner, but above average. And WS is a count stat - using just that is every bit as flawed as using a rate stat.

Bonds' rate stats are certainly better than WS with respect to predicting how he'd perform in 2008.

Edit: Win Shares taken from THT web site and I acknowledge that it is not a perfect uberstat.

Far from perfect; it's really just a blunt tool and is most suited for evaluating trades and the like, where you're looking at large swaths of years and multiple players. It's pretty bad at comparing players in individual years.

If we look at VORP instead, Bonds was 11th in the NL in 2007, instead of the 38th that WS gives him. (Bonds had a 55 VORP; there were five other players in his general neighborhood -- between 51 and 57 -- so put him somewhere between 10th and 15th in VORP.)

Increasing rate stats is not the same as increasing performance.

He was 20th in VORP in 2006 (with a 46, again with some players bunched around him). So he certainly increased his VORP -- obviously not a rate stat -- from 2006 to 2007.

He loses some points on defense.

By August, the threads will likely be getting zero posts...

We can only pray to God and hope for rain.

The Ryan - Bibigon school of dating. "Hey, don't ask that girl out. You probably don't have a chance."

Nah. I can't speak for Bibigon but, in my case, it's "Hey, don't ask that girl out. Your wife would kill you."

Coincidentally, it's exactly the same in MLB. Only the wife is a stiff, ruthless geek from Milwaukee with a Supercuts hairstyle and 30 husbands.