Controversial all-time great slugger Barry Bonds is going ahead with a case against Major League Baseball alleging that he was colluded against following the 2007 season, Jon Heyman of CBSSports.com reports. Bonds recently had an obstruction of justice conviction overturned, which apparently spurred the effort to proceed against MLB.
Bonds will reportedly assert that the league conspired to keep him from returning to action after the 2007 season. The home run king never found a new team after reaching free agency. 2007 was his age-42 campaign, so he was obviously past his prime, but Bonds still managed to slash an obviously productive .276/.480/.565 with 28 home runs over 477 plate appearances that year for San Francisco. Heyman writes that Bonds’ camp waited until after resolution of his successfully-challenged felony conviction to pursue a collusion claim.
The topic was covered at length here at MLBTR at the time: Bonds’ reputation was in tatters, and there were health questions. Nevertheless, given his unrivaled productivity even at an advanced age — he led the league in OBP in 2007 and five of the six seasons before it — it remained rather remarkable that he did not receive a single offer that offseason (per his agent, Jeff Borris). That has led to various suggestions that Bonds was effectively blacklisted across the league.
As is mandated by the CBA, Bonds’ issue would first be addressed by the grievance process. Bonds appears to be working with the MLBPA on the case. MLB commissioner Rob Manfred, MLBPA head Tony Clark, and Borris all are said to have declined Heyman’s requests for comment.
bonds has some nerve. what a joke
he very much has a point. I would have been very curious to see how far his career could have gone. Pretty clear he was blacklisted.
Or because he was a cheater and getting old, nobody wanted to take a risk….
what risk? He was willing to play for minimum salary and donate it to charity.
All this feigned “he was a cheater, boo!” stuff is such a joke too. You have to be some kind of simple to not notice all these guys were clearly on steroids. If everyone cared so much, why was nothing said back then? Instead everyone waited until the league decided to become offended by steroids.
so? better late than never
HEYYYYYY Koooolllll AAAiiidd, sorry couldn’t resist but I agree ……..
david ortiz is still playing, right? thought so.
blacklisted for cheating and lying — sounds like justice to me
I think every team would have loved a guy who hit that well with the lead league in OBP on at least a 1 year deal at maybe even $1 million a year. He probably takes the best deal available regardless of price.
Some nerve?
A .480 obp can’t get an offer, and it’s the player who has the nerve?
He has a case.
“Nah we don’t want to sign a guy who lead the league in OBP.”
He lead the league in OBP because he lead the league in walks, because, if I remember correctly, he was, even then, the only threat in the line-up and, at that age, he wasn’t a threat to steal a base (5 SBs that season) and wasn’t a big threat to score from first on a base hit. At that advanced age, he was a DH and there are only so many DH jobs to go around.
Jim Thome signed with NL teams towards the end of his career and could literally do nothing but get on base and get pinch ran for and hit the occasional HR. Bonds would’ve been a perfect playoff stretch player for any team AL or NL
Maybe in September, when rosters are expanded to 40 but during the bulk of the season when rosters are stuck at 25, it’s hard to have a guy like Bonds, who can’t really run or play the field, on the roster. It can be done but the other guys on your bench have to be able to do a bunch things, play a variety of positions.
David Ortiz can’t run or field and has never been able to do either. It’s worked out well for him.
Jason Giambi spent years in Colorado and Cleveland in such a small bench role. Jim Thome did as well. There are spots for players who have a little bit of power and hitting ability without any speed or defense. The difference is that Bonds was still producing at a middle-of-the-order rate and offered to play for the league minimum. Some teams might have had a abundance of DH-type players or a lack of bench versatility, but most teams would have benefited from a dip in versatility by adding a guy who just had an OPS of over 1.000 in arguably the most pitcher-friendly park in the game. Plus, nowadays there are teams who employ three catchers and bullpens seldom feature fewer than 12 pitchers. Benches have only gotten smaller, but there are still roles for these one-dimensional players on rosters nowadays. If a player was as productive as Bonds nowadays, but lacked the controversy of Bonds, the argument would be whether or not a 43-year-old should receive a qualifying offer, not whether or not he deserves a roster spot. Just about every team would have been better by having Bonds on their roster in 2008, whether as a DH, a semi-starting left fielder or just a simple bench bat.
major difference between thome and bonds. people liked to have thome around. he was a positive influence on young players. if bonds were a good guy in the clubhouse who brought something other than attitude, extra reporters and bad knees to go with his declining bat he’d have a complaint.
Somebody should tell the Giants to stop having Bonds work with kids at Spring Training.
The other difference between Bonds and Thome is that Bonds was much better at that point in his career than Thome.
or how about leaked evidence of steroid use and a federal perjury charges hanging over one of their heads?
who wants to sign a guy and then have to worry about him being in jail instead of on the field?
Yeah that 400K they’d be out would be a killer.
In 2008, Seattle used Jose Vidro at DH. The Angels used Juan Rivera. The Blue Jays used 40 year old Matt Stairs.
The Tigers used Gary Sheffield, who was in a very similar situation to Bonds but was far less productive.
There were jobs to be had, he just never got offered one. He likely would have been one of the most productive DHs in the league.
Well, to your point, the Mariners had Vidro under a big-money contract and they didn’t cut him until August 5th of that season. If they had signed Bonds, now you’ve got 2 guys on your bench who really can’t do much of anything. Add in your backup catcher and all of a sudden, you better hope you’ve got a Chone Figgins-like player who can play everywhere. I don’t know about the contract status of all of those other players. I imagine Sheffield was probably on the tail-end of a big money deal with the Tigers, given his resume and name. Maybe the Angels were hoping Rivera could develop into something that could help their team for a number of years. Stairs, I got nothing.
Why do you keep saying that Bonds ‘can’t do much of anything’? He had the highest OPS+ in the National League in 2007 (but didn’t have enough plate appearances to qualify). He was worth over 3 WAR in only 126 games. Bonds would have played for next-to-nothing money-wise. There are at least 4 or 5 AL teams that should have been falling over each other to sign Bonds.
He’s secretly Brandon Phillips and wants everyone to know walks aren’t as important as RBIs or base hits… Even though Bonds not swinging at bad pitches outside the zone is somehow a bad thing according to a few people. Those 28 homers he put up in 477PA’s surely weren’t impressive because he walked too much I guess. His 162 game average(2006-2007) for all those who don’t know, 95R,91RBI,35HR,52IBB,157BB.
Not bad for a 40+ year old playing the majority of his games in extreme pitcher parks.
This is just a fallacy.
There were plenty of guys playing LF no better than Bonds was.
His reputation was worse that was Nijer morgan and Delmon Young. Because he produced and was a clubhouse cancer, he should have been signed? Then any biz should sign people who are useless, except produce at one aspect and destroy moral? That’s why union membership is less than 10% across the country now.. It don’t work..
I’m sure being anti-Semitic or racist is worse than taking steroids in almost any profession except baseball apparently. Since I guess Ty Cobb was a model human being.
The world was a very different place when Cobb was still playing (keeping in mind that it has been 80+ years since he retired). It’s extremely foolish to compare moral behaviour of players from vastly different eras in history. I’m not justifying Cobb or Bonds. Just that they really should never be compared in any logical discussion.
If you found out who I was replying to, you might’ve read that he said Delmon Young a guy who said anti-Semitic comments in public and got ridiculed by the media for has a better reputation than Barry Bonds for using steroid in an era where every such player was using them. The fact that I brought up Ty Cobb was merely showing that a lot of people idolized a very well known racist in baseball. While I’m sure nobody idolizes Delmon Young.
Clubhouse character of Morgan, Bonds, Elijah Dukes and yes.. Young before he calmed down after his anti Semitic affair in Detroit, other things in Tampa where he got into trouble and was sent away in the Garza deal after his rookie year.
Not saying players were not like this several decades back, they were and worse. Dixie Walker, jackie Robinson’t team mate on the Dodger’s his rookie season was a nasty racist, plus borderline (but not) HOF’er by the numbers and sent away after Robinson’s 1st season. Billy Martin, manager of the NYY had some borderline racist things to say regarding Reggie jackson in the spats between the 2 at times. It existed and still does and try to keep them and other troublemakers from a roster is something that does not involve collusion, or shouldn’t, even if it was the media that caused the problem in the 1st place.
Then just compare Young and Bonds. Bringing up Cobb is silly (like most discussions about Bonds that bring him up), since he played during an era where it wasn’t uncommon in society in general to have racist views. At no point during the playing time of Bonds was this true of the behaviour he is criticized for.
Cobb’s views progressed more quickly than a lot of people during that time, and people to continue to harp on about it. It’s really getting old.
Bonds OPS’ed 1.045 his last season of play. By comparison Mike Trout’s MVP season was .939.
42-year-old Bonds was that good.
Like I said.. A team brings him in, he starts disrupting again with his tantrums.. Others see it and a couple of other players start imitating them/him. Why would a team want the chance of that occurring?
His dad (Bobby) was kind of a free spirit as a young lad on the Mays/McCovey/Marichal, Fuentes teams of the late 60’s, early 70’s, but nothing like Barry was. One has to wonder how he got like that, or if being constantly hounded by the media drove him to it.
Ask some of the current or recent Giants who were teammates with Barry Bonds. There’s no talk of “tantrums”, no “disruption” is mentioned. Instead they talk about his work ethic and his competitive drive. They valued him as a teammate, and not just for what he did for them on the field.
Why didn’t SF resign him?
Exactly this kind of question is the heart of his lawsuit.
Right– why didn’t they re-sign him? It certainly suggests collusion.
Plus, can you imagine how much he could have taught young hitters about approach?
Or how much he would have taught them about bending the rules.
That’s why the pump don’t work
Well this is mere speculation on my part to as why Barry hates it but many articles I’ve read over the years suggest it’s part of the reason Barry has very little respect for the media. The media treated Bobby like garbage because of his strikeout tendencies as he was the all-time single season strikeout leader in 1969 & 1970 until Adam Dunn and others came along decades later.
The strikeouts thing is something that perplexes me, Barry was never a guy who strikeout much because of his fantastic eye as only once did he strikeout more than 100 times during a season. Part of me wants to say Barry made sure that in every single one of his plate appearances that he never struck out because of how badly his father dealt with it.
The k thing might be a good point. When I mentioned he was a free spirit above, he was jealous in the fact that Stretch McCovey, Mays, marichal & Co. got the lions share of the coverage and attention on that team and in a way? you couldn’t blame him, then 4 of them (1969 you mentioned) were future front line HOF’ers, not of the borderline variety we see get elected nowadays sometimes.
Bonds was a really gifted 5 tool player back then I remember him well and anyone who could put up the power numbers he did at old Candlestick had legit power. Shame injuries caught up with him.
Bobby Bonds spent a good portion of his career getting absolutely blasted b the media, and Barry got a front-row seat to the majority of it, as he often traveled with is father and was also able to read the papers.
Barry’s anti-media stance dates back well before he entered into MLB. Once he was drafted, it didn’t change and he treated the media very coldly. Some even say he treated them like garbage. This became the impetus for Bar Bonds becoming the one player the media absolutely loved to hate, even when he was in Pittsburgh, long before the science of PEDs was around.
That was not a guy an owner and/or GM wanted around their young players.
The more we bring this same topic up? The more I remember my favorite all time manager.. leo Durocher and if they could have won that division under his leadership back in ’69, or for that matter? several of those late 60’s seasons when they had such a loaded roster. Durocher knew how to read players and talent as well/better than anyone in the game at the time.
But they wanted Giambi, A-Rod, and Manny? Due to testing, Bonds was no longer on anything at the end of his career and was still one of the very best hitters in the game.
Maybe many owners didn’t want his influence around. If any two of them discussed that though, it is collusion – and it’s illegal. That’s what he’s contesting.
Maybe they learned their lesson.
Except that the were given their jobs AFTER passing on Bonds.
That’s different times so not a good comparison. All you need to say is that he had 1.045 OPS and you’re good.
Comprehension fail there, Sir Didi. 169 OPS+ in 2007, which is context-neutral.
Okay, let me explain: Barry Bonds was 69% better than league-average that year. 6th in OPS+. 1st in OBP. And 14 teams that employed a DH in 2008. Not even a single league-minimum offer. What does that say to you?
My bad, but if a guy is 69% better than league average in any year and he gets no contract? That’s a red flag. I don’t care what his issues were unless he’s a felon, child beater, woman beater, potential murderer, those are reasons not to sign a guy. League minimum for a guy with a 169 OPS+? Haha, come on.
Reading failure on MY part, Didi. Was meant for johnsilver, not you. Mea culpa, apologize for the misdirected snark.
No problem
It says there’s something else to him that we probably don’t know. Maybe he was a complete jack hole in the clubhouse and only a few guys didn’t care or his antics didn’t bother them. Maybe they really did blacklist him. Maybe nobody wanted to pay to take a chance on him. He WAS getting old and his defense was pretty suspect which would lead me to believe he’d be up for a DH role on only 1 of 14 teams at the time. He DID have an attitude problem regardless of what the homers will tell you so maybe age, lack of defense and attitude played into teams not wanting to pay him to probably get suspended for PEDs. I guess we’ll find out but if it was my team, I’d rather pay someone younger and with a better attitude than an old guy that gets on base, has a horrible attitude and can’t run. Teams already have a catcher and usually 1 or 2 other guys that can’t run, but at least they can play defense….
For league minimum, donated to charity, where is the risk in signing the league leader in OBP with an OPS+ of 169? SO let’s say Father Time caught up with him and he suddenly was only at 50% the next season, that’s still worth more than the league minimum.
The very worst case, he gets injured and cannot play at all. Teams take bigger risks than that for guys with only marginal upside every December, hoping a change of scenery will allow an aging player to catch lightning in a bottle.
What changed from 2006 to 2007?
Yes, by the same league that kept hiring Milton Bradley.
Yeah, it’s so much better now for the middle and lower income people of this country without those pesky unions.
I hope MLB bans him from the game all together.
On what grounds? Being the best player of his generation?
Ken Griffey Jr. has a valid claim on that title as well. Not to mention pitchers such as Maddux, Clemens, Johnson, and Martinez.
It’s not even close, Bonds is the greatest defensive LF of all time according to multiple defensive metrics like total zone runs, had 500 stolen bases and 762 homers. Never struck out more than 100 times except for one season and walked like a mad man.
Not a knock on Griffey but he wasn’t the same player once those injuries got to him in Cincinnati. His defense took a huge hit and he wasn’t the same baserunner.
To put it in perspective of how good he is 49.1% of Barry Bonds’ 2,935 career hits were extra base hits.
Barry Bonds ranks second behind Hank Aaron for most career extra base hits. To showcase how truly ridiculous this % is, here’s how it compares against the rest of the top seven on the all-time extra base hits list:
Hank Aaron: 39.2%
Stan Musial: 37.9%
Babe Ruth: 47.2%
Willie Mays: 40.3%
Alex Rodriguez: 40.9%
Ken Griffey Jr.: 42.9%
Take away Griffey’s injuries and Bonds’s “enhanced” play and they are neck and neck. I’m not saying Bonds wasn’t great, but there is more to it than just numbers. For example, several players have better career numbers than Ted Williams, but that is due to stints in WWII and Korea during his prime. Just because Williams did not put up those numbers does not take away from how great a player he was. In the same vein, Griffey’s injuries during his Cincinnati days shouldn’t take away from the immense skill that he displayed in Seattle. Bonds has better numbers, but that doesn’t necessarily mean he was the better player.
Williams was possibly the greatest hitter of all time, but he didn’t play defense, certainly not at the level of Griffey or Bonds. Williams was a bad defensive player. We can’t just take away Griffey’s injuries; they happened. Bret saberhagen might have been the best pitcher of his generation but he was always hurt and so he wasn’t. There are more guys in baseball history who might have been hall-of-famers were it not for injury than there are actual hall-of-famers, probably.
Griffey to me is like MIckey Mantle. Incredible career numbers in their 20’s until injuries caught up to them in their 30’s. But we can’t penalize Bonds and Mays because they were healthy and put up good-great numbers in their 30’s, too. yes, we all know about the drugs but that didn’t make Bonds become a more selective hitter and draw more walks. As David correctly pointed out, in not for injuries, Saberhagen might have put up the numbers Greg Maddux did. But he didn’t.
You are taking my statement the wrong direction as well. I wasn’t saying Griffey had a better career than Bonds, I said he was arguably the better player. As far as the drugs not getting more walks, pitchers and managers being scared of his juiced frame is what got Bonds more walks.
Yes Griffey’s injuries happened, but I wasn’t making the argument that he had a better career than Bonds. I was making the argument that he was a better player than Bonds. Bonds had the better career without a doubt just because of longevity and health, but that doesn’t make him the better player.
BTW, Saberhagen was not as good as Dwight Gooden or Roger Clemens.
Definitely not as good as Clemens. Gooden is another injury guy. Imagine if the Mets had actually monitored his workload just a little bit.
Stop trying to compare Griffey to Bonds please
No.
Haha
Even if you compare pre-steroids Bonds vs. pre-injury Griffey, though, Bonds comes out ahead. Better hitter, better baserunner, similar defensive value.
How do you know, with any degree of certainty, that Griffey (or any other steroid era player) did NOT take PEDs? Oh wait, you don’t…
Not even close, Griffey is like 10th best in this generation.
Bonds runs away as the best we’ve seen since Ruth, and possibly the best ever.
You are obviously too young to remember the 90s. Bonds’ OBP was (slightly) artificially enhanced because pitchers and managers were scared to pitch to him.
Barry was actually skinnier than Griffey until 1997-1998. Bonds was stealing 40 bags until he found out nobody cared about him hitting .300 with 40 homers and stealing 40 and playing the best LF defense of all time. Look at 1996, he finished 5th in MVP voting.
His trainer and multiple others suggest he started juicing the second people in San Fransisco started showing up to see McGuire and Sosa hit homers in batting practice instead of hometown all around talent.
He had surgery on his knee in 1998 and lost a step then, even having to go back on the DL and miss quite a few games in 1999. That’s when his SB numbers started to dry up.
He also bulked up considerably. Which would make sense as a lot of players back then use to use steroids/HGH to recover from injuries.
how can we know? his steroid use eliminates him from that title.
until Bonds becomes a semi-dominant pitcher as well, he won’t be better than Ruth…
You mean one of the best players ever?
Why? For all the drug tests he failed?
I love how people assume Griffey was clean, based on….what, exactly? The backwards hat? The smile? Not saying he was dirty, but what proof does anyone have?
Innocent until proven guilty. Isn’t there proof that bonds wasn’t whereas there is nothing that proves Griffey was? I’m not getting into the argument of who is better but you can’t just assume he was dirty because nothing says he was.
In the court of law. Not in the court of opinion (or fact).
Where are the facts that Griffey juiced? Your opinion on if he juiced or not doesn’t hold any weight. Thinking he juiced just because is narrow minded my friend!
I didn’t say there are “facts that Griffey juiced”, did I? I’m just suspicious of all players during that era. Not really fair to punish only those who were caught/targeted, when we all know (for a fact) that there is a long list of players who juiced and were lucky enough to evade detection/suspicion.
Many of these cheaters will end up in the HOF, while the best player to EVER play the game may not. Does that really sound fair to you?
I did not know you could just have an opinion on it and it be true? Saying that you think he did it therefor he did is very narrow minded. Then I guess anything about anyone could be true as long as someone thinks that it is?
Griffey has never even been rumored to use steroids as far as I know, there’s literally no reason to just assume the guy did just because of the era he played in, doing so is petty and backhands who the guy was. Yes, baseball fans, there have been some great baseball players to not use steroids.
How about assertions by other players that steroid use was rampant / most players were taking them? How about the fact that nobody was being tested? That doesn’t give you any reason to be suspicious of everyone?
Innocent until proven guilty should be the way we approach everything, including baseball. I get that a lot of people’s favorites have tarnished the era’s image, but to just throw guys out there as possible users without there being any evidence or even accusations isn’t fair to them or their careers.
Fact: Not all steroid users were caught
Fact: Many steroid users will be elected to the HOF because they were lucky enough to avoid suspicion, while those who were unfortunate enough to be caught will be shut out.
That sound fair to you?
It’s so off base to look at it like that though. You’re convicting people without there even being a whisper to suggest guilt to begin with. Yes, it’s not fair some may have slipped through the cracks, but it’s also not fair to the players who played clean to suspect them without any reasoning other than the era/peers, you’re taking away from people who worked hard to achieve greatness, there’s bound to have been plenty of great players who did so without using. It’s just not a fair proposition to convict everyone, it does nothing but take away from the sport.
Why did you reply to me with a Griffey post? I never mentioned his name at all and dont care about him. My comment was about Bonds and not cause he took steroids do I think he should be banned. I think he should be banned cause he is making a mockery of baseball. First he took roids for what seams like fore ever then he says he didnt take anything and now 8 years later he wants to sue MLB cause no team wanted his drama filled %$# and all the head aches he would bring to the table. Just like Arod will be hard pressed to find another job when this contract expires. You act like a idiot all them years and why do you think people dont want you around?
hope he wins.
Why?
MLB has consistently acted like thugs in the handling of PED matters. There’s absolutely no reason to believe they acted in good faith when it came to Bonds.
It’ll be interesting to see if his lawyers actually have some evidence of collusion. It appeared at the time as if it was done on a wink-wink basis, with no words being necessary for every owner and GM to know they’d be in deep doodoo with Selig if they signed him.
It’s pretty easy to come to conclusion when Bonds lead the league in more than a few categories and was offering to play for MLB minimum. You can’t tell me that no GM thought he couldn’t have been a superb DH.
No, but who would have wanted him in the clubhouse? He even wore out his welcome in San Francisco.
Any team with serious playoff aspirations looking for an offensive boost. The Minnesota Twins came in 2nd place (1 game out) running Delmon Young and Jason Kubel out there. Bonds wasn’t a marked improvement over either one of them?
The Dodgers could have played him at 1B over James Loney. I mean, it’s not like Bonds didn’t have a pink slip on Chavez Ravine.
When you produce like Bonds did, that simply doesn’t matter.
Bonds fan base was located mainly in San Francisco and a few other diehards who could care less how he managed to bulk up and insanely increases output at an age when most others begin to decline. Most fans outside of the San Francisco area would not have looked favorably upon their team signing him. That would be a legitimate concern for any ballclub. Alienating your fan base is usually considered a bad thing.
Alienating fans? Just like all the one’s in Yankee Stadium cheering A-Rod right? Fanbases are made and die with how well a team performs. Which is why so many of San Fransisco’s rival organization’s fanbases hate a guy like Bonds. Anyways, you can’t tell me Oakland with one of the most smallest fanbases in the Majors already, would have much to lose by signing Bonds to be their everyday DH? They ended up signing 40-year old Frank Thomas to be their everyday DH after he got released by the Blue Jays. Jack Cust and Mike Sweeny, old non drawing veterans were also taking up a bulk of the time as their DH.
How many outside of NY cheer A-Rod? How many outside of the Bay area cheered Bonds?
I Barry really wanted $$ then he and Greg Anderson should have packaged and marketed that mysterious blend of vitamins and flax seed oil that turned him into Superman at 36 years old.
Do you really believe that if Houston, or Philly, or Minn., or Detroit had signed him the fans would have cheered the move?
People have short attention spans, most people call for the blowing up of a team the second they lose one game. It’s the same way with how players perform, a player hits for your favorite team, they get cheered. They don’t, they get booed.
“Cole Hammels is off to a slow start, better trade him he’s done!” Sound familiar?
If Barry Bonds got off to a slow start in 2008 in San Fransisco, for example they would’ve booed him and sent their complaints of him being past his prime and an embarrassment to the game. Same thing with A-Rod, which is what I called what would’ve happened to some people on this very forum. If A-Rod produces, the Yankee fans will cheer him. If he doesn’t, he has no supporters.
I can’t imagine any GM would sign or not sign a player based on the player’s fan response. Their job is to put a winning team together.
Their job also is to put fans in the seats.
The ’07 Giants drew 3.2M for a losing team.
and the only fans rooting for him were Giants fans. I really don’t see him going to another team after 2007 and the fan base for that team kneeling down and worshiping him like Giants fans did.
It wasn’t about the money and I’d be willing to bet a lot it wasn’t. He wanted to play, and he could’ve played at a VERY high level. That’s the issue, not money.
Not my area of expertise, but there is a very well-developed body of anti-trust case law on how to prove collusion. And while they may or may not have any actual smoking gun (or suspicion of where to find one), that is what the discovery process is for.
Jeff;
This is a problem professional sports is facing……
Most fans watch sports because it’s an escape and easy to follow. The more the lawyers intervene the more difficult it is to follow sports. They are becoming less and less enjoyable. Speaking as an older person that has watched them for almost 60 years – the players may be bigger, faster and stronger, but they play the games worse and worse. Example – strong fundamental play has pretty much disappeared from at least 75% of MLB teams….and the ones that do play that way are winning with inferior talent.
Utter nonsense.
So, in other words: Get off my lawn, you lawyers and inferior baseball-playing kids!
Long overdue. Bonds offered to play for league minimum.
Good, hope he wins.
In a way I do too, but I do fear what could happen to the game (or at least MLB) if he wins.
I can see Canseco suing MLB, but him arguing that he was productive in his last few years in league are harder to argue. Bonds might be one of the few guys that was so good before becoming a F.A that it didn’t make sense for no team to give him an offer, even if it was a MLB minimum offer.
I just see it as a hard point to prove. Even though he was still productive, I think it could be argued that 30 smart business owners independently decided that they did not want the circus that would have come with a Bonds signing. Not to mention the potential of angering your fan base. It’s not like Bonds was a popular fellow in 2007. I don’t necessarily agree with that argument, but I could see an attorney making it and doing it much better than myself.
If a guy is such a cancer that they have to overlook those incredible numbers Bonds put up in 2007, then that means Bonds had something extremely wrong with him. I somehow doubt he was that bad that a team couldn’t use his bat.
His bat could help a team get over the hump and win the World Series. Every team would take the bat and deal with any circus problems.
“Every team would take the bat and deal with any circus problems”
Obviously that was not true.
Not every team would take the bat and deal with the circus problems, but you can’t say that not even one team was willing to deal with Bond’s problems. The Rays alone could’ve used him as a DH and have signed far more questionable players before.
Clearly you don’t get it
Owners will have to abide by contracts they voluntarily agreed to? Oh the horror.
Actually I fear the opposite. I was around for the strike of 1994 and I could see a victory by Bonds leading to a lockout by some stubborn and/or angered owners. Perhaps involving non-guaranteed contracts like in the NFL. I’m not saying that’s what will happen, but it’s what I fear will happen.
It will never happen, how could the owners get non-guaranteed contracts? If they even so much as tried they’d be idiots. Players would lockout for years until they got their way. It isn’t happening.
NFL owners have them, so it is possible, not likely but possible. BTW, players strike, owners lockout. And there is absolutely no way that the union would stick together for years until they got their way. Either the union would break, the owners would cave, or the league would disband. If you get stubborn enough owners, I’d put my money on the union breaking over anything else. But either way the biggest losers would be the fans.
Pointless debate, non-guaranteed contracts are never happening.
Owner’s aren’t ready to void those big T.V deals I’m sure more than a few networks want out of the second they’re no baseball games to broadcast.
The 1994 strike wasn’t good for baseball. It’s why the owners haven’t tried forcing non-guaranteed deals and or salary caps in decades.
NFL owners have them because the NFL players union sucks at their jobs.
MLB owners already pull in a greater share than any other major sport. Locking out the players would accomplish nothing.
Locking out players almost never accomplishes anything, but that hasn’t stopped it from happening in the past. Maybe it’s just because I lived through the 80s/early 90s and younger fans haven’t seen much baseball labor strife, but it’s always a fear in the back of my mind.
Good luck Barry, really disappointed no teams in the American League offered him the chance to DH for league minimum.
Last nail in his Cooperstown coffin.
Yup, especially when they find a reason to vote for Mike Piazza when he admitted to using androstenedione. I’m sure the Veterans Committee will induct him the second they get a chance.
IMO every baseball player who did drugs before they started doing drug testing should automatically be exempt from steroid ridicule. Who wouldn’t “cheat” if there was no way to get caught? Just about everyone was doing it anyways?
I am not a fan of any PED use but here is the contradictions in your statement. Andro was not added to the Federal Controlled Substance Act until 2004 and was then subsequently added to the JDA in 2005 (although now that I think about it it might have been 2005 and 2006… But I am much too tired to look it up). As far as being exempt from ridicule because there was no testing. That is like saying you should be exempt from breaking a law because you did not get caught doing so. You may have gotten off the hook but you are still guilty of breaking that law. In June 1991 Fay Vincent banned all items, and specifically steroids and anything considered a PED, listed in the Federal Controlled Substance Act of 1990. Shortly after that he requested that the union and MLB negotiate WADA style testing and was told by Donald Fehr to forget about it because “it violates a players privacy”. That is the “reason” he continued to use to avoid testing all the way up until the time Congress forced it. It does not matter whether testing existed… What matters is the rule against usage existed.
I don’t like how you must argue this with me on every thread, no drug testing = everything fair game. Just like Ruth cheating with many of his altered bats, they added rules directly to make sure Ruth and others couldn’t gain an unfair advantage. However it didn’t stop guys like Sammy Sosa or Albert Belle from using corked bats now did it? I wonder why, maybe because if the bat never broke we would never know they put corks in them? Just like if there were no drug testing, no person would ever know they used said drugs unless they admitted to doing it.
There are millions of people who break the law driving every single day in North America, how many more of those people do you suspect would break the laws more if they were’t properly enforced? If I never got a ticket for stopping on a red light when no cars were in plain view, I’d consistently drive through that red because there are zero ramifications of doing so.
Ruth was given one composite bat by a manufacturer before any standards were set. When MLB found out the then set standards and outlawed composite bats…there were not many and when there was one…there was no rule. Once there was a rule and he was asked not to use it…he didn’t. One last time….not getting caught does not make violating rules right…it’s not a hard concept.
Yes, not getting caught does not make violating rules right. However not enforcing those rules is not right either. Which MLB did not do until a decade after outlawing steroid use.
Ignore the fact guys keep corking their bats and there’s no way of getting caught unless they tell you they cork it and or the bat explodes. Don’t bring that up because you know I’m right. Knowing you you’ll continue to focus on the one point in which you can argue some validity. Have you ever gone above the speed limit before? You should go tell the police that since you’re breaking the law. See what they do to you.
Wow….just wow….you say you don’t want to argue yet when I don’t address ever little point, when I point out your historical inaccuracies you get upset. Make up your mind. MLB could not enforce with out union cooperation which the did not get until Congress forced it. By the way…there is NO scientific basis to suggest that a corked bat allows one to hit a ball farther. What you gain in bat speed you lose in bat weight thereby negating an increase in batted ball speed. Look it up. Another fact…you have no way of knowing if guys keep corking bats.
That’s right, there’s no way of knowing guys use corked bats just like there was no way of knowing guys were using steroids prior to drug testing unless they admitted to it or got caught red handed. Who’s fault is that, the players? Absolutely no chance of the rule being enforced.
Now excuse me while I go 61mph on the road instead of the 60mph limit, I wonder if I get pulled over? Probably not because everyone seems to be doing it. No enforcing = nothing wrong with it.
Excuse me but when did I say there was nothing wrong with using PED’s…I simply stated fact earlier (I know you don’t like facts but) the andro wasn’t banned until 05 or 06. Wow…just wow
“As far as being exempt from ridicule because there was no testing. That is like saying you should be exempt from breaking a law because you did not get caught doing so. You may have gotten off the hook but you are still guilty of breaking that law. In June 1991 Fay Vincent banned all items, and specifically steroids and anything considered a PED, listed in the Federal Controlled Substance Act of 1990. Shortly after that he requested that the union and MLB negotiate WADA style testing and was told by Donald Fehr to forget about it because “it violates a players privacy”. That is the “reason” he continued to use to avoid testing all the way up until the time Congress forced it. It does not matter whether testing existed… What matters is the rule against usage existed.”-NoAZPhilsPhan
Now exuse me while I go 61mph on the road instead of the 60mph limit, I wonder if I get pulled over? Probably not because everyone seems to be doing it. No enforcing = nothing wrong
I did not get to address the first part of your statement earlier…”I don’t like how you must argue this with me on every thread”. So, if you misstate fact, if you misquote history no one is allowed to correct you? If you have an opinion that differs from mine I’m not allowed to respond?
It may have been against the rules, but there was no teeth to the restriction. At the time, there were ‘No Pepper’ signs everywhere – if a player was found to engage in a game of Pepper, that was against the rules. Numerous pitchers were caught with sandpaper and foreign substances, altering the legal results of games. I agree – it was against the rules to take steroids. Now that they’re banned, there are true repercussions when you get caught. I just don’t agree that it’s okay to willy-nilly decide that PED use between 1991 and the inception of the new PED rules was any worse than those other rule violations. Most of use were convinced these guys were juiced but kept on watching regardless, and if you were better than everyone else during that era, in my book, you get into the Hall of Fame.
I am incredibly glad you brought up the federal controlled substance act of 2004 and also the act of 1990. The differences in substance of these two acts are incredibly significant. The language of the 1990 act included a very limited specified listing of controlled substances coupled with very generic and nebulous terms that, even by late 1990’s standards, we’re open to interpretation.
The question became: when looked at individually is “substance A and substance B” a steroid or other substance covered in the 1990 act? If the answer was no, then “substance A and substance B” are permissible, even though when taken together substance A and B mimic the all or some of the beneficial effects of a “steroid”. (I’m using the term steroid extremely generally).
It doesn’t matter whether or not testing existed, the substances were permissible. It wasn’t until 2004 that the list was expanded to include precursors and other similar acting substances. The fact is that the mlb neglected to keep pace with scientific developments for 14 years and during that time their policy became antiquated to the point where it was almost non existent.
That only takes away from the legitimate players of the era like Frank Thomas.
I can’t even imagine how much Thomas would have smashed all these guys if he had been juicing. Instead he was clean and still a first ballot HOF’er who can hold his head up high that he wasn’t a ‘roid junkie.
Bartolo Colon used steroids…. We can’t tell what people are on or aren’t on, if there was testing in that era some guys that we all cherish might’ve been exposed as frauds. Assuming that some guy may be clean because they spoke up against steroid use doesn’t mean a whole lot when there’s no way to prove he wasn’t on anything. I’d never had guessed Bartolo Colon or Ryan Braun were on anything because their body types don’t scream steroid users to anyone.
Bonds not getting in will be the last nail in Coopertown’s coffin.
Is this really the way he wishes to be remembered? After collecting $188M from the game, giving him a current net worth of $80M? I’d like to know if his lawyers are working on contingency, or he is paying them out of his pocket.
I’d like to know what his liquidated damages could possibly be since he (claimed to offer to ) work for major league minimum salary; $390K in 2008, and even interest and punitive damages, if awarded on that amount seem to be dwarfed by what he could earn by promoting a better image.
I’m pretty sure a collusion award is actually supposed to be three times what an arbitrator deems they would have been worth at the time, so it’s a potentially huge award. Possibly somewhere in the neighborhood of $45-60M
I think its a matter of ethics, even if he cheated that doesn’t make it right if the owners did what he claims they did, it may be better if that gets into the open
ummm… a cheater who denies it and has possible federal charges hanging over his head isn’t brought in to poison a clubhouse and the owners are in the wrong?
Owners have brought in players who have done far worse things than what Bonds did and can easily be just as poisonous in the clubhouse. Many people have denied taking steroids and only admitted to it after they had no other choice. Does that make them better?
Collusion, though, is a big deal if it can be proven. 1987 wasn’t that long ago, and the collusion was easily proven in court that year. If teams colluded to keep Bonds from playing, and got away with it, then what are they going to do next? It’s a slippery slope and if collusion can be proven it needs to be punished and severely.
This isn’t how he will be remembered
Am I the only one who doesn’t really care if MLB players use PED’s?
Also, if Bonds wins this case (which it definitely seems like he has a reasonable chance at doing) I wonder what this does for the rest of “the war on steroids”. I know A-rod tried seeking action for MLB supposedly conspiring against him, and it seems like several other players have insinuated the same thing, although on a more minor scale. I’m starting to wonder if there’s any validity to seemingly every player who’s gotten caught for PED’s saying that they have no idea how they tested positive.
PEDs are far more complicated than the black and white answers we give. You could go with the cheating angle, the drug abuse angle, the bad influence on teenage athletes angle, etc. Then on top of that let’s face it, if a star player has a serious accusation against them then you’re more likely to disbelieve it if you’re a fan of the team or more likely to believe it if you don’t like the team. So it’s a long discussion
That said, I’d imagine a collusion case is hard to win. I tend to feel this is more about Bonds ensuring he does not fade away rather than anything else.
Yeah, it’s probably hard to win but Bonds has a case here. Bonds will NEVER fade away ever, he’s the home run king, one of the best players EVER. How does such a player fade away until at least 10 guys break his home run record?
I’ve been hoping he had just gone away and figured out what to do with the rest of his life.
I’m kind of with you. I’m opposed to players using PEDs, but mostly because of a knock-on effect where guys who wouldn’t normally take them feel like they’re forced in order to keep up with the rest of the league. However, the hypocritical sanctimony and self-aggrandizement by the league and the media (especially the writers voting for the Hall of Fame) in the last ten years has been so repulsive I now actively root for guys like ARod. I always liked Bonds, I hope he wins.
This, pretty much. Having a clue about what one is arguing about and not being a huge douche and/or hypocrite about it goes a long way towards how seriously I take any given argument (about anything really, but especially PEDs). And the VAST majority of those arguing against them have utterly failed to make their case within those criteria so spectacularly that if it weren’t so distasteful, it would actually be kind of awe-inspiring.
Knock-on effect is probably the fairest argument against PEDs I’ve ever come across, btw. There is at least some precedent for it with what seems to have happened in cycling anyway.
It’s also entirely a product of a very small, specific time period window. Other players that were “clean” before were so because the PEDs were not readily available. Heck, Mike Schmidt, highly respected in baseball and media circles and a true HOF came right out and admitted that if PEDs had been available when he played, almost everyone, INCLUDING HIMSELF, would have taken them.
Amphetamines allowed players to play for decades, but apparently those are okay because they didn’t help “as much”.
Right. So long as ambition exists, people will try to find a way to game the system. The steroid era was just where athletic ambition and scientific advancement happened to meet.
That’s the funny thing about amphetamines. The nosedive in offensive production of this past decade more directly correlates with their banning than when the steroid-type PED policy started to get it’s teeth.
He should win and be awarded the league minimum in 2007.
seeing that .480 OBP was a stark reminder of just how killer he was until the end.
Well part of that was the fear of actually pitching to him. He had more intentional walks than the rest of the league combined. If pitchers weren’t so scared to pitch to him that OBP would not have been that high. I’m not saying he wasn’t great, but his on base numbers were inflated due to weak-willed opposing managers.
They were scared to pitch to him because he was so good. If they pitched to him he’d crush them. That’s the whole point. Your post is trying to say he wasn’t as good as everyone thought he was but you are directly proving why he was so incredible.
Try again.
His OBP was inflated because pitchers were scared of his juiced frame. If you turn his intentional walks into ABs, he would not have gotten on base 100% of those ABs, so his OBP would not have been nearly as high. Therefore it was artificially inflated along with a lot of his other numbers. I don’t base how good a player is because of the fear of someone else. If you disagree, so be it. I’m not trying to convince you of anything. This is my opinion and it always will be.
So get rid of the walks he did have because of your stupid thoughts? Ok.
So get rid of the walks he did have because of your stupid thoughts? Ok.
Bonds started getting obscene amounts of IBB LONG before he ever juiced. He got more than some teams do these days as far back as 1989. He led all of baseball every season from 1992-1998. This wasn’t steroid-induced fear of Barry Bonds. This was the entire league accepting that pitching to Barry Bonds was a losing proposition and that it was ALMOST ALWAYS better to tr something else. Heck, Buck Showalter won a game on walking Barry Bonds with the bases loaded in 1998 so that the Diamondbacks could face Bret Mayne instead.
He had a .288 ISO and hit a HR once every 12.3 PA that didn’t end in a walk. Opponents were wise to be wary of pitching to him.
Great obp…bolstered by fear generated from steroid use. Sad…he was an HOF player before the roids likely
Not likely, without question.
There’s a reason you’ve had no sponsorship deals, having your face on things is a negative. Even if you’re offering to play for the league minimum what teams perceive as the negatives of having you obviously outweigh the positives.
Beyond that, even in your last year as a Giant you were rested every day game after a night game and who knows how many other little coddles. Was it wrong of SF to do all that for you? No, but it is entirely feasible no other team wanted to spend a half a million dollars to coddle you and (in their estimation) harm their own brand by attaching themselves to you.
Business is business, you did not have positive value. Your marginal cost exceeded the marginal revenue you were expected to produce.
Teams in perfectly rational business judgment could have concluded you were a distraction to every other player on their team. Similar to the reason people are hesitant to sign a guy like Tim Tebow or Michael Sam. Teams consider a media circus a negative, and one would certainly have followed this home run “king.”
Is it possible they colluded against you? Maybe. Is it provable as “more likely than not”? That’s much less clear.
Bonds had a lot of positive value even at the age of 42. He had a good .276 BA, an incredibly solid .480 OBP, and a 1.045 OPS. Not to mention he still managed to hit 28 HRs while being intentionally walked 43 times, tied for the 4th most times he’s been intentionally walked in his career in one season. Even if he was rested and coddled by the Giants in his last year, you can’t tell me that not one AL team wouldn’t have loved to have him as their DH especially when he offered to play for the league minimum.
Bonds did have some baggage with him but the benefits he could’ve provided for a team outweighed the negative aspects he might’ve given the team. The reason teams are hesitant to sign guys like Tebow or Michael Sam isn’t because of the media that would follow them. It’s because both those guys are terrible at their jobs. If both of them were superstars, then they wouldn’t have any trouble finding jobs. Guys like Ben Roethlisberger, Ndamukong Suh, and Arod carry a lot of controversial media with them but they have jobs because they’re good at what they do.
There would likely have been a media circus following Bonds but considering that he was still a solid hitter that could easily help a team as a DH for a cheap price and yet received no offers show that there was more to it than just teams feeling like he would’ve been a distraction.
I agree that he still had value on the field, but I don’t think that is the lynchpin of this question. It’s whether the teams could reasonably have independently made the decision that, whatever that on field value, it didn’t outweigh everything else they would have to embrace to procure the services of Barry Bonds. Add in the fact that this is a 43 year old player who’s only value will be coming from offense (as a DH) and it’s very easy to craft the narrative that he’s not worth the trade off to marginally improve at the DH position over whomever else one of those (at the time) 14 slots was going towards because of how much negative was sure to come with him. You also have to chip into that expected offensive value with some deduction for how likely the teams assumed a 43 year old was a potential injury risk.
Add all that up, and I don’t find it irrational that teams could independently decide, this is a lot of risk for a very low reward, and not in our business interest.
I don’t even know football well enough to argue what those players can or can’t do on the field, but I still know their names and how much the media follows them. That is exactly why I tag them as a media spectacle, and I don’t fault teams for considering certain amounts of unceasing spotlight undesirable. Barry Lamar Bonds was a similar walking spectacle, only perhaps to an arguably higher level. Every homer could be his last, every ball could be the all-time record, every pitcher he went deep on got their name added to a list of guys who contributed to the record. It is a LOT of media, and when one of the public’s most frequent glances to your franchise is such a polarizing icon, there’s merit to practicing hesitance.
His field value isn’t important, he could have just been a DH.
I was quite explicit in calling him a DH. I merely pointed out that as a DH, there was nothing to add in for defensive contributions. So he’s counting on his offense alone being that much better than the 14 other guys who eventually got those DH slots that teams would overlook everything else about him. I don’t think he offered that.
I suppose I confused you when I said “on the field” value. I merely mean that as opposed to “off the field” value. Things like clubhouse presence, marketability, a positive reflection on the team.
Bonds is a man who had a reality show about his chase for the home run record cancelled because of issues with “Creative Control”… He’s wasn’t exactly easy to work with.
Yes he did
You’re not giving me much to argue against, but I’ll bite. I think it’s fair for people to judge that he did have that value, sure, BUT I also thinks its fair to judge he did not. Trying to prove in a court of law that the teams did not simply agree with my judgments over yours is not the slam dunk a lot of other commenters seem to be assuming it is.
He’ll probably lose because you’re right, how the hell do you prove that? But I think it’s clear there was collusion against. However, all that matters is proving it and good luck with that.
They continued to employ Manny Ramirez. They continued to employ a much inferior Delmon Young.
There was essentially zero risk in signing Bonds at the time. The fact is, he still played LF the previous season. He was no longer spectacular out there, but he was passable. Teams employ inferior LF now.So he wasn’t relegated to solely being a DH. He was also far more than a marginal upgrade over many of the DHs of the time. For many, he marked a significant upgrade.
If the franchise can’t handle the media scrutiny of Barry trying to be on his best behaviour on a pillow contract, then the probably don’t belong in professional sports.
“an incredibly solid .480 OBP”
Understatement of the year. That alone is why he was worth the league minimum if anything. If he was a DH he wouldn’t need as much rest as he would in SF. Playing in the field definitely made him need more rest and if an AL team had signed him, he would’ve been able to be a full-time DH and play that role incredibly.
Bonds would’ve thrived as a DH for an AL team and likely could’ve lasted for many more years in baseball.
Yup
“some baggage” is an understatement. A reputation as a bad teammate, potential ongoing ped issues, and the 100% possibility of a media circus going on. No way that’s worth it to a team. Bonds would have had a tough time with any organization other than the Giants even in the previous seasons. Also a question of his health.
Bonds was a jerk as a player and had ongoing PED issues but stuff like that has never stopped teams from signing players like him before. Guys like Nelson Cruz, Melky Cabrera, and Bartolo Colon have all had been suspended for PEDs and yet managed to receive new contracts after the fact. The fact of the matter is that there’s never really been any case where a player who was busted for steroid use was denied a contract if he was still useful. And him being a jerk really shouldn’t have had any effect on teams not signing him. Teams have signed players that have given worse images to their fan base. The Rays alone have signed worse players like repeat offender Manny Ramirez, homophobe Yunel Escobar, anti-Semite Delmon Young, repeated assaulter Matt Bush, or rapist Josh Lueke and they definitely could’ve used Bonds as their DH back then.
Oh…I know…signing those guys is almost par for the course just looking at the White Sox past. They had Albert Belle..etc. But it’s another step to call it collusion. Bonds will need more evidence.
Yea I agree that it definitely will take more for Bonds to prove collusion unless he has some already and just hasn’t shown it. Right now it’s mostly just speculation from reading about it but it is a little fishy when you think about it.
I just speculate that Bonds is pushing it believing MLB won’t release further dirt on him…likely cause it incriminates them. There’s likely a part of Bond’s ego that wants some cameras back on him.
Probably a little of everything. Bonds did have an ego when he was a player and while it’s likely not as bad now, it’s still likely there. Also I think he really does believe that he has a case against MLB.
Maybe he does…maybe he wants a settlement to prove a point. I just don’t believe that it would have taken collusion to make a decision on Bonds…he wasn’t a mystery…and it wasn’t a clear 30 team black ball. Almost every team could make a somewhat legit case why they didn’t go after him. The NL can say they don’t have the DH….a lot of AL teams had strong options under contract… And yeah..a couple might have decided they didn’t want that show. That’s not collusion…its just backwash.
Maybe it’s not, maybe it is. That’s for the courts to solve. If Bonds has the proof, then maybe he’s right about it being collusion. If he doesn’t, then we’ll see how things pan out.
Well, what’s he supposed to do…NOT file anything? That’s not how society works.
Bonds doesn’t HAVE to file anything. It’s really just his choice to do it because he either feels like he has a case or just wants the attention.
Oh…he could file to get that $500k league minimum as a matter of harrassment if not for the money.
My question, from a legal standpoint is…were the major league teams operating as.non interstate commerce required to offer him employment? Would it need to be as a player? What would keep a non-technically retired player from making a claim. What would have kept Boof Bonser from saying….hey..the Twins owe me a job in AAA
No team was required to offer Bonds employment. Many players have not gotten contracts from teams before. Bonds is a different case in the fact that he put up MVP discussion numbers his last year and got no offers from any team. Whether the teams colluded to not give him a contract or just no team wanted to deal with him is for him to prove.
Yes..ball is in his court. Going to be tough to prove..and tough not to have leaked if he does have the goods. He’ll need emails,.etc of discussions between club owners or the league office
At the time Bonds offered to play for the league minimum, I saw it as.the footing for a grievance. It was manipulation.
I find it hard to believe, personally, that an analysis of marginal cost/revenue was at play at the time. There are plenty of teams that have taken chances on players with more nefarious off-field issues, etc. I could see some clubs being uninterested in media circus potential, etc, but the more likely cost/revenue scenario (in my estimation) is that Bonds would have provided an attendance boost for most clubs even if he ultimately fell off a cliff in terms of performance.
One data point I find somewhat interesting, fwiw, is the Josh Hamilton trade. Both aging, injury prone sluggers with off-field baggage. TEX took on Hamilton, including some salary, and he has done nothing remotely close to what Bonds had done at the point in time that he went un-signed.
This isn’t to say at all that I think he has a strong case, or something — I don’t know. But there is a strong facial plausibility based on the market forces as I understand them.
Jeff, I think were getting into territory where those outside the game might have a blind spot. It’s extremely rare for individual players to be black balled on that scale. I view it a bit like Pete Rose. There just might be more than the public realizes went on.
I don’t believe it would have taken a league mandate to black ball Bonds. Logically, he was down to being a DH. That’s half the teams off the board. Of those, many had the position filled. Of what’s left…yeah..maybe they didn’t want the circus for a player that was maybe damaged and using a cane.
Collusion is tricky. I’ve been in a room with a jerk…everyone in there knew it…no one had to say anything, but it was obvious everyone couldn’t wait to get out of the room.
I know times change, but I always come back to Bill Veeck laughing about the idea that the owners could agree on ANYTHING. They couldn’t even agree on Manfred without drama. I find it hard to believe that there wasn’t an owner that would let that Bonds drama bother them. That’s practically the White Sox method of operation.
To be fair on Hamilton, outside of not being the spectacle that Bonds is, he didn’t just get moved “somewhere.” He went back to Texas where, despite everything, there’s still quite a good bit of fan sympathy for him. It would be more akin to Bonds returning to San Francisco.
Then of course you throw in the fact that Hamilton is 10 years younger now than Bonds was when he was trying to get signed.
Hamilton also offers one thing Bonds could not. Thanks to that shocking Arbiter’s decision, Texas acquired Josh Hamilton with full knowledge that he was not about to be suspended, but in the climate of 2007, with Game of Shadows published and the looming possibility of a court case or some form of disciplinary action against Bonds, teams did not have that same level of certainty that they would even be acquiring him for the full duration of whatever contract he signed.
And despite all this, Texas still only agreed to take Josh Hamilton on the condition that they pay practically nothing for him. Bonds offered to play on the cheap, but he couldn’t fix everything else about his situation.
Proving it ma or may not be difficult, that depends largely on what is still around. Even if two owners or GMs simply discussed why they are not signing Bonds, that would constitute collusion.
At least he will never get elected to the Hall of Fame.
and thats all that matters
The baseball Hall of Fame is barely above the WWE Hall of Fame in terms of credibility at this point, and only then because the blind, sanctimonious, hypocrite squirrels that vote happened find their nuts this year. No real dishonor in being snubbed for induction into a dumpster fire, just a little less money for not being able to inscribe “H.O.F. 20XX” on your autographs.
Well, this shows a certain sense of style on Bonds part.
This dude wants it both ways.
I mean everytime I saw him around that time is that he was ALWAYS walking around with a cane and complaining about his ‘trick’ knee.
Just SMH, Barry! Just SMH!
There probably is just a bit of retired player needs attention in all this. Bonds ego itself could be elected into Cooperstown and give it’s own induction speech.
This is harder than it looks. I’m in the camp of those who think steroid use, after that use was clearly prohibited (not some slap on the wrist–but don’t worry about it because we like the ticket sales) seriously needs to be dealt with as an outcaste behavior. Bonds, as great a player as he unquestionably was, pretty clearly was a serial rule-breaker. But collusion is a big deal–and it’s even more of a big deal when you see plenty of PEDs users get new contracts for big dollars. What that tells you is that ownership, for all the protestations of morality, are business first and foremost, and if a Cruz, or a Peralta, etc. helps you win games, you bring him aboard. Bonds was still highly productive in his final season. I fully understand that the Giants may have just let him go, deciding he was too brittle and too much trouble. A lot of high-dollar players are just not re-signed when their teams think they can get better value elsewhere. But, no-one, not even an American League team, could have used Bonds?
Giants letting him go makes sense. AL teams would have loved to have that production.
Bonds was a hulking mass of collusion. Collusion assumes that teams were working together. I’m not sure they would have had to pick up the phone to know that Bonds was a murder to team chemistry and a distraction. Any team that took him on would essentially have been booting their organizational focus aside for a season of the circus.
I’m not really arguing that a year with Bonds would have been a paradise, although as for circuses, Hamilton going back to Texas is likely to be a pretty big one. But, as other posters have commented in connection with A-Rod, fans want wins, and 110 games of DHing with the types of numbers Bonds put up the year before might have created some good vibes. I absolutely grant you that many teams just wouldn’t have wanted the trouble. But no teams? I’m not as certain of that. Just like I’m not certain that if the Yankees cut A-Rod loose, he wouldn’t be picked up very quickly.
1 in 14 AL teams…..at that point? I think we have some revisionist history going on. There was probably just a little fear of a Sosa like post roid dip
Not looking to revise history. I have no idea what those teams were thinking at the time. It’s certainly possible that he was just too radioactive to take on. But the argument that one team could have used him and decided not to because of stated or implied institutional disapproval isn’t farfetched.
Bonds doesn’t have other cases on his side… Braun, Arod, others have all come back.
The difference is that Braun and A-Rod were under contract–very large contracts. And, as much as I dislike the awarding of new deals to recent PED-users, MLB now has a “do your time, pay for the crime” model.
I agree. The thing on Bonds though is that it wouldn’t have had to taken a league mandate for him to be excluded. His situation was so over the top that he could have destroyed his own market. The case cannot be made on sheer on the field merit.
Melky Cabrera then.
Manny Ramirez.
I’ve done extensive research on the Black Sox scandal. Talking about revisionist history….. So sad…but it’s hard to separate the stories about it from the likely facts. We want to naturally exonerate Shoeless Joe. He tried to return the money. Sat in Comiskeys outer office with it in a brief case but the old roman wouldn’t see him.
Through all that….we can’t get around him taking it in the first place and going on with the series. Real tragedy there was Buck Weaver.
Just cases like Bonds remind me of the Pete Roses and Black Sox
As sad as the Buck Weaver story is, I can also understand why Landis made an example of him. If you have knowledge of a fix and do not promptly tell you team, you forfeit your right to play the game. It’s a lot of hypocrisy, but there’s no doubt that Weaver knew his teammates were throwing games. If you look at Jackson’s play in the WS, he seemed to hit in low-leverage situations and pull up during RBI opportunities. I wish I could find the analysis, but it’s pretty damning evidence that he didn’t just take their money and keep on hitting.
Weaver also sat in Comiskeys outer office and attempted to speak to him at both the Ambassador Hotel in Chicago, as well as the hotel in Cincinnati. On one occasion in Cincinnati… Comiskey was in a shouting match with Ban Johnson about the fix. Comiskey did his best to make it disappear for almost a year. He’s also highly implicated in the theft of the grand jury testimonies by none other than Bill Veeck….who found records buried in the offices.
It certainly wasn’t simple…but Weaver never actually took money, nor was he the only one who knew of the fix. Ray Schalk despised the black Sox players to his death… Wouldn’t even discuss them…and even he liked Weaver and didn’t implicate him. Truth is…Schalk probably had as.much info as Weaver.
Baseball’s real trouble in almost every situation it gets itself into is that it rarely has integrity on it’s side. I can almost hear Bill Veeck laughing, though. Laughing at the thought of owners being able to agree on anything…
Well, we do know that the lost their collusion fight in the 1980s and had to pay up. We know it did occur. But, it’s a very big business, and business, as much as they like to present a family friendly and ethical model, are about profit. It’s always about profit. The decision about just about any player is going to be governed by the economics of it.
The 1980’s Andre Dawson signing a blank contract with Chicago collusion issue is just a different situation….different ownership by and large as well.
What I do think this Bonds situation displays is our general lack of trust in baseball to be ethical. I mean….we’re wanting to defend Bonds. I personally don’t feel the need. He along with so many in his generation altered what I thought I was getting during my childhood from about 1984 on. I’ll be 38 this year….and I can’t have a discussion about Clemens, McGwire, Canseco..etc about the old days without that roid garbage coming up. Don’t get me wrong…there are a plethora of worse problems in the world…
I’m one generation older than you, so I do remember the pre-roids era. Also, decaying, empty stadiums, no hitting, and a sport that seemed to be losing relevance. All of professional sports (hockey maybe not so much) have moved much towards an entertainment-based model–marketing across many platforms, and they have spend a lot of time improving their product at the performance level. They don’t care quite so much about good guys and bad guys–unless it really hurts the bottom line,
I can recall the crumbling stadiums…I’m an old Montreal hand myself. But I think you revealed one of the points that teams had on Bonds. They DO spend time developing and organizational philosophy. Bonds had a sterling capacity to sidetrack that…or it was believed he did.
I can recall the crumbling stadiums…I’m an old Montreal hand myself. But I think you revealed one of the points that teams had on Bonds. They DO spend time developing and organizational philosophy. Bonds had a sterling capacity to sidetrack that…or it was believed he did.
The statistical evidence on its own merit begs why a team wouldn’t give him a shot. But the business side can’t be separated. Bonds ONLY real value was in the left side of the box. He had everything else working against him. His offensive skills not getting him a look should tell us what kind of character we’re dealing with. 30 mlb teams could have individually decided he wasn’t worth it. Bare in mind, they might have more infor than the public. They’d know what went on in the clubhouse….on the planes..etc. He was poison. Only way to explain the stats not getting a bite.
Much like how the Yankees are booting their organization aside this year for a season of the ARod circus?
At least Arod is their own. I’m not sure a team like the Rays or Royals would have been clamoring for Bonds in 07. Bonds was on an entire different plain than Arod in my opinion. I think at this point we seem to have ped fatigue…we just want Arod to go away. Go back to 2007…you had a lot of fans in their 20’s that despised what Bonds and his generation had done. Add Bonds personality to the mix….he was just the villain. He wasn’t lovely and marketable… Except to SF.
And just look at how terrible the Yankees are performing and how anemic their attendance is.
I’m really not going down the Arod road….the original chain was about Bonds. If you believe Bonds would have been good for a team in 2007-08…power to you… I’m not saying you’re wrong..I’m just saying it wouldn’t take collusion for Bonds to get himself black balled. Ever been in a room of people and there’s a loud jerk in the room as well? People don’t have to tell each other anything. He speaks for himself.
I’ll say this about Arod though… Wait til the Yankees hit a rough patch…. Here will come the pitchforks. Who’s cheering? Those people in the $300_luxury seats that cheer for pop fouls? I have no idea….I can’t hear the people in the cheap upper deck seats. They’ve been forced too far from the field.
At least Arod is their own. I’m not sure a team like the Rays or Royals would have been clamoring for Bonds in 07. Bonds was on an entire different plain than Arod in my opinion. I think at this point we seem to have ped fatigue…we just want Arod to go away. Go back to 2007…you had a lot of fans in their 20’s that despised what Bonds and his generation had done. Add Bonds personality to the mix….he was just the villain. He wasn’t lovely and marketable… Except to SF.
They should have just suspended him for 162 or 212.
I don’t see how bonds camp can prove this though, even though it’s likely true.
It’s Jeff Kent’s fault. He told MLB teams not to sign Bonds. The rivalry continues!
Entitlement mentality gone wild.
How? At first glance it seems like there’s a legitimate case.
It’ll be hard proving collusion. There needs to be evidence.
That’s what they said about the free agents in the 80s. Luckily, there was proof of the conspiracy back then. I would hope that Bonds has something concrete to go on here, because it’ll be pretty easy for teams to say they just didn’t want to deal with the headaches and potential legal case around him. It’s hard to deny his age-42 numbers would make most teams drool for a player with that kind of production.
Bonds had a pretty darn good final year. Hard to think SOMEONE wouldn’t have wanted him.
If Ryan Braun and Melky Cabrera were now available as free agents, would none of the 30 teams in MLB offer them a contract? Both were suspend for PEDs and neither was nearly as productive last year as Bonds was in 2007.
Bonds should win this case. Easily.
Melky has been signed to 58M in FA contracts since he was busted.
Didn’t Melky and Braun formally apologize for their usage (though after the character assassination that Braun did I would not want that scum on my team)? I do not believe Bonds has ever admitted to it. I think there is a big difference there.
Lets face it whoever signed him would have had to subject their team to the circus that followed him. It is the same reason why the Yankees and ARoid are going to wind up in litigation again.So he is saying a team HAS to subject themselves to that circus?
Melky and Braun may have admitted it, but that’s only because they got backed into a corner and had no real way out other than admit what they did. In the process of actually getting them to admit, they both lied and pretty much took a lot of people down with them in the process. Really what they did and Bonds not formally admitting to taking steroids is a bit of a wash. A lot of teams have had far more questionable signings and could’ve used Bonds on their team. No team HAS to subject themselves to the media circus Bonds would’ve given, but the fact not even one was willing is a little fishy.
If Ryan Braun and Melky Cabrera were now available as free agents, would none of the 30 teams in MLB offer them a contract? Both were suspend for PEDs and neither was nearly as productive last year as Bonds was in 2007.
Bonds should win this case. Easily.
In a way I am glad he is pursuing this because just like with A-Rod, the more he pushes the greater the chance of new evidence coming forth and I don’t mean evidence supporting his claim.
Yes. Thats the claim I’ve made on Pete Rose, as well. I believe baseball had more incriminating evidence on him as well.
Actually Mr. Dowd is on record as saying that there was evidence confirming that Rose bet against his own team at times, especially when one particular pitcher was on the mound… I cannot think of the name at the moment, but the evidence was not concrete enough to be included in the report. The only times that Pete did not bet on the Reds to win was when that particular pitcher was on the mound. If I think of his name I will post it for you.
There were also implied mob and drug connections in all that investigation as well. It wasn’t going to be pretty. Rose took the penalty, and it was best for all involved.
I’m not sure who all was making book back in the 80’s…but I’ll assure you it wasn’t the boy scouts.
In most assuredly was not. At one point his bookies in Cincinnati stop doing business with him. He was not paying his debt because he was being threatened by the New York mob affiliated bookies and he had to pay them first. So many people believe that he was just doing this casually. They make their assumptions without looking at fact, very much like those who defend certain players mentioned on this thread. You really should read The Dowd Report. It is available online and I think you’ll find it interesting. It’s quite long but well worth it.
I haven’t read the complete report… But many many things referencing it. Pretty bad for you..given Rose and those guys lifted the Phils out of the muck
I always find your posts informative.
For me, the central Pete Rose [mindset] question has always been; why did he even associate with these “bookies.” Did he really think that he was going to be able to pull $20K – $50K or so a week out of these guys continuously, without repercussions?
I think he had some unresolved mental health issues.
I’m not sure who all was making book back in the 80’s…but I’ll assure you it wasn’t the boy scouts.
Off subject… But how do you like living in AZ? I know you have some health issues, but how do you like the area? Its a.subject that comes up with my wife and I sometimes.
I hope he wins. I was clamoring for the Mets to sign him when he was a free agent. The following year, 2008, the Mets lost the wild card by a single game, and the division by three. If they gave Bonds a million bucks, maybe Mets fans wouldn’t still be mourning the 2006 NLCS.
Bonds needs to shut up and just go away forever.
All of his statistics after Pittsburgh should be deleted.
Anyone know if Bonds got any offers from a Japanese team after 2007 and if so why he didn’t go over there and play? I’m sure he wanted to stay in MLB and keep building on his legacy, but after nothing came in and if he really wanted to keep playing pro ball, it seems like that would’ve been a good option and it would’ve been interesting to see the damage he would do in NPB even at 43.
I hope he wins, and gets put in the HOF. (Wishful thinking, but he should win this with ease)
I object to referring to hims as an “all-time great slugger.” “Controversial?” Yes. “Slugger?” Yes. “All-time great?” Absolutely not.
Regardless of how you may feel about the man PEDs alone didn’t make Bonds a great player.
True, it took talent + PEDs for him to appear great. But it was a charade.
Bonds was a great player regardless of the PEDs. Even the years before he was suspected of starting to take PEDs he was putting up solid Hall of Fame numbers. If he kept off steroids Bonds would’ve easily made the Hall already.
514 times he appeared on a different base than then one he was on before the pitcher threw the ball. That’s pretty great and good for 33rd on the all time stolen base leader board.
That’s ridiculous. He was an all-time great. He would have been in a parallel non-PED world and he was in reality. I strongly disliked Barry Bonds when he was playing. But when it came out how many guys also used PEDs, it was clear he was scapegoated because of his abrasive personality and perhaps other, darker reasons.
Regardless of how you feel, it’s obvious teams didn’t want to sign him for whatever reason. I don’t know why he is making a fuss, prolly just to get his big dome in the spotlight again. Everyone knows his stats, so there is a reason nobody wanted him. Should all players who don’t get picked up file a lawsuit ?
Bond’s case is based on the fact that not even a single team offered him a deal despite him putting up really solid numbers his last year and the fact that many AL teams could’ve used him as a DH, especially when he was willing to play for league minimum.
No one wanted the circus that followed him around, and the headache of the potential for him getting officially caught and then having to server a suspension. Can you really say that clubs MUST ignore all of that? I do not think so.Lets face facts. Only the Giants really wanted him after all of the allegations. Then they said enough was enough.
I guess people also forget his cancer like status in the clubhouse as well?
Teams have signed players that either have done exactly what Bonds did or far worse. Bonds was going to be a media circus but that’s never stopped teams from signing players like that before. And being a jerk is hardly a reason not to sign him considering that other players have done worse and gotten contracts.
If every team, under their own opinion, said ‘heck no’ to bringing him in- under what I’m sure are numerous reasons – then it is not collusion.
This is not collusion. Bonds was too much of a headache to deal with and also deal with the media circus and allegations around him. Only the Giants really wanted him and they even got tired of his act. He likely would have only been able to DH, that eliminates half of the teams in the league. Then I’m guessing he was not going to be cheap, so that probably removes at least half of the remaining AL teams who are not going to pay a fortune for a 42 year old DH.The teams that could, likely already had a guy there, or again did not want to deal with the headache, protests, likely injuries, hecklers in the stands, the surly attitude in the clubhouse, and the constant distraction of the PEDs questions to teammates and coaches. Again, try to find evidence that the entire league said no to him based on an agreement to do so, I doubt it will be there.
Bonds was likely going to be suited as a DH which eliminates NL teams, but he was also willing to play for the league minimum which eliminates the argument that he would’ve been expensive. He was putting up MVP discussion numbers his final year so he was still easily a good player and would’ve made a great DH. Many teams in the AL at the time had pretty poor DH options so Bonds would’ve easily been a cheap upgrade to what they had. And several teams like the Rays have had really no problem with signing guys that have had very questionable backgrounds before so Bonds wouldn’t have been any different. Whether there’s actually evidence of there being collusion is a different story but there was something more than just not wanting to deal with the media circus surrounding Bonds.
42 years old… Typical a body gets worse and not better with age. How well does a guy help you if he is hurt all of the time?
But Ok, lets play your game. Now, by your estimations, every team was an idiot for not signing him. Well if that is really the case then it was more likely every GM was an ‘idiot’ by their own decisions made; I seriously doubt MLB had to say ‘do not touch this guy’, which is really what the issue is here.
Bonds should have just taking what he got and been on his way. Retire ‘on your terms’. He did not, he wants his usual publicity and now he wants litigation? Ok, but my guess is more dirt is out there about him and this will only bring that dirt, and possibly more evidence against him, to the surface.
A person’s body gets worse with age but Bond was still good as shown by his numbers in his last year in baseball. Bonds played in 126 games with the Giants his last year. Assuming an AL team picks him up and he becomes the DH, his career extends to a pretty healthy amount since he won’t take the field. Even if he was healthy for only half a season, he would still be a great pickup for a team that needed him considering the threat he posed as a hitter and the fact he was essentially willing to play for free. Not every team was an idiot for not signing him cause not every team needed him. But there were a multitude of teams in 2008 that would’ve benefited greatly from having Bonds on their team like the Twins and the Rays. The dirt on Bonds has mostly come out at this point. If it’s any steroid evidence it’s not really gonna affect him anyways. People already believe he took steroids and he’s essentially been barred from the Hall of Fame as is. There really isn’t much that can be done to him at this point.
Correct. The fact that the Oakland A’s did not even offer Bonds a one-year league-minimum deal is the most damning evidence of collusion. They were coming off a season of 76 wins, crappy attendance, and had no other option for a designated hitter. Things were so bad that they had to resort to signing Frank Thomas a month into the 2008 season after Toronto paid him $12.5 million not to play. Can anyone really argue with a straight face that the Oakland A’s weren’t interested in asking a player who lived in the Bay area and was an icon to its fans, coming off a season of 1.045 OPS and willing to play for the league minimum? If Bonds after the 2007 season wasn’t the archetypal Money Ball player, then Money Ball is an absolute myth and Billy Beane is simply a guy playing Roulette.
No one wanted the circus that came with him. I believe he never admitted to, or apologized for, the usage either. They used PEDs, but at least Braun and Cabrera have apologized for their actions.
Braun is even worse than Bonds – he tried to destroy the career of the sample collector, held an on-field ‘denial’ conference and then finally apologized after getting caught again. Piece of garbage.
Yeah, not a fan of Braun and the guy got off easy, but still apologized (after his hand got caught in the cookie jar again, but even still) which is something I think Bonds will always be too proud and arrogant to do.
He cheated…end of story.
Jermaine Dye should file a grievance too then
That is a poor juxtaposition. Dye was 0.8 runs below replacement level in his final season, and he produced 0 runs above average on offense. Bonds was 3.2 runs above replacement level, and he produced 31.3 runs above average on offense.
Thank you, Brian Kenney. I could care less about that. His HRs and RBI were still legit.
Thank you, Brian Kenny.
It seems like there’s no doubt that there was collusion. But it’s going to be hard to find somebody who cares.
Ha… justice for a cheater and loud mouth.
Maybe jermaine dye can join him in the suit
SO , BARRY PULLED A “TYSON” –DID HE RUN INTO THE TREE WITH HIS CAR ? OR ON FOOT ?
Based just on 2007, Bonds is worth 15+ mil a yr. Maybe at 42 that’s only 6-8 mil. Not a fan, but if he was willing to play for min & no one signed him, he has a case. Average players stay in the MLB for years. DH Billy Butler hit .269 w/9 hrs last year a dh last year.Hardly plays the field, can’t run, very little power. 3 years, 30 mil.
If Giambi was able to get one of the scared 25 man spots the previous two seasons even with a checkered steroid past, and Bonds couldn’t despite never being punished, testing positive or admitting steroid use; it’s pretty obvious collusion took place. I believe he could still be more productive than Thome and Giambi were their final year at his advanced age here and now.
Ryan Braun kept his MVP award. Chris Davis was not stripped of his home run totals and Tom Brady still has his Super Bowl ring. If you are going to criticize Bonds, please put it in print that you believe the three players I listed are cheaters and whose careers should have an asterisk next to them.
Until the day comes where MLB either removes or puts an asterisk next to players records….then they are the records PERIOD. If MLB recognizes the stats from that era by leving them unchanged in the record books, than who the heck are we, the BBWAA who votes on HOF membership, or anyone else, to say otherwise. Do I think Bonds and others juiced? Ahhh…yeah. But continuing to exclude guys from the HOF who HAVEN’T tested positive (Bonds, Piazza, Bagwell et al) and using the “Eye Test” to judge…..is wrong. Open the record books and who’s the listed HR leader? ‘Nuff said.
I had a comment on this website removed because I linked to a Wikipedia article on MLB collusion and Bud Selig’s role in it. LOL this site.