Bonds Boycott?

This is the Poster Child for Collusion

As others have pointed out, not only was he still one of the 10 best offensive performers in te game last year—when he played-but a) he isn’t anywhere near as bad in the field as people think- he could still play for a NL team; b) offense is way down in the AL—where if used as a DH he would improve just about every team in the league; and c) the clubhouse “cancer” thing is a crock—didn’t the Giants contend for virtually every year between 1993-2004?; d) it is very unlikely that his trial will occur during this season

I’d want him on my team in a heartbeat. And since my team is the A’s—the only question is one of money. Is Bonds so prideful that he’s demanding 8 figures? (Gagne got it) Or a prorated 8 figure salary? If not, then see no reason why 30 teams wouldn’t want him—and if he does want the big money, there are still probably 8-10 teams who could afford the risk.

by madmongoose on May 13, 2008 10:20 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs

Do you prefer :

Bonds at 8 figures,
Or Frank Thomas at 6?

The other 29 teams didn’t grab FT at 6, so they can’t use that excuse.

Oh, and the NL teams may not like the Defense / Offense tradeoff involved.

by MobiusKlein on May 13, 2008 11:57 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

What do you mean "didn't grab FT at 6"?

Thomas was going to be making the same salary wherever he went. He preferred Oakland, and the A’s made room for him. The other 28 teams did not enter into the discussion.

The only way another team could have “grabbed” him was by assuming his entire contract.

Your 2008 Athletics: It's Nothing Personal.

by PaulThomas on May 13, 2008 12:04 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

tradeoff?? TRADEOFF???

I feel Like Jim Mora. The tradeoff between what Bonds brings you at the plate compared to what you lose with him in the field is, oh, maybe like China vs. Albania. Big league GMs run the numbers—believe me, they know what he could do to their team offensively. If Gagne can get a job… and Giambi can still have a job.. and Thomas gets paid huge by the Blue Jays last year, etc., etc. they you are telling me that the greatest hitter in the history of the game (irrespective of how/why that happened) who is still in the 95th perctenile in offense can’t get work?

And that it’s not collusion???

by madmongoose on May 13, 2008 12:50 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Word

He’s not even getting low-ball offers to reject. It’s very suspicious.

In fact, I don’t think there’s an old guy with a steroid cloud who is employed this year. Makes ya wonder.

by achiappanza on May 14, 2008 11:41 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

You seem to be looking through rose colored glasses

Yes Bonds does not have a job in MLB right now, the same is true for a lot of other free agents. Bonds is not that good in the field, but we have Cust so we could put up with that. The biggest problem I think most clubs have with signing Bonds is his clubhouse presence, the cost of signing him (probably many millions), and the baggage he brings along. If he were playing for the A’s I truly believe that he would bring change the clubhouse chemistry for the worse. On the other side, Frank Thomas is a positive influence to the other players no matter how he is hitting. From what I have read when he was with the A”s in 2006 they all loved him, I doubt that would happen with Bonds.

Could Bonds help other clubs ? Yes, but the problem is that most GMs probably realize that you need a team not just one superstar. His ego is so large that he can’t see that it is in his way. He is not a team player.

Collusion – NO, Smart inaction – YES

"Whether you think you can, or you think you can't, either way, YOU'RE RIGHT !"

by Eastbayjim on May 13, 2008 1:37 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Clubhouse Presence? baggage?

has anyone signed Milton Bradley lately? Oh, OK. I guess his baggage is worth it.

Anyone take a flier on Rcik ankiel? Eric Gagne? Miguel Tejada?

I find this argument pretty hysterical. For the better part of 12 seasons Bonds’ teams enjoyed as mucb success as any outside of the Bronx—I guess that clubhouse presence caused Dusty to take Ortiz out in the 6th game of 2002 or their bullpen to groove those balls to Spiezio and Glaus. He was—by far—the single most valuable player in the sport for about 10 seasons—regardless of how he achieved that level—and he’s still damn good at the plate now.With a whole lot to prove, by the way.

by madmongoose on May 13, 2008 1:42 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

I don't disagree

Bonds is great at the plate but that fact does not prove collusion. Many teams have talked about him and some, including the A’s have talked to him or his agent and the fact that no one has made an offer is not enough to prove collusion.

Could there be collusion, yes. Could no one really want to take a chance on him? Yes i think this is what is happening. Reasonable doubt has been shown, the owners have not gone off together and signed a pack to not talk to or sign Bonds.

Just so you know, if we did not have Thomas and Cust (who will be here for awhile) then Yes, I would like them to look into signing Bonds, but I am very wary of what he will do to our clubhouse chemistry.

"Whether you think you can, or you think you can't, either way, YOU'RE RIGHT !"

by Eastbayjim on May 13, 2008 2:04 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Do you believe that

it is reasonable for the Mariners to go with Jose Vidro at DH instead of Bonds? And now, the talk of Griffey, instead of Bonds?

This is a team that gave up one of the best prospects in baseball to WIN NOW. Is it reasonable to conclude that Jose Vidro would help them win now, instead of Barry Bonds.

And what of JP Riciardi? He’s flailing around signing and playing a bunch of mediocrities like Shannon Stewart, Brad Wilkerson, Kevin Mench?

ZIPS: Milledge: 466 HR, 485 2B, 2282 hits, 278-379-524

by rfloh on May 14, 2008 1:08 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

If 30 companies agree

that you’re a jackass and they want nothing to do with you, is that collusion? Or just 30 intelligent businesses reaching the same logical conclusion?

Fans see collusion because they presume baseball skill should be the only factor in determining whether to hire someone. It’s not.

I’d also like to know what Bonds’ price is. One thing you hear a lot is that no one is willing to sign Bonds even at major-league minimum salary. Do we actually know that? Has Bonds (or his agent) ever stated openly how much salary he’s willing to play for? And if not, how do we know some teams haven’t made inquiries and found out that their offer isn’t high enough?

(For what it’s worth, I do think Bonds is worth a flyer at minimal salary, for a team that has room for him and is in a media climate that can tolerate the circus. The A’s have three DH’s already, so he’s a bad fit for us.)

formerly known as mdl

by iglew on May 13, 2008 10:38 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs

Bonds' asking price

This is a major piece of the collusion puzzle. If Bonds is willing to play for the league minimum and nobody has approached him about playing for the league minimum then yes it would seems collusion is afoot. But all I think I’ve heard from Bonds’ camp is that he hasn’t been offered a contract, not even at league minimum, but they haven’t expanded on if he’d accept a league minimum contract or not.

I get the Giants are going for the whole youth movement thing but what are they really gaining from playing Randy Winn over Barry Bonds? There are also some AL teams that I’d think could use Bonds as a DH. For a guy who hasn’t been proven to have done anything wrong he seems to be getting a pretty bad wrap.

Believe me, if we disagree it is you that is wrong.

by methodrampage on May 13, 2008 12:38 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

i agree

with your point that many people seem to confuse “collusion” with “independent decisions that happen to be the same”.
moving on from that, there is then the question of whether these independent decisions are smart or stupid for each team. imo this gets pretty subjective, because obviously every gm is weighing the non-baseball factors that come with Barry against the baseball factors, and you can debate the significance of these non-baseball factors until the cows come home. plus the baseball factors are not exactly simple for every team (e.g. the A’s already have a few DHs for cheap)

finally, as for your questions on Barry’s price- I read a few weeks ago that nobody has even called his agent yet (i need to find where I read this… working on it) to find out how much Bonds is asking for. nobody. so when people give a quote on how much he costs, it is speculation. Educated speculation, for sure, but it is interesting that nobody has even called to find out.

by oakinboston on May 13, 2008 12:48 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

"nobody has called to find out"

If true, and I was a competent lawyer, i wouldn’t need anything else to go before a judge and jury and claim collusion. You mean to tell me that 30 “intelligent” (be careful—we’re talking about the Royals among others here) businessmen, independent of each other, have decided he ain’t worth it? and they’re not even willing to talk to him or his agent?

Balderdash.

by madmongoose on May 13, 2008 12:52 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Hate to burst your bubble here

but no, that is not enough to go before a judge and jury. The burden of proof is on the plaintiff here, and while it’s a civil-suit burden (i.e. he simply needs a preponderance of evidence, not proof beyond a reasonable doubt), you need evidence before you can possibly have a preponderance of it, and right now there’s no tangible evidence at all. No well-established fact pattern of offers to players (like in the 1980s), no leaked memos from MLB, no ill-advised conversations or emails among ownership. All they have is the circumstantial evidence that a good player isn’t receiving offers—which will undoubtedly be weighed against a stack of affidavits from MLB and team execs that, no, they aren’t colluding against Bonds, and no, if someone else is, they don’t know about it. He’d be lucky if the lawsuit even reached trial without getting tossed out on summary judgment.

Shysterball is probably the best available source for opinion on MLB-related legal matters, and he thinks that Bonds currently has no real hope of winning a collusion lawsuit.

I say the above, incidentally, even though I actually think there is collusion going on. Sherlock Holmes-esque deductions (when you have eliminated the impossible, etc etc) aren’t good enough to win a suit.

Your 2008 Athletics: It's Nothing Personal.

by PaulThomas on May 13, 2008 1:15 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

I Used a Bit of License

And you got all literal and legalese on me. That’s OK. The point is common sense—if I and 30 competitors are in the ice cream business. And there is someone alive in the world who once made the very best ice cream on earth—and still turns a pretty good flavor, better than nearly all of my or their employees. And none of us—not one of those 30 firms—picks up the phone and makes a call to inquire about this person’s services—now what in God’s name could be the reason for that? We know the ice cream’s going to be pretty good. We know more people will buy it if the realize that this person—with all his fame—is making it.

what could possibly be holding us back from even making a phone call?

by madmongoose on May 13, 2008 1:38 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Again, I think the arguments against signing Bonds are preposterous

It’s laughable for Seattle to be considering giving up valuable players to get a rapidly fading Griffey back instead of signing Bonds at no penalty. He would also upgrade (among contenders) Detroit, Cleveland, NY and Tampa. And probably Oakland too, although I think now that the team has Frank Thomas there are better ways to spend the money.

The key point one needs to realize here is this—no matter how preposterous the arguments are, the mere fact that there ARE arguments provides MLB plausible deniability.

Your 2008 Athletics: It's Nothing Personal.

by PaulThomas on May 13, 2008 1:48 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

i feel like you are ignoring the answers rather than responding to them.

and they are, as the SI article points out: 1- clubhouse considerations, 2- circus potential, 3- court distractions
(noted that you just responded to it in a different comment above)

as i mentioned in my first comment, you can argue about these three things forever. people’s opinions will vary widely based on how much they hate bonds. Im not really interested in that particular conversation. but the point is, these ARE reasonable considerations for a LOT of people, and this is enough to dismiss the collusion idea.

by oakinboston on May 13, 2008 1:53 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

I'm Ignoring Them Only for This Reason

I think all the potential reasons are BS compared to the payoff Bonds could provide. And I think 30 GMs—even the less competent ones—if you gave them sodium pentathol—would say the same thing.

They are ex post facto rationalizations geared to hide the basic truth—there is an unspoken agreement not to give this guy the stage. Not after all the publicity of the past several seasons—not after the stain the sport suffered. Selig has communicated it in a way that leaves few tracks, and maybe none at all—but believe me the message has been delivered.

And the irony is—pretty delicious when you think about it—is that the juice and the long ball “saved” the sport in the mid 1990s—and now the long ball is way down, scoring is way down in the AL, and the guy who might come in and give about 14 different AL teams a spark—even the Red Sox given Ortiz’ struggles—can’t get a job.

by madmongoose on May 13, 2008 2:18 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

it is likely enough

to get in front of a judge. and enough for discovery, which would reveal more.

by Future Ed on May 13, 2008 2:22 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

It might end up there

If it does, though, it’ll be too late to salvage this season…

And I’d question what the chances of him finding a smoking gun in discovery are in actuality. It’s quite possible that the agreement is a verbal one, in which case there’s no paper trail. Even if the owners were dumb enough to email/write each other about it, they might produce so much irrelevant correspondence that it’s impractical to go through it all. The potential gain to Bonds might be outweighed by the potential costs.

I won’t say it’s impossible, but it seems unlikely to me that the owners would leave themselves open to this by actually making records of it.

Your 2008 Athletics: It's Nothing Personal.

by PaulThomas on May 13, 2008 3:49 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

A little consistency please

You just told madmongoose that there is not enough evidence to get before a judge and jury. Now you say it might. So, which is it?

Of course, even if tossed out on summary judgment, the complaint would have to go before a judge.

As for the costs outweighing the gains, do you really think the cost to pay a paralegal to go through discovery outweighs the treble damages Bonds could win in an antitrust suit?

Also, circumstantial evidence is good evidence. Ever heard of Scott Peterson?

It's a beautiful day for baseball.

by As Man on May 13, 2008 4:05 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

it is consistant

the difference is the jury. As it stands right now, there is not enough information for a verdict (by judge or jury) what PT and I were discussing is pretrial discovery. You will note that PT’s opinion was there wouldn’t be any smoking gun.

by Future Ed on May 13, 2008 4:41 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Then PT doesn't make any sense

If all you’re talking about is the complaint being seen by a judge, why “might” it only get that far?

If a complaint is filed, it goes before a judge unless withdrawn.

It's a beautiful day for baseball.

by As Man on May 13, 2008 4:51 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Um, yes

However, if they get summarily tossed out on their ear a year before the case would go to trial, it’s not exactly going to accomplish much—other than to make Bonds look bad.

You seem to be arguing that there’s no drawback to filing suit, and I don’t think that’s true at all, particularly when you consider that Bonds’s goal—to restore some part of his reputation and play baseball this season—is basically a non-monetary one.

Your 2008 Athletics: It's Nothing Personal.

by PaulThomas on May 13, 2008 4:58 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Basically,

I’m arguing you came on too strong on madmongoose.

As for a possible lawsuit, we shall see. Even if Bonds’ atty has no evidence besides that no one has expressed interest, it might be worth it to see what comes out in discovery.

It's a beautiful day for baseball.

by As Man on May 13, 2008 7:09 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

What I'm saying is this:

The evidence could exist, but we (and, probably, Bonds) have no reason to believe it does.

Your 2008 Athletics: It's Nothing Personal.

by PaulThomas on May 13, 2008 4:51 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

ah here we go, April 23rd SI article

“No team has made an offer at any price at any time. That’s a simple fact,’’ Bonds’ agent Jeff Borris told SI.com. “At this point in time, no club has even offered the minimum salary. And even though the minimum salary wouldn’t be a bona fide offer for a player of his stature, it’s beyond comprehension that no team [has made] such an offer.’‘
Borris strongly denied whispers that Bonds is demanding a $10 million salary, or more, after making $19.2 million last year as a Giant. “Completely false,’’ Borris called those rumors.

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2008/writers/jon_heyman/04/23/heyman.bonds/index.html
it is worth skimming this

by oakinboston on May 13, 2008 1:22 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Agent speak.

No offers at any time doesn’t mean no inquiries at any time.

by sslinger on May 13, 2008 2:21 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

good point. i remembered the article incorrectly, and was imprecise.

by oakinboston on May 13, 2008 2:26 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Borris is a snake.

He loudly proclaims that no team has even offered minimum salary, and then in the very next sentence makes it clear, in agent-speak, that if anyone does offer minimum salary he will consider it an insult. “Wouldn’t be a bona fide offer” is clear enough to any GM. So tell us, Mr Borris, what would be considered a bona fide offer?

formerly known as mdl

by iglew on May 13, 2008 8:33 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

I actually think

that Borris and Bonds might do themselves a favor by literally making a public offer—saying “I’ll play for not more than so-and-so amount.” That way teams couldn’t use this ludicrous “Well, we think he won’t accept our offer, so we won’t even make it” defense…

That being said, I’ve never heard of someone doing that before, so I’m not exactly surprised that Bonds hasn’t done it.

Your 2008 Athletics: It's Nothing Personal.

by PaulThomas on May 13, 2008 9:19 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Totally agree

Not just set a price, but have barry – not borris – make a personal statement of his sincere desire to be a contributor. Still not clear that barry is as interested in a deal as borris….

by Hot Cup Joe on May 13, 2008 9:38 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

That assumes that Barry

actually has a sincere desire to be a contributor. I for one am not convinced of that.

I think you (Hot Cup Joe) nailed it in the other comment: Barry wants to play on his terms or not at all. And by terms, I don’t mean money.

formerly known as mdl

by iglew on May 13, 2008 10:30 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Bonds and papers

Filing papers with the union indicates that he is activley looking for work. It also suggests that he has asked for a price and no one is biting.

There was talk this winter that the A’s were taling to him. in fact, I believe roto world reported talks reached the vaunted “verge” stage. This shows that there was interest.

I have read that its a down year offensively. I don’t know that but if its true that shows a need. If its not a down year, there are always teams that need more offense.

Other steroids tainted players are working.

Why is the best offensive player available not playing? All signs point to collusion.

by Future Ed on May 13, 2008 11:08 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs

While I think collusion is in the air, it's HARD to RESPECT a writer

who doesn’t have his simple facts in order. I was unfortunate enough to have to attend a game at PacBell while entertaining a friend from out of town; the A’s were not at home that particular week. This was around the time all the hoopla was being made over the “Bonds signage dissapearing act” made in all the local media.

Lo and behold, when I went to the park there were indeed at least TWO indications of Bonds still visible to the naked eye. There was a orange placard on the outfield wall indicating 756 as well as Bonds’ name on a sign indicating the four players with the most home runs in Giants history (this sign was very similar to the one they used to have in place when Bonds was chasing Aaron and Ruth).

In sum, these types of articles are, in my opinion, regurgitated trash. How do you expect me to read past the first few lines when you can’t get your simple facts straight.

by 33SwisherSweet on May 13, 2008 12:10 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs

size matters, little Swish

Com’on man… usually you have something valuable to contribute. What’s this stuff?
It’s true about the plaque, which let’s face it can’t exactly be seen from EVERY-F-ing-WHERE like the banners and chase counts were. Zirin also didn’t mention that the largest presence Bonds STILL has at Mays Field is on the backs of Gnats fans’ jerseys, many of whom for a LONG TIME couldn’t even name another player on the team. That asshat Zirin really should get all of the facts exactly right or else everything he has to say is totally suspect. I don’t remember seeing the Gnats HR leader banner, but I’ll take your word for it. I guess it was just so conspicuous. Compared to the former Bonds-ification of Warrantless Wiretap Park, Bonds’ image at the park has largely been dramatically, noticeably, and I’d proffer “maliciously” reduced. I’m not a Bonds fan… but I like Gnats management even less.

Things could be worse. Suppose your errors were counted and published every day, like those of a baseball player.

by 149 on May 13, 2008 7:00 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

I don't think people know what collusion means

A bunch of teams individually deciding (for whatever reason – many of them bad, I’m sure) to not sign Bonds is not the 30 owners meeting in some secret cave and shaking hands on the deal. Collusion is an organized effort. There’s not one shred of evidence that has gone on.

There are a number of arguments to be made for why Bonds hasn’t been given an offer (that he likes, anyway). Again, they’re not all sound baseball arguments. And in the end some of them might even prove to be false (would his demeanor really cause poor chemistry/losses? doubtful). But that doesn’t mean they’re not honest reasons for avoiding the guy.

http://bocropleasestopswingingatbadpitches.blogspot.com/

by thejd44 on May 13, 2008 12:50 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs

FYI

collusion
n. where two persons (or business entities through their officers or other employees) enter into a deceitful agreement, usually secret, to defraud and/or gain an unfair advantage over a third party, competitors, consumers or those with whom they are negotiating. Collusion can include secret price or wage fixing, secret rebates, or pretending to be independent of each other when actually conspiring together for their joint ends. It can range from small-town shopkeepers or heirs to a grandma’s estate, to gigantic electronics companies or big league baseball team owners.

Things could be worse. Suppose your errors were counted and published every day, like those of a baseball player.

by 149 on May 13, 2008 6:11 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Here's a Bonds-related question:

At what point will be too late to sign him and still realize the gain his offense expects to provide?

You have to figure he can’t just go a full year without seeing live pitching and come out dominant when he finally suits up. There’s gonna be rust if he gets back in the game.

It isn’t quite the same as adding a “fresh” pitcher in July or August, IMO. Hitting is a reactive skill, making it harder to take a year-long layoff from, I’d imagine.

For example, if Bonds were to finally sign with a team in August, he might need need a month to get his swing back. By the time he’s successful, he wouldn’t have presented an upgrade to his team over the six weeks he was there. (This is all hypothetical, but my point is that he probably would need to sign sometime soon for the team to realize a gain from signing him).

So when do you guys think he’ll need to sign by, in order to make an impact in ‘08? Isn’t there probably some date this season where it’s too late to expect him to contribute, considering the inevitable rust?

by notsellingjeans on May 13, 2008 2:06 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs

If it were me, maybe September 30th

Think of it this way.

You’re in the final week of a pennant race with, say, the Angels. You have a guy such as Cust or Thomas on the bases, but you really want to have Rajai Davis in there to increase the chance of scoring the run. Except it’s the 7th blanking inning (the infamous Giambi, not Byrnes, decision was made in the 7th inning)—that spot in the order will come up again.

Scenario One: take your chances with Rajai Davis.

Scenario Two: Pinch run davis, and then pinch hit Bonds—who hasn’t faced live pitching all year.

I know which door I’m choosing—Two.

by madmongoose on May 13, 2008 2:13 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

You'd be foolish to do so

You’d really use a guy who hasn’t faced live pitching in over a year over a guy who has with the playoffs on the line?

In search of a new signature. Say something funny and you may see your comment here!

by DMOAS on May 13, 2008 7:04 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

If the guy was the former greatest hitter on the planet

with an OPS of over 1000 the past two years—vs. Rajai Davis?

In a heartbeat.

by madmongoose on May 13, 2008 8:21 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Ironic.

I believe Bonds withdrew from the MLBPA because he wanted to market himself on his own. Now he wants their help for a collusion suit???

What about Barry?
"Barry who?" Forst said, and I felt like I was in the middle of a knock-knock joke.

by KMoAsFan on May 13, 2008 2:15 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs

only withdrew from the revenue-sharing, not the union itself

We're going to knock balls out of the country's park, for the home team, which is America. @('.')@

by monkeyball on May 13, 2008 3:08 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

"We haven't even received an offer"

I think part of the reason he hasn’t even received an offer is that every MLB team knows that the offer would eventually get out to the public.

What’s worse than getting the negative publicity and media questions surrounding Bonds while he’s in your lineup?

Dealing with the same questions while he’s not in your lineup. If a team made an offer and didn’t sign him, they’d have the media distraction and (allegedly) bad P.R. for considering getting involved with him…and they wouldn’t get to enjoy the fruits of his labor (great hitting). That’s perhaps the worse case scenario.

Unlike the typical free agent player/agent, where it’s harmless to kick the tires and see if the player will sign for a favorable figure, there is a huge disincentive to enter casual negotiations with Bonds. Teams believe it will hurt their image to even converse with his agent.

I don’t think he’s unsigned because people are splitting hairs over 400K vs. $3-5 mil. If a team was willing to make the leap, that wouldn’t get in the way.

Although if his agent is smart, he’s already sent a letter to every team offering that Bonds will play for the minimum, so that teams don’t have to approach him to find out if that’s the case. One quick way to improve your P.R. at least a little bit is to play for the league minimum.

by notsellingjeans on May 13, 2008 2:16 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs

we may all hate him

But I for one applaud his unwillingness to beg. the minimum? the minimum? Because i got outed for something that 40-50%- at minimum- if you want to use that word—of my peers were doing also? I have to beg for work? He’s got too much pride for that—and I can’t fault him for that.

by madmongoose on May 13, 2008 2:21 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

I can't belive 30 teams could agree on anything, however

if they had agreed that a 44 year old egotist who probably had chemical help in all his achievements was no longer a viable MLB player, good on them.

Any similarity between my spelling and that deemed correct, is pureley accidental.

by Dalesman on May 13, 2008 2:22 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs

"no Longer a Viable Major league Player"??!!

This is an amazing debate. I can’t believe someone’s not making this stuff up.

first off, a collection can sometimes make an obvious and stupid error. How many studios passed on Star Wars? But to believe that—in the most statistics-conscious business I’m aware of—when there is an obvious option to half the marketplace to remove the product’s principal on-field weakness—these 30, or 14, individuals and their support staff, scouts, owners, etc.. all believe that Barry Bonds “is no longer a viable MLB player” is the equivalent of saying the sun revolves around the earth.

Please look at his actual numbers—last year—post steroids/HGH or at least the type of testing that everyone else is going through—and tell me he’s not viable. Are you kidding me? If he entered the A’s lineup tomorrow—tomorrow—with no extended spring training or practice whatsoever—HE WOULD BE OUR BEST OFFENSIVE PLAYER. BY FAR.

by madmongoose on May 13, 2008 2:29 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

plus

whatever boost at the road gate for people coming out to boo him. plus the Extra TV revenue from Fox and ESPN going national on your games to show the freak. TV ratings would likely go up locally.

I’m not sure what the PR hit would be. A few people looking for an excuse NOT to go to a game?

by Future Ed on May 13, 2008 2:34 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Sorry looks like I pulled a string I didn't mean to,

The phrase ‘no longer a viable major league player’ was more about hiring a man with his reputation rather than his past playing ability. However a players ability to perform, once he’s past thirty falls off very significantly as each year passes, as a simple proof check how many players over the age of 40 are in the MLB. Looking at Bonds 2007 version is not necessarily an accurate way of predicting Bond 2008. I’ve played and watched sport for a very long time and I remember few players still productive when the same age as Bonds, it is possible but unlikely, I think there are a lot better risks to take.

Any similarity between my spelling and that deemed correct, is pureley accidental.

by Dalesman on May 13, 2008 2:53 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Risks such as?

Also, 26 major league organizations agreed to collude on EVERY free agent—not just one pariah, EVERY PLAYER ON THE MARKET—for multiple years in the 1980s.

Compared to that, this Bonds crap is amazingly easy to pull off.

Your 2008 Athletics: It's Nothing Personal.

by PaulThomas on May 13, 2008 3:58 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

So after his injury year in 2005

you’d have missed out on a 1000+ OPS season in 2006.

and after that season you’d have missed out on another 1000+ OPS season in 2007.

And now you still think he’s falling off the cliff. Let me clue you in to another dirty little secret about Barry Bonds—steroids and prickly personality notwithstanding—the man’s work ethic is unreal. Believe me he will perform to the absolute peak of his potential this year and any other in which he attempts to compete. I simply see no evidence besides the obvious “we don’t like him” that his skills would somehow greatly erode this year.

by madmongoose on May 13, 2008 8:26 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

And oh by the way...

Your Past 30 falloff theory is dead wrong. if anything the salary structure of today’s game—which has led to tremendous off-season conditioning incentives—and, yes, PEDS—has resulted in more good players playing at near peak level way beyond 30 years old than at any point in the game’s history. Occasionally a power hitter falls off the cliff in his mid 30s—but most good major leaguers—and bonds was a great player—stay good much longer these days.

by madmongoose on May 13, 2008 8:29 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Jose Vidro or Barry Bonds?

Richie Sexson or Barry Bonds? Shannon Stewart or Barry Bonds? Kevin Mench or Barry Bonds? Brady Clark or Barry Bonds?

Bonds might very well be in decline, so is Jose Vidro, Richie Sexson, Shannon Stewart, Kevin Mench, Brady Clark. So are a whole bunch of over 30 players in MLB.

ZIPS: Milledge: 466 HR, 485 2B, 2282 hits, 278-379-524

by rfloh on May 14, 2008 1:19 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Someone's using Brady Clark as their DH?

Ouch.

Your 2008 Athletics: It's Nothing Personal.

by PaulThomas on May 14, 2008 9:56 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

The Mets have him

Not as DH obviously, but Brady Clark does not deserve a single at bat at MLB level.

ZIPS: Milledge: 466 HR, 485 2B, 2282 hits, 278-379-524

by rfloh on May 14, 2008 10:04 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

In short

There is definitely collusion, otherwise all the organizations in Baseball are flat out stupid, and that’s just not the case. Unfortunately, or fortunately if you’re a hater, it would be very hard for Bonds to prove this. Go Bonds!

by ChadGod on May 13, 2008 3:22 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs

If I were Bonds . . . .

I might sign on to a team in one of the independent leagues (if that is an option for him) and just MASH the $&^% out of the ball, put up some insane On-Base % and set the stage (via my play) to have a MLB team look at me. Imagine all of the media attention this would create. If through all of that display of talent nobody comes a knockin’, his collution agrument (at least in the public eye) gets stronger. The 2008 Power #’s are way down. According to Steve Phillips (take that with a grain of salt) MLB HR #’s are on pace to be 1000 less than in 2003. That’s a lot of balls falling into the field of play that used to be souveniers. If Bonds starts crushing in some indie league and the power #’s for this season are still low, you’ve got to raise an eyebrow at why Bonds would still be sitting in a dugout in Norfolk, VA or someplace.

"RIP: UserID: 517"

by Masaryk on May 13, 2008 4:27 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs

My boring 2 cents

on this topic that has been discussed to death and is still fascinating is that if bonds wanted to play that bad, he’d be playing in the big leagues. His agent keeps yapping about “nobody has made an offer,’ but that seems completely disingenuous – contact between the bonds people and both the a’s and the rays was reported this winter – if they didn’t make an offer they at least kicked the tires.

I believe that the agent, who doubtless has a whole lot less money than BB, is more anxious to make a deal than barry. That’s because if BB wanted to play, all he would have to do is call hank steinbrenner, make a speech to the effect that he realized that he had made a lot of mistakes but now saw how much baseball meant to him, and wants to work for a strong, visionary leader like hank. But this has not happened, because, imho, BB wants to play on his terms or not at all, his terms being a lot of money and the unstated but obvious corollary that any and all issues relating to BB’s performance are going to be on his terms and anyone who doesn’t like it can kiss his ass. The idea of lowballing barry bonds is ludicrous. Look, magowan knew no one else was going to sign BB last year, and that barry was deeply committed to playing to get the record, but they still brought him back for 8 figure money, because he knew that having barry unhappy would be a complete disaster.

The threats about collusion are an example – they put any gm who might be interested on notice that they are getting involved with a litigious troublemaker, a sure fire way to discourage rather than encourage interest.

by Hot Cup Joe on May 13, 2008 5:45 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

The contact between the A's and Rays, and Bonds,

was all prior to the indictment. As soon as that hit the presses, the “interest” evaporated faster than an Alameda County swimming pool.

Your 2008 Athletics: It's Nothing Personal.

by PaulThomas on May 13, 2008 7:35 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

isn't that the post hoc ergo prompter hoc fallacy?

The indictments were a foregone conclusion – i don’t know that they would have been particularly relevant – in fairness, i don’t know that they weren’t either, but if an indictment precludes interest, what the hell is bonds’ agent on about? On that subject the thing that’s gotta be a lot scarier than the indictment for bonds is the tammy thomas case. Her quick conviction – using essentialy the same defense as bonds seems to have in mind – now that;s got to have the big guy nervous….

by Hot Cup Joe on May 13, 2008 8:30 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

indictments for lying

aka “obstruction of justice” should have a LOT of major leaguers nervous…

I've come to the conclusion that the two most important things in life are good friends and a good bullpen.

by 149 on May 13, 2008 8:34 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

True, but

perjury in front of a federal grand jury is a hell of a lot more serious than general stonewalling and bsing – even in semi-official venues like the mitchell commission. I don’t think Tammy Thomas has been sentenced yet but the speculation is for some serious time, and her charges were not at the bonds level. You know her jury was nor-cal, too, so…no home cookin….

by Hot Cup Joe on May 13, 2008 8:48 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

"semi-official"

like under oath in front of Congress? I’m thinking now of McGwire’s ridiculously careful answers in the Congressional hearings contrasted with Canseco’s full exposure…er, uh, I mean DISSclosure, but also of the less careful statements of Palmeiro in the same instance. But I take your point…

If I were TT’s counsel, I’d have had her trial moved from the home of BALCO. Stupid not to. So maybe TT was “cooked” just not at home.

I've come to the conclusion that the two most important things in life are good friends and a good bullpen.

by 149 on May 13, 2008 9:18 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

If I were Bonds...

As we like to say, “Bonds failed lunch.” It doesn’t matter that he aced all of his classes and is valedictorian. He’s still a “dict” and no one is going to stick up for him, even if we think he’s being screwed… honestly, why stick your neck out for a guy who you know wouldn’t stick his out for you (hello, MLBPA). IF I thought he was being discriminated against on some illegal basis, I’d support him. Wouldn’t stick my neck out for him, but I’d support an anti-discrimination suit.

Sandy Koufax said, “In the end it all comes down to talent. You can talk all you want about intangibles, I just don’t know what that means. Talent makes winners, not intangibles. Can nice guys win? Sure, nice guys can win – if they’re nice guys with a lot of talent. Nice guys with a little talent finish fourth and nice guys with no talent finish last.” What we could add to this, based on the Bonds experience and contrasting with The Big Hurt example, is that talented guys over 40 with NO intangibles are just finished.

That said, yes, there is collusion. Duh. It’s baseball. But it’s ALSO just good common sense. You think the owners would trust each other to simply exercise “common sense”? No way. They’ve sealed the deal in some way or another. So if Bonds is not being discriminated against… he is being shut out; for being a “dict.”

If I were Bonds I’d go home, count my cash, raise my kids, and apologize like hell to anyone who’d listen. But I’m not Bonds, nor would I want to be. And I pretty sure he doesn’t wish he was me.

I've come to the conclusion that the two most important things in life are good friends and a good bullpen.

by 149 on May 13, 2008 8:21 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

You know what else is "just good common sense"?

Racial discrimination.

And gender discrimination.

And discrimination against the disabled.

There’s a reason why laws have been passed against the above, and against collusion—namely, that “common sense” leads to pernicious effects because people are jackasses.

Your 2008 Athletics: It's Nothing Personal.

by PaulThomas on May 13, 2008 9:23 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

I already agreed with you.

I already said I’d support a discrimination suit, if that’s what he was alleging. I wouldn’t (and am not) support(ing) a business case for discrimination.

But he’s alleging collusion…. which is why I said I’d apologize like hell… to rehab the “dict” problem and get fellow players and the press to see that their interests are in alignment with Bonds’. If ownership colludes against Bonds, they’ll collude against anyone. or EVERYone… hello ‘80s! Until Bonds takes charge of his image, all anyone sees is “dict.” Just because collusion is a tradition in baseball doesn’t make it a good tradition. I’m not supporting collusion. In fact, I’m saying that Bond himself is giving Owners their best defense, which is “The guy’s a business risk.”

I've come to the conclusion that the two most important things in life are good friends and a good bullpen.

by 149 on May 13, 2008 9:40 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

I am now completely confused as to what you are actually arguing here...

Your 2008 Athletics: It's Nothing Personal.

by PaulThomas on May 13, 2008 10:52 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Simple

Owners are, let’s face it, colluding. They’re colluding to punish Barry for doing things his way and being a dick about it. No other single reason. There’s some stereotypes (race, gender, age) that are probably driving the degree of their perceptions of Barry’s relative dick-ness. But I don’t think the influence of these stereotypes rises to an actionable level.

I’m simply saying, Barry holds the key to his own success. If he wants to play, he can. He “just” needs to rehab his image. Profuse and frequent apologies would be a good first step in that direction. What the Owners want from Barry is to “get along” and “play nice.” To mix a metaphor, this is a pissing contest between radical individualist Barry, and Owners—who obviously feel the financial benefit they’ve derived from PEDs and “the long ball” resurrection of baseball are not enough. They must also have power. Which includes the power to make Barry play the game their way.

From Barry’s POV, why would he want to “get along” and “play nice” with owners/press etc who haven’t “gotten along” or “played nice” with him? The answer: If he wants to play ball, he’s going to have to play ball.

I've come to the conclusion that the two most important things in life are good friends and a good bullpen.

by 149 on May 14, 2008 6:20 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Your scenario

sounds entire plausible to me, except for the part where you call it collusion. I don’t see how this is collusion in any meaningful legal sense.

What legal right is Barry being defrauded of? The right to be a dick? The right to have a job without being required to “get along”?

I think you’re exactly right that the owners only want him if he’s willing to “play ball”, and he’s not willing. But that’s their right.

I wonder if maybe there’s no real disagreement between all of us in this discussion other than use of the word “collusion”. You acknowledge that there’s nothing actionable here. To me, fraud, deceit, or illegality is inherent in the definition of collusion. If you think that everyone openly and honestly agreeing they don’t want him means colluding, well, OK, then any disagreement we have is just semantics.

formerly known as mdl

by iglew on May 14, 2008 6:55 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

If that's the new definition of "collusion", then...

...the players are “colluding” against the owners by having a union.

...everyone openly and honestly agreeing they don’t want him means colluding,...

Some read stats. Others actually watch the game.

by UncleLeo on May 14, 2008 8:10 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Unions ARE a form of collusion

The labor legislation of the Depression era basically exempted them from antitrust laws, which previously had been used to break up unions in certain areas.

[I’m not saying this is a bad thing, mind you. I think it’s a GOOD thing. But a spade is a spade—and a union is a type of collusion.]

Your 2008 Athletics: It's Nothing Personal.

by PaulThomas on May 15, 2008 9:07 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

PT! Dammit

I was just about to post the same thing!

I've come to the conclusion that the two most important things in life are good friends and a good bullpen.

by 149 on May 15, 2008 9:07 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

You can't blame iglew

He’s not trained in law. He’s just using “common sense” and doing a decent job of it. Law, however, is not so much about “common sense.

I've come to the conclusion that the two most important things in life are good friends and a good bullpen.

by 149 on May 15, 2008 9:07 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Whether or not it's Bonds right

is a legal question. Which is why he’s suing.

I posted pretty much the same general definition of collusion above. But I don’t know any lawyers who rely on wikipedia for the elements of a cause of action. So Black’s Law Dictionary says Collusion is “An agreement between two or more persons to defraud a person of his rights by the forms of law, or to obtain an object forbidden by law. It implies the existence of fraud of some kind, the employment of fraudulent means, or of lawful means for the accomplishment of an unlawful purpose. A secret combination, conspiracy, or concert of action between two or more persons for fraudulent or deceitful purpose.” (Sorry no link, I actually typed that from a book; that thing with inked-up paper.)

I won’t go into the definition of “Fraud” because it’s tedious and long. But suffice it to say that fraud can be “actual” or “constructive.” Actual fraud, you can figure out. Constructive fraud can be a mere breach of duty (even w/o intent to defraud, but you need intent for collusion) and doesn’t even require that the fraudulent act(s) result in a benefit to the person(s) committing fraud. So fraud is a pretty wide cause of action. I don’t see where a competent attorney would have a problem fitting the facts to these definitions of fraud and collusion.

I’m not an expert in the law of collusion. But I’d argue that Bonds has a fundamental interest in his property right to earn a living in, not just in his “chosen” field, but the field he’s mastered better than, probably, any other person in the field ever. I’d argue that Bonds continues to be more than competent to play and compete in that field. I’d argue that the Owners are colluding to deprive him of that right in order to coerce his actions. Or some shit like that. Just a guess.

I've come to the conclusion that the two most important things in life are good friends and a good bullpen.

by 149 on May 15, 2008 8:35 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Thanks, 149

I did look up collusion in a law dictionary, but like you I found nothing online to link, so I used Wikipedia which says pretty much the same thing.

I guess it’s “fraud” that I’m not so clear on. I stll don’t see how Bonds is being defrauded of his rights in any way, but I guess that’s for the court to decide.

I suppose my counterargument to yours, as I’ve indicated elsewhere in this thread, would be that skill in his “chosen field” is not pure baseball skill per se but skill at being a professional athlete for public display, which encompasses many other qualities. While Bonds can clearly demonstrate his excellence at the one, the other is unclear and potential employers might reasonably be unconvinced by it.

formerly known as mdl

by iglew on May 15, 2008 10:14 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

exactly

which is why I said he needs to rehab his image… solves all his problems. And crap, he might end up a better person for it… Which would be the biggest win of all

I've come to the conclusion that the two most important things in life are good friends and a good bullpen.

by 149 on May 15, 2008 10:23 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Amen

I’ve enjoyed discussing this with you, 149. I like the sort of debate where we hear each other’s views, maybe learn something from each other, find some common ground, and acknowledge where we disagree. To me, that’s much more fun than the other, more common style of debate where we choose sides, form ranks, and lob arguments at each other until one side capitulates.

formerly known as mdl

by iglew on May 15, 2008 10:54 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

agreed; back atcha

apparently only a few of us are typing under the delusion that the point of blogs is to solicit the broadest range of facts, views, and opinions in order to achieve some greater understanding. On the other hand, snarkiness is funny.

I've come to the conclusion that the two most important things in life are good friends and a good bullpen.

by 149 on May 15, 2008 11:57 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Just to be clear

I did not “acknowledge that there’s nothing actionable here.” I made a much finer point than that. I said that the influence of stereotypes in evaluating how dickish Bonds is, do not, IMO, rise to an actionable level. The action I was referring to was discrimination. If Bonds wants to argue discrimination (he’s NOT), it is my opinion that the facts are insufficient for him to make that case. Please also note that I was careful to say that there’s likely some discriminatory thinking being employed, however, it doesn’t rise to the level of legal discrimination. IMHO, It’d be interesting to me if there was a cause of action called something like “negligent discrimination” where people could be held accountable for not being thoughtful or careful about the race/gender/national origin stereotypes they use to evaluate and judge other people – particularly when the “negligent discrimination” resulted in deprivation of a right. But there’s no such cause of action, won’t likely ever will be, and maybe shouldn’t be.

To be clear my opinion is: No actionable discrimination; At least a cause of action under collusion and fraud.

I've come to the conclusion that the two most important things in life are good friends and a good bullpen.

by 149 on May 15, 2008 8:54 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Assume he puts up 75% of what he did last year, pretty good, possibly better than a lot of guys out there, but not necessarily great and with his age, not necessarily guaranteed nor healthy. BUT even assuming this, a 4 – 5 million contact would be worth it, but doubtful he’d accept for less than 10, on the wrong side of the border of being worth all the risks, but close enough i for an offer. So the following situations occur…

1) At the beginning of the year/mid off-season, there’s a great potential for Bonds to be in court during the year. So no one wanted him around for that distraction (see A’s, Oakland). NOT All 30 teams would necessarily interest him since his position is likely filled by some or at least “good” enough or with the future in mind. But the ones that would, probably got turned off by this.

2) Now. He’s missed all of spring, isn’t playing, so you’re likely going to see a greater drop off then predicted above, a greater chance that he won’t necessarily be as healthy. PLUS, you’ve got your roster fully staffed. YES, he could potentially be better than quite a few guys on your roster, but then you’d have be willing to jeopardize your future with whoever you drop from your 25/40 man rosters, not for the sum of minimum wage, but for that same 10+ million he’s still going to want. Read what the agent said, the minimum wouldn’t be “enough”. The risks were pretty good at the beginning of the year, possibly even worth it. Now the risks are even greater and the value along with the risk/reward likely aren’t there or arguable at best. He’s not in his 20s and capable of rebounding easily, so you sign the guy for 10+ and send him to AAA to get in his “spring” in and age finally catches up to him and you’re screwed, especially with the circus that’s going to follow and the big public disaster it would create.

There’s only a small handful of teams in position to have/want a him right now with the roster flexibility to pull it off. Ignoring the baggage he carriers, all it would take is that same handful to believe the risk isn’t worth going after him while the rest of the league wonders why they aren’t. And that’s not collusion

In search of a new signature. Say something funny and you may see your comment here!

by DMOAS on May 13, 2008 7:26 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs

Including D, and position, he was about 20-25 runs above

average last year. Let’s say 20. That’s worth about $17M-$20M, as an FA. Let’s say he has now declined to the point that he is only an average player. That’s worth $8.8M as an FA. Not $4M-$5M.

ZIPS: Milledge: 466 HR, 485 2B, 2282 hits, 278-379-524

by rfloh on May 14, 2008 1:25 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Mongoose, your case for collusion

would be a lot stronger if you’d stop focusing on how good a player Bonds is. If you want to show us why teams are dumb not to hire Bonds, don’t tell us about his ability to win games; tell us about his ability to boost revenues and increase the financial value of the franchise. There are arguments that might be made there (Future Ed hints at ticket sales in one comment), but you’re ignoring them in favor of telling us what an awesome player Bonds is, which isn’t really the point.

You, and about 75% of the others on this thread, are assuming that the measure of a smart business move is whether it wins more games. No, it’s really not. Yes, winning helps, so it’s a factor. It’s a fairly large factor, even, but it’s not the only one. But take a look at which franchises are most profitable. It’s hard to get an exact read on the numbers, since all team finances are private, but we have a rough idea, and the correlation between successful franchises and winning teams is imperfect. We’re lucky here in Oakland to have a team whose business model relies a lot on winning. There are plenty of teams out there that have a working business model in which winning is of little importance (eg, Seattle, Texas) or hardly any (eg, Kansas City, Baltimore).

So take, for example, Seattle. Supposing you could convince me that signing Bonds right now would greatly increase the Mariners’ likely W-L record for the season, that would accomplish approximately nothing in terms of convincing me that signing Bonds is a smart business move for the corporate owners in Japan. They probably already know Bonds would help them win more games. That’s not what motivates them.

formerly known as mdl

by iglew on May 13, 2008 9:03 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs

Why do you assume

that Bonds helping the Mariners win more games, won’t increase their existing profits even more? Why do you assume that Bonds helping the Blue Jays win more games won’t increase their existing profits even more?

Are you telling me that fans in Seattle and Toronto would rather watch Jose Vidro, Shannon Stewart, Kevin Mench?

ZIPS: Milledge: 466 HR, 485 2B, 2282 hits, 278-379-524

by rfloh on May 14, 2008 1:28 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Bonds is just as much a a polarizing figure as any given politician

While I might like to see Bonds, half the other fans in the stadium might be angry enough that their tickets are paying for an asshole of his caliber and stop going.

Northeastern University Huskies: Mediocre hockey, guaranteed.

by Carl Johnson on May 14, 2008 6:48 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

You're absolutely right

Because more people would stop watching a team because Bonds is on it than they would a team that only wins 37% of their games.

Want me to punchasize your face, for free? - Rod Farva

by methodrampage on May 14, 2008 9:00 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

I don't assume that

Bonds won’t increase their profits, but I see no evidence that it will either.

Mongoose and others are trying to convince me that there is collusion, and the essence of his case is “Bonds is so great a player that any team is stupid not to hire him”. If you want to prove that to me, don’t show me that a team is missing a chance at several wins, show me that a franchise is missing a chance at profit. No one has shown me that; therefore, I’m not convinced there is collusion.

By its actions over the last few years, Nintendo has made it very clear that its top priority with the Mariners is the integrity of its brand. The way they add, keep, and release players is all about the public’s relation to the team. Sure, they want to win, but you can’t look at how that team is run and think it’s all about maximizing wins. Here in Oakland we see the world through Billy Beane glasses, but that’s not how it works everywhere. If you assume it does, then you can only assume that Bavasi is just an idiot, and while that assumption might make some smug fans feel good about their own superior smarts, I don’t think it’s reasonable. As a business, the Mariners are a very successful franchise, much more so than the A’s. As a fan, it’s perfectly fine to think only about wins, but if you want to start making arguments about the motives of front offices - which is what we’re doing in this thread - you need to let go of the fan perspective and try to think like a front office.

formerly known as mdl

by iglew on May 14, 2008 9:50 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Success

Are you including the $300 million King County residents are paying in taxes to build the stadium? Cuz I bet the A’s could do a lot more if some city ponied up the money for a new playpen.

by Future Ed on May 14, 2008 10:01 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Sorry, I didn't answer this earlier

because it wasn’t until rereading it now I realized this isn’t the rhetorical question I originally thought it was.

Yes, I am definitely including the stadium in measuring the team’s success. Absolutely.

The ability to get the local taxpayers to fund your new stadium says far more about a franchise’s value than any division championship.

formerly known as mdl

by iglew on May 15, 2008 10:33 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Perhaps.

But look at the alternatives to Bonds that the Mariners have used: Jose Vidro. Is Jose Vidro really the type of player that can maximise butts in seats and eyeballs on the TV screen? Is Vidro cute? Hot? Has a great ass? A shiny smile? Gritty? Funny and articulate? Great with kids? Home grown? A member of the 2001 team? Something?

Also, I don’t see baseball through “support winning laundry” glasses either.

ZIPS: Milledge: 466 HR, 485 2B, 2282 hits, 278-379-524

by rfloh on May 14, 2008 10:12 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Vidro proves the point

Why do they stick with him? Certainly not because he’s a great hitter who wins games.

Strange as it seems, 90% of the butts who fill the seats in Safeco (the same 90% who never post on Lookout Landing or U.S.S. Mariner) like Vidro. They think he’s good. My mom is a die-hard Mariners fan, and she still hasn’t figured out that Sexson sucks.

The truth is, the average fan doesn’t look as closely at the numbers as we do. They’re aware that the M’s are in a horrible slump, and they remember the great winning seasons, but that’s not what motivates them to buy tickets or to love the team.

formerly known as mdl

by iglew on May 14, 2008 10:19 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Really, 90% of of Mariners fans in Safeco

like Vidro? Why? You don’t have to look at the numbers to realise he’s not good. He’s fat and slow. He’s got no power.

“They’re aware that the M’s are in a horrible slump, and they remember the great winning seasons, but that’s not what motivates them to buy tickets or to love the team.”

Sure. But, what is it about Vidro, and Sexson, that motivates them to buy tickets?

ZIPS: Milledge: 466 HR, 485 2B, 2282 hits, 278-379-524

by rfloh on May 14, 2008 11:31 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

What motivates people to buy tickets

is the general fun feeling of going to the game, the family atmosphere, all the rah rah of the stadium, the warm and friendly feeling about the home team and its familiar players. Maybe Nintendo believes familiar names without negative connotations are a plus. I don’t know.

I don’t pretend to understand the rationale behind every move the Mariners make. I’m just saying - trying to get back to the original question of Bonds and collusion - that it’s naive in the extreme to assume that the only consideration is whether he helps the team win more games. The fact that the Mariners and several other teams repeatedly make moves that would clearly be stupid if judged solely on that basis demonstrates that, for whatever reason, front offices are thinking about something besides just wins.

As for Vidro, I think you grossly overestimate how much the average ticket-buying fan knows about the game. The last time I was at Safeco I sat next to someone who didn’t realize a foul ball counts as a strike. She still thoroughly enjoyed herself and she loves baseball. Those of us who know all the players on the roster, follow every game, know who’s good and who’s not—we’re the exceptions.

formerly known as mdl

by iglew on May 14, 2008 2:31 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

How will removing

Vidro from the roster prevent the person you sat next to from enjoying the game? If the average fan does not even know who is on the roster, surely they won’t care if the person they did not know was on the roster, is now no longer on the roster and has been replaced by someone else no?

How will replacing Vidro with Bonds, prevent the average fan from enjoying the stadium?

You mention familiar names. How exactly is Vidro a “familar name”? He’s not home grown. He’s not a local boy. Is he articulate and funny? Active in the community? Something?

The fact that the Mariners and several other teams repeatedly make moves that would clearly be stupid if judged solely on that basis demonstrates that, for whatever reason, front offices are thinking about something besides just wins..

Again, how does Jose Vidro contribute to this something else? What qualities does he have that contribute to this something else?

ZIPS: Milledge: 466 HR, 485 2B, 2282 hits, 278-379-524

by rfloh on May 14, 2008 11:46 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

It's all about the brand

Vidro is a familiar name because there is marketing investment in him.

I feel odd defending the Mariners front office, a position you’ve sort of pushed me into with all your questioning, because as a matter of fact I think Vidro was a very stupid decision for them.

The pattern I see is that the Mariners don’t like quick turnover in their roster, and they don’t like introducing more than one player to the public at a time. They like safe choices in terms of image. If they did want to add Bonds (which they don’t) they would plan the timing like they’d plan the release of a new product line, not necessarily for when it would most help the team win, and they would put a whole lot of effort and planning into what sort of public story to build around him to justify the choice.

We’re straying from the Bonds question. The Bonds question has a simple answer and it’s steroids. Bavasi has stated openly that the team wants to stay away from any hint of that, whether it’s proved or not. It’s why they dumped Guillen. The team is extremely protective of its reputation for wholesomeness. They’d rather have a losing season or two than develop a reputation for being a team of bad boys.

In terms of the company’s success, I think that’s the right call.
Elsewhere on this thread someone mentioned the stadium. They got the county to buy a stadium for them because there’s a general feeling among King County taxpayers that the baseball team is a good thing and a public asset. There is no similar feeling in Alameda County, regardless of how often we beat the Mariners on the field. That’s important to the value of the franchise. Very important.

formerly known as mdl

by iglew on May 15, 2008 10:30 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Vidro first

Do the Mariners actually have marketing invested in him? Really? Vidro?

Re quick roster turnover. Yet, they cut Brad Wilkerson very rapidly. They dumped Weaver and Ho, and replaced them with Silva and Bedard. I don’t see the reluctance to turn the roster over quickly.

As for the team not developing a reputation as bad boys, they singed Jurassic Carl. They signed Weaver. They signed Guillen. You say that they let Guillen go. But, they did offer Guillen a deal. A pretty decent deal. He didn’t take it. He wanted more money.

ZIPS: Milledge: 466 HR, 485 2B, 2282 hits, 278-379-524

by rfloh on May 16, 2008 12:36 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

He got it, too

Man, does that contract ever look like an albatross now.

I guess you could say he has plenty of time to turn it around…

Your 2008 Athletics: It's Nothing Personal.

by PaulThomas on May 16, 2008 12:03 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

The average fan hates Bonds?

I think the average fan digs the long ball. The average fan would probably embrace Bonds just like all those average SF Giant fans.

"Want me to punchasize your face, for free?" - Rod Farva

by methodrampage on May 14, 2008 2:40 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

I would like to see Bonds play again.

He does seem to genuinely love the game…and I’d like to see him go out because he CAN”T play well enough rather than because he is a pariah. I watched him his entire career and he brought me countless moments of pure enjoyment. I am grateful for that…and the fact that he has a surly attitude with the press and used PEDS doesn’t change that for me.

by IM4Oakgal on May 13, 2008 9:33 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs

This also goes to my point

that Bonds should rehab his image. Most of us LOVED watching him play the game as much as he loved playing it. A lot of people (not me) would like to see him continue to play. Many baseball fans WANT to love him, or at least WANT him in the HOF. Others would be happy if Bonds was remembered in a complex way, like another “dict” of a great player, Ted Williams.
Photobucket

I've come to the conclusion that the two most important things in life are good friends and a good bullpen.

by 149 on May 13, 2008 9:52 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Unsure about collusion

but it is a bit suspicious that not one MLB team has even talked with Bonds about a contract seems a bit fishy to me.
I’ll say this, because of tight finances, along with other commitments (school / work), I decided not to renew my season ticket package this year, BUT if the A’s had signed Barry Bonds, I would have found a way to purchase season tickets. It’s that simple. The man brings a certain level of excitement to the game. Something this current team lacks. I’ll still go to games but I would have gone to more if we had Bonds. And this is coming from someone who use to hate Bonds and the Giants.
p.s. I still hate the Giants.

by sf drift king on May 14, 2008 12:16 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs

It's not collusion if you're the third rail of baseball players

It’s not like Peter Angelos is calling Arte Moreno and going, “Hey, if you don’t sign Bonds, we won’t either.”

The guy managed to completely destroy his reputation while putting up incredible numbers. It’s his fault and his fault alone that all 30 owners don’t want to deal with his media-unfriendly personality and questionable work ethic.

Granted, as a fan, I’d love to see the guy wearing a red uniform, but it’s not gonna happen.

Northeastern University Huskies: Mediocre hockey, guaranteed.

by Carl Johnson on May 14, 2008 6:47 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs

How much will Bonds play?

Last year in San Francisco Bonds played 110 games in Left and 6 at DH. He was in another 10 games as a pinch hitter. So for NL teams Bonds missed over 25% of the games and only has been playing about 55% of the innings in the field. Someone else will need to take those innings as Barry will basically need a caddy in the field which consumes a roster spot. So Barry was basically like an injured star player who put up some very good numbers and is likely to drop off at least some from his previous production. He had 479 PA’s in 2007 which is about 200 less than he used to get through 2004. So not only does Bonds have lots of baggage but he just can’t play nearly as often as he used to and this problem is unlikely to get better.

I think one of the problems with hiring Bonds is that while the odds are pretty decent that he could have a very good year there comes a point when superstars performance just falls off a cliff (typically in the past this has been right at age 40 for the Ruth/Mays/Aaron type player). Would 2008 be the year Bonds performance just falls off a cliff (he will be 44 after all and Roger Clemens performance fell off a cliff at age 44)? I could very well see this happening and then the team that signs Barry would look like a bunch of idiots. Some of what alot of general managers do is to avoid bad things, thus signing Bonds would be something to avoid because of the potential for disaster.

I personally do not think there is collusion. Bonds has many other things which he brings to the table besides just his play on the field and GM’s (and owners) are weighing these other factors when deciding wether or not to make an offer. I do believe that 16 teams are pretty much eliminated because Barry just can’t play the field any more so that eliminates many teams from the collusion argument right there (and should an NL team pay $10M for a pinch hitter?).

by skwid on May 14, 2008 10:41 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs

without beating a dead horse

“Bonds can’t play the field anymore” is simply not true. Of course h can. Not very well, mind you, but he surrender only a small fraction of the number of runs his offense gives you, and the net impact is better than the vast majority of left fielders currently playing the field every day.

by madmongoose on May 14, 2008 1:48 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Number of runs

So what you are saying is that Bonds negative fielding runs are far far less than this positive offensive runs? Remember Bonds would only play about 3/4 of a season on offense at most so you need someone to take up the other 25% of the AB’s he will miss.

by skwid on May 14, 2008 2:45 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

He's only playing 3/4 of the season on defense too...

it’s not like he’s in there as a defensive replacement on days he’s not playing in the lineup.

Your 2008 Athletics: It's Nothing Personal.

by PaulThomas on May 14, 2008 3:36 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Offensively, Bonds

was about 40 runs above average last year, after positional adjustment.

He was about 20 runs below average on D.

As for the idea that Bonds can’t play in the NL anymore, I would like to point to Ken Griffey Jnr. Griffey is every bit the defensive liability that Bonds is. He’s become a mediocre to average hitter. Not only does he still have a job, the Mariners are even pining for him.

Also, Moises Alou, while a still a fine hitter, is also very much a defensive liability. He’s still got a job in the OF.

ZIPS: Milledge: 466 HR, 485 2B, 2282 hits, 278-379-524

by rfloh on May 14, 2008 11:52 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Okay so +20 runs (or about 2 wins)

That sounds far below what Bonds was worth at his peak (and remember that 25% of the time you will be having a stiff replacing him which wasn’t the case when Bonds was great).

To further get into this, is the 2 wins on the field worth the aggrevation off the field that Bonds will likely bring?

by skwid on May 15, 2008 8:11 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs