Assessing a Potential Barry Bonds Grievance
Barry Bonds last played in a major league game in 2007. Eight years later, he is now reportedly preparing to file a grievance against Major League Baseball, contending that MLB and its teams improperly colluded to prematurely drive him from the game.
As you may recall, back in 2007 Bonds hit an impressive .276/.480/.565 during his age-43 season, all while setting MLB’s all-time career home run record by hitting his 756th career HR in August. And although Bonds was projected to post a .380 wOBA for the 2008 season, he nevertheless went unsigned that off-season, effectively ending his major league career. This despite the fact that he had even gone so far as to offer to play for the league minimum salary (set at the time at $390,000 per year).
These relatively suspicious circumstances caused many to speculate that MLB’s teams conspired together to drive Bonds from the game. Indeed, both Bonds’ agent (Jeff Borris) and the Major League Baseball Players Association expressed concern at the time that MLB clubs had jointly agreed not to sign Bonds, with the MLBPA announcing after the 2008 season that it had found evidence of improper collusion. Despite all of this, however, Bonds and the union ultimately decided at the time not to officially charge MLB’s franchises with collusion, instead reaching an agreement with MLB to postpone any grievance against the league until Bonds had resolved his then-pending criminal charges relating to his alleged perjury and obstruction of justice during the federal BALCO investigation.
Fast-forward to last month, when the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals reversed Bonds’ criminal conviction for obstruction of justice. With Bonds’ criminal troubles now all but behind him – technically, prosecutors are still considering whether to file a long-shot, last-ditch appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court – he is now once again returning his attention to potentially filing a grievance against MLB. So does Bonds has any chance of winning a case against the league, and if so, what might he stand to gain from charging its teams with collusion?
To begin, collusion of the sort that Bonds is alleging – in which two or more MLB teams jointly agree not to sign a particular player – is clearly prohibited under MLB’s collective bargaining agreement. Article XX(E) of the CBA specifically states that “Clubs shall not act in concert with other Clubs” when either deciding whether to sign a particular player, or determining how much to offer him in salary. Under the CBA, any such allegations of collusion must be resolved through arbitration, rather than litigation in court.
If an arbitrator determines that two or more teams have improperly colluded under Article XX(E), then the provision goes on state that the affected player(s) shall be awarded triple damages (i.e., three times the income they lost due to the collusion). Meanwhile, if five or more teams are found to have engaged in collusion, then the MLBPA would have the right to opt out of the existing CBA under Article XX(E)(5).
So if Bonds does choose to file a grievance, he will have to prove that two or more MLB teams reached an agreement not to sign him for the 2008 season. In contrast, MLB will argue that there was no agreement among its teams to drive Bonds out of baseball, but instead that each of its 30 teams individually decided not to offer him a contract, with each club acting independently of one another.
Notably, the MLBPA has never publicly revealed what sort of evidence it uncovered back in 2008 relating to MLB’s alleged collusion. It is possible, for instance, that the union found some sort of memorandum circulated among MLB teams explicitly stating – or, at least, implicitly suggesting – that teams should not sign Bonds to a new contract. Alternatively, the union may instead be planning to rely on more circumstantial evidence of collusion, emphasizing the mysterious circumstances surrounding Bonds’ inability to procure an offer for 2008. Indeed, one would usually expect that the reigning National League on-base percentage leader would receive at least one contract offer for the following season, especially after he publicly stated that he was willing to sign a contract for the league minimum salary.
This is the sort of evidence that helped the MLBPA win its initial collusion grievance case against MLB back in the 1980s, for example. The MLBPA alleged that MLB teams had agreed not to compete for the services of each others’ free agents following the 1985 season. The union’s allegations were not only based on the fact that only a single free agent – Carlton Fisk – had received an offer from a new team that off-season, but also on a memorandum circulated among MLB teams urging clubs to “exercise more self-discipline in making their operating decisions and to resist the temptation to give in to the unreasonable demands of experienced marginal players.” This evidence ultimately convinced an arbitrator to rule that the MLB franchises had improperly colluded in violation of the CBA. (The MLBPA would subsequently win two more grievances for similar collusion by MLB teams following the 1986 and 1987 seasons as well.)
Barring a smoking gun document clearly showing that the MLB clubs had colluded, however, it is uncertain whether circumstantial evidence alone would be enough to convince an arbitrator to rule in Bonds’ favor. Indeed, MLB will undoubtedly contend that its teams had ample reason to each independently decide not to offer Bonds a contract for the 2008 season. Not only had Bonds earned a reputation for being a difficult teammate and a suspected PED user, but he was also entering his age-44 season, and therefore presented a significant risk for a steep decline. In addition, Bonds would have been playing under a cloud of legal troubles in 2008, after being charged in November 2007 with 14 counts of perjury and obstruction of justice (a case that – at the time – was expected to go to trial in early 2009).
Moreover, as Rob Neyer pointed out last week, only a handful of teams were a logical fit for Bonds at the time. Because his defense had declined significantly by 2008, Bonds’ most natural role at that point would have been as a designated hitter. However, all but 5 or 6 American League teams already had a competent DH on their roster during the 2007-08 off-season. And while it is true that the fact that none of those 5 or 6 teams in need of an upgrade at DH were willing to sign Bonds – even at the league minimum salary – could suggest that there was some sort of collusion taking place, it is also plausible that such a relatively small number of teams did, in fact, each independently decide that signing Bonds wasn’t worth the potential headaches. So given all that, MLB can credibly argue that its teams did not engage in collusion.
Assuming that Bonds and the union were to win the grievance, though, he would then be entitled to be compensated for any salary lost due to the collusion. Along these lines, the MLBPA would likely rely on other contracts signed that off-season to try to ascertain what the market for Bonds would have been absent collusion. For instance, the union could point out that Mike Cameron signed a $7 million contract that off-season for his age-35 season, coming off a year in which he’d hit only .242/.328/.431 (in an era when Cameron’s defensive contributions weren’t valued as highly by most clubs as they are today). Similarly, Cliff Floyd received $3 million for his age-35 season in 2008 after posting a .284/.373/.422 line the year before (all while arguably being equally as defensively challenged as Bonds was at the time).
Moreover, the MLBPA could also potentially argue that absent collusion, Bonds would have normally received multi-year contract offers, elevating the amount of his potential damages. And ultimately, should Bonds prevail in the grievance, whatever amount the arbitrator determines he would have received had teams fairly competed for his services during the 2007-08 off-season will be tripled under the terms of the CBA. So a successful case could very well result in MLB being ordered to pay Bonds something in the $20 to $30 million range, if not more.
All in all, then, it is not surprising that Bonds and the union may pursue a grievance against MLB. Not only is Bonds undoubtedly still upset about his (perceived) premature, forced retirement from baseball, but a victorious grievance could potentially earn him tens of millions of dollars in damages. Ultimately, however, Bonds’ odds of winning the case will hinge on the strength of the evidence the MLBPA has collected indicating that MLB teams colluded to drive Bonds out of the game.
Nathaniel Grow is an Associate Professor of Business Law and Ethics and the Yormark Family Director of the Sports Industry Workshop at Indiana University's Kelley School of Business. He is the author of Baseball on Trial: The Origin of Baseball's Antitrust Exemption, as well as a number of sports-related law review articles. You can follow him on Twitter @NathanielGrow. The views expressed are solely those of the author and do not express the views or opinions of Indiana University.
In regards to opting out of the existing CBA, that pertains to THIS CBA which was agreed to in 2011, correct? Even though the alleged collusion occurred under the previous CBA?
Was wondering the same thing. Also, is there any chance the MLBPA would choose to opt out with the new CBA on the horizon?
Yes, it would allow the MLBPA to reopen the current CBA. In this case, however, any arbitration decision is unlikely to be issued until next year at the earliest, and the CBA already expires on December 1, 2016, so there would probably be little benefit for the players to reopen it a couple months before it was already set to expire.
Does the fact that Bonds was willing to play for the minimum, perhaps understanding the baggage he brought with him, not seriously hurt his claim for damages in the 8 figures? If MLB was colluding, they were likely doing so to prevent a team from signing him for a very low contract anyway. I remember thinking he’d sign for low 7 figures at the time (The A’s made total sense to me).
MLB would undoubtedly make that argument, but the union would contend that Bonds only offered to play for the league minimum after no team was willing to offer him a fairer salary. In other words, but for the collusion, the MLBPA would assert that Bonds would have signed a contract for well above the league minimum.
The fact he would sign for the minimum makes the actual case for collusion stronger. Once that hurdle is cleared, and I think the minimum salary will be vital for it, damages are calculated. At that point, the minimum salary offer would not really play a role in damages because Bonds’ offer to play for the minimum likely came AS A RESULT of the previous collusion. Then there was collusion on top of that to keep him unsigned at the minimum.
Obvious response to that is that he was so unhireable that no one even wanted him for the minimum. His offer being turned down proves nothing.
Clearly the offer by itself won’t win the case. As Nathaniel said, they’ll need either a smoking gun or clear evidence that Bonds would have been a very valuable player.
But if Bonds was unwilling to budge from 7 million or so, the case for collusion is much weaker…
True, it goes back to some sort of substantial evidence. All of the circumstantial arguments, while they might be true, cut both ways because every argument that he was just too good not to hire is also an argument that he was personally that unhireable.
Then again, not sure what the standard of evidence is in MLB proceedings.
Bonds’ offer to play for the minimum will only help the effort to find collusion. Your previous statement presupposed that there was no collusion, leading to your result that there was no collusion. Do you see that?
That’s the whole point. If I’m arguing from the MLB side of this I would say:
– Bonds wasn’t hired at his supposed market value because, due to PR,legal and personal issues (not to mention issues with where he would fit personnel-wise), he was unhireable
– Bonds wasn’t hired at his proposed minimum salary because it wasn’t a salary issue in the first place. The fact that he wasn’t hired at the minimum salary is a testament to just how unhireable he was.
those arguments would be made either way: that Barry Bonds was simply not a 390k-caliber player. But suppose that the arbitrator finds that Bonds is neither a sub-390k player or a 10+mil super star: Suppose Bonds is found to be roughly a 2 million dollar player.
If Bonds was holding out for 7 million, then that’s not collusion. If Bonds would have taken 390k, then that is definitely collusion.
but if each team decided that the other off-field costs associated with Bonds were so great that they entirely counteracted the value he would provide on the field, that supports the claim he wasn’t worth minimum salary even if he was capable of playing well enough.
But it does alter the assumptions about the key question.
If you or I make this complaint, MLB can point to facts like, neither of us has ever even played pro ball, leave aside ending up in #2 position in career WAR behind only Babe Ruth. If we’re complaining, neither of us are able to point to a previous season’s WAR of 3.4 and an OBP+ of 169, or a worst-ever OBP+ of 103 having come 22 years earlier. All of that is CONTEXT, materially affecting how strong any ‘positive’ evidence of collusion needs to be, in order to establish am inference as to which side actually carries the ultimate onus proof.
Here’s what I’m thinking the MLBPA has in the way of that relatively little bit of ‘positive’ evidence of collusion:
MLB had at the time an internal information clearing house run thru its main offices the contents of which were for the member clubs only and secured against access by others accordingly (the MLBPA being among those “others” denied access). There were basically 2 sources for the content put onto the feed: 1. the various MLB offices, including the commissioner’s office, and 2. the member clubs themselves. Member clubs started posting information and requests for more information on what Barry Bonds was doing, with follow-up discussions as to ‘why’ including much that was at the time pretty much totally ambivalent as to whether it was mere speculation or based on actual insider discussions or analysis or what. It’s RIDICULOUSLY easy to run threads thru that feed that resemble collusion, easier indeed that the efforts the Republican-run Congress have made to build a Democratic administration-caused conspiracy involving Benghazi.
But there are many big fat obvious critical differences between Benghazi conspiracy theorists and lawyers for the union and for Bonds himself working off that information feed, which I don’t need to start listing because the list would go on and on and anyone here could do their own. But I will allude to the KEY difference, because it goes right to the heart of collective bargaining complaint litigation: that onus I mentioned above.
I’ve been involved in a quite lot of CBA grievance procedures, over the course of more than a decade; and maybe others here have some experience in that as well; if so, hey, wade in. But here’s one way I see it working:
A. The first round will be over framing the question. How that works out will dictate how the rest proceeds. Normally the employer side wants to go narrow and the union wants to go wide; but sometimes it’s the exact opposite and this is one of those rarer ones. The Union will have framed the complaint just wide enough to make it work on the known facts, and MLB will want it widened to allow then to bring all sorts of wider self-serving innuendo such as about owners concerns for product credibility with the customer public and with Congress sniffing around the edges of what’s left of the anti-trust exemptions that MLB enjoys (which is still an awful lot and easily valued in the multiples of billions). The Union’s in the driver’s seat here, because even if the arbitrator allows the wider framing and consequently broader evidence to be presented, the Union can still drive massive holes thru the value of all that and in effect have the arbitrator stick to the narrower question.
(Early on in their careers, arbitrators are most easily conned into going wide and find it most difficult to avoid getting lost among the trees. With time they experiment with going narrower and in any event learn to stay narrow regardless, on the Claude Rains as officer Renaud rule of after a while no longer susceptible to be shocked by what MLB and its owner membership is capable.)
B. The question as framed mostly dictates what evidence is heard, that is, its ambit, how wide it can go, and the strategies on how to deal with the evidence. If the question is narrow, it’s very hard to bring up weak evidence of dubious general suspect relevance; if it’s wide, it’s correspondingly hard to keep out the throwing up of shit against motives, reputations and virtual walls.
(Both sides can play nasty if they feel it’s in their advantage. It really comes down to how the arbitrator goes about his role; if he doesn’t know his business, this could get nasty and badly side-tracked. Conversely, if he’s REALLY good and REALLY experienced and REALLY trusted by both sides, there actually can be a settlement made, one that won’t be made public and we’ll all be only able to speculate about, but OTOH WILL speculate about on the various MLB fans sites endlessly.
That BTW is the BEST-case scenario for MLB is we hear nothing of what’s going on inside the arbitration and we only learn publicly that there’s been a settlement with handshakes and smiles all around. There really is no “win” available here for MLB, just a qualified loss.)
C. The worst-case scenario for MLB is this: after the hearing we learn the arbitrator has “reserved” his decision to be later issued in writing.
IOW best case scenario for MLB is the worst for Bonds – which is to receive a large pile of money and assorted concessions from MLB which cumulatively allow him to make the case that he’s not banned or formally sitting in anything like the position Rose was.
Indeed that scenario is likely also the most lucractive one for Bonds, should that be where he’s headed and the Union is able to rationalize its broader position to suit his interests (which, given the nature of the sportsball entertainment business, it surely will, find such a way, that is.).
Bear in mind that the worst case scenario for MLB MAY WELL be the best-case scenario for the Union but not for Mr. Bonds himself. Bear in mind also that the most likely way we get to that WCS for MLB and Bonds is if those two sets of parties are unable to find commmon ground due to some combination of greed, hubris and self-delusion.
I do not propose to discount the part that those human characteristics might well prove to play in this grievance. I do say that this is resolvable thru sensitivity, skill, diplomacy and money, of which the last will likely play the biggest role.
I wanted the White Sox to sign him and stick him in left. Turns out they picked up Quentin and he had his monster year that season; DH was taken with a still-useful Thome.
The A’s went with Jack Cust instead, who hit 33 home runs with a .375 OBP. Beane should have signed him though and just stuck one of them in LF.
Unless the MLBPA has a smoking gun I think they lose the case. I think the limited number of landing spots is secondary to the fact that he was a well known clubhouse cancer, so it isn’t illogical that there was no team that wanted to hire him.
It is a sliding scale. If the case is weak but the arbitrator can determine that at least one team would have signed him to a one year deal at the minimum, the damages would be just 1.2 million.
This makes me wonder how much, if any, MLB offered to pay Bonds to settle quietly
Consider that this was the same offseason that noted delightful human being Milton Bradley, fresh off ending the previous season suspended after tearing his ACL during a fight with an umpire and having played for five teams in eight years, signed a $5.25m contract to DH for the Rangers.
Yeah, at the time I couldn’t see how anyone could think it wasn’t collusion.
Does anyone seriously think Milton Bradley was a better player than Bonds? Granted, we’re talking 44 year old Bonds, but then we could compare 43 year old Bonds to previous year Bradley… Except for the whole suspended and torn ACL thing that is.
Bradley wasn’t under indictment. And his previous stint in Texas had actually gone fine by everyone’s account, persuading the Rangers that they could pull it off again.
I’m not sure how all these other stains on MLB’s image getting contracts helps the case for Bonds?
Really?
It’s indicative that, for whatever reason, MLB teams were willing to sign these other players yet didn’t even submit an offer to Bonds, who had hit .276/.480/.565 (at age 43!!!) the year prior. Sure, age may have been a factor, but come on. If he was to decline, wasn’t it worth at least giving him a chance to perform, considering the year he’d put up at an age when most other players had long since retired? Look at Julio Franco and Jamie Moyer. Teams have shown they’re willing to sign much older veterans if they can still produce. Yet they didn’t even take a glance at Bonds.
Yes, if other assholes who make MLB look bad also didn’t get contracts, that would make more sense. And if you think Bonds’ case is extreme, well than that is also good evidence of his unemployment being legit business decisions.
Case closed!
What does that even mean? “Clubhouse cancer” seems to be something sportswriters say about players they don’t like. He didn’t get along with Jeff Kent, apparently. Who did?
The only things I know about Barry Bonds are what I’ve read by sportswriters. Filtering for that, I really don’t know much about him at all.
You need to read this: http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/page2/story?page=pearlman%2F060504 I don’t know that Jeff Kent was any better, but Barry Bonds’ teammates couldn’t stand him in college, in the minors, or in the majors.
You need to specify a bit. There are quite a few of Bonds’ Giants teammates who have nothing but good things to say about him.
Oh God, I didn’t realize. Man borrowed shirts without asking, watched He-Man and told a guy who wasn’t a coach that he wasn’t a coach.
Lynn, I’m not aware of any teammates ever saying that they “liked” Bonds, although some said they were happy to have him on the team.
pitnick, teammates voting Bonds off the team is a huge deal. Acting like it’s insignificant makes you look ridiculous.
Hard to see how this is a winner for Bonds. As mentioned, it’s not an issue of every MLB team passing on him, it’s an issue of the handful of teams he actually would’ve fit on passing on him.
Also, why would you, if you are trying to make your case for the hall of fame, trot out a legal complaint to which the most obvious defense is ‘everyone knew he was a cheater, a jerk, and potentially about to be suspended or go to jail, why would we hire him’. Seems like he’s reminding everyone of his negatives at a time when there’s actually a decent media push to focus back on how great a player he was.
I think you are overestimating the player’s desire to get into the HOF versus the player’s desire to get more money and to combat the strength/collusion of the owners
I don’t know – it could just be a media creation but everything you hear about Bonds was that he was obsessed with recognition.
Maybe this is one last broadside from a guy who got demonized while so many others got free passes? Hard to believe it’s about money, unless he pulled an Iverson and blew through all of his already.
Wasn’t he in trouble for some tax evasion a few years back? Maybe he actually doesn’t have that much money anymore.
google says his net worth is $89 mil. So much for talk about him being broke.
Also, Bonds is years away from any realistic shot at the HOF.
I really hope that Bonds isn’t broke, and I doubt that anyone believes he’s a champion of the little guy looking to reduce the power of the owners. Most likely this is what Bonds’ abrasive personality has always been about: self-aggrandizement.
He’s co-funding a women’s cycling team, per the recent ESPN report, I’d imagine he’d at least have some money to be comfortable.
It reminded me how stupidly good he was even at 43.
LOL i know right how’d he do that? Benjamin Button
Whether or not this can be proven is court is a different story. I do find it hard to believe that all teams just decided not to sign him. There are so many players that are/were signed with a ton of baggage. Defense was not as highly valued and as the article mentioned there was several players with similar defensive deficiencies.
But Barry Bonds was the Barry Bonds of being an intolerable asshole.
TkDC , Im betting most people who don’t know you will say the same about you.
He doesn’t have to prove it in court. He only has to convince a single arbitrator.
i side with bonds, 100%… 5 or 6 teams could have used an upgrade at dh… every single team could have used a league minimum bench bat that gets on base half his abs, and who goes yard every 17 plate appearances…
he had a fucking .480 obp the year before they railroaded him out of the game…
meanwhile, jason giambi was still in the game, last year…
so, yes, it was collusion… yes, it was despicable… and it deprived us all of at least a couple more years of watching the greatest hitter of our generation…
if i ever see it, i will shit on bud selig’s grave…
I’m with Bonds on this too and I doubt he’d pursue litigation if his legal team didn’t think he had a case…
Sick. Why don’t you look up the age 40-43 seasons of every other player in the history of the game and tell me again how it was collusion. 6 teams had to independently decide, f- this guy, he’s basically a walking poster for PED’s, at a time when PED’s were getting craploads of bad publicity for the game. Can you honestly say these 6 teams called each other up and said something to the effect of, dude, don’t sign Bonds, even if he makes your team better, he’s gotta go!
How can it possibly be far-fetched that 6 orgs would independently decide that they don’t want to deal with one of the poster boys for PED’s.
Why don’t you spend time appreciating the greatest hitters of our generation who are actually subject to random drug testing? Miguel Cabrera? Albert Pujols? Oh wait, they are aging at the pace of normal human athletes. How could you appreciate that?
Except other players with actual verified links to PEDs (such as an admission of deliberate use or a failed test) continue to get contracts, even lucrative ones.
Go away Barry Bonds
He’s either the greatest or second greatest player in the history of the game. You go away.
How great would he be if he aged like 99.9% of other players?
Taking the old .5-WAR decrease from 98 to 07, he’d still likely have a top-five career by WAR. That doesn’t mean, of course, that you might be unmoved by the “his OPS at 40 was 1.400!” talk — I know that I generally roll my eyes when people point to those stat lines as demonstrating much more than how good his PED hookup was. But even with a normal aging curve he’s still easily one of the very best.
Greatest? I’d like to see someone try to make a case that he was better than Ruth.
STOP IT ALREADY !!! It is not close. The only player arguably as good as bonds was Willie Mays.
“Alice Cooper” is just a pseudonym, right? Caught you, Mr. Selig.
He’s got no friends, ’cause they read the papers. They can’t be seen with him.
(If one person gets the reference, I’m satisfied.)
No more Mr. Nice Guy, no more Mr. Clean.
1. Pointing out that it’s a reference is bad form.
2. It’s not like this song hasn’t been on every dadrock radio station every day since like 1973.
It was just a pre-emptive heading off of “WHAT DO YOU MEAN HE HAS LOTS OF FRIENDS I’M SURE!” I didn’t want to double back to that (or leave someone else to put out the fires).
If he wins, I will be filing a class action lawsuit that MLB denied the people who pay it, its fans, multiple seasons of the greatest player who ever lived. There’s absolutely no way a .480 OBP/1.045 OPS guy can’t find a home somewhere, age or defense be damned. We lost at least 2 years minimum of highlights and talking points and most importantly, ways to forget our own problems and issues – that’s two years of emotional abuse MLB set on its fans who kept waiting and waiting for Barry to sign.
Should I set it at $500 million?
..”We lost at least 2 years minimum of highlights and talking points and most importantly, ways to forget our own problems and issues – that’s two years of emotional abuse MLB set on its fans who kept waiting and waiting for Barry to sign.”
Got to be joking right? It’s because of him, and others like him that when Domonic Brown had that otherworldly month, all casual fans said, “steroids?”
Chris Davis hit 53 home runs, everybody says he’s gotta be juicing, right?
Joey Bats? Steroids. Of course.
Now we can’t sit back and enjoy historic months, seasons, careers turned around, because of Bonds and friends.
So as a baseball fan, fuck Bonds. Can’t understand how you guys feel any differently.
“Now we can’t sit back and enjoy historic months, seasons, careers turned around, because of Bonds and friends.”
Maybe you can’t, but I am guessing that most of us here can. I have never seen anyone accuse Trout or Bryce of steroids. Or Kershaw, Felix, Scherzer, Giancarlo, McCutchen, or tons of other guys.
Don’t put your reasoning failures on everyone else.
i find it amusing that some of you think you understand competitive people, but assume the game is largely clean…
i assume they’re all cheating…
And I find it amusing that you find it amusing. What was your point, again?
I can enjoy every bit of Joey Bats figuring it all out, Trout coming of age, etc… I’m talking about the casual fan, one that doesn’t read fangraphs. That fan, up until this day, will always be skeptical of any player hitting lots of homers. That is because of Bonds, McGwire, Sosa, Clemens, Palmeiro, and so on.
Trout and Bryce are hitting extremely well, at ages when their power should be showing up. We are talking about a guy that had his highest power outputs between the ages of 37 and 40. That’s absurd. It will certainly never happen again, barring an influx of undetectable new PED’s.
Giancarlo is in his prime, as is Cutch, Felix, Kershaw, etc…
Imagine Marlon Byrd having not only a career year this year, but sustaining it over the next 4 years. Or a resurgent Ryan Howard hitting 49 homers. It ain’t happening anymore. Look around the game at 37 year old players.
Please come off your champion of the “casual fan” high horse and actually read something about how PEDs affect baseball players’ performance.
7 MVPs; Career .444 OBP; .370 AVG his age 37 season. All roids, right?
Comparing Bonds to Marlon Byrd and Ryan Howard is just silly.
> It’s because of him, and others like him that when Domonic Brown had that otherworldly month, all casual fans said, “steroids?”
How is that on Bonds individually? He wasn’t the first, the last or the only guy juicing at that time. Not even close. But for some weird reason, no one seems to care about Mark McGwire or Mo Vaughn or Kevin Brown or any of the other dozens of confirmed users (not to mention the probable users). Bonds and A-Rod are the only assholes in the public imagination, and Bonds didn’t even have to join the Yankees first.
“It’s because of him, and others like him…”
Didn’t say it was him individually. He is the poster boy because he broke the home run record. A record he was going to come nowhere near until his power output exploded at age 37(!).
Home runs are way down now. MLB has the toughest testing of all the major sports. If you choose to believe guys are still cheating that’s on you. When guys break the 50 HR mark now its special. Sammy Sosa broke Roger Maris’ 61 3 times over. Sammy freaking Sosa.
Except he broke the single season record in his age 36 season…
And hit 49 HRs the year before….
And 40 or more 3 times prior to that….
I don’t have any evidence that MLB clubs jointly agreed to ban Bonds, but my fantasy league certainly did:
“Therefore, be it resolved that the Cool Papa Bell League bans Barry Bonds from participation in our league for the year 2006. He may not be drafted, picked up or spoken of by any team owner. Fines may be levied in such case when his name is mentioned. Reinstatement is possible if certain criteria are met, but no earlier than March 13, 2007.”
Was it just Bonds or all known steroid users? Or all known and suspected steroid users? Or are you guys just Dodgers fans? (legitimately curious, wasn’t attempting to be snarky)
Well, he went from a 1.421 OPS in 2004, and then 52 PAs in 2005. At that point, it may have seemed like whoever got Bonds would either win the league (because, 1.421 OPS) or lose it (paying for 1.421 OPS). Could be they just said ‘hell with this, not touching that.’ Might not have anything to do with PEDs, just volatility and not wanting to have the league title hinge on whether Bonds was healthy.
But I’m no scientist.
Just Bonds, most of the guys are Cardinals fans. McGwire somehow avoided the ban. Banning all known users would be a pretty fun league.
obviously, you were in a league full of douchebags…
Bonds will lose this case. Several teams, most notably the A’s and Rays, were seriously interested in sighing Bonds. In November/December 2007 there were quite a few reports that the A’s were really close to signing Bonds but then he got indicted and the A’s had second thoughts. As for Bonds asking for the league minimum, that didn’t happen until well into the 2008 season. Bonds and his agent were certainly not asking for the league minimum in spring training when teams would be more likely to sign Bonds. In 2007 Bonds had a $15 million salary. Why would he as for the league minimum after become a free agent?
Proving that a team (A’s or Rays) were not colluding does not prove that other teams were not colluding. Remember, it only takes any two teams colluding for Bonds to win.
Any team willing to sign Bonds would have had to accept the media circus that went with it, something that even the Giants were not willing to continue to deal with. While Bonds would have likely helped any team with his bat, he would have been a divisive presence for fans as many would not want a player they felt had cheated the system to produce results.
It seems to me perfectly reasonable that no team would want to deal with the baggage Bonds carried with him, without having to collude to reach that decision.
milton bradley thinks you’re a genius…
You cannot even begin to compare the two. Bradley was a huge hot head. He is now a footnote to the game. Bonds is arguably the most prolific hitter in the history of the game at a time when he was receiving enormous media scrutiny.
Its a slam dunk collusion case with a fair arbitration process, which I have some doubt on based on Arods case. Bonds was still an offensive terror who could have helped many teams. I suppose MLB could make the case his asking price was too high, but Bonds agent likely has a summary of discussions and offers received, as well as hangups and no calls being returned which could show nobody even tried to negotiate.
Remember, Bud Selig was one of the collusion owners in the 1980’s, this is standard operating procedure for MLB which has been caught with their hand in the cookie jar multiple times. They seem to think being a legal collective with anti-trust protection gives them the right to collude against players, but fortunately they no longer have that right. They are much smarter in covering it up.
MLBPA has been pretty weak the past few years. Not sure they will do what needs to be done here.
Does this post actually do any of the assessing that it promises? It seems like a whole lot of “if he has evidence to prove the claim, then he will have proven the claim” tautological waffling — like, in the absence of actual facts/reporting of any kind, even some well-informed speculation would be more interesting.
1. Huge distraction away from a club’s performance.
2. Can only DH.
3. Fragile. Reasonably could expect 100 or so games.
4. Not known for being great in the clubhouse.
5. He wasn’t looking for a league minimum contract following his 2007 season.
The reality is that many teams do place a premium on establishing a good clubhouse or employing only “good” guys. Want proof – look no further than the Angels. They ate $70M to move a guy who did a few lines and whom they thought would be a distraction.
Bonds was under indictment for criminal activities. He was the poster child of the steroid/PED era at a time of tremendous backlash from the public.For the few teams that had an opening, I can see why all of them passed. In hindsight it seems like a poor management decision BUT that is not collusion. The reality is that teams are constantly making bad decisions – this is just one of many made that year.
I think allot of players would not have wanted to play with BONDS in 2008. However, given the choice, I am sure Tony Larussa would have gone out of his way to get him for his team. Bonds probably has a good case!
Given that his offer to work was for Minimum salary, and that if he wins, he gets triple wage, would it not be reasonable that he would receive triple-minimum salary if he wins? Might just cover court costs.
All the comments revolving about Bonds’ supposed willingness to play for the minimum salary are bunkum. Every surrounding conversation, too.
Bonds’ agent’s claim(s) and offer were after the fact, and Bonds was not (baseball) young when this all went down. He was headed for jail, and he did time.
Bonds left MLB because he was due a raise and wasn’t even offered (as far as we know a contract at all.
Barry never backed off his ‘A Game’ monetary stance – why would he? – he was hitting so much.
—
Barry Bonds getting honest would offer so much towards the cleaning up of all sport, and more good stuff, too. Bonds was Dr. Manhattan. Selfish.
—
Fangraphs “chose not to” cover the four 2015 PED suspensions resulting from the Spring Training drug tests…and then every other baseball crumb is sort of overly covered here///
80 game suspension? Not worth a Fangraphs mention.
State media?
(Every thanks for this comment freedom, hopefully – everyone a beggar, now, okay?)
To attempt to be clear, Bonds’ collusion claims dont look great along the timeline.
He wasn’t offering to play ‘for free’ timely. No way.
Barry Bonds was 43 and put in the position of taking a 60% salary cut, which in the total picture was not equitable for Barry. And then his only other choice was to shop himself around for a similar salary cut.y
Collusion = some other team had good money to pay Barry…it didn’t happen.
60% salary cut is just speculation – really, the Giants were done with him which is a real negative reflection on Barry.
No idea if the current things happening apply to a past case, but when you looking at PED guys who were lesser players than Bonds getting signed, something sure seems off just a bit.
I myself hope he wins, the union opts out of the CBA and the owners crush them by locking them out and using replacement players until the union cracks and finally collapses. Unions are communist nonsense who have no place in this day and age.
death to unions
I mean seriously, he was a cheater, a lousy human being and got what he deserved. If the teams colluded, well I say good for them!!!! It’s their league, their teams they should be able to hire whomever they want whenever they want.