Me and Barry in the elevator
Posted By Jeff Fletcher on April 27, 2009 9:32 pm
I missed Barry Bonds before the game when he gave a brief interview to the Giants’ three beat writers, so after he got done in the Giants TV and radio booths, I grabbed him in the elevator on the way back downstairs.
He was quite pleasant, and essentially gave me the 45-second version of what he had said to the other guys. He’s still working out, but he wouldn’t say that he’s retired.
“Do you still want to play?” I asked.
“I want to go back to my seat,” he said with a smile.
It’s odd. I wonder why he’s so reluctant to just say he’s retired. It’s obvious he’s not going to play again. Doesn’t he know that he can’t be immortalized on the Giants’ Wall of Fame until he retires?
“I wonder why he’s so reluctant to just say he’s retired. It’s obvious he’s not going to play again.”
I am suprised you wonder. It is obvious to me that Barry has a valid colusion claim against MLB. It is on hold until his indictment is resolved. If Barry is aquitted (as I think would happen if the trial ever actually happens) or the charges are dropped (as I expect will actually happen after the Feds appeal of the evidense rullings is denied) then Barry will win his collusion case against MLB with the CBA calls for triple damages. Barry made $19M in 2007 and he has been denied employment in 2008 and 2009. Barry can argue that he should have made another $38M ($19M each for two seasons) and three times that is $114M!
P.S. For what I think is a realistic shot at this kind of scratch clearly the “Wall of Fame” can wait.
I’ve got to disagree with you on that one. While I don’t doubt that may be Bonds reason for refusing to say he’s retired (probably is), I think he’s clinging to a pretty thin hope. A year ago, I might have bought it. Now? No way. In fact, I don’t think Bonds is going to get a penny from baseball.
Look back at what happened during the previous collusion cases. Peter Ueberroth told owners not to spend money in a meeting. In later years, they had an “information bank” that was intended to allow teams to know what they were offering players, so teams didn’t overbid. Both of those make for pretty obvious collusion.
What have you got here? Bonds was 43 years old and the Giants had already said they didn’t want him. If the Giants, for whom he had been a franchise icon, whose fans adored him, didn’t want Bonds, is it unreasonable to think that no one else did? It is unreasonable to think that all 30 teams came to the same conclusion independently, that Bonds wasn’t worth the trouble?
Also, in order to prove collusion, don’t you need some sort of smoking gun? Do you think Bud Selig made a speech to all 30 teams and said “Don’t sign Barry Bonds”? A memo? Emails? I feel pretty confident that Selig, having been through the previous collusion cases, did nothing on the record.
Even if the union could find a record of a conversation between owners or GMs in which they discussed why they shouldn’t sign Bonds, wouldn’t they need to prove that all 30 teams were involved to truly make the case of collusion?
And that’s 2008. As for 2009, I think it would be pretty hard to make the case that Bonds would have gotten another $19 million. Adam Dunn, who hit 40 homers five years in a row, could only get $10 million, and he didn’t get that till February. Bonds, who was 44 and hadn’t played in a year, was going to get $19 million? Manny Ramirez was the best offensive player in baseball in the second half and he only got $20 million, which was more than he should have gotten since only one team made him an offer.
Anyway, I agree with you that is the reason. I disagree with you that it’s a good one.
You are overestimating what is required to prove collusion. No “smoking gun” is required. What is required is that the 3 person arbitration panal find that collusion is the more likely reason then the other explanations MLB tries to offer. This is like a civil trial where “beyond reasonable doubt” is not the standard buth rather “more likely then not” is the standard.
You are overestimating what is required to prove collusion. No “smoking gun” is required. What is required is that the 3 person arbitration panal find that collusion is the more likely reason then the other explanations MLB tries to offer. This is like a civil trial where “beyond reasonable doubt” is not the standard buth rather “more likely then not” is the standard.
Opps, sorry for the double post.
With regards to what the damages would likely be, you are forgetting that the 3 person arbitration panel members are from the same pool of arbitrators that are used for baseball’s salary arbitration process. Past salary is the most important element they look at. Even if they concluded that the fair salary for Barry was as low as a third of the $19M he made in 2007 this would still result in an award of $38M for 2008 and 2009. This is still serious scratch.
One final point is that it that I think it is likely the the Players Association will include (not exclude) the GIants from this collusion with the arguement that Commissioner could hold over the Giants heads discipline from the Mitchell Report and San Jose for the A’s if the Giants didn’t end their employment of Bonds. These threats do not ever need to be said, the arbitartion panal just needs to believe that they were feared by the Giants.
it’s also hard to let go…look how long it took Rickey Henderson to officially retire, for example.
Just throwing an idea out there – the longer Barry waits to retirement the longer he puts his HoF vote off. (If I’m wrong and the vote is based on the last year played instead of official retirement someone let me know…) I think the longer we go until a HoF vote the better the stiuation is for Barry. The more time passes, the more names come out, the more we see the after effects of an entire generation of players on ‘roids, the more likely people are to forgive what they assume he did (of course he was clean…) and look past it to what he accomplished as a player.
You are wrong on that one B. A player doesn’t have to ever officially announce his retirement. Rickey Henderson never did. He is eligible on the first ballot that comes out five years after his final game. Right now Barry would be on the ballot in 2012 for induction in the summer of 2013.
Thanks for the clarification.
You know, I was thinking about this subject, and I realized I actually knew that already. Fun fact: Jose Rijo pitched in major league baseball after he received a vote for the Hall of Fame.
He has absolutely no chance of proving a collusion case. Every National League team is immediately off the hook because his range in the outfield was completely non existent the last couple of years in SF. Its very easy for them to say that he isn’t a suitable option in the OF.
That leaves AL teams in need of a DH. Any team that has a good DH already is off the hook.
Then there are teams like the Angels who organizationally are all about character, clubhouse unity, etc. Very easy for them to pass on an egomaniac like Bonds. Easy chair, entourage, etc wouldn’t play there. A’s apparently explored it in some fashion before settling in on a cheaper option with Sweeney.
Throw on top of all the rational baseball reasons not to sign a player who is only a hitter (albeit arguably the best of all time) you have the pending litigation.
Every team in the league can make a valid enough claim why they didn’t want the player in question.