Well, it’s been a couple weeks since I last touched on everybody’s favourite cuddly little porcupine–Barry Bonds.

While it is still early in the hot stove league, nobody seems interested in the slugger although I doubt it’s collusion this time through; after all, a year off at his age is difficult to return from, plus he will be going to trial in the spring (unless the government simply realizes that it has bungled things so badly that they’d simply punt on it reasoning that BALCO is out of business and it’s unseemly to spending tax dollars on something with the economy in the tank that will likely result in probation at best) would make the odds of a successful return minimal.

If indeed baseball colluded last year there’s not much point in employing him this year since it wouldn’t change the final outcome of the arbitration hearing.

While there is no new news on this front I have found a rather odd sentiment in the media about the situation that I felt deserved a post.

A lot of folks are wondering why baseball needed to collude to keep him out of baseball since no team would ever want to employ the malignant Machiavellian melon headed monster. It reminds me of the feedback I received from my most recent MSN Canada article on Bonds (and its follow-up) where a lot of the sentiment could be summed up thusly “OMG…u r such a moron, how can u say mlb colluded against Bonds…just look at teh size of his head!!1!”

As I mentioned in an earlier post here–I really don’t think your average fan really knows about the history of collusion as it pertains to MLB–all they know is that they really, really hate Barry Bonds because they believe unconditionally everything they read in the media about him (unless it’s positive or at least non-vitriolic). Due to this they want to see him suffer and be unhappy and nothing would make him more unhappy and cause more suffering than not playing baseball and since collusion achieved that then collusion must be akin to mom, apple pie, a boy’s love for his dog, sunsets and first kisses in wholesomeness, purity, goodness and virtue therefore anyone that opposes collusion is a child-abusing Neo-Nazi member of Al Qaeda that drowns kittens, stomps puppies to death and eats babies.

That being the case, it’s probably not surprising that folks are confused on this point.

Well, to state the obvious, what the MLBPA feel they have proof of is this: that there was an agreement not to employ Barry Bonds this year and some clubs were so desperate for a big bat (in the AL–using OPS–DH was only the third most productive lineup spot, LF was fifth and half of the teams in the AL had DH that were worse offensively than a league average third baseman) that they had “internal discussions” about Bonds but were likely reminded about the “agreement” not to employ him.

At various points in the AL East, the Red Sox, Yankees, Rays and Jays were all looking to upgrade their lineups–the Red Sox had David Ortiz injured and Manny Ramirez’s future was up in the air, the Yankees needed a big lefty bat and both the Rays and Jays had problems at LF and DH at different times.

This causes a number of concerns–if you make a trade, you have to give up a chunk of your future (read: young and inexpensive talent) something teams are loath to do in the era of the $23-30 million salary. Of course, there is a guy out there that wouldn’t cost anything in the way of blue chip prospects and he batted .276/.480/.565 last season and has been known to slug a few out of the yard and those teams are equally worried about what happens should one of their rival clubs land him. A team may not be overly fond of the idea of Bonds being the solution to their dilemma but they’re even less enamoured with the idea that a team they’re competing against for a post season berth using Bonds to deal with their problem.

The best way to deal with those worries is to agree that nobody signs him.

One of the biggest misconceptions among those that do understand what collusion entails is that all 30 teams are not required to collude; indeed not every team obviously needed a Bonds or had a position open where he could play. The rule is simply “Players shall not act in concert with other Players and Clubs shall not act in concert with other Clubs.” (Section E(1) Article XX) and not all clubs shall not act in concert with all other clubs. Only a handful of teams need to be involved for collusion to occur.

Therefore, to answer the question as to why baseball needed collusion to get and keep Bonds out of baseball is that some teams did wish to employ him but were prevented from doing so; if every team didn’t want Bonds at any point in 2008 then there would be no evidence (or claim of evidence) of collusion but clearly there was interest out there in acquiring Barry-L-Zebonds but measures were taken to quash that interest.

This shouldn’t really surprise us though–Sidney Ponson, every bit as disagreeable a cuss as Bonds and with a far worse legal history had no problem finding work, the even more sociopathic Elijah Dukes was gainfully employed and the still more despised A.J. Pierzynski (85 of 470 players voted him the player they’d most like to see hit in the head by a pitch–the leading vote getter–42% of players in the AL Central voted for him in an anonymous SI poll back in 2006) is sufficiently talented that clubs didn’t concern themselves about clubhouse issues so it isn’t a shock that a team would hold its nose to win a few extra ballgames and let’s not forget that there are about 30 implicated steroid/HGH users that had no problem cashing major league pay checks this past season (for those who think that MLB has a zero tolerance policy toward ‘steroid cheats’ as the reason for avoiding ol’ BLB)

The bottom line appears at this point that teams in MLB weren’t exercising “common sense” in avoiding Pariah Barry but were prevented–or at least strongly discouraged–from employing him. For those who will continue taking their cues from the media and despise Bonds the way that men like Ted Williams and Roger Maris were back in the day by your parents and grandparents (that like you, believed wholesale every nasty editorial written about those men and make no mistake, at the time they were every bit as reviled as the man that introduced “Barcolounger” into the vocabulary) rest assured–he is probably gone for good.

Oh, I’ll get some nasty e-mails since this will be construed as words of support for history’s greatest monster but I would like to make one tiny request: CC those flames to clubs that did employ steroid cheats, convicted felons and folks that threatened murder against their own offspring because if you think Barry Bonds is the most evil character in the sport and needs to exorcised post haste, well, it’s probably time for a little perspective (and rethinking your value system) and not letting the fourth estate make up your minds for you.

One last thing, for those of you who keep asking why I keep writing about this subject and to let it go–I have to ask, why is so important to you for me to do so? For a dead horse, I get more e-mail feedback on this than all other topics combined so it’s hard for me to believe that the ol’ bruised equine isn’t dead–folks are just hoping somebody kills it.

Best Regards

John