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

We’re not deep into the hot stove league yet but I have to admit, it has me shaking my head.

To begin with, I would like to take this opportunity to laud the Atlanta Braves on their policy regarding no-trade clauses–’we don’t do that here.’

The thing is, some teams pass these out like candy since they don’t cost anything monetary. Yet sooner or later we see just how expensive these things actually are; what has to be borne in mind is that money isn’t the currency in MLB–it is talent. It doesn’t matter how much revenue your team generates, it won’t be successful if it doesn’t generate talented players. Eventually that lack of talent will erode revenues.

If a team simply grabbed 25 players off the waiver wire and signed them to a one year deal at the major league minimum it wouldn’t be long before even that becomes expensive since it’s hard to make money when nobody comes to the ballpark and no local TV station is interested in carrying the games of a perpetual 110-game loser.

It does happen–there were times when there was very little interest in certain markets (Seattle, Montreal) in televising the games.

Often, the difference between a successful franchise and one that struggles comes down to perception: teams that view talent (read: players) as investments prosper while clubs that feel players are an expense tend to fail.

To use examples at opposite ends of the scale we look at the New York Yankees and the Milwaukee Brewers under Bud Selig. While some of the Yankees’ spending has been ill-advised, their treating players as an investment that grows revenues has served the franchise well. The Bronx Bombers weren’t always a financial juggernaut–in fact, under CBS ownership they scuffled so badly that George Steinbrenner bought them for a mere $10 million.

On the other hand, Selig has always viewed player costs as an expense akin to office supplies such as pencils, paper clips and staples–something you scrimp on whenever possible. The Brewers lasted six years into the free agent era before disappearing from the October landscape until taken over by Mark Attanasio who then invested in the roster and is now reaping the rewards of that approach.

It’s in this context that we see the true cost of the no-trade clause; right now we’re seeing how expensive they truly are in the case of former NL Cy Young winner Jake Peavy. We see that the money the Padres saved by giving him the NTC is about to cost them a bundle in talent. Ideally, trading a Cy Young calibre starter in a pitching hungry market (Scott Boras is seeking a Barry Zito type contract for Derek Lowe) should yield a bounty in young inexpensive talent.

However, the Padres are starting to come to the realization that their return on dealing Peavy will most likely be severely discounted because they wished to save a few bucks and gave the hurler the NTC is lieu of cash.

It’s another manifestation of being “penny wise and pound foolish.”

What the NTC does (as does 10/5 rights) is put the player in charge of trade negotiations. Obviously, the player will want two things to approve a trade–an improved contractual situation and his new club not being significantly weakened by the talent given up to acquire him.

When Ken Griffey Jr. used his 10/5 rights to engineer his trade from Seattle he later stated that he would’ve vetoed any deal to the Reds if he felt Cincinnati had to give up too much in the deal. In the case of the Padres, Peavy’s modest contract (relatively speaking) should increase his trade value yet San Diego feels that they still must divest themselves of the financial obligation which translates into the team not picking up a chunk of the deal in a trade.

In the modern era of big money deals, just taking on the entire financial obligation is considered the main return to the team moving the contract. Since Peavy will want to improve his financial standing a club will not feel obligated to surrender a bunch of premium young talent to acquire him in addition to assuming a financial burden.

The only way to maximize the return on dealing Peavy is to get a bidding war going between clubs for his services–however, the moment you give a player a NTC you are, in effect, forfeiting any chance of getting such a beast going since the player gets to call the final shot on whether he’ll accept the trade.

In the long run, most teams would be much better off if they eschewed the NTC and tried to avoid allowing players to reach 10/5 rights. They are a luxury item and should be treated as such; low and mid market/revenue clubs cannot afford them because their cost in talent is simply too high. To remain competitive, such teams by necessity have to keep turning over their rosters and stockpiling inexpensive young talent.

Once a team gives a player the NTC the value of that player to the club plummets unless they plan to hold on to him throughout the duration of the contract. They have to sit down and realize that they really aren’t farther ahead since all they’re doing is making it more difficult to turn over the roster and acquire precious inexpensive talent requiring more expensive methods of talent acquisition (trades/free agency).

As such, a NTC should be considered a luxury item and avoided at all costs by any team that needs to develop young talent to remain competitive. The money the Padres saved by given Peavy the NTC wasn’t saved at all but rather simply converted to young talent–the players they could’ve acquired had they not neutered their leverage in trade negotiations by giving it to Peavy. Those forgone prospects/young talent was the cost of the money saved by giving Peavy the NTC rather than extra dollars.

Speaking of understanding costs…

As we discussed a bit over a week ago, Boras’ latest statements regarding Derek Lowe about seeking “a Zito type contract” highlight that he while he peddles a lot of talent, his real genius is in selling sunk costs to teams.

The fact that the Zito contract is currently considered the zenith of fiscal folly and is largely a sunk cost at this point illustrates that point. Lowe is 36 and anybody that gives him a similar deal deserves all the scorn that will be heaped upon him. Hopefully teams will realize that a “good working relationship” with the agent will mean the odd stud on the roster but also a lot of overpriced dreck and sunk costs as well.

Insofar as on field success goes, it’s largely a wash. In recent memory, the Los Angeles Dodgers and Texas Rangers were teams that developed such a relationship with Boras and ended up with a lot of Chan Ho Park and Darren Dreifort anchors on the payroll. Right now, the Yankees have been doing a lot of business with the agent and have found the brass ring elusive.

Yeah, I’m not a big fan of the guy even though I generally prefer to see the men on the field get their dough; as I stated in the linked post, I realize it’s caveat emptor and all that but I view Boras as dishonest. In a sense it’s kind of like the whole potential Barry Bonds’ collusion business; just because I don’t like Bonds doesn’t mean I have to support a collusive effort to keep him out of the game–in a similar manner, just because I’m not a big fan of owners doesn’t mean I like to see them get cheated.

I think Boras’s time in the sport is getting short; as we discussed last night on The Locker Room with Kevin Williams (Tripp Rogers filling in) I feel pretty comfortable in stating that Napoleon Bonaparte had a more brilliant mind than Scott Boras and if Bonaparte could push things too far…

Let’s face it, baseball owners have a long history of just plain dumb behaviour and that made Boras look just that much smarter–in the land of the blind the one-eyed man is king. Now baseball management is starting to wizen up and soon players will realize that employing Boras narrows down their options considerably and amateur players will come to understand that they can pretty much the same money with another firm and avoid the headaches and notoriety of being associated with Boras.

It hasn’t happened yet but eventually even the most powerful fall victim to their own hubris and Boras will not be immune–I for one will be relieved when that day arrives.

Best Regards

John

Every so often I check out my junk e-mail folder in case a legitimate message accidentally was sent there (which has happened on occasion). I hate doing this since it makes me weep about the future of humanity as a species.

The latest gimmick is the “undelivered e-mail” that asks you to click a link or attachment that will invariably do bad things to your system. Just for gits and shiggles I did a count of just how many of these bad boys were cluttering up my box among the rest of the trash. The final tally was 32 of 165 spam slices. A few weeks earlier it was the “upgrading your system” where they ask you to send along your username and password for your e-mail account and of course there are the usual questions about your Pay Pal account, that your bank account (where you do not do business) has a problem and asks for sensitive information etc.

Obviously there are enough refugees from natural selection that fall for these things to make it worth their while to continue the spamavaganza.

This just goes to show you that we never truly learn from one of the greatest teachers available to us all–history.

If you’ve ever studied history to any great extent it’s not hard to find common themes, common mistakes and common foibles. I mean, when was the last time teenagers learned from the mistakes of the previous generation of adolescents? Adding to the pathetic hilarity is that the mindset never truly changes: “It will never happen to me.” No matter how many times it happens to so many of their peers each generation feels they are immune from the basic law of cause and effect.

If you ever want to become completely depressed, take a hike through a local cemetery and count the gravestones of those inhumed during their teen years. Oh sure, some fell to the tragedy of illness but a lot of them are there after falling into easily avoidable pitfalls.

The thing is, if it turns out that indeed MLB is found guilty of colluding against Barry Bonds I will admit here and now that my calling it so long ago is no credit to me. I possessed no special insight or genius (as many will no doubt confirm) but what I did have was a pretty solid knowledge of the sport’s history. The actions were familiar, the cast of characters similar, and there was the fact that a lot of antisocial, sociopath, phallucranial, rectally-inclined deviants have worn big league uniforms and the powers-that-be have never been shy about employing them if they thought they could help their team win ball games–public opinion be damned.

The sport also has a long history of collusion and of course Bud Selig has always been more concerned about appearances than reality.

If you get a chance, I would strongly suggest you buy this year’s fall edition of the Hardball Times Annual. I have already seen it (one of the benefits of being on staff) and contained therein is a chapter by Shysterball’s Craig Calcaterra dealing with the Mitchell Report.

Calcaterra’s (of whom I once I had to give a lesson in genetics and how not to produce kittens) take is thought-provoking and quite frankly excellent in its insights. In it he dissects the report but the key point that he develops is this: the report is little more than a bit of Selig-inspired propaganda designed to sell the fans on the idea that the sport is now all but free of anabolic steroids.

The funny thing is–he’s right. While most folks, upon a moment’s reflection, would realize that performance-enhancing drugs are about as far out of baseball as the spitball and anyone who thinks that the scourge of drugs have been erased from MLB also think that no one has “loaded one up” since Burleigh Grimes retired.

However, it’s out of the public consciousness and that’s all that Selig wanted–we shouldn’t be surprised since that is his history as respects various issues. When folks first started having suspicions about steroids, he went into full denial mode to keep up appearances. When it become impossible to ignore or sweep under the rug, he took steps to make it appear that the problem was licked and the Mitchell Report was key to that end.

It matters little to Selig whether performance enhancing drugs are out of the sport or not, so long as the perception is there.

Throw all that history into a hopper and mix well and it seemed pretty obvious that something fishy was going on; a few conversations with well-placed people just added to my suspicions.

However, I’m digressing–this isn’t about that (for a change) I just wanted to go into a little more depth than usual to bolster George Bernard Shaw’s observation that the only thing man learns from history is that man never learns from history. It’s kind of key to today’s discussion.

As you no doubt discerned from the title, I have had an epiphany of sorts: Bud Selig is the new Peter Ueberroth. Initially, it seems absurd, “Ubie” was slick, polished, smooth and dynamic–pretty much the antithesis of Selig; yet their approach to running the sport have astonishing similarities. Indeed during the collusion engineered by Ueberroth he had two staunch allies: Selig (described as a “leading proselytizer” and “enthusiastic ringleader” who to this day denies collusion even occurred) and of course Jerry Reinsdorf both of whom wields the most clout in the sport.

We can see a lot of Ueberroth’s legacy alive and well in Selig.

It was Ueberroth that brought commercialization into the sport–it was under him that the Rolaids Relief Pitcher of the year award came about. He marketed the game relentlessly and added sponsors furiously without much regard to their impact on the perception of the sport much the same way as Selig does today. We recall that it took a significant backlash to end the promotion of the Spiderman movie with webs on the bases.

With both men, they managed to bring a lot of new revenue streams into the game.

While their approaches differed, both commissioners recognized the need to keep the fractious ownership cartel on the same page. Ueberroth used intimidation and the force of his personality while Selig patiently built up consensus and in both cases were largely successful in keeping ranks closed.

Indeed, collusion in the 1980’s was a testament to Ueberroth’s ability to forge a consensus through his relentless hectoring of the owners. Selig’s legacy as to his uniting the owners is having the last two collective bargaining agreements negotiated without a stoppage and in fact, he’s 3-for-3 in that ownership didn’t cave in 1994-95.

Also of note is that each man presided over a major drug scandal and both were very mindful of how history would view their role in it. In each case, it was an issue that wasn’t limited to the sport but was on the national consciousness. Nancy Reagan–wife of then president Ronald Reagan–was the force behind “Just Say No” to recreational drugs (especially cocaine) and George W. Bush used his State of the Union address to call on professional sports to crack down on anabolic steroid use–in both cases usage was described as “epidemic.”

Ueberroth trumpeted himself as the man that got cocaine out of baseball and Selig desperately wishes to be remembered, not as the commissioner that presided over the steroid era, but the commissioner that rescued the sport from it.

Another similarity is that both are relentless in their efforts to keep salaries down. Ueberroth simply came right out and made it clear that he didn’t want teams to spend lavishly on players and put measures in place to make it difficult for owners to open their wallets by doing regular payroll/contract ’review drills’ and ridiculing those that ran afoul of his guidelines.

Selig is more circumspect about it but no less diligent. As Ueberroth had done before him, Selig doesn’t limit himself to those signing the checks but also targets general managers in making reminders about being cautious about spending as he addressed this year’s GM meetings specifically to encourage reticence in off season spending: “He also talked about our economy and how troubling it’s been, and how we have to operate in a fashion that’s cognizant of that economy” according to Jimmie Lee Solomon, executive vice president of baseball operations in the commissioner’s office.

In the case of both men, they do not delude themselves into thinking that their’s is a spiritual office to look after the “best interests of baseball” but rather view the role of commissioner strictly as CEO’s–their job is simply to increase profits by any means possible but generally through relentless marketing, promotion and sponsorships (and in Selig’s case, publicly funded stadiums) and keeping labour costs to an absolute minimum.

While Ueberroth is best known for collusion, it should be noted that under Selig the spectre of collusion has repeatedly materialized. The MLBPA has both filed grievances and made statements about being suspicious about collusive activity. Last year, when Alex Rodriguez opted out his deal with the Yankees the union expressed concern that clubs might collude to keep offers to A-Rod to a minimum and this year there is a grievance filed regarding Barry Bonds is last season’s free agent market.

This really shouldn’t be surprising since Selig was, as mentioned earlier, a major force in the collusion under Ueberroth and it’s doubtful Don Fehr will ever forget that.

Selig has been in baseball since he was the largest public stockholder of the Braves while they were in Milwaukee and has seen the work of every commissioner save Albert “Happy” Chandler and Kenesaw Mountain Landis. It seems of all of them, the one he has used as the template of his commissionership is Peter Ueberroth. It’s an odd choice when you consider that Selig is a lifetime fan of the sport while “Ubie” was probably the least interested in the game on the field.

Regardless, it appears that we have returned to the era of Ueberroth in the stewardship of Allan H. “Bud” Selig.

Best Regards

John

I wonder how much longer Scott Boras can keep this up.

I know all about caveat emptor and all that, but can Boras stay in the game until death do he part?

Whether it’s trying to Jorge Posada money for Jason Varitek or trying to get Manny Ramirez a six year deal, one has to wonder if there will come a point in time where the vast majority of teams will simply have him on call block.

I realize it’s his job to get maximum dollars for his client but then again, it’s a car salesman’s job to get maximum mark-up for the vehicles on the lot. If one is so adept that he gets folks to pay $10,000 for late 1980’s model Ford Tempos with 200,000 miles on the ol’ odometer and does it enough times, I simply cannot envision there not coming a point in time when somebody wishing to purchase a car will steer clear of him regardless if there are other quality automobiles at the dealership.

Eventually, selling all that junk for Cadillac prices will catch up with you.

I think of what the Dodgers are paying for Andruw Jones, or what the Giants are obligated to pay Barry Zito, or the coin paid to such future Hall of Famers as Ben McDonald, Brien Taylor, Bobby Seay, Matt White, Todd Van Poppel etc.

He uses the same rhetoric time and again for all the Cadillacs he has sold in the persons of Alex Rodriguez, Greg Maddux and a few others; he has sold a lot of jalopies for luxury prices using the same spiel.

Again, it may well be his job but at some point does he become bad for business?

I think of what Pedro Alvarez had to go through to theoretically get the top bonus in the draft–was the stress and hits to the reputation really worth what extra money he received?

While it’s popular to state that the agent works for the player we have to bear in mind that when you want a premium talent, there is significant costs incurred. In this instance I’m not talking about players. The thing is, as the top gun in the agenting business, Boras doesn’t have to take on a given client–a player has no right to Boras’ representation.

The question has to be asked–what does a young man, especially a potentially high draft pick have to agree to before Boras deigns to take him into his stable? There is a demand for Boras’ services and it would be naïve to think that there is no “cost” to a baseball player for the privilege of having him do your dirty work for you.

How many parents of top ranked high school and collegiate players place a call to Boras’s agency as opposed to Boras contacting them?

How does Boras decide who to represent and who to explain that ‘he doesn’t think there is a fit’? Obviously, the leverage in such instances is on Boras’s side and before he agrees to “advise” them, they have to sign on to “the program” which of course “guarantees” a lucrative payoff.

If you look at his entire stable, a lot of the players, the Scott Schoeneweis’s, the Mike Pelfrey’s the Kevin Millwood’s etc. need Boras a lot more than he needs them. Only the elite, the superstars, the future Hall of Famers would really be in a position to call all the shots in the relationship.

Boras is a phenomenon, an entity, a ’superstar’ in his own right–while some fans may have even heard of some of the players in his stable (or only know them by name) rest assured, almost all have heard of Boras. That being the case, it’s difficult to picture an 18-year old phenom whose parents have begged Boras to “advise” their young prodigy-progeny to expect that they get to tell him how to do his job.

Obviously, it would never be worded that control has been ceded to Boras as much as there would be an expectation that they would ‘defer to his expertise in areas where the player/parent might have some misgivings.’

The same understanding would likely apply to any player that needs Boras more than Boras might need them.

The simple fact of the matter is that Scott Boras has achieved a level in his profession where he doesn’t have to look for clients but rather clients seek him out–he is in the position where he can pick and choose who he wishes to add to his stable. In all but a select few cases (read: the upper echelon players) one of the criterion would be that Boras gets to run the show.

My point?

To say in any negotiation involving Scott Boras that Boras is merely following the client’s wishes/orders is probably not entirely accurate. Getting back to the amateur draft, Boras needs to consistently get the top bonus otherwise why go through the headaches and notoriety of being associated with him unless you’re guaranteed top dollar by a not insignificant margin?

However, now it appears Boras has to go through a lot more histrionics to accomplish that end since teams are generally willing to only go so far for top amateur talent and he needs to find ways either to set new levels for bonuses or find loopholes for player free agency otherwise why not go with a different agency since you can get close to the same money with a fraction of the static?

It’s why teams would be wise to stick to the slotting system–it literally makes Boras’s services valueless since any decent agent should be able to get a draft pick the maximum dollars for his slot. Boras’s value is not just getting more than slot, but exceeding what other agents get for their clients in excess of the recommended bonus.

As we witnessed this year, Boras had to create a major feces-based unstable weather pattern to accomplish precisely that. At some point that “extra” amount will be so slim compared to what other agents are getting that Boras will simply no longer be worth the trouble.

As to major league clubs needing to deal with Boras, on the one hand, while you miss out on his top players, that is offset by not having a good chunk of the payroll tied up in players that have negative offensive and defensive value (if they’re playing at all) whose contracts cannot be moved–only eaten.

Teams realize that it’s wise to keep sunk costs to a minimum and in many cases–that is exactly what Boras is peddling. He is trying to land Manny Ramirez a sufficiently long deal where the odds are that he will have a season or two where he is precisely that. Boras is trying to get a team to take on a significant four year sunk cost on Jason Varitek.

In a very real sense, Boras views it as his job to ensure that his clients become a sunk cost at the end of their contracts. Boras isn’t trying to get a player’s worth, but rather beyond what they’re worth. Nobody that understands baseball is of the opinion that Varitek will deliver one year where $13 million represents getting good value yet Boras will try to convince someone that he is worth $13 million four years from now which is clearly nonsensical.

In short, he is trying to get some team to take on Varitek as a sunk cost.

To use an example of why it would be wise to steer clear of Boras is this: even at $252 million Alex Rodriguez wasn’t a bad investment; however, for every A-Rod that delivers decent value you end up with a Chan Ho Park, a Todd Van Poppel, a Kenny Rogers, an Ismael Valdes and a Rick Helling making more than their performance justifies as part of the package of dealing with Boras. Is having a superstar like Rodriguez worth it if it also means you might get saddled with a lot of overpaid dreck along with it?

Some teams are starting to clue into this–while you lose some talent by staying clear of him, you also avoid having a lot of overpaid mediocrity tying up roster spots and payroll space that could be used on better and more cost-effective performers.

It makes me wonder.

Will Scott Boras ultimately make himself such a liability that folks will start to steer clear? Will there come a point in time that the best bet to put together a competitive, economical major league roster–or to get your professional baseball career off to a good start–is to simply avoid Scott Boras altogether?

I guess it depends who is more reliable: P.T. Barnum or natural selection.

Best Regards

John

I’m sensing a great disturbance in the Force.

Every so often, a series of circumstances begins to cause, for a lack of better word, a feeling about a given issue. Not so much intuition but rather a set of facts that nestle into my subconscious that rattle around until something acting as a catalyst coalesces that feeling into an epiphany of sorts.

Sometimes, the feeling is bang on, other times I just misread things. To use an example, back on September 10, the Phillies were 3.5 back of the Mets but for some odd reason, I was completely unconcerned about it. I even predicted on The Mike Gill Show that the Phillies would come back to win the division.

It wasn’t a wild guess; it was just that the Mets’ Billy Wagner-less bullpen were enjoying a streak of unusual competence while the Phillies nuclear offense was sputtering. I thought that neither situation would continue and a reversal of fortunes would take place.

I enjoyed a stress-free year with the Phillies since I felt, even with the Mets acquiring Johan Santana, that it was a playoff calibre club. I wrote in March:

Unlike a lot of pundits I wasn’t willing to concede the division to the Mets due to their acquisition of Johan Santana. There is a reason they play the games—too many variables come into play when you play 162 baseball games … if Hamels can demonstrate he can log the innings expected of a No. 1 starter and Brett Myers can throw 200 innings of 120 ERA+ pitching then the East is an altogether different beast.

The Phillies were red hot down the stretch but heading into the post season I was worried about the Cubs. The Dodgers dispatched them in short order and once that occurred I had another “epiphany”: the quality of the team coupled with their recent play was going to win them the World Series. I predicted (again on The Mike Gill Show) just such an outcome after Chicago was eliminated and sure enough…

Obviously, I have been wrong on too many occasions to count as well, but lately I have been on a bit of a roll: I felt for quite a while that MLB might collude against Barry Bonds and I made the following prediction about the Jays back on September 3 as they were once again going for a six-game winning streak:

If the Jays do break through tonight–then you can bet they’ll go on a nice little tear where they’ll get to within reasonable striking distance of the wild card before again driving a stake through our hearts.

They did just that–they ran their winning streak to ten and went into a four game series at Fenway Park where they were within striking distance of the wild card and blew a late 5-3 lead in the third game that began a 3-7 skid that landed them in fourth place.

I’m not saying this to boast, but rather to point out that when something jumps from my subconscious to conscious mind it’s because something is up and recent events are what caused it to go from here to there inside the ol’ brain.

After that lengthy lead in, I’m sure (assuming you’re still awake) you’re wondering what has popped into my cuddly little head this time.

We’ll work backwards, here was the catalyst, from Sports Illustrated:

The Dodgers’ two year-offer to Manny Ramirez — believed to be for about $45 million — is very unlikely to lead to a quick deal between the sides, or perhaps any deal.

The sides are so far apart that the Blue Jays, Orioles and perhaps the Yankees and other teams likely have moved ahead of the Dodgers in terms of their chances to win the services of the mercurial superstar.

Obviously the Yankees are interested, they’re always interested, any agent with a player to peddle claims the Yankees are interested, Scott Boras would claim that the Bronx Bombers would be interested in paying top dollar for a free agent shortstop and third baseman–so that notation is easily taken with a grain of salt (although the Yankees are likely interested).

It’s the other two teams being bandied about–the Orioles? A team rebuilding the roster from the ground up that need pitching, pitching and still more pitching? The Blue Jays? The team that has J.P. Ricciardi still as GM–or he was the last time I checked; these are the stalking horses being used to jack up the price of Manny Ramirez?

Then it hit me, this offseason will likely resemble the 2003-04 market. For those of you that have forgotten, that was when Vladimir Guerrero received five years/$70 million from the Angels and Miguel Tejada was signed for six years/$72 million.

What has to be borne in mind is that lot of the suggested retail prices of free agents we’ve been reading about are from writers’ imaginations basing their guesses on last year’s marketplace and agents seeding the soil by “leaking” information to writers about what they hope to fetch for their clients–a favourite Scott Boras tactic. A Boras will generally “confide” in a writer that in conversations with unnamed team executives he has been informed that said executive would be willing to pay a Manny Ramirez/Derek Lowe/Mark Teixeira X number of dollars over X number of years.

It’s a form of subliminal advertising.

However, there are several factors at work that will affect the market–it’s one of the reasons the MLBPA will likely have a lot to say about C.C. Sabathia’s next destination; they expect a soft player mart and will likely insist Sabathia take the biggest offer to make sure the market is set sufficiently high.

Obviously, the biggest factor is the economy; the fact that Boras felt compelled to go public that the current economic crisis isn’t an issue for MLB spoke volumes. Indeed, before the credit crisis became public knowledge he was thinking four years/$100 million for Ramirez only later to say that five years/$85 million would be a good starting point for negotiations after the shekel hit the fan.

He’s downplaying it for obvious reasons.

Another factor is we had Bud Selig address the GM meetings specifically to encourage caution in off season spending: “He also talked about our economy and how troubling it’s been, and how we have to operate in a fashion that’s cognizant of that economy” according to Jimmie Lee Solomon, executive vice president of baseball operations in the commissioner’s office.

If indeed MLB colluded against Barry Bonds, it serves as a pointed demonstration of the influence Selig enjoys. If he could get offense-starved teams to ignore the slugger then it’s not a reach that he could get teams to be fiscally conservative this offseason. The uncertain economy gives teams an excuse to just say no to exorbitant salary demands the same way that Bonds’ personality, legal issues, and potential media circus gave clubs a public excuse to ignore Bonds.

I also think that Boras is scared that he may not be able to get Ramirez the dollars he promised he could; the whole strong arming his way out of Boston and the bad press he received was because it was felt that they could cash in in a big way this offseason. If the money and years do not materialize, it could be as embarrassing a winter for Boras as last year when the A-Rod opt out fiasco blew up in his face.

Again, the spectre of Bonds looms large, if the one-dimensional slugger couldn’t get a one-year contract at any price what are the odds a team will throw 4-6 years at a slightly younger version of Bonds?

While Ramirez remains an elite slugger, his skill set is limited and his age makes teams leery of committing a lot of years to the future Hall of Famer. It’s not a stretch to state that Barry Bonds right now is a superior fielder and base runner than Manny.

Is the reason the Blue Jays and Orioles are in the running because there just isn’t the interest Boras’ envisioned? Neither team would be willing to commit the kind of years and dollars Boras is seeking for his client so why has Ramirez fallen to where those clubs are viable destinations for the enigmatic left fielder and future DH?

I think this hot stove league just got a lot more interesting.

Best Regards

John

The Toronto Blue Jays picked up Adam Loewen and Brian Bullington awhile back.

Be still my beating heart.

On the surface, there is little harm in these moves–there is always a chance of catching lightning in a bottle; after all, both were first round draft picks.

Still, this is J.P. Ricciardi and that makes me a little nervous.

I don’t know the man J.P. Ricciardi and I may just be blowing smoke here but after watching him for several years, an impression about him is starting to emerge.

Back in 2005, there was a movie I never saw and isn’t on my “to watch” list–the title was “Get Rich or Die Trying” (I’m guessing it was the Hip Hop version of the culturally seismic “Spice World”) starring the immortal bard Fifty Cent. I think a variation on that designation suits J.P.’s stewardship of the Jays to a‘t’ … “Be Brilliant or Get Fired Trying.”

The impression about Ricciardi is that it’s not enough to put a winning team on the field but that he has to do it a certain way–with a cunning and insight that will dazzle onlookers. The obvious solution is never the right solution for him because the obvious solution doesn’t give him a chance to show off his genius.

Think about it–the Jays have needed offense since the beginning of 2007 yet whenever an obvious solution presents itself Ricciardi is quick to tell us why it’s a bad idea and a non starter. Last season it was Adam Dunn and Barry Bonds, now it’s Manny Ramirez–sure they’re big scary bats but any idiot with money or young players to spare can pick up one of those. It takes a real brilliant mind to construct an offensive juggernaut with the likes of Jason Smith, Russ Adams, Jason Phillips Shannon Stewart, Kevin Mench, Brad Wilkerson and Jose Bautista.

Granted, some of these were acquired as bench players but don’t forget that Ricciardi said of them in 2007: “A left-fielder, a catcher, a set-up guy, a closer, a f—— third baseman—who’s got those replacements? … The Red Sox got those f—— replacements?”

Have you ever thought about the expression “caught lightning in a bottle”? Obviously, one does not “catch” lightning in a bottle–it’s something that happens. Were somebody to go out with the intent of catching lightning in a bottle he would be doomed to failure in that even if such a thing were possible, lightning is too random, too unpredictable to ever be caught. It is a convergence of circumstances that causes it to happen and is not something that can be constructed.

However, Ricciardi seems to go about his business like it is indeed possible to deliberately catch lightning in a bottle if one possesses the necessary cunning and guile. After 2006, the Jays were in desperate need of pitching and Tomo Okha, John Thomson and Victor Zambrano were brought onboard–like Loewen and Bullington they cost little and who knows?

The obvious solution is to hire quality players; quality players being defined as those with a proven track record of success but Ricciardi tries to accumulate sheer quantity of players that have enjoyed a small degree of success in hopes that there’s enough there to somehow produce a competitive club through sheer random chance and that it all clicks somehow.

When it doesn’t, it’s because of injuries, off years by key players or other factors (something that post season teams generally struggle with as well) but it’s never because of a lack of wizardry from the general manager’s office. After yet another 80-odd win season it’s time to break out his creative genius once again and hope that once his unlikely masterpiece is complete that the players will do their jobs; the stars will play like stars, the scrubs will have that one atypical season and nobody of consequence becomes injured for any significant period of time.

It almost seems he fancies himself the MacGyver of GM’s. A knife wielding assailant breaks into his office, a gun is available to protect himself but he chooses to rummage around his desk in an attempt to construct a force field generator out of paper clips, a stapler, some thumb tacks, an empty printer cartridge, a half eaten Tim Hortons apple fritter and some rubber bands and when he is later recovering in the hospital blames the rubber bands breaking as the reason his stroke of genius failed.

Yes, he could have used the gun but his plan was every bit as good and had the parts not failed it would have; well the Jays’ post season hopes are challenged by playing in the AL East and while there are some big guns available in both the pitching and hitting departments they are shunted aside in favour of Ricciardi’s genius.

When the Jays playoff hopes are in critical care, it didn’t land there because of a lack of big guns, it was there because the pieces in J.P.’s brilliant construct failed. Since it was the parts and not the plan that failed, the plan is attempted again with the hopes that the parts will come finally through and Ricciardi will be acknowledged as the second coming of Branch Rickey.

Instead, he ends up looking more like the second advent of Wile E. Coyote–looking at the AL East standings and flashing a sign that says YIKES!

Ultimately, these moves of themselves are harmless Loewen is highly regarded as a hitter and in a couple of years–who knows? Bullington is certainly worth a look–he should be fully recovered from labrum surgery and having another arm to challenge for an end of rotation spot never hurts.

Oh, don’t get me wrong, he has pretty good success with roster filler; the Blue Jays received an excellent return from Joe Inglett and Jesse Carlson (picked up again in 2007) but then again, this is the guy who also brought us the heroic exploits of Outman and the Doyyy Blunder in Brad Wilkerson and Kevin Mench to bolster the offense.

The thing is, with the Jays needing to replace A.J. Burnett and Shaun Marcum in the rotation along with beefing up the lineup with a scary bat, Toronto needs to seriously invest in the roster. However, I cannot shake the feeling that Ricciardi is trying to be cute again. J.P. fancies himself after his old boss Billy Beane. He boldly predicted that he could put a competitive team on the field for $50 million but is coming into year nine of his five year plan.

This season, with everybody knowing the Jays needed a major injection of offense, Ricciardi was determined to stick with his choices confident that they would be proven to be–not just adequate–but brilliant. To make a big mid season splash would be to acknowledge a fatal flaw in his plan.

Regardless, what he does between now and opening day and of course in midseason when needs become apparent, we’ll see whether Ricciardi will do what is necessary to win or continue do what has failed to date–be brilliant or get fired trying.

Best Regards

John

Ah … back into the minefield.

I am going to expand a bit more on my previous post on this subject. Be forewarned, this is long so bring a drink and be sure to use the loo before you sit down.

Writing about Barry Bonds has certainly been an education. Before I go any further, I will preface my comments with the following statement:

I am not a fan of Barry Bonds nor am I writing in support of him.

I will repeat this as a mantra throughout the column to reduce the inevitable invective I will receive. As stated earlier, writing about Bonds has been a learning experience and one thing that came through crystal clear is that it doesn’t matter how often one writes that it isn’t about Bonds, it’s about collusion or that I am not a fan of the man, unless your article isn’t dripping with anti-Bonds venom I will be asked to get my lips detached from his buttocks or some other associations from those respective parts of the human anatomy.

Whether it was steroids, the home run record or collusion, I have approached the topic of Barry Lamar Bonds from a different standpoint than most. When I examine any topic, I’m a big believer in looking back into history. You see, I feel very strongly from studying history that humanity never really changes. When you look back into various periods you find common themes.

For example: in ancient times the three great pastimes were wine, women and song; today it’s sex, drugs and rock and roll. For all intents and purposes they are the same thing–being occupied with the opposite sex, mood-altering substances and music.

The word pornography literally means: writing of prostitutes; up, folks enjoyed lurid reading material back in the day as well and today it’s “When attractive homo sapiens procreate–tonight on FOX!”

I am not a fan of Barry Bonds nor am I writing in support of him.

When we look at baseball, it’s easy to find examples of the older generation of players bemoaning the current crop’s obsession with money and not love of the game. As Don Fehr once memorably opined “You go through The Sporting News for the last 100 years, and you will find two things are always true. You never have enough pitching, and nobody ever made money.”

So, when I examine the issues surrounding Bonds I ask myself the following questions: Is this the first time this has happened? What were the circumstances at the time it occurred? What was the general reaction when it happened? What were the reasons behind the reaction? Has something similar occurred and if so, how often? Is there a predictable pattern? Should we be surprised that it happened or were the signs present leading up to the event the same as they were when it initially occurred?

When it comes time to write about it, I discover that it is not a unique situation and that it will most likely happen again.

I am not a fan of Barry Bonds nor am I writing in support of him.

For instance, today Ted Williams is remembered fondly by baseball fans, Roger Maris is considered a tragic, sympathetic figure and in both cases, the media is thought of as the villain in both narratives for portraying them much the same way as Bonds is depicted today. Were you to ask the majority of fans how they would have dealt with the viciousness of the press and the fans that took their cues from them back then, I think the great majority would vehemently assert that they–being fair-minded people after all–that they would make up their own minds about them thank-you-very-much and not follow the crowd like an addle-brained sheep.

Fair enough.

Now, what data would they use to come to their independently minded conclusion? What is available to them?

The exact thing that is available today–the press.

O.K. if you think that is a little unfair, after all, we have the perspective of history and have no doubt learned from the mistakes of our predecessors–let’s try another approach:

Let’s look at a contemporary modern player steeped in controversy that is ripped apart by the press on a regular basis and what sort of reaction to we get to saaay … Barry Lamar Bonds? Do folks take what the media says about him and take their cues from that or do they make up their own minds?

Most would assert they make up their own minds.

Again–fair enough; now then: where did you get your information from which you came to your conclusion?

We know the answer to that one.

Again. We see how history repeats itself.

I am not a fan of Barry Bonds nor am I writing in support of him.

Why do folks hate Bonds so much? Again, the contradictions that make us human again manifest themselves. A lot of folks have written to remind me their reason is because “he’s a cheater”–obviously they must hate cheating…that’s fine. However, some do not hate the cheating of collusion because if indeed it turns out MLB has colluded against him they’re not bothered by it since Bonds is “getting his.”

I’m beginning to discern something in my feedback. I do not think a lot of fans are aware of the history of collusion as it pertains to MLB. I guess it shouldn’t be surprising since many people’s fandom involves the game itself and may not be familiar with the history–yet alone it’s political and economic history.

As a history buff I know where baseball’s antitrust exemption originated, I know about George Toolson and Danny Gardella. I studied Flood vs. Kuhn and know what stare decisis is, I can explain what Messersmith/McNally was about and who Marvin Miller, John Gaherin, Peter Seitz, Tom Roberts, George Nicolau etc. are and their impact on the sport.

I’m not bragging–it’s my job to know these things. However, I’m guessing a lot of fans don’t know what transpired from 1985-88 and how it impacted the sport both then and today. All they know is that Barry Bonds is out of baseball, they hate Barry Bonds and whatever collusion is, it cannot be a bad thing since it got Barry Bonds out of baseball and anybody who has a problem with collusion–which got Barry Bonds out of baseball it should be noted–is clearly lacking in any kind of moral fibre because Barry Bonds is a big-headed, nasty cheat and the worst human being ever to play major league baseball which includes, as we stated last week…

…people abuse their spouses, utter death threats to children they fathered, commit rape and sexual assault, are vocal bigots, abuse and deal drugs, risk (and harm) innocent people’s lives by drinking and driving, commit various felonies etc.

Still others hate Bonds because he’s surly, rude and isn’t nice to people yet I have lost count of people writing to remind me of this vile quality Bonds possesses while calling me every name in the book while accusing me of every moral failure known to man. They hate Bonds for treating people he barely knows poorly whether media or fans (so they have been told) yet have no problem imitating him when sharing their opinion of something I’ve written (about him).

It appears that the qualities about Bonds they despise so much aren’t really a problem in a different setting being it a situation where Bonds is suffering or by doing a pretty good imitation of what he allegedly does with someone with whom they disagree.

I am not a fan of Barry Bonds nor am I writing in support of him.

How many of Bonds’ “crimes” are unique to him:

(1) He’s a self-centered jerk.

They said the same thing about a lot of players including Maris, Williams, Reggie Jackson, Dick Allen, Manny Ramirez (need I go on?)

(2) He cheated by taking steroids or HGH.

So have (some allegedly) Ken Caminiti, Bobby Estalella, Jason Giambi, Jeremy Giambi, Armando Rios, Benito Santiago,
Gary Sheffield, Jose Canseco, Tom House, Wally Joyner, Jim Leyritz, Paxton Crawford, Jason Grimsley, David Segui, John Rocker, Paul Byrd, Alex Sanchez, Jorge Piedra, Agustin Montero, Jamal Strong, Juan Rincon, Rafael Betancourt, Rafael Palmeiro, Ryan Franklin, Mike Morse, Carlos Almanzar, Felix Heredia, Matt Lawton, Yusaku Iriki, Guillermo Mota, Juan Salas, Dan Sefarini, Eliezer Alfonzo, Humberto Cota, Mark McGwire, Manny Alexander, Chuck Finley, Marvin Bernard, Randy Velarde, Wilson Alvarez, Bret Boone, Ozzie Canseco, Juan Gonzalez, Dave Martinez, Ivan Rodriguez, Tony Saunders, Miguel Tejada, Lenny Dykstra, Roger Clemens, Andy Pettitte, Brian Roberts, Jay Gibbons, Gary Matthews Jr., David Bell, Darren Holmes, Rick Ankiel, Troy Glaus, Scott Schoeneweis, Matt Williams, Jose Guillen, Ismael Valdez, Terrmel Sledge, Derek Turnbow, Dave Hollins, Rico Brogna, Ricky Bones, Alex Cabrera, Larry Bigbie, Jack Cust, Tim Laker, Todd Hundley, Hal Morris, Mark Carreon, Matt Franco, Rondell White, Chuck Knoblauch, Gregg Zaun, David Justice, F.P. Santangelo, Glenallen Hill, Mo Vaughn, Denny Neagle, Ron Villone, Chris Donnels, Todd Williams, Phil Hiatt, Todd Pratt, Kevin Young, Mike Lansing, Cody McKay, Kent Merker, Adam Piatt, Jason Christiansen, Mike Stanton, Stephen Randolph, Paul Lo Duca, Adam Riggs, Bart Miadich, Fernando Vina, Kevin Brown, Eric Gagne, Mike Bell, Matt Herges, Gary Bennett Jr., Jim Parque, Brendan Donnelly, Chad Allen, Jeff Williams, Howie Clark, Bernie Castro, Nook Logan, Damian Moss, Robert Machado, Clay Hensley, Francisco Cordova, Jon Nunnally, Tom Evans, Grant Roberts, Ricardo Rodriguez, Jonathan Herrera, Luis Ugueto, Wilson Delgado, Ramon A. Castro, Matt Whiteside, Randy Ruiz, Abraham Nunez and Nerio Rodriguez. (Source: Baseball’s Steroid Era )

These are the ones we know about–make no mistake there are many others.

I am not a Barry Bonds nor am I writing in support of him.

The bottom line is, when I look at Barry Lamar Bonds, the only thing I see unique about him in the annals of baseball is his home run total. His personality, his “crimes” (both on and off the field) have been duplicated too many times to count. The record books that folks hold so sacrosanct were tainted with drug use long before anybody heard about BALCO, Barry, big heads and Barcoloungers.

I guess one of the biggest reasons I’m not a ‘punish with extreme prejudice’ those who have used steroids by expunging, asterisking or altering their stats is that the record book has been tainted by illegal drugs for quite some time now.

A quick caveat: there is a large difference between what amphetamines will do for an athlete’s performance as opposed to anabolic steroids. Regardless, both have had an impact on baseball’s ledgers. Steroids allow a player to exceed his normal output by increasing his ability to perform. While debate rages regarding amphetamines’ effect on performance there is no debate that they do have one undeniable function—they get a player into the lineup when they otherwise may have been unable to play.

For example, since 1950 (an arbitrary cutoff but adequate enough to make the point) there are 11 players no higher than 150 hits north of 3000. There are 10 batters no higher than 50 HR beyond the 500-level. Finally, there are six pitchers 25 wins (but no higher) above 300 wins—all since 1950.

It takes about a season’s worth of at bats to garner 150 hits and a season-and-a-half for 50 HR (and 25 wins). Don’t forget, we’re talking elite talent here. Stiffs do not get close to these milestones. The thing is, players that are in this neighbourhood have careers in the 20-season range.

Over the course of 20 years of 154-162 game seasons–how many times do you think players required ‘a little help’ to get into the lineup? Let’s focus on position players for a moment. Suppose they ‘need a boost’ 35 times a year because of travel, partying, illness etc.—how many games does that translate into over a 20 season career? Even a conservative estimate as this translates into 700 games that might otherwise have not been played or played at a sub-optimal level.

Seven hundred games are well over four ‘iron man’ seasons (played in every game) assuming a 162 game schedule. A pitcher amped up five times per season would translate into 100 starts in a 20-year career.

How many extra hits, home runs, or wins could be attributed to the restorative effects of amphetamines that allowed players to get into games or play them at close to their rested level? There is more than enough to put a significant dent in the 3000 hit club, the 500 HR club, and the 300 win club—generally considered to be Cooperstown territory.

I think it’s safe to assume that absent amphetamines both the record book and the Hall of Fame would look quite a bit different than it does today. So, for those that wish to make a notation in the records that these milestones were due to anabolic steroids then it’s only fair to do likewise for players linked with amphetamines. Their effect is not as dramatic as those created by steroids, but it is there—a few hits here, a couple of wins there, and a handful of home runs smattered throughout add up over a career in the two decades range.

I am not a Barry Bonds nor am I writing in support of him.

Toss in the fact that the press has been blasting the “pampered, greedy, selfish” players ever since they started to play for pay and people take their cues from that and what do we have?

As Yogi Berra once opined “It’s déjà vu all over again” or as was stated 3000 years before that:

“What has been will be again, what has been done will be done again; there is nothing new under the sun. Is there anything of which one can say, “Look! This is something new”? It was here already, long ago; it was here before our time. ”–Ecclesiastes 1:9-10

I guess that’s why I don’t join the chorus of so many in the media and rip on Bonds or what he did; there have been players like him in the past and there will be more like him in the future. There will always be Barry Bonds, there will be those in the media that will tell us how evil they are and the fans will join in the hate and history repeats itself.

That is the my vantage point whenever I wrote about Bonds be it regarding steroids, home runs or collusion.

Best Regards

John

P.S. I am not a Barry Bonds nor am I writing in support of him.

Wow.

Probably the saddest aspect of the whole Bonds collusion saga is the sheer number of people that couldn’t care less about the wrongness of collusion so long as Barry Bonds is the one that suffers.

No matter how many times I state the fact that I am not a Bonds fan–I am told to get my lips off his posterior (or other combination of oral/privy parts) and telling me what I depraved person I am for speaking out in “support of that [insert expletive of choice]”.

Where do people learn to hate with such vehemence that blinds them so much that they cannot see the irony of hating Bonds for “breaking the rules” (the stated reason for their loathing) while celebrating MLB’s possible breaking of the rules because he suffers because of it? You cannot be anti-collusion because it means you’re a Bonds-lover.

Um … O.K.

Why is it bad for players to cheat but O.K. for owners to do it? After all, cheating is O.K. if it gets cheaters (with the initials BLB it should be noted) out of the game.

And I’m the morally bankrupt one for having a problem with it.

I wrote a column on MSN Canada about the implications of collusion as it pertains to the Toronto Blue Jays and included Marvin Miller’s thoughts on what it does to the integrity of the sport and have never received so much hate mail before on any column.

I’m amazed that Bonds engenders so much hatred that people all but imply that they’re cool with rigged pennant races so long as Barry Bonds somehow is harmed by it.

We think of some of the heinous acts committed by folks employed by MLB: people abuse their spouses, utter death threats to children they fathered, commit rape and sexual assault, are vocal bigots, abuse and deal drugs, risk (and harm) innocent people’s lives by drinking and driving, commit various felonies etc. but people have saved up their vitriol for a man who (1) is a rude, self centered individual–a common species in MLB (2) has used anabolic steroids–also a common species in MLB and (3) has treated members of the media poorly (see 1 and 2) because…?

It’s equally amazing that people still receive what is stated in the media without any critical analysis whatsoever. As I posted on Mike Wilner’s blog Miked Up: “I think set a record for e-mails that stated ‘OMG u r such an idiot, there was no collusion just look at teh size of his head u jerk!!1!!’”

I wrote that in response to a reader of the blog that stated “Just read John Brattain’s article on collusion. He talks as though it’s signed, sealed and settled. That’s a really unfair commentary.” It was the last straw (thereby triggering the rant) in that I did nothing of the kind. The article stated:

“…but it appears that the major league baseball players association has uncovered evidence that MLB came to a decision that no club would sign Barry Bonds in 2008.”

and…

“If collusion is firmly established….”

To me, that’s the most disturbing thing, they start to read an article that isn’t dripping with venom toward Bonds and they assume what the rest of the article says rather than reading it and then hastily fire off an e-mail based on their mistaken assumption questioning my intelligence, integrity and qualifications since I don’t reflexively despise Bonds the way they do.

It makes me wonder if that’s one of the reasons so many writers have written that Bonds is unemployed because he’s a jackass–it’s a guaranteed winner with their readers since it justifies what they want to believe. Of course, the reason they want to believe it is because the media has been banging the “Bonds is a creep” drum for so long. Steve Garvey, Pete Rose and Joe DiMaggio were beloved by the fans for years even though they were morally depraved individuals. We know better now but how did those feelings of adulation develop? We acknowledge that we were mislead by the press and chances are we’ve told ourselves that we’ll be more wary in future about what we read but do our current attitudes reflect that?

Let’s face it, the quickest way to be regarded as a genius is to reinforce what the reader wishes to think and believe.

There was a significant level of hatred toward players during collusion in the 1980’s since it happened just after the cocaine scandal of that decade and the media often blasted the “spoiled, pampered overpaid players.” Fans didn’t care that rules were being broken, they didn’t care that owners were cheating nor did it matter that they were cheating their teams out of a chance to possibly compete for the post season.

They were just happy that the spoiled millionaires were “getting theirs.”

Of course, such ones were merely taking their cues from the media.

What’s funny, is that folks watch the movie “61” and think that the media were such jerks back then (to Roger Maris) or idolize Ted Williams and would be quite offended if you suggested to them that had they lived back then that they would have hated Maris and “The Splendid Splinter” right along with everyone else.

However, what do their histories suggest? If they do not look at media coverage with any kind of critical eye now, what makes them think they could see through the press’s agenda back then?

Ultimately, I just got tired of all the blasts. I answered the first few (and there was some positive feedback as well) but realized that you cannot reason with people with whom Bonds is an emotional, visceral issue. Instead, I’ve simply created an e-mail folder for them and I will wait for the arbitration case to play out.

I feel confident that it will play out that the owners have indeed colluded. Don Fehr never proceeds unless he is absolutely sure of his case, players–no matter how obnoxious–have always managed to find work if a club felt they could contribute. Heck, John Rocker posted an ERA of 6.66 in 2002 but since he was left handed and had a K/9 of 11.1 the Devil Rays gave him a job. Yet a guy that posted an OPS+ of 170 being offered at the pro-rated major league minimum cannot?

It’s not like Rocker was a media circus or distraction or anything like that–right?

Ownership has a long history of collusion so it’s not like there isn’t past precedent.

Anyway, I saved the e-mails and when all is said and done I will send a polite, respectful response. I will mention that anabolic steroids aren’t the only thing that affects the integrity of the game and it’s good to remember that.

I will make one last prediction: MLB will collude again, the media will tell us that it’s all in the mind of paranoid conspiracy theorists and those that speak out against it will feel the wrath of those taking their lead from the mainstream press.

Please prove me wrong.

If some were hoping to “teach me a lesson” with their e-mails, well–mission accomplished. I learned the following: if reading what folks wish to believe causes them to blindly hate then it’s very important to write things that people don’t want to hear

Finally, I would like to ask some of my more vehement critics one question: if you hate Barry Bonds so much, why do you imitate his treatment of others–especially people he (or you) may not even know?

Best Regards

John

Ah young romance.

Have you ever wondered how a high school romance with Bud Selig must have looked like in the late 1940’s-early 1950’s?

I’ve always imagined a couple of kids that looked like Alfred E. Neuman and Ethel Dinklehof sneaking glances at each other during remedial sex ed. She finds young Bud to be interesting–not many other boys at school spend their spare time trying to convince the various school bullies to donate some of their lunch money to the chess club while he dreams of what her tusks might fetch on the black market–there’s enough ivory there to finance his dream of selling second hand cars to unsuspecting consumers or selling second hand baseball to unsuspecting fans.

Well, ol’ Ethel is ready to make her move–she decides to sit down and write a love letter to the boy of her dreams; one that will get his attention and assure him of her eternal devotion.

What do you suppose how such a letter would read? Wonder no more, for, while I do not have the actual letter in my hand, I have the next best thing–a message of love to the current commissioner of baseball. Who is Selig’s secret admirer? None other than Mike Lupica.

Let’s check out how Mr. Lupica confesses his everlasting love. Initially I was leery about writing about this train wreck since–believe it or not–my first feeling upon reading it was embarrassment for Lupica. To have an article like this permanently imbedded in cyberspace would feel like losing your swimming trunks at a pool full of Victoria Secret models that end up pointing and laughing at your teensy package and it all ends up on YouTube only to be picked up by the network televising the Super Bowl and aired repeatedly during the telecast.

You feel bad enough for the poor guy that you’re loath to add to his misery.

Still, it is what it is and he should be called on it. Let’s begin…

It was announced this week with bad intentions, look out, that the Major League Baseball Players Association was going to come after baseball on a big collusion charge because nobody wanted to give Barry Bonds a job this past season. That was the first part of the announcement, anyway. The second was that the grievance wouldn’t be filed right away, but rather in an “indeterminate period.”

This is the equivalent of walking up to somebody, smacking him in the face and then saying, “Meet me back here in an indeterminate period because then we are going to have some fight.”

Here Lupica focuses on a non issue–the timing of the grievance. What he conveniently ignores is that there is a basis for it. Someone reading this article would come under the impression that Don Fehr simply woke up one day and said “Hey, nobody hired Barry Bonds this year–let’s complain!” He completely ignores Fehr’s entire history regarding such matters. One baseball executive described his approach as a (Erwin) “Rommel” in that he doesn’t move on anything until he’s absolutely certain the ground under him is secure and all the troops are in place. Fehr is not given to impulse and hates to lose. Unless he is absolutely convinced he has the goods he doesn’t act. The fact that he feels comfortable proceeding with the grievance indicates that he’s sure of his case.

Bonds is 44 years old, runs like he is carrying an ottoman on his back, was a legendary steroids user unless you think his trainer was just sprinkling him with pixie dust, has been indicted for perjury and obstruction of justice, could be facing jail time if convicted. Who wouldn’t want to make somebody like that the first pick in a free agent draft?

The free agent draft? What is this–1979? Of course, none of these issues were relevant in 2008–the period the grievance covers. There was no trial or jail time slated for last season and as to his age and physical condition … Moises Alou anyone?

His 44th birthday came last season and his 45th birthday comes next season, but still the union is going to wait to file official charges against Major League Baseball, as if they have all the time in the world with this guy. You wonder what the union will do if nobody calls old Roger Clemens, everybody’s All-America, this winter. Will the union say baseball is colluding against The Rocket, or just indicating that they think he’s every bit as toxic right now as Bonds has been for a long time?

Um … when were the collusion hearings for 1986 held? Does he believe that even happened? First the free agent draft line and now this–he needs a history lesson and to be brought up to date on how the business and labour aspects of the game are handled. As to Clemens, Bonds was actively looking for work last season, Clemens wasn’t–big difference. The collusion charge isn’t a means to find him a job in 2009, it’s about his inability to find work in 2008 so why is the timing so important?

This story is about nothing and will remain about nothing. Mostly it is just the last dying grab from Bonds and his agent, Jeff Borris, for Bonds to make the kind of money he still thinks baseball owes him.

Ah yes–the “players are greedy” line; a sentiment designed to ensure Selig has a nice afterglow. Owners are never greedy–right? In fact, they felt so strongly about getting rid of Bonds they forwent the revenue from the home run chase and ate the remainder of Bonds’ last contract so he wouldn’t sully the game any further. Better to lose money than besmirch the sport.

What was that? They waited until after they wrung every last nickel out of Bonds and 756 before they found a conscience? Wow … gotta love management’s altruistic concern for the game’s integrity.

“There were numerous things that occurred that made me believe that clubs were acting in concert,” Borris was quoted as saying this week. “When I testify as a witness in the case I will delineate each and every one of them.”

A nation waits.

Borris and the guys from the union can all send up a flare if this ever actually does end up in front of an arbitrator. More likely, this will all just go away the way Bonds has, the way he could officially go away, as Marion Jones did, after his day in court.

Does Lupica know the difference between arbitration and court? I love how he knows how all this will work out even though he hasn’t seen any of the evidence. Somebody ought to dig up all his writing from 1986-collusion settlement to see if he wrote this kind of commissioner-porn for Peter Ueberroth.

Between now and then, though, ask a question:

Were the San Francisco Giants colluding with anything besides common sense when they announced they didn’t want Bonds back for the 2008 season? Did they have to call somebody from baseball to figure out what they wanted to do with Bonds, or do you think Peter Magowan, the Giants’ owner, and Brian Sabean, the team’s general manager, figured out on their own that they didn’t want Bonds working for them?

“Common sense” … again, it would be interesting to see how many times Lupica invoked the phrase “fiscal responsibility” and “financial restraint” in describing clubs’ actions during Collusion I, II, and III. He loves the code words. As to Sabean and Magowan–do you think if Bonds finished with 754 HR in 2007 that they might have wanted him to return in 2008? The thing is, Bonds was no different in 2005 and 2006 but the Giants welcomed him back.

Why?

There was big money to be made off the home run chase–once that was wrapped up now suddenly Bonds is a liability? Sorry, the time to make a credible statement is when there’s money still on the table. If you wait to cash all the checks then you’re no more honourable than Bonds … a point Lupica conveniently forgets or ignores.

Maybe Jeff Borris, who couldn’t get his client a job and now wants that to be baseball’s fault, who maybe is holding out hope that he can get some kind of commission on the collusion damages, can explain that away in front of an arbitrator if he ever gets that far. Borris can explain at the same time how if there is a big conspiracy against Bonds no owner even called baseball this season to indicate he was even thinking about signing Bonds to a contract.

Uh Mike, if they get collusion damages it’s BECAUSE THE OWNERS WERE GUILTY OF COLLUSION!! Any chance you can wait and see the evidence before you publicly soil yourself in print? Further, it’s not Borris filing the grievance–it’s the MLBPA and Borris will be a witness offering testimony–no more and no less. If collusion is proven all you’ve done here is demonstrate why they keep trying it–they know they can rely on corporate spunk rags like yourself to have their backs.

I read this drivel and wonder if he even believes baseball colluded under Ueberroth or it was merely “common sense” that blacks couldn’t compete in the big leagues before Jackie Robinson.

But then Borris wants all this to be anybody’s fault except Barry Bonds’. The same as Bonds does. Bonds wants it to be somebody else who took all the drugs and then lied about it in front of a grand jury, maybe wants it to be somebody else’s fault that he got old and began to finally break down this way.

Jeff Borris has nothing, nothing other than an unemployable home run king of baseball, one who made so much money hitting home runs and now needs more. A lot more. So he says baseball had a conspiracy against him.

Uh huh … Barry Bonds is the only player to ever take drugs–right Mike? Or get old? No comments about Miguel Tejada possibly lying before a Grand Jury yet still finds work? Of course, another blown kiss to Selig in that the only reason Bonds is doing this is for the money. Of course you again forget that the MLBPA is involved as well and they’re doing what they should be doing–making sure the clubs adhere to the collective bargaining agreement; something they have a long and notorious history of trying to avoid doing.

So, let’s see: we see that Lupica is ignorant of history, the business setup of MLB, the labour/management structure and role of collective bargaining and labour contracts as well as what has gone on regarding players that are older, injured, have used drugs, have possibly lied to a Grand Jury .

Truly love is blind and Lupica demonstrates his that he is desperately in love with all that ol’ Buddy holds dear.

Baseball probably thinks it’s the other way around.

No–they’re just grateful that they have folks like you disseminating their propaganda to the masses. It makes collusion so much easier.

Best Regards

John

Am I the only one that sees some major train wrecks in this offseason free agent market?

Granted, there is some serious talent out there that will make solid additions to most teams–yet if not done in an intelligent fashion will cause some major headaches for the teams signing them. Some difficulties will crop up in 2009; some will have a delayed fuse and blow up later.

One of the big problems that come with signing big ticket free agents is that in order to land them, a club has by necessity to do something stupid.

For example, If you’re looking for an ace pitcher, then you have to give them a lot of years knowing full well that there may be a season or two where you’ll be paying eight figures for a handful of ineffective starts. If you’re looking to add a prime talent that’s on the wrong side of 35 there is an excellent chance that the only way to get them to agree to terms is to be willing to throw serious cash at them in years when you know they’re going to absolutely blow chunks on the field assuming they’re even on the active roster.

Which brings us to exhibit A:

Manny Ramirez

Scott Boras is looking for a club that’s willing to cough up a long enough deal that will pay Ramirez far in excess to what he is likely to contribute at the end of the contract. To digress for a moment, Juan Pierre was lightning fast (and is still pretty darned quick). It’s no dispute–even at the time–that the contract the Dodgers gave him made about as much sense as getting Paris Hilton a chastity belt to preserve her virtue.

Regardless, it would be a stretch to say that a contact hitter that can bat .300 while cranking out 200 hits, 25 doubles and 12 triples while pilfering you 50-odd bases while catching anything in his zip code is a worthless player. The problem is that a lot of those hits, stolen bases and fly balls brought in are dependent largely on his main asset–his speed.

Once a half-step is lost, so are a