PDA

View Full Version : MLBPA Cries Over Bonds


RKMeibalane
10-16-2008, 10:44 PM
Link (http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/news/story?id=3647779)

Lefty34
10-16-2008, 10:58 PM
Tim Kurkjian just got aroused...

WhiteSox5187
10-16-2008, 11:17 PM
Does this evidence consist of the fact that he is forty three with bad knees and a complete ass? Is it THAT evidence?

TDog
10-16-2008, 11:33 PM
Does this evidence consist of the fact that he is forty three with bad knees and a complete ass? Is it THAT evidence?

For the evidence to carry any weight, it would have to be direct rather than circumstantial. Circumstantial evidence carried more weight in previous collusion cases, which involved players like Carlton Fisk who wanted to move from the White Sox but had no luck (I think only Kansas City was interested in offering him a contract) and Andre Dawson who ended up signing with the Cubs for much less than he was worth because no one else allegedly wanted him.

Any team could make an argument that it had no interest in Barry Bonds if only because they had seen his act in San Francisco, where, at the end, he only played when he felt like it. The potential reasons not to sign Bonds are more numerous as well.

Unlike the collusion involving free agents in the 1980s, I don't see how baseball teams would have anything to gain by colluding to keep Bonds out of baseball.

eriqjaffe
10-17-2008, 12:09 AM
Does this evidence consist of the fact that he is forty three with bad knees and a complete ass?At least he couldn't be accused of half-assing it.

FedEx227
10-17-2008, 12:11 AM
Unlike the collusion involving free agents in the 1980s, I don't see how baseball teams would have anything to gain by colluding to keep Bonds out of baseball.

Exactly. It wasn't a money reason at all. It was collusion because they didn't want a 40-year old, roid-up felon with bad knees and an ability to run on their team?

Why is that so hard for people to understand?

ESPN went on all year "Well Bonds is still available?" "Well, why hasn't any team attempted to sign Bonds?"

They don't want the media circus to comes with him. I totally agree on why teams stayed away.

TDog
10-17-2008, 12:23 AM
Exactly. It wasn't a money reason at all. It was collusion because they didn't want a 40-year old, roid-up felon with bad knees and an ability to run on their team? ....

If there is evidence that teams colluded to keep Bonds out of baseball, rather than reached the conclusion independently that they didn't want to sign Bonds, Bonds is entitled to damages, nonetheless.

Lefty34
10-17-2008, 03:36 AM
If there is evidence that teams colluded to keep Bonds out of baseball, rather than reached the conclusion independently that they didn't want to sign Bonds, Bonds is entitled to damages, nonetheless.

well that sucks, because if it just so happens that one baseball GM decided to not sign bonds because of his age, or possible prison time, and just so happened to make a documented conversation with another GM...boom, you have collusion, which is total BS. But wouldn't collusion make more sense before he broke he all-time HR record, or even he season record? That makes more sense, IMO.

asindc
10-17-2008, 09:32 AM
well that sucks, because if it just so happens that one baseball GM decided to not sign bonds because of his age, or possible prison time, and just so happened to make a documented conversation with another GM...boom, you have collusion, which is total BS. But wouldn't collusion make more sense before he broke he all-time HR record, or even he season record? That makes more sense, IMO.

If two GMs had a conversation about not signing Bonds, then yes, that would be evidence of collusion.

No, it does not make more sense to collude to not sign Bonds before he broke the all-time HR record because he was under contract with SF at the time.

Bottom line, I don't know if these charges are legitimate, but I would have less respect for the union if they did not pursue it if they think they have enough evidence. I say that as someone who believes Bonds roided up and had grown tired of his act long before the suspicions of drug use surfaced.

SOXPHILE
10-17-2008, 10:51 AM
That whole "Federal Indictment" thingy might carry some weight along with all that "bad knees, bad attitude, complete *******, obviously a cheating, roided, HGH'd douchbag" part. Collusion ? Meh. Maybe. Can't prove it. Mainly, all 30 teams looked at him and said, "no". The next time I want to see this guy is when he's wearing an orange jumpsuit and his hands shackled. Hey, maybe the Dallas Cowboys will take a chance with him ?

Lip Man 1
10-17-2008, 12:06 PM
T-Dog:

During the collusion era on the mid 80's, the only deal Fisk got was from the Yankees and it was for only 300,000 more then he was getting from the Sox.

He stayed because it didn't feel it was enough money for the hassle of moving and trying to get his family set in a new environment.

Lip

Sox4ever77
10-17-2008, 12:25 PM
T-Dog:

During the collusion era on the mid 80's, the only deal Fisk got was from the Yankees and it was for only 300,000 more then he was getting from the Sox.

He stayed because it didn't feel it was enough money for the hassle of moving and trying to get his family set in a new environment.

Lip

Did Fisk and Don Baylor almost get traded for each other back in 85? Who stopped the deal?

Irishsox1
10-17-2008, 03:44 PM
Due his bad knees, nobody in the NL was going to look at him, so now that's half the league. Most teams didn't need a left handed power DH, so that eliminates 3/4th of the AL, so basically is was Oakland and the Yankees. Oakland got Frank Thomas and due to Clemens and Barry's personality, the Yankees passed and were able to get Richie Sexton later in the year.

So, basically there is no evidence of collusion. Just an old power hitter with bad knees, a bad attitude and questionable past. Barry has better chance of proving age discrimination than he does collusion.

Sox4ever77
10-17-2008, 04:49 PM
Due his bad knees, nobody in the NL was going to look at him, so now that's half the league. Most teams didn't need a left handed power DH, so that eliminates 3/4th of the AL, so basically is was Oakland and the Yankees. Oakland got Frank Thomas and due to Clemens and Barry's personality, the Yankees passed and were able to get Richie Sexton later in the year.

So, basically there is no evidence of collusion. Just an old power hitter with bad knees, a bad attitude and questionable past. Barry has better chance of proving age discrimination than he does collusion.


You need to understand what collusion means before making this type of statement.

TDog
10-17-2008, 05:12 PM
T-Dog:

During the collusion era on the mid 80's, the only deal Fisk got was from the Yankees and it was for only 300,000 more then he was getting from the Sox.

He stayed because it didn't feel it was enough money for the hassle of moving and trying to get his family set in a new environment.

Lip

I read in a story about collusion that Fisk was offered a contract by the Royals. The article, of course, could have been mistaken.

Lip Man 1
10-18-2008, 11:10 AM
Helyar's book only give the Yankee offer.

Sox4ever:

Never heard of that one.

Lip

voodoochile
10-18-2008, 12:01 PM
If two GMs had a conversation about not signing Bonds, then yes, that would be evidence of collusion.

No, it does not make more sense to collude to not sign Bonds before he broke the all-time HR record because he was under contract with SF at the time.

Bottom line, I don't know if these charges are legitimate, but I would have less respect for the union if they did not pursue it if they think they have enough evidence. I say that as someone who believes Bonds roided up and had grown tired of his act long before the suspicions of drug use surfaced.

I think it would take more than two. I mean don't people have the right to discuss things that pertain to their business with people who share similar positions in said business?

GM A: What do you think about Bonds?

GM B: I'm not touching him. He's got too much baggage. You folks thinking about it?

GM A: No. Just wondering what other people are thinking. I agree. With the indictment hanging over his head, I can't risk the money or the chance he would be gone mid-season just when things are going good.

GM B: Well said, plus he's one arrogant piece of ****.

GM A: *laughing*

Is that collusion? Now if they daisy chained the word around the various teams one at a time, that would be, but it would have to be more than 2 guys shooting the ****, IMO.

DumpJerry
10-18-2008, 12:33 PM
Does anyone think that it would have been necessary for several GMs or team owners to actually discuss the fact that Barroid was useless?

As stated above, he is pretty useless to the NL unless someone has a 26th roster spot for coming off the bench in the bottom of the 9th with two outs to hopefully walk it off.

In the AL, most teams already have a power hitter from the left side who can easily match and surpass Barroid's potential numbers. That means all he is worth is being a sideshow at the carnival. The crap teams of the AL don't need that, they are busy developing tomorrow's stars.

The "evidence" probably consists of GMs saying "are you going to sign him?" "Hell no, we don't want the headache." "Yeah, that's what the other guys are saying."

Irishsox1
10-20-2008, 11:04 PM
You need to understand what collusion means before making this type of statement.

Which statement? Bonds is washed up, he's a jerk or that he's too old? Which one?

Yes, I know what collusion is smarty pants.