After months of inactivity for Barry Bonds' cell phone, the record breaking slugger looks like he decided to start making the phone calls instead of waiting for them. Only now it looks like he called his union rep, and the Players Association appears to have some kind of evidence that Bonds has been the victim of collusion and has been blackballed by the MLB for the past year.
The argument against collusion was that no team was willing to deal with the risks that came along with signing Bonds, and that he could poison a clubhouse and that. in his semi-broken down physical condition, there was no way that he could be healthy for a whole season. Fine, those arguments made all the sense in the world last winter when 162 games remained to be played, no teams had any in-season momentum and Bonds was still demanding a salary well into the seven figures.
Now, though? Uh, yeah, not so much. Around mid-season was when any rational American league team in contention and in need of a power bat would have gone after Bonds. The Rays actually made a lot of sense, as did the Twins and even the Angels. When Bonds went so far as to say that not only would he sign for the pro-rated minimum AND that he would donate this salary to charity just for a chance to play and take some at-bats, and STILL no one would bite, you knew something was up.
For instance, the Minnesota Twins lost in a playoff game against the ChiSox for the division title. If they had done the reasonably competent thing and signed Bonds for the minimum wage, I can basically guarantee that having Bonds as a part of the underwhelming outfield/DH quintet the Twinkies trotted out of Carlos Gomez, Denard Span, Michael Cuddyer, Jason Kubel, and Delmon Young would have been good for at least an extra win or two over the course of a couple months, and that would have been enough to get this bunch over the top and into the postseason. Instead, they stood pat under what appears to be a near-certain ban from Commissioner Bud Selig on Barry Lamar, and the AL Playoffs as we know it were altered because of it.
I find it wildly unlikely though that this accusation can really be proven, regardless of how apparent it may be. This isn't like the infamous collusion case of the 80's when the best players on the market weren't even getting offered deals and re-signing for pay cuts, there is at least an argument to be made against Bonds.![]()
The argument against collusion was that no team was willing to deal with the risks that came along with signing Bonds, and that he could poison a clubhouse and that. in his semi-broken down physical condition, there was no way that he could be healthy for a whole season. Fine, those arguments made all the sense in the world last winter when 162 games remained to be played, no teams had any in-season momentum and Bonds was still demanding a salary well into the seven figures.
Now, though? Uh, yeah, not so much. Around mid-season was when any rational American league team in contention and in need of a power bat would have gone after Bonds. The Rays actually made a lot of sense, as did the Twins and even the Angels. When Bonds went so far as to say that not only would he sign for the pro-rated minimum AND that he would donate this salary to charity just for a chance to play and take some at-bats, and STILL no one would bite, you knew something was up.
For instance, the Minnesota Twins lost in a playoff game against the ChiSox for the division title. If they had done the reasonably competent thing and signed Bonds for the minimum wage, I can basically guarantee that having Bonds as a part of the underwhelming outfield/DH quintet the Twinkies trotted out of Carlos Gomez, Denard Span, Michael Cuddyer, Jason Kubel, and Delmon Young would have been good for at least an extra win or two over the course of a couple months, and that would have been enough to get this bunch over the top and into the postseason. Instead, they stood pat under what appears to be a near-certain ban from Commissioner Bud Selig on Barry Lamar, and the AL Playoffs as we know it were altered because of it.
I find it wildly unlikely though that this accusation can really be proven, regardless of how apparent it may be. This isn't like the infamous collusion case of the 80's when the best players on the market weren't even getting offered deals and re-signing for pay cuts, there is at least an argument to be made against Bonds.
