Off Day Conspiracy Theory: Bonds, Collusion, and the Trade Deadline

What I don't get is

What’s in it for Barry to play again? It can’t be money. It can’t be reputation, as he’ll still get booed no matter where he goes. I don’t get the appeal for him.

*Synth intro to "Jump"*

by SouthsideCub on Aug 7, 2008 2:00 PM CDT reply reply 0 recs

He wants to get 3,000 hits.

"I've never complained about it. I'm thankful to have a jersey." Mark DeRosa, 22 Aug 2007

by DeRoMyHero on Aug 7, 2008 2:05 PM CDT up reply reply 0 recs

Not to mention..

..he’s 4 RBI’s short of 2000

"I never drink water because of the disgusting things fish do in it" -W.C. Fields

by calicubfan on Aug 7, 2008 2:54 PM CDT up reply reply 0 recs

Bingo--twice!!

n/t

by DudeVf11 on Aug 7, 2008 9:14 PM CDT up reply reply 0 recs

Hmm...

If you were one of the best baseball players ever, would you rather play baseball or sit at home?

Love of the game seems the best reason for playing, not money or reputation.

by John Q Freejazz on Aug 7, 2008 2:31 PM CDT up reply reply 0 recs

Interesting, but I’m not sure I would attribute it to something as idealogical as “Love of the game”. I think in Bonds case its “Love of Thyself”. He has an ego that rivals his cap size, he is a selfish ball player who is only interested in padding his stats.

by StevenABQ on Aug 7, 2008 3:43 PM CDT up reply reply 0 recs

Actually I think he's been training...

...with an Italian Cycling team and they’d like for him to test some new supplements for them…Huge endorsement deal for the supplements.

by DudeVf11 on Aug 7, 2008 9:16 PM CDT up reply reply 0 recs

Good point

I think all of the teams are reluctant to take on the baggage that goes with signing Bonds. From angry fans, angry teammates, an angry Bonds I don’t think there is a clubhouse in baseball that could survive the ego that is Barry Bonds. This isn’t collusion but rather maybe a collective non-verbal agreement not to touch the crap bag.

by troutfishin on Aug 7, 2008 2:34 PM CDT up reply reply 0 recs

Make it harder for A-Rod

Maybe if Bonds can pad his numbers a little, and A-Rod gets the injury bug, then Barry can retain the crown. It really looks like A-Rod will blow his total away, though.

by dr stabbingworth on Aug 7, 2008 3:51 PM CDT up reply reply 0 recs

God, I hope there is collusion

He deserves nothing else.

Pluto will always be a planet to me!

by DaBard on Aug 7, 2008 2:05 PM CDT reply reply 0 recs

Is good judgment individually considered collusion?

Bonds is a viral disease of selfish self-promotion for the sake of Bonds.

Piniella: "This is a tougher job than I thought it would be, I'm going to be honest with you."

by Ivy Walls on Aug 7, 2008 2:11 PM CDT reply reply 0 recs

Are there no other ML baseball players of whom the same thing can be said?

To be provocative, I’d argue that Bonds is less overtly self-promotional than Ryan Always-Ready-With-A-Quote-Mr.-Reporter Theriot. To be clear, I’m not setting Theriot and Bonds side by side in terms of what they do for a clubhouse – Theriot appears to offer many positive things to a clubhouse. But you bashed Bonds for being self-promotional, so I’m following your lead.

The author of this post is not a certified scout, doctor, agent, statistician, manager, or journalist, nor was he ever a very good player, though he tried very hard to be like Ryne Sandberg and was about as scrappy as it gets (in T-ball). Any opinion expressed above should in no way be confused with fact, truth, or reality and is hereby qualified in the following ways: 1) The author does not know as much about baseball as Lou Piniella. 2) The author does not know as much about baseball as Jim Hendry. 3) The author does not know as much about baseball as either Dusty or Darren Baker.

by DGU on Aug 7, 2008 2:30 PM CDT up reply reply 0 recs

The article points out...

... that Bonds’ numbers have a real good chance of a steep decline this year if he plays—except for walks. It also says that he probably shouldn’t be playing the outfield at all at “this stage” of his career.

That makes him a part-time DH. Given that plus the baggage he carries, I can imagine 30 teams discussing him and all INDEPENDENTLY reaching the same conclusion: “Forget it.”

"That's my opinion and if you don't like it, well, I have others." ~ Groucho Marx

by Al on Aug 7, 2008 2:19 PM CDT reply reply 0 recs

Do you think a team would have been wise to trade

for either Adam Dunn or Raul Ibanez?

Do you think the Sox would be better off with Bonds as a part-time DH for 300,000 K over Griffey in CF for millions?

The author of this post is not a certified scout, doctor, agent, statistician, manager, or journalist, nor was he ever a very good player, though he tried very hard to be like Ryne Sandberg and was about as scrappy as it gets (in T-ball). Any opinion expressed above should in no way be confused with fact, truth, or reality and is hereby qualified in the following ways: 1) The author does not know as much about baseball as Lou Piniella. 2) The author does not know as much about baseball as Jim Hendry. 3) The author does not know as much about baseball as either Dusty or Darren Baker.

by DGU on Aug 7, 2008 2:31 PM CDT up reply reply 0 recs

Yes to both

1) I especially don’t understand the apparent lack on interest in Dunn. (Unless Ricciardi’s “do you know he doesn’t like to play the game” etc. routine carried some weight.) He’ll walk roughly about as much as Bonds and has about as much power. Defensively it’s probably a push, but Dunn can play regularly whereas Bonds at his age can’t. Maybe baseball front offices are still a little too old school when it comes to undervaluing walks and overrating the perceived evils of strikeouts.

2) It still doesn’t make a whole lot of sense to me why the White Sox signed Griffey to play CF. So, combine that with the salary difference, sure, I’d think they’d be just as well off with Bonds.

by John Q Freejazz on Aug 7, 2008 2:37 PM CDT up reply reply 0 recs

I still think that Griffey

is Kenny Williams chasing a lost dream.

’’If somebody had told me we were going to lose Soriano for eight weeks, lose [Carlos] Zambrano and Kerry Wood for a couple of weeks apiece, and then at the same time lose [Reed] Johnson, and then when we played the American League not have a DH [then-injured Daryle Ward], and be in first place by two games, I’d tell you we were pretty fortunate.’’ Lou Piniella (7/23/08)

by drewishdrewid on Aug 7, 2008 9:28 PM CDT up reply reply 0 recs

Hey Kenny!

1995 called….”great trade!”

by BartlettBob on Aug 7, 2008 9:42 PM CDT up reply reply 0 recs

I think Williams honestly believes Griffey can play CF still...

and that he can have a resurgent bat down the stretch. I don’t think he’s right, but it’s not like the Sox had a gold glover in CF anyway. Defensively, I don’t know that they’re that much worse off (if at all).

We’re talking about a 40-something guy who hasn’t played baseball in a while now and was showing serious signs of slippage last year. Signing Griffey was hoping to catch lightning in a bottle (offensively and defensively). The move probably won’t work out, but I can at least understand the thought process behind the move.

by SouthernCub on Aug 8, 2008 8:35 AM CDT up reply reply 0 recs

Slippage?

Say what you will about Barry, but “serious signs of slippage” is a little extreme I think. In the second half, he hit .248/.426/.526. Given that he is 43, it seems just as likely that he tired over the season than that his skills eroded permanently. He did have a 1.163 OPS in August 2007. That OBP is .040 pts higher than the best White Sox player this year and the overall line is roughly .020 pts better than Quentin. Of course, answering your question below, you don’t bench a guy in his prime for Barry; rather, my point is that Barry Bonds, even slipped a little, is still better than the best player on most teams. The idea that he wouldn’t help a team (all other issues aside) can’t be taken seriously. It’s all the other issues that are the issues, which to me is very interesting.

The author of this post is not a certified scout, doctor, agent, statistician, manager, or journalist, nor was he ever a very good player, though he tried very hard to be like Ryne Sandberg and was about as scrappy as it gets (in T-ball). Any opinion expressed above should in no way be confused with fact, truth, or reality and is hereby qualified in the following ways: 1) The author does not know as much about baseball as Lou Piniella. 2) The author does not know as much about baseball as Jim Hendry. 3) The author does not know as much about baseball as either Dusty or Darren Baker.

by DGU on Aug 8, 2008 8:59 AM CDT up reply reply 0 recs

I can't speak for fans of the other 29 teams

but as a Cubs fan I certainly would not have wanted to add Bonds, even as a low-cost rental while Soriano was on the DL. Winning teams like the ‘08 Cubs have a positive chemistry going that can be ruined by the wrong addition, and no addition would be worse than Bonds.

by ChipSet on Aug 8, 2008 8:44 AM CDT up reply reply 0 recs

Personally, I don't like cheering for Bonds

but I wonder if fans of some team could come around on Bonds once he starts winning games in the same way that many Cub fans came around on Jim Edmonds. Jim Edmonds could have ruined the Cubs chemistry given the issues in the past between him and Zambrano. But Edmonds wanted a chance to resurrect his career and play baseball. He kept his head down and performed. I have to think that Barry, if a team gave him a chance now, would act similarly. He wants to play. He’ll owe whatever team lets him back in.

No, chemistry isn’t the issue, either.

The author of this post is not a certified scout, doctor, agent, statistician, manager, or journalist, nor was he ever a very good player, though he tried very hard to be like Ryne Sandberg and was about as scrappy as it gets (in T-ball). Any opinion expressed above should in no way be confused with fact, truth, or reality and is hereby qualified in the following ways: 1) The author does not know as much about baseball as Lou Piniella. 2) The author does not know as much about baseball as Jim Hendry. 3) The author does not know as much about baseball as either Dusty or Darren Baker.

by DGU on Aug 8, 2008 9:02 AM CDT up reply reply 0 recs

Though you may not have liked Edmonds...

... he doesn’t have nearly the baggage that Bonds does. Very different story.

"That's my opinion and if you don't like it, well, I have others." ~ Groucho Marx

by Al on Aug 8, 2008 10:17 AM CDT up reply reply 0 recs

What kind of baggage?

I agree Bonds has baggage in the sense that you will get grief from at least the media, probably fans to start with, and maybe even Bud Selig. But clubhouse baggage? A lot of Bonds’ perceived clubhouse baggage, I think, was overstated by Jeff Kent, who has had trouble with many other players besides Bonds.

Perhaps you are suggesting that there are some players who wouldn’t like to play with Bonds because they think he’s a cheater. That’s possible, too. But then we’re back to the same thing. Bonds isn’t playing because people in baseball don’t like him, not because he wouldn’t help a team.

The author of this post is not a certified scout, doctor, agent, statistician, manager, or journalist, nor was he ever a very good player, though he tried very hard to be like Ryne Sandberg and was about as scrappy as it gets (in T-ball). Any opinion expressed above should in no way be confused with fact, truth, or reality and is hereby qualified in the following ways: 1) The author does not know as much about baseball as Lou Piniella. 2) The author does not know as much about baseball as Jim Hendry. 3) The author does not know as much about baseball as either Dusty or Darren Baker.

by DGU on Aug 8, 2008 10:54 AM CDT up reply reply 0 recs

He'd be an improvement...

Over Daryle Ward.

Pluto will always be a planet to me!

by DaBard on Aug 8, 2008 4:09 PM CDT up reply reply 0 recs

OTOH

It might not be collusion. It might just be that teams are reluctant to sign the would-be poster boy of the so-called steroid era in the same year as the Mitchell Report is released.

Bonds is going to trial, and unless teams become desperate (which they may soon), they’d rather not have anything to do with what many people (rightfully or not) associate with cheating.

by John Q Freejazz on Aug 7, 2008 2:42 PM CDT reply reply 0 recs

Two things

One is that I think it is likely that the national sports media has done the colluding for the owners, which is to say that while the owners didn’t want Barry trashing their brand name, they never had to explicitly collude so much as use the excuse of media fallout whenever any GM brought the idea up. But all you have to do is remember Bud Selig’s reaction to the big HR to know where the owners stand on Bonds – they don’t like the image he put on baseball. The question is – did they dislike it enough to conspire against Bonds the player?

Second – you’d think there are some GMs who should have been desperate enough at some point this season – Colletti, Riccardi, Minaya maybe. On the flip-side – Beane’s not a desperate GM, but would a Bonds signing have been enough to put the A’s in contention this year?

The author of this post is not a certified scout, doctor, agent, statistician, manager, or journalist, nor was he ever a very good player, though he tried very hard to be like Ryne Sandberg and was about as scrappy as it gets (in T-ball). Any opinion expressed above should in no way be confused with fact, truth, or reality and is hereby qualified in the following ways: 1) The author does not know as much about baseball as Lou Piniella. 2) The author does not know as much about baseball as Jim Hendry. 3) The author does not know as much about baseball as either Dusty or Darren Baker.

by DGU on Aug 7, 2008 2:56 PM CDT up reply reply 0 recs

If all the Baskin Robins in the USA...

...refused to hire Hitler I wouldn’t blame them either, although he might help an individual franchise turn a profit.

by DudeVf11 on Aug 7, 2008 9:18 PM CDT reply reply 0 recs

there's no option for

“I don’t care, he’s a turd.”

’’If somebody had told me we were going to lose Soriano for eight weeks, lose [Carlos] Zambrano and Kerry Wood for a couple of weeks apiece, and then at the same time lose [Reed] Johnson, and then when we played the American League not have a DH [then-injured Daryle Ward], and be in first place by two games, I’d tell you we were pretty fortunate.’’ Lou Piniella (7/23/08)

by drewishdrewid on Aug 7, 2008 9:27 PM CDT reply reply 0 recs

You just made it.

The author of this post is not a certified scout, doctor, agent, statistician, manager, or journalist, nor was he ever a very good player, though he tried very hard to be like Ryne Sandberg and was about as scrappy as it gets (in T-ball). Any opinion expressed above should in no way be confused with fact, truth, or reality and is hereby qualified in the following ways: 1) The author does not know as much about baseball as Lou Piniella. 2) The author does not know as much about baseball as Jim Hendry. 3) The author does not know as much about baseball as either Dusty or Darren Baker.

by DGU on Aug 7, 2008 11:15 PM CDT up reply reply 0 recs

Not sure I see the Griffey/Sox issue...

The Sox already have two top-tier corner OF and a DH. They traded for Griffey SPECIFICALLY to play CF. Would you play Bonds over Quentin? Would you play Bonds over Dye? Over Thome at DH? And the issue of defense is mitigated by the fact that they were playing Nick Swisher in CF in the first place. So Griffey may not actually be a huge step back defensively there. I don’t see this as the Sox going a roundabout way to avoid the appearance of collusion.

Personally, I think the whole collusion argument is hooey. And I think the examples of trades/non-trades given here aren’t the strongest evidence to suggest collusion is affecting teams. It could simply be that teams weren’t willing to overpay for two months Dunn or Ibanez (who really isn’t that great).

by SouthernCub on Aug 8, 2008 8:30 AM CDT reply reply 0 recs

Griffey didn't replace Swisher so much as Konerko;

you’d think one of Dye, Quentin, Barry, or Thome could play 1B from time to time. And the downgrade from Swisher to Griffey is still significant, even if Swisher wasn’t Aaron Rowand out there.

The author of this post is not a certified scout, doctor, agent, statistician, manager, or journalist, nor was he ever a very good player, though he tried very hard to be like Ryne Sandberg and was about as scrappy as it gets (in T-ball). Any opinion expressed above should in no way be confused with fact, truth, or reality and is hereby qualified in the following ways: 1) The author does not know as much about baseball as Lou Piniella. 2) The author does not know as much about baseball as Jim Hendry. 3) The author does not know as much about baseball as either Dusty or Darren Baker.

by DGU on Aug 8, 2008 9:07 AM CDT up reply reply 0 recs

The move not only worsens their defense in CF

...it also worsens their defense at 1B. The move is bad in many ways.

by Wreckard on Aug 8, 2008 12:33 PM CDT up reply reply 0 recs

I'm going to steal from Cowherd...

Who made this comment a while back…

At one point, most of the movie studios refused to work with Marlon Brando. He is arguably one of the Top 5 actors EVER. But he was always late, refused to learn lines, asked for insane perks, and was generally a jerk to his fellow actors.

It wasn’t collusion that kept him from getting work. It was a bunch of studio heads each saying, “Not worth the trouble…Anthony Hopkins or Michael Caine (or whoever) is almost as good and is less of a pain.”

Not collusion, but common sense.

Pluto will always be a planet to me!

by DaBard on Aug 8, 2008 4:11 PM CDT reply reply 0 recs

If anybody should.....

be colluded against it should be Bonds. I wouldn’t want him just because of the baggage, the ego, the personality, the poison he’d bring. He’s a plague (steroids or not). I’d rather have Bob Ucker.
If I were pitching and had to put him on intentionally, I’d just hit him….cause he’s such a nice guy.
I hope the Hall of Fame shuns him as well.

"I wouldn't be a part of any club that would have me as a member" : Groucho Marx

by Dave Pendleton on Aug 8, 2008 7:14 PM CDT reply reply 0 recs

This is where baseball becomes about more than numbers.

Yes, Bonds would probably be a better PH off the bench than Ward. He’d likely get IBBs 50-60% of the time, and baserunners help us (although I’m sure Lou would PR for him most of the time. The 40-50% of the time he did get to swing away, he’s probably hit some home-runs, too.

So his statistics would be, likely, phenomenal, certainly for a pinch hitter.

But he’s not worth the added stress. Look at how the Japanese press were following Dome around earlier in the season, and that’s a group that LIKES him. Can you imagine the full-court-press the team would have to endure if Bonds were in the clubhouse? And which player gets pulled for him? Ward is a fan-favorite, and while you don’t build the team around what the fans want, we do provide a lot of revenue for the team.

And then, when Ward is gone and Barry sits in his chair, what happens to team chemistry? We consistently talk about how this team has a roster of heroes, and when one player falls down, another player steps up to take the load. It’s one of the reasons Jim Hendry stood pat on the team after making the Harden trade. Even those players who have less than stellar tools make up for it with even better OTHER tools (my prime example being Riot, but there are others, such as Ramirez having a gold-glove year while his bat has been erratic at best). Do we really want to change that up for someone with a presence (positive or negative) as Bonds?

No, thank you. While his negatives are not very saber-y, they are, to a lot of people, very apparent. And I don’t think this team needs to change ANYTHING.

Our 2008 Chicago Cubs -- FINDING WAYS TO WIN!

by drewishdrewid on Aug 9, 2008 9:42 AM CDT reply reply 0 recs

It's not so much the Cubs that I think would be improved by adding Bonds

as it is, say, the Mets – who already have a media circus. How much would the Mets really be affected by adding Bonds?

The author of this post is not a certified scout, doctor, agent, statistician, manager, or journalist, nor was he ever a very good player, though he tried very hard to be like Ryne Sandberg and was about as scrappy as it gets (in T-ball). Any opinion expressed above should in no way be confused with fact, truth, or reality and is hereby qualified in the following ways: 1) The author does not know as much about baseball as Lou Piniella. 2) The author does not know as much about baseball as Jim Hendry. 3) The author does not know as much about baseball as either Dusty or Darren Baker.

by DGU on Aug 9, 2008 10:39 AM CDT up reply reply 0 recs

And the Mets, a team that actually needed a LF earlier this year...

... did discuss Bonds, and decided even THEY didn’t want to deal with the hassles.

"That's my opinion and if you don't like it, well, I have others." ~ Groucho Marx

by Al on Aug 9, 2008 11:06 AM CDT up reply reply 0 recs

My mind's not made up on this

but I tend to think the hassle of two seasons of embarrassing losses might be worse for Omay Minaya than the hassle of Bonds. What I don’t know is how many players would be upset by Bonds returning.

The author of this post is not a certified scout, doctor, agent, statistician, manager, or journalist, nor was he ever a very good player, though he tried very hard to be like Ryne Sandberg and was about as scrappy as it gets (in T-ball). Any opinion expressed above should in no way be confused with fact, truth, or reality and is hereby qualified in the following ways: 1) The author does not know as much about baseball as Lou Piniella. 2) The author does not know as much about baseball as Jim Hendry. 3) The author does not know as much about baseball as either Dusty or Darren Baker.

by DGU on Aug 9, 2008 12:21 PM CDT up reply reply 0 recs