Jump to content

The Conspiracy Against Bonds


Flip217

Recommended Posts

No I don't see the difference. No one wanted to give Jay Gibbons a job, was he being colluded against? It's not like Bonds is 30 and coming off of an MVP Award or something...he's like 44 and is most likely going to be serving prison time. Not to mention he's a huge douche bag to anyone who has ever known him.

And I'll ask again, isn't he not even part of the union? Is he even covered under the CBA and should they be filing grievances on his behalf?

Maybe I'm just misinterpreting, but wouldn't all of the teams have to be gaining something by colluding to not sign Bonds? So let's for the sake of argument say that all GMs didn't independently come to the conclusion that it would be a horrible move to sign Bonds and they all colluded together...what exactly are the colluding for? What are they getting out of it? I understand about colluding to keep salaries low, but what exactly are they gaining here? It would be one thing if say Bud Selig was promising all GMs some kind of kickback for not signing Bonds and keeping him out of baseball, but I don't see anything like having happened.

Another example, Kevin Millar probably won't be resigned by the O's and maybe won't get another deal with any team. Does that mean that all of the GMs are colluding against him?

You don't see the difference between one of the best hitters in baseball and one of the worst hitters in baseball? Bonds wasn't coming off an MVP season, but he was coming off the season where he was as good an offensive player as anyone in the world, and where he was one of the more valuable on-field properties in baseball.

Similar logic applies to Millar. When teams don't want to sign an All-Star caliber player, it raises questions of why. Again I'm not saying that he was absolutely colluded against, but I don't think that anyone can make a case that lays out why 30 teams felt that he was not even worth the same salary as Willie Bloomquist or Luis Hernandez.

Obviously he's an [insert derogatory adjective here] and a cheat, but baseball has shown minimal aversions to those types of players before. See also: Manny Ramirez, Brett Myers, Jason Giambi, Milton Bradley, and so on.

Bonds is part of the Union, but he is not a party to their licensing agreement.

The reason for colluding against Bonds might have been a desire to move past his involvement in baseball and the negative press associated with it. As anyone who followed the HR chase last season surely knows, it's clear that Selig is no Bonds fan. I'm not sure it's outlandish to think that there may have been some directive or "suggestion" not to sign Bonds evolving from the Commissioner's office.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 31
  • Created
  • Last Reply
You don't see the difference between one of the best hitters in baseball and one of the worst hitters in baseball? Bonds wasn't coming off an MVP season, but he was coming off the season where he was as good an offensive player as anyone in the world, and where he was one of the more valuable on-field properties in baseball.

Similar logic applies to Millar. When teams don't want to sign an All-Star caliber player, it raises questions of why. Again I'm not saying that he was absolutely colluded against, but I don't think that anyone can make a case that lays out why 30 teams felt that he was not even worth the same salary as Willie Bloomquist or Luis Hernandez.

The reason for colluding against Bonds might have been a desire to move past his involvement in baseball and the negative press associated with it. As anyone who followed the HR chase last season surely knows, it's clear that Selig is no Bonds fan. I'm not sure it's outlandish to think that there may have been some directive or "suggestion" not to sign Bonds evolving from the Commissioner's office.

Sure I see the difference between Bonds and Gibbons or Millar, but are you saying that only good players can be colluded against? That doesn't seem right to me. I don't care how good his season was last year, he's still like 44 and is facing prison time. I don't think it was a giant leap that no team would sign him and I'm not sure what kind of proof they could have that he was colluded against. Like I said, if Selig promised something to the teams for them not signing Bonds, then I would understand. But if not then I really don't see what they get out of it other than not wanting to sign an aging cheater who is facing prison time. I mean a "desire to move past his involvement in baseball and the negative press associated with it" surely helps MLB as a whole, but I don't see what benefit individual owners get out of it...at least in a direct way.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.


×
×
  • Create New...