I like it when Manny acts funny, but...

[OldFatGuy]

Ramirez doesn't come with a tenth of the media crush Bonds does.

No, that's a good point. But I would argue he does come with the same or nearly the same amount of negatives.

Please, don't get me wrong, I think he's one of, if not the best, hitters of all time, especially right hand hitters. But, like Bonds, he's a dick. Sorry, no other way to describe it, he is (and Barry is too).

My point was, both were "dicks" (IMO), so were they going to be treated the same (i.e. will Manny have a hard time landing a job next year too), or is Manny, because of his age (thus a better "risk" PR wise as well as talen wise) going to get lots of offers.

To me, if Manny gets lots of offers and mega bucks, then this would indicate maybe real "collusion" against Bonds. If Manny doesn't, this would indicate it's no real collusion, owners just don't want to take chances with "dicks." The "baggage" that comes with it is too much.

I guess time will tell.

[Pavelb1]

No, that's a good point. But I would argue he does come with the same or nearly the same amount of negatives.

Please, don't get me wrong, I think he's one of, if not the best, hitters of all time, especially right hand hitters. But, like Bonds, he's a dick. Sorry, no other way to describe it, he is (and Barry is too).

My point was, both were "dicks" (IMO), so were they going to be treated the same (i.e. will Manny have a hard time landing a job next year too), or is Manny, because of his age (thus a better "risk" PR wise as well as talen wise) going to get lots of offers.

To me, if Manny gets lots of offers and mega bucks, then this would indicate maybe real "collusion" against Bonds. If Manny doesn't, this would indicate it's no real collusion, owners just don't want to take chances with "dicks." The "baggage" that comes with it is too much.

I guess time will tell.

I've never understood what owners stand to gain by colluding against Bonds.

[OldFatGuy]

I've never understood what owners stand to gain by colluding against Bonds.

$$$$$$$$$$$$$

Bonds is so hated in so many areas of the country, it would result in negative fan reaction to sign him. Yet, if you wanted to sign the "best available talent no matter anything else", its very difficult to argue against Bonds, even the last three years of Bonds, when he's old and washed up.

[HoustonGM]

I've never understood what owners stand to gain by colluding against Bonds.

They get to make it seem like they're the reason the game is being cleaned up, and they get to act as if they played no role in the rise of steroids in the game.

$$$$$$$$$$$$$

Bonds is so hated in so many areas of the country, it would result in negative fan reaction to sign him.

I have not seen any evidence that Bonds would result in negative fan reaction to sign him. San Francisco routinely drew great crowds. Yes, part of that is due to the fact that he was chasing home run records.

However, what does the average fan want to pay to see the most? Winning. If bringing in Barry Bonds results in extra wins, the fans are going to come no matter what. Yes, there's going to be some fans that'll refuse to pay to see Barry Bonds, but the media greatly exaggerates that. Most fans don't strongly care one way or the other. Most fans just want to see their team win.

[OldFatGuy]

I have not seen any evidence that Bonds would result in negative fan reaction to sign him. San Francisco routinely drew great crowds. Yes, part of that is due to the fact that he was chasing home run records.

However, what does the average fan want to pay to see the most? Winning. If bringing in Barry Bonds results in extra wins, the fans are going to come no matter what. Yes, there's going to be some fans that'll refuse to pay to see Barry Bonds, but the media greatly exaggerates that. Most fans don't strongly care one way or the other. Most fans just want to see their team win.

Yep, you're right, most fans do want to just see wins. And I'm probably overestimating the "reluctance" of owners to sign him (or Manny, or anyone else with negatives.)

But, assuming I am over-estimating that effect, why hasn't Bonds been signed? Or, for that matter, why hasn't Clemens been signed????

Are they (or their agents) asking too much??

[HoustonGM]

And I'm probably overestimating the "reluctance" of owners to sign him (or Manny, or anyone else with negatives.)

Manny, you are overstating it. Bonds, you're not.

But, assuming I am over-estimating that effect, why hasn't Bonds been signed? Or, for that matter, why hasn't Clemens been signed????

I'm pretty sure Clemens has chosen himself to not play anymore, and he's far behind Bonds in terms of value provided as he's no longer a very good pitcher (he's about average I'd guess). Bonds, though, is still a VERY above-average hitter that could provide many teams with much needed offense. As I said above, you're not over-estimating the reluctance of owners to sign him. They're not signing him. He's offered to play for the minimum, and teams won't sign him. Personally, I think there's at least a mild collusion going on. The owners want Bonds out of the game, even if he'd mean an on-field improvement to their team. They're also afraid of the outrage in the big bad media. And trust me, the outrage the media would make of a Bonds signing would greatly exaggerate whatever "outrage" the fans themselves have (which isn't likely to be all that much, save for a few diehard anti-Bonds people).

[OldFatGuy]

even if he'd mean an on-field improvement to their team.

Wouldn't that be defacto collusion??? I've not been as sold on this "collusion" as I was in the 80's (on that I was sure BEFORE the ruling), but wouldn't that be almost as near the same. I mean, you're NOT willing to sign an "on-field improvement to their team" because of (enter data here, fan backlash here, or "he's a liar, media backlash" here, etc. etc. etc). Isn't this the same????

I am still struggling with this question now, and I really don't think its near the slam dunk it was in the 80's.

[HoustonGM]

It's not the same type of collusion that took place in the 1980's, where the owners all got together and made a concerted effort to control free agency by refusing to sign players, but I'd say that yeah, what's going on with Bonds is basically the same thing, albeit on a much smaller scale (one player instead of nearly the entire free agent pool).

[Arctic Blast]

Wouldn't that be defacto collusion??? I've not been as sold on this "collusion" as I was in the 80's (on that I was sure BEFORE the ruling), but wouldn't that be almost as near the same. I mean, you're NOT willing to sign an "on-field improvement to their team" because of (enter data here, fan backlash here, or "he's a liar, media backlash" here, etc. etc. etc). Isn't this the same????

I am still struggling with this question now, and I really don't think its near the slam dunk it was in the 80's.

See, again, I don't think it has so much to do with negative press reaction as the extreme volume of press that would suddenly descend on whatever team SIGNS Bonds. That team would become 'The Story' for every single sportscast everywhere, just with a stroke of the pen, ESPECIALLY right now, as baseball is currently the only game in town. Why do you think the Favre 'story' is getting blown up so big in football? There is nothing else to report on! Whatever team signed Bonds right now, in the dog days of summer, would siffer a media feeding frenzy. I would imagine most players would find the sort of press invasion that would result distracting, to say the least. As I hear Paul O'Neill say in an interview last week, when asked if the Yanks would maybe consider Bonds "The last thing this team is needs is another story, and more media."

As for Clemens, frankly, he didn't look like he had nearly as much left in the tank as Bonds did last year.

[JayC]

As I hear Paul O'Neill say in an interview last week, when asked if the Yanks would maybe consider Bonds "The last thing this team is needs is another story, and more media."

Wow... so Paul O'Neill is in on this? He's part of the collusion ring?

Or did he come to that conclusion independently? And if it's that, why must any owner who thinks the same way be guilty of collusion?

I don't think it has so much to do with negative press reaction as the extreme volume of press that would suddenly descend on whatever team SIGNS Bonds.

What? You too? Stop colluding!!

[robinhoodnik]

my guess is that you would change your tune once he's out for 6 weeks with a "sore hammy" (2006)

Or around the seventh time he's thrown out solely because he's jogging to first.

[robinhoodnik]

And trust me, the outrage the media would make of a Bonds signing would greatly exaggerate whatever "outrage" the fans themselves have (which isn't likely to be all that much, save for a few diehard anti-Bonds people).

Guess that you didn't watch a lot of those games he was in outside of San Francisco? The ones after the steroids issue became front page news and not just back page supposition?

[OldFatGuy]

Wow... so Paul O'Neill is in on this? He's part of the collusion ring?

Or did he come to that conclusion independently? And if it's that, why must any owner who thinks the same way be guilty of collusion?


What? You too? Stop colluding!!

OK, so its not collusion. My question still stands. Will Manny get the same treatment next year that Bonds got this year?? If not then something's going on. Why would they treat one guy with negatives differently than another??

I'm not as sold on collusion in this case either, though it was very real indeed in the 80's, so it's not impossible.

[robinhoodnik]

OK, so its not collusion. My question still stands. Will Manny get the same treatment next year that Bonds got this year?? If not then something's going on. Why would they treat one guy with negatives differently than another??

I'm not as sold on collusion in this case either, though it was very real indeed in the 80's, so it's not impossible.

No, Manny will be treated far better. He isn't convicted of anything other than being a goofball in the court of public opinion.

Yes, Dave "Kong" Kingman being a guy who won a collusion case back then, would have been the first 500 hr guy NOT in the hall of fame. That's suspected of being one of the reasons he got blackballed

[OldFatGuy]

I didn't think Bonds had been convicted of anything. Could be wrong though.