Are MLB owners colluding against Bonds?

SanctionII

Read an article in the sports section today that the players union may investigate whether MLB owners are in collusion with each other given the fact that no team has expressed any interest in having Barry Bonds play for them in 2008.

Is there a grand conspiracy by MLB owners to keep Bonds out of the 2008 big league season?

Or, alternatively, do the MLB owners simply not want to have a 43-44 year old player with injury problems, declining defensive skills and a difficult personality on their team's roster?

Opinions please.

perkdog

I think its too early to tell, however I dont think its a secret that having Bonds on your squad will come with baggage ie: excesive media coverage, possible personality conflicts but during the stretch of the season if a team needs an injury replacement Bonds might get a call.

Bosox1976

...not to mention a media circus, an impending federal grand jury trial and a likely prosecution/plea bargain. What's not to like?

JackWESQ

Collusion is defined as, "secret agreement or cooperation especially for an illegal or deceitful purpose," by the Meriam-Webster OnLine Dictionary.

Given that definition, I believe the owners have NOT colluded against Bonds. Moreover, even if the owners did enter into a "secret agreement or cooperation," is it "illegal or deceitful" not to employ someone to play baseball? What do we always hear? That it is a privilege to play professional sports and not a entitlement. But hey, what do I know?

That said, I still hope someone signs Bonds for the 2008 season because he is entertaining to watch.

/s/ JackWESQ

Michigan

Phone calls, e-mails, secret meetings to discuss keeping Bonds out of baseball etc.......?????? I doubt that has happened.

Considering all of the negatives attached to him it is more likely a mass dose of common sense has come over the owners.

RonBurgundy

Of course they are. And no one should have a problem with it.




Ron

edmundfitzgerald

It just doesn't make sense from a business sense.

If you look at the national league teams, every team out there would need 5 Barry Bonds to beat
an American league team next year in the world series.

If you look at the big American league teams, it's about 5 inches that seperate Cleveland, NY, and Boston.
Cleveland had Boston down 3-1 last year, and Cleveland needed some Canadian Soldiers to beat NY.
So I don't think the big American league clubs believe they need that much help to get over the hump.
Heck, if they didn't go after Johann Santana, then I don't think going after Bonds is even a thought crossing their mind.

I know Barry will only cost money, but he's really not worth it in my opinion. The Cleveland Indians could possibly use him, but
that's the only team I could see signing him, and they still have time to do it I think.

perkdog

Another thing is how much would he want for a 1 or 3/4 year deal? That might be the reason he hasnt gotten any offers, he is capable of 20-25 HR's, but for 15 mill +?

stown

<< <i>Or, alternatively, do the MLB owners simply not want to have a 43-44 year old player with injury problems, declining defensive skills and a difficult personality on their team's roster? >>



That's the way I see it.

Sorta on topic, guess the same could be said about Leftwich, huh?

Clemaz

No need for him in the National League. The contending teams in the American League do not need a DH. Some one will come up with an injury or have a player in a slump and will pick him up before the year is over.

BassPro77

who cares!

Some one just needs to shoot him in his BIG fat head, and problems solved