Joe's Blog

I wonder if you are too dismissive of the media effect in this case, Joe. Clearly, teams from time to time decide even great players aren't worth the headache: Witness the Red Sox trade of Manny Ramirez a couple years ago. "Cowed" is an aggressive and perhaps not particularly accurate way to frame the issue. "Fed up with" was the problem in Manny's case. The corollary for Bonds might be "not worth the headache" or "worn out his welcome."

I hear you, Joe, but it seems most fans do not like Barry Bonds - and I respect baseball teams for taking to heart what their fans want. I remember being very upset a decade ago when Detroit (run by Randy Smith) traded for Juan Gonzalez. It wasn't so much the value exchanged that bothered me, it was that I was now expected to cheer for a player I didn't like.

I don't respect the teams for reacting to fans' distaste for bonds, because that distaste is unfounded.

Joe,
thank you for the article. I certainly couldn't have said it better myself.

Hank- I don't know much about lawyering, but I remember reading that when federal charges are brought that they have a high likelihood of conviction. Given the length between the charges and the trial it would seem that there was political pressure to bring charges even though they don't have much of a case. Just my guess and I could obviously be wrong, but if they have a strong case why are they taking so long?

Mike- Manny was making ~$20 million, and other teams were willing to give up prospects to pay him that amount. Bonds offered to work for the minimum. TO was a much worse teammate, IMO, and cooperation is significantly more important in football than baseball, so character/compatability concerns are more relevant. Nevertheless, he did not have a hard time finding employment when he lowered his asking price. Some teams are turned off by the character issues. However, Bonds didn't need the entire league to agree he was worth the risk, he only needed to find one team.

I for one would have prefered Bonds to Gutierrez or Hafner or Trot Nixon for the Indians in 2007...

Bonds was never considered a great teammate, and the intense amount of media distraction that accompanied him simply might have been not worth the benefit of his bat in the lineup.

I know you obviously don't believe in these things, but a lot of teams (including smart ones) do. Whether these things matter or not (or, more accurately, how much they matter, because they must somewhat) is something which hasn't been precisely proven. But it seems like there's a lot of teams that would have had huge incentives to add a bat like Bonds. And none of them did, despite, again, some of them being very smart and forward-looking teams. That tells me something.

Also, the entire article reeks of being written by a Bonds' apologist, instead of the objective analysis you claim to appreciate and want teams to employ. From the dismissal of Delgado's 2008 season--"after a terrible start", despite your constant insistence other places that we look just at final numbers and pay no attention to when they were compiled-- to your claim of a "trumped-up perjury charge" without having any real knowledge of the case or of the legal issues (you certainly don't present any evidence as to why it's "trumped up").

The last season the Pirates played winning baseball: 1992

The last season Bonds played for the Pirates: 1992

The last 30 HR hitter produced by the Pirates system: Barry Bonds (1992: 34 HRs, 39 SBs, 127 BBs, 1.080 OPS)

And Bonds was HATED in this town. Still is...

Joe really, really likes Barry Bonds. As he 'fesses up to in his second last paragraph, BECAUSE of the way he treats other human beings. In part, anyway.

Given Joe's long years here, why is this news to anyone??

Sure, most fans still wanted to see Bonds - to boo him. Generally only Giants fans cheered him. He had been with them so long, he was their beloved bad guy.

Could not agree more.

Are you reading BP? This is what I miss. Not so much the topic or even if I agree with it. This is a columist not a scientist or reporter.

He has firm opinions, sometimes agreeable sometimes crazy. He isn't afraid to say what he means. Any topic vaguely related to baseball is fair game as long as the author cares about it.

It doesn't have to be Joe I think most of the BP staff could do this if they would pull up an imaginary stool in an imaginary bar and start talking as if we were sharing the peanut bowl while watching a game.

When I read a daily column I want to see the author as someone I am confident I'd have fun agreeing to or arguing with while watching a game.

Find a columnist please I miss it.

Why do you come to BP looking for emotion-laden arguments?? For goodness' sake, that's pretty much the opposite of what they try to be about.

More blog posts from Joe please! I miss this.

Not to agree or disagree with Joe (I'll echo others in that a strongly opinionated column, regardless of how it aligns with my own opinions, is certainly missed in these parts), but we don't really know what Bonds' asking price was, do we? He was arrogant by Joe's own admission and I don't think he would have agreed to Delgado's penny contract. It's quite possible Bonds is just as much to blame as the industry.

Joe, your thoughts mirror mine exactly. I'm a lifelong Dodger fan but I still loved watching Bonds play - he was the most dominant athlete I've ever seen play in any major sport. I've been blessed to watch several great players on my teams and others - Pedro, Maddux, Piazza, Fernando - but none riveted me like Bonds. It was incredibly frustrating to see him frozen out the last few years.

It seems pretty simple to me - if my team signed Bonds, I'd be less likely to go to their games. I don't want to see my team succeed based on his efforts, and I certainly wouldn't get any joy out of booing a player on my own team. I think many fans feel the same way. It's a business, and you can't blame owners for wanting to cater to the fans.

I loved watching Bonds play. I don't think there's been an article by you that I've agreed more with. He was a phenomenal talent, and I wish I got to see him play another year or two.

The point Joe makes in the article that I think is right on target, is the commissioner's and the media's role. There's still a process for establishing guilt and it doesn't include Bud Selig's distorted value judgements. Selig and his crew are directly complicit in the tacit ok ballplayers received as they aimed for better living through chemistry. That makes the overbearing righteousness that has since emerged from his office unbearable.

The media played much the same role. Trumpeting the home runs, ignoring the rumours, then turning on many of those same ballplayers. There's lots of blame to go around but it's all being shoved in one direction.

I have a question regarding the last paragraph of the column. I get the idea that the industry was colluding in some sense not to hire Bonds--but where does the idea that it was due to being "cowed by the commissioner." Did Selig ever speak publicly on this issue, urging teams not to sign Bonds? Were there any reports at the time of Selig doing so privately?

I'm honestly asking, I don't remember from the time.

Come back Joe. BP is colorless without you.

In 1987, Dave Kingman hit 35 homers and had 94 RBI but no team offered him a contract the next year, as I recall. True, he hit .210 with a ton of Ks, but to me he's the example that first comes to mind of a guy who was offered a contract by no one, in part because he was such a jerk no one though he was worth the headache.

In Bonds' case, mention should be made of how he treated the Giants the last year, ditching the home run derby, declining to play the last several games after the team indicated it would not be offering a contract the next year, etc. And it seemed pretty clear Selig put out word that baseball did not want him back.

I don't believe the reported stories that he would have played for any offer. His agent was looking for $10 million according to other stories I read at the time. Saying he'd play for nothing was just posturing agent talk.

Amen, Joe. Nobody has given this subject nearly enough attention and Bonds has to be the most unfairly hated player in the game. He made mistakes, but nobody has achieved the same level of dominance that he has for a looong time, if ever, and the fact that he hasn't played the last three years is an absolute abomination. Excellent comparison Joe, really glad to see you writing on here again.

The owners got in big trouble for their commissioner sanctioned colluding in the late 80s. No way would they make that mistake again over Bonds. I believe each team individually decided his considerable talents were not worth the headaches, team disharmony, fan backlash, health issues, legal hassles, and all else they perceived to be his non-saleried costs.

On the remaining talent portion of the equation, I'm sure many organizations figured Bonds could no longer get away with whatever PEDs he was using and that his talents would resultantly be greatly diminished. He was, afterall, 43.

The biggest mystery of the decade to me is not that no one would give Bonds a contract, but that the Yankees chose to keep Jeter at shortstop over A-Rod.

With you 100% Joe, and I can't help but believe that somehow Selig & Co made it very clear that any team signing Bonds would pay for it dearly and for a long time. And yes, I know there's no evidence to support this. But then again, I think Bud is at least as much of a D-Bag as Barry.

In 2008 Barry Bonds was 44
In 2008 Carlos Delgado was 36

I agree that some of the hatred of Bonds is over the top, but this is also a piece of it.

I'd be reluctant to pay $8-10 Million (I'm not believing that Bonds would play for the minimum) on a player who could fall off the cliff at any time. Combine that with him being a D-bag and the negative attention that it would bring, and I'd say you could make a case that it wasn't worth the hassle.

I'm afraid I can't agree with you. Granted, he got into juicing after McGwire and Sosa did and he saw the industry hypocrisy and the media hagiography. I will grant you that he didn't start us down that path and he didn't do anything as reprehensible as Clemens did, who just breaks my heart with that underage girl thing. He didn't lie to Congress or play the fool to them to avoid trouble either.

But his use did distort the game as much as the above players' did. Juicing has serious health hazards that he was a part of promoting. Baseball is cut-throat competition and he was a part of setting an attitude that you had to cheat to survive. They promoted a culture of bad sportsmanship. He and the other juicers not only promoted an activity that endangers people, they made it more difficult for people like Frank Thomas to get their due.

And that's wrong. Frank Thomas deserves credit that he'll never get precisely because of what McGwire and Sosa and Palmeiro and Bonds injected into their bodies, let alone Pettitte and Clemens and the other pitchers.

Frank Thomas was right: there's no place in baseball for this kind of drug use.

Joe's always been entirely right about Bonds; by WARP3, he was still the very best player on the SFG roster in 2007, and the organization made a conscious choice to go without a bat rather than pay their best player a minimum salary. That's not "he took up too many lockers" - that's a decision to hang him and him alone for the supposed sins of the era.

Bonds getting escorted out the door of baseball reminds me a bit of Jose Canseco getting pushed out. Canseco was productive in his last year, but still couldn't find work after the White Sox. Of course, Canseco says he was blackballed and Canseco says a lot of weird things, but he could've been useful to some team or another. On a less controversial note, Kenny Lofton also went quietly into that good night even though he was also productive in his last season.

Maybe many fans didn't like Bonds, but I'm sure those same fans like pennants more. Bonds made the Giants a playoff team and made Dusty Baker look like a genius manager.

As a fan of the Texas Rangers, I would have loved to see Bonds here in 2008, even though the team wasn't really expecting to go anywhere.

Considering that the Rangers had 8 different players play left field and 11 different DH's (not to mention 7 different first baseman) I think there was room for a Barry Bonds in Arlington. I guess the team couldn't afford the liability insurance. After all, fans sitting out in the right field seats could have easily gotten seriously harmed by his constant battery.

as far as signing him in 09? let me say this simply. The Rangers signed Andruw Jones coming off a season where he hit .158/.256/.249 and let him DH for them. I'd take the press problems and legal problems to find a DH who could crack .550 OPS.

Good article. There are a lot of aspects to the whole Bonds' story and it's rare that we can avoid the strange visceral hate that he inspired in some people. I'm an admitted Giant fan and a Bonds' fan. When this whole story is finally looked at a little dispassionately, I am sure that it will be shown that the whole situation was very complex and very nasty. What I always found strange was that fans rarely talked about Bonds' actual talent and his performance: for example, it is very revealing to look at the pitchers he hit home runs against in his record hr season. When did we really see in depth articles about what actually happened on the field?

I was hoping the Yanks would sign Bonds in 2008, when injuries took their toll on the team (heck, I think I wanted him in the '07/'08 offseason). I figured hell, the team is hated anyway. So why not go get a productive player? With Bonds (assuming reasonably health), they might have made things closer.

He had become the boogeyman, though, so nobody would sign him. But Andy Pettitte (who I like and all...), oh he's fine. Gary Sheffield - sure! But not big bad Barry.