Barry Bonds remains unemployed.

Is it collusion?

Personally, I think it is precisely that. Let’s look at what we know:

Bud Selig does not like Barry Bonds--anyone that watched Selig’s reaction to Bonds’ 755th home run and his stoic round of pocket pool (beat himself in lamentation?) wearing the expression of a man that just swallowed curdled Milk of Magnesia could tell that. He counts Hank Aaron as a friend and Bonds is a larger-than-life reminder of his massive failure that led to the steroid era.

Selig knows all about collusion. During the free agent boycotts of 1986-1988 under Peter Ueberroth, Selig was described as a “leading proselytiser” of the movement. Now he holds the highest management post in MLB. Therefore, now Selig has the means (being commissioner), motive (revenge for breaking Aaron’s record and being a visible reminder of his own failure in addressing PED) and opportunity (Bonds being a free agent, 43 years old and with legal difficulties). As we just mentioned, he also has knowledge about how to pull it off.

Of course, the biggest obstacle is the current lack of a smoking gun. Just because one does not exist at the moment does not mean that one does not exist--it just means it hasn’t been identified. During Collusion I, II and III smoking guns were right under peoples’ noses--they just weren’t recognized as such.

For example, during collusion there were code words for what they were doing--high sounding phrases that hid an illegal activity. Obviously a smart executive exercises “fiscal responsibility,” “financial restraint,” and being “a good partner” within their industry. From 1986-88 they had an entirely different meaning. There may be like code words being used right now to remind teams to avoid Bonds. How often have we heard about how important it is ‘to learn from the past and move on,’ ‘to put it in the past,’ and ‘it’s time to move on’?

Are these code words for ‘stay away from Barry’-- the poster child of the PED era and baseball? Further, Peter Ueberroth never out and out forbade teams to sign free agents. He did tell the owners that if they were going to sign a player (or offer a 3+ year contract to a player on their roster) they had to see him eyeball-to-eyeball to tell him they were going to do it and be prepared to explain the economic rationale behind it.

Selig heard these things directly from Ueberroth himself.

Is it too hard to comprehend that there may be an unwritten edict where Selig in effect has told the other owners ‘You’re free to sign Barry Bonds as you are any free agent. However, this is a very sensitive issue due to Bonds’ legal status and public sentiment. The public looks to us to set the right example regarding drugs and sport and it is important that we move on from this unfortunate period in our history and put it behind us. All I ask is this--if you’re seriously considering signing Bonds please come and tell it to my face and explain why you feel your team and the public trust are benefited by doing so’?

The thing is, we hear so much about ‘Moneyball’ and exploiting ‘market inefficiencies’ be it OBP, defense etc. Well, Bonds is a market inefficiency--he is likely good for 25-30 HR and a .260/.400/.500 line. As a left-handed batter, it’s so much the better. Further, has there ever been such an untouched prodigious talent left in the marketplace before? Let’s look at some of the common reasons used to avoid Bonds:

He’s old and could fall off a cliff.

A team would only need to offer a one-year deal. He costs only money--the Mets gave up young talent and major long-term money to obtain the services of Johan Santana. Bonds is a one-year risk--the same risk that any player has--that his talent might disappear due to age, injury or other circumstances.

He’d be a distraction in the clubhouse.

Any more of a distraction than Gary Sheffield’s annual whine about his contract status and lack of respect in the past present and future? A bigger distraction than any number of players that have used PED in the last few years? A bigger distraction than A-Rod’s peccadilloes, his agent, his contract, or any number of issues that swirl around Rodriguez? Albert Belle was a bigger horse’s caboose than Bonds yet twice he landed close to the biggest contract in baseball.

We could lose him at any time to legal problems.

Minimal chance of this--he won’t go to trial until 2009 most likely … if at all.

He’s an injury risk.

You mean like J.D, Drew who opted out of his contract during the previous offseason and inked a five year contract?

It’s funny, the last time a sociopathic sort was left out in the cold was the equally disagreeable Dave Kingman. In his last season, he finished second in the AL in 35 HR along with 94 RBI. Sure, we know now that his league adjusted numbers weren’t so hot but back in 1986 those home runs and RBI were what most folks would focus on.

Of course, it was during the original collusion.

Now don’t get me wrong--Bonds has to shoulder his considerable share of the blame for his current circumstances. He had 22 years in the major leagues where he had the opportunity to accrue goodwill with front office personnel, other players, the media etc. He spent that time reminding them that he was Barry Bonds they were not. It is noteworthy that very few players are standing up and stating that they would love to have Barry’s big left handed bat in their lineup.

The thing is, Bonds could have made allies in the game and he put himself, not only above the game, but above his union brethren and fellow players as well. Awhile back, I wrote in an older post…

Which brings us to Barry Bonds’ current situation; I like to say about such things ‘that muffled, thudding noise you hear is Darwin turning over in his grave.’ Bonds’ story is a familiar one--a man brought down by hubris. It never fails, no matter how many celebrities crash and burn due to their own arrogance or stupidity, nobody seems to learn from other’s mistakes. Bonds felt he was bullet-proof, invincible since so many interests were protecting him.

What he failed to realize it that invincibility is temporary, it lasts only as long as the person has value to those protecting him. Once the value is gone, so is the protection. Time and again, the next person down the pipe thinks that inevitability will escape them, that they are somehow immune to what happens to everyone in a position of prominence. They burn bridges on the way up never imagining that one day they’ll have to return the same way they came. When that day arrives, they discover that those people are still there, they have long memories and now it’s time for some payback.

This whole saga isn’t about anabolic steroids, or perjury, or baseball’s integrity. It is about a prominent man who behaved like a total butthole towards those he considered beneath him. Due to his stratospheric athletic ability, folks looked the other way, ate his feces and called it pralines and cream because he made people money. Now Barry Bonds holds the all-time home record and if he plays again it will be as a DH. His ability to make others coin is largely diminished. He’ll be too old to play soon and he has zero value as a celebrity pitchman due to his cantankerous personality.

Since he can’t make folks money--why protect the guy? The media is out using keyboards and modems in place of torches and pitchforks, ink and paper instead of tar and feathers eager to see the guy burn and suddenly Bonds discovers just how vulnerable he has become.

However, in time, the lessons learned from the saga of Barry Bonds will be forgotten. There will be other stars on the scene who will behave as Bonds did never thinking the ride will end and we’ll be doing this all over again. Will we ever learn?

Do you hear that muffled, thudding noise now?

Best Regards

John