tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5064547517730087223.post1465499496449949910..comments2024-02-17T04:00:25.925-06:00Comments on The Platoon Advantage: The Case Against Barry Bonds' Collusion CaseThe Common Manhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09994070642805307798noreply@blogger.comBlogger6125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5064547517730087223.post-57989094686747586312011-02-11T07:10:36.041-06:002011-02-11T07:10:36.041-06:00Sorry if it seemed I blew off your original argume...Sorry if it seemed I blew off your original argument Bill. I think you made some pretty good points and you certainly have me thinking about it a bit more than I had before. I had mistakenly overlooked the indictment actually, couldn't a team add a clause to void the rest of the contract if he went to trial during the season though? I could see why a team wouldn't want to do it though since you don't know if it could be in May or if it could be in September when you're gearing up for a postseason run.grafenoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5064547517730087223.post-79110853940909215662011-02-11T00:10:43.053-06:002011-02-11T00:10:43.053-06:00One thing that was inadvertently left off of the b...One thing that was inadvertently left off of the briefer reply: thanks very much for the comments and the kind words, Bill. I really appreciate it. Good discussion.Billhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07840958382433052735noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5064547517730087223.post-14181580487213172802011-02-11T00:08:34.838-06:002011-02-11T00:08:34.838-06:00Well, jeez. I spent an hour or so writing a reply,...Well, jeez. I spent an hour or so writing a reply, and the internet ate it. I'll have to be brief(er).<br /><br />The point, again, is not that the GMs were right to make the decisions they made, just that it was most likely the GMs, not the purposeful collective action of the teams as a group, making them. I agree with most of your criticisms of the decisions (but you seem to take them to awfully extreme conclusions -- it seems to me that if you don't consider the age and injury history of a 43 year old with an injury history a "detriment," for instance, you're just being incredibly irresponsible), but I don't think those criticisms get you to collusion. <br /><br />And you're overlooking the indictment. It's not a matter of a guy who is kind of a jerk coming to play for your team, it's a guy who has been indicted by a federal grand jury, and may well (the thought was then) have to go to trial <i>during the season</i>. Even if you're right that the firestorm had died down by the end of '07 (I don't remember it that way, but I could be wrong too), it would kick back up again tenfold if Bonds were on an MLB team's roster as his trial approached. It would be twice as unbearable as the worst month of Favre stories you can remember. (Big jerk! Legal stuff, possible jail time! Teh steroidz!) I can definitely see the handful of teams who might otherwise have been interested in him would decide that that kind of circus just wasn't worth it. I can even understand it, if not exactly agree with it. <br /><br />(We really are just talking a handful; remember how the Orioles were just crushed for signing Vlad? The only relevant teams (a) were plausible contenders heading into 2008 and (b) didn't have star or highly-compensated players at LF and/or DH.)<br /><br />And that's <i>much</i> more believable, to me, than all 30 teams somehow coming together and consciously deciding to shut one guy out of the game. It gets back to the questions posed in the next-to-last section of the post: how was this collusive agreement operated? And for god's sake, why? You use the lack of "mavericks" as though it proves collusion, but in order to keep those would-be mavericks in line, you're talking about a pretty complex operation in which the mavericks have either incentives or threatened punishments (and significant ones) keeping them in line that have nothing at all to do with the actual goal of the collusion (since the mavericks don't believe in that goal). This is <i>much</i> more complex than the 1987 debacle, and all to keep one guy out? Strains credibility, to me. Reminds me a little <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yw_CtUR9Lh0" rel="nofollow">of this</a>.Billhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07840958382433052735noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5064547517730087223.post-46300421038327042222011-02-10T23:00:41.738-06:002011-02-10T23:00:41.738-06:00I have to agree with Mr. Baer. There are legitimat...I have to agree with Mr. Baer. There are legitimate reasons not to sign Bonds, however like you said, the dude posted an obp at 422 if you take away his intentional walks. I could see a national league team not signing him due to various issues, but no AL teams even tried? That's a bit insane considering how much potential value he could give you with the bat, and I'm sure he'd be worth 15 million dollars even at 43 years old considering the year he was coming off of.grafenoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5064547517730087223.post-83227196575466538842011-02-10T15:20:19.035-06:002011-02-10T15:20:19.035-06:00You also cite Bonds not taking the opportunity to ...You also cite Bonds not taking the opportunity to prove himself in the Independent Leagues as a legitimate reason that teams avoided him. The Phillies recently signed Matt Anderson, who hasn't pitched in the Majors since 2005, and hasn't pitched in the Minors since '08 (and then, he threw only 17.2 innings). The difference, of course, is that Anderson signed a Minor League deal and it's likely that Bonds wanted a Major League deal (though for the minimum). But what do you think is a better risk-reward scenario: Anderson, or Bonds? Teams sign players like those two all the time. "He missed too much time" and "he hasn't played in a while" aren't suitable defenses, in my opinion.<br /><br />Later, you talk about Bonds' off-the-field concerns. I could be wrong, but I think the media circus around him died down significantly by the end of the 2007 season. There were the beat guys and some national guys doing stories, but there were no big reasons he would have a flock of 100 reporters following him around at all times, especially during May or June in the regular season. The "media circus" argument doesn't hold much weight with me, but I could be completely wrong. My memory is known to fail -- I can't remember what I had for breakfast three days ago.<br /><br />Under your "pre-season 2008" header, you list various reasons teams would avoid Bonds. I'm not going to go through those individually. Overall, your reasons by and large have merit. But <i>no one</i> even placed a phone call. It's one thing to find a spot on the 25-man roster for him and draft a contract and fit him into the budget; it's another thing to pick up the phone and just get a feel for where the guy is at. No one did that (again, unless my memory totally deceives me).<br /><br />Perhaps my cynicism is clouding my judgment somewhat, but I just have a hard time believing that there was not one team out of 30 that could have afforded to offer him a one-year contract for the Major League minimum -- especially when you consider some of the players that are being brought back after long hiatuses (hiati?). Bartolo Colon? Really? (Again, Minor League deal, but still.)<br /><br />Although I disagree on some points, I really enjoyed reading your post and am honored you thought enough of what I wrote to devote 4,000+ words to a response. I look forward to hearing your thoughts on my thoughts on your thoughts on my thoughts.Bill Baerhttp://crashburnalley.com/noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5064547517730087223.post-22375522100387542662011-02-10T15:20:03.902-06:002011-02-10T15:20:03.902-06:00Hey Bill, I think it's awesome that you took t...Hey Bill, I think it's awesome that you took the time to respond to my argument. This is actually the first time I've read a legitimate defense of not signing Barry Bonds.<br /><br />However, I do disagree with some of your arguments.<br /><br />First, you seem to just bring up Bonds' age and history, as everyone else does, as an immediate detriment. Even ignoring his amazing 1.045 OPS in 2007, he came to the plate 477 times and played in 126 games, more than even a good amount of 30-year-olds can say -- and Bonds was 43! But, yeah, he posted a 1.045 OPS. I don't care how old you are, if I'm a GM and you're that productive, I am doing my team and my paying customers a huge disservice if I don't even pick up the phone to kick the tires.<br /><br />I had a problem with this "immediately deducting points for age and injury probability" a little while ago when people were writing doomsday scenarios about the Phillies' starting rotation. Did Bonds miss most of the 2005 season? Yes, absolutely. Do aging, injury-prone players present a risk? Yes, absolutely. But Bonds was not an aging, injury-prone player; he was one of the best hitters (arguably the best) in baseball -- <i>still</i>. Additionally, being 43 with a previous injury history does not mean that you <i>will</i> get injured. Teams take that risk every year and no one has come up with a reliable way to avoid the high-risk players with a good success rate.<br /><br />That Bonds, one of the best hitters in baseball, did not receive so much as one phone call is <i>extremely</i> fishy. Like you said, all it takes is one maverick. There were no such mavericks. And whether people care to admit it or not, Bonds provided an upgrade somewhere to just about every team, particularly every American League team due to the DH.<br /><br />Owners and GM's basically have two defenses in not even speaking to Bonds that off-season, and neither of them are good: 1) they were colluding to keep him out of baseball; or 2) they were not making moves that were in the best interest of their teams. Personally, I find #2 very hard to believe because of the additional attention and fans that his presence would bring. Philadelphia hated Bonds -- they had the "Ruth did it on hot dogs and beer" sign, after all -- but sold out (or nearly sold out) when he came to town (nearly 40,000 when he hit #713 off of Jon Lieber -- I was there!). Do you think they would pass up an easy opportunity to make more money? Maybe I'm just super cynical (I am), but I don't believe owners and GM's will leave free money on the table on their own accord.<br /><br />(Continued in next comment)Bill Baerhttp://crashburnalley.com/noreply@blogger.com