Collusion vs. Deep Throat...

Probably the biggest hang up folks have in wrapping their minds around a possible collusion of Barry Bonds is the very logical, honest truism of Deep Throat’s “follow the money.” I mean, baseball owners and their $18 million a year commissioner are as money-grubbing as it gets and signing superstar players and winning games, pennant races and playoff series translates into the happy music made by cash registers (or the melodious beep of debit card machines or the seductive swish of the credit card) ergo it raises the question--why would teams jeopardize the revenue that could be potentially generated by signing ol’ Barry L. Zebonds by participating in a collusive blacklisting of Mr. Sunshine and Happiness?

What has to be borne in mind is that money rarely takes a linear path. Bud Selig is a politician and as one he accumulates a lot of political capital through a number of means by getting clubs indebted to him. For example: The Toronto Blue Jays received equalization payments when the Canadian dollar was low and doubtlessly are hoping for more--because of that money they’re going to do Selig’s bidding. In the last decade (or so), he’s gone to bat for a large number of franchises to line up public money for stadium construction, he got the Red Sox and Marlins into his back pocket by engineering the sales of those teams (to the second-highest bidder in the case of the Sawx) and providing loans to the Fish (that became outright cash grants), choosing the group to get the Expos in D.C. (plus the $600+ million stadium there).

Bud is the great dispenser of goodies and because of this clubs could find that it is more financially prudent to stay on the good side of Selig for years to come rather than enjoy the short term benefits of employing you know who. You just never know whether the commissioner’s office will approve a trade that involves a large shift of cash from one team to the other to cover a Boras-inspired impulse purchase contract of which a club is desperately trying to divest itself … sometimes it’s wise to hedge your best and strongly consider any “informal recommendations” made by the man in charge.

For all his faults, Selig is very good at working a room and building up a reserve of goodwill and favour among the cartel. He has accumulated a lot of capital among the clubs (only a small fraction ever becomes public knowledge) and he has the chits to call in--having discretionary control over the Central Fund doesn’t hurt either.

As to Selig, never forget that Bonds is a symbol and think of precisely what he symbolizes to Selig: his failure to address steroids, his friend losing the home run record (I mean, did anyone think in 2001--even after his 73 HR season when he was at 567 HR that he'd hang around long enough to hit almost 200 more? I did my first out and out “players are unquestionably on steroids” column that year and I didn’t think that BLB was a threat to Hank Aaron) having probably never imagined that his lack of diligence would cost “The Hammer” the crown. He wishes to be remembered as the commissioner that rid the sport of steroids and not the one that allowed it to become entrenched--Bonds was a living breathing indictment of Selig’s failure and true legacy and watching his reaction after HR 755 cleared the fence spoke volumes.

It’s personal for Selig and he had accumulated enough clout, political capital and chits owed to indulge his feelings. On a more practical level it also allows him to posture for Congress and how would it look if the poster boy for steroids in baseball was allowed to put the record further out of reach? If the feds became even more involved in the issue it might bring a level of testing and penalties to the sport that would (1) out the ineffectiveness of the current program--Selig’s pride and joy and (2) those severe penalties and more comprehensive testing costing the sport ticket-selling level players and the revenues they provide.

He needs the sport to look steroid-free (as possible) while it was still a hot news item and focus of government attention--for both for his legacy and maintaining the profitable status quo, Bonds is a convenient scapegoat: remove the symbol and the “scourge” follows in the public and media’s eye. He knows the fourth estate will fall in step because of its dislike of ol’ Pumpkinhead and the public image is--get rid of Bonds and you’ve rid the sport of steroids. Just check out the feedback section on articles dealing with Bonds and various message boards--Bonds “is” steroids and as such needed to be exorcised…the media provided necessary “cover fire” for any collusion to take place assuring one and all that “common sense” was simply prevailing as it had in the 1980’s collusion.

This is what makes me think Don Fehr does having something that will prove Bonds was blacklisted--he’s going against popular opinion. Does anybody really miss Bonds among the players, clubs and large segments of the fan base? I don’t miss him, my take on all this is far, far more anti-Selig (just check how many times I have blasted him) than pro-Bonds and I think the whole collusion issue is simply another manifestation of Selig’s attempts to rewrite the history of the steroid era in his favour and if I accomplish nothing else in my writing career I will do my level best to make sure folks know that it was an institutional failure and not just a handful of ‘greedy, self absorbed players with a sense of entitlement.’

That is why I have written so much about it--it has little to do with Bonds for myself personally.

Getting back to Fehr, Bonds pulled out of the union’s licensing program and make no mistake--both he and Gene Orza were livid at him for so doing. Unless he has something significant he wouldn’t even bother with the issue since he’s not on a major league roster (unlike John Rocker back in the day)--Fehr is a cautious man and never moves unless he’s sure the ground is solid under his feet. He has told players in the past that wanted to file a grievance that they had no case (such as Dan Quisenberry‘s release from the Royals back in the 1980‘s) and if Barry Lamar didn’t have a case, I can’t envision a scenario where he’d bother wasting any time on a player nobody really misses and flipped off the MLBPA in effect saying “Who needs you? I’m Barry Bonds and you’re not!”

Another misconception about any possible collusive activity is that all 30 clubs have to be involved. According to the collective bargaining agreement it is simply not the case that all teams need to be involved for a charge of collusion…four or five would be enough; Selig wouldn’t need to worry about every club--the Giants already let him go, not every team had a hole in LF/DH, other teams are known for not making big signings (Royals, Twins, Pittsburgh, Cincinnati and before C.C. Sabathia--the Brewers) so Selig only would have to worry about a minority of clubs yet enough for a collusion charge to be filed.

It’s not crazy for them to understand where their financial best interests lie--one year of Bonds vs. staying on Selig’s good side…especially when they know how strong his feelings are on the matter.

An easy choice--especially if you’re not a club that prints money.

Bottom line, a team can both agree to a conspiracy regarding a player while simultaneously “following the money.”

More Bond-age

People still hate Barry Bonds (SMSN Sports)

Plus, I’ve done a satirical article on the whole Bonds saga for THT that will hopefully run this week. My favourite part is always when the Bonds-haters respond to the article on Ball Hype with a comment that states: “It‘s not funny--it‘s just not” or “You tried to be funny and you failed” or something to that effect. For the folks that truly despise BLB and believe unconditionally everything that is written about him--well, I find it irresistible not to tweak them a little; I mean, they take it so seriously. One person wrote on Ball-Hype that my collusion articles drove him from even visiting THT--think about it, remove me from the equation and THT is a tremendous resource with a cadre of talented writers but this person deprives himself (or claims to) of all that because he despises Bonds so much that he cannot bear to visit a site where there might be something that doesn’t involve venom, vitriol and blanket condemnation of the man.

He’s never met Bonds and likely never will but he allows that hatred to literally impact his personal life; that my friends is why you should never believe everything the media says about anyone or anything--they will make you act crazy.

As to his “ban” of THT--who is he hurting? Me? I’m completely unrepentant and if anything it stiffens my resolve to cover unpopular subjects and provide counterpoint to what is written in the MSM. Bonds? Chances are good that he’d simply laugh at the very notion--the only person affected or harmed is himself.

There is a lesson to be learned from that.

Best Regards

John