Father Time, Not Collusion, In Bonds' Way

By GWEN KNAPP,
AOL
Posted: 2008-05-10 09:56:24
Filed Under: MLB
Sports Commentary

If Barry Bonds' unemployment is truly an outrage, worthy of a union investigation and endless media consternation, where is the campaign to put Jessica Lange on the cover of Maxim? At 59, she's not in her "Tootsie" prime, but Bonds isn't the base-stealing Gold Glover of yore, either.


He is an athletic senior citizen, 43 years old and less than three months from turning 44. Does it really take a conspiracy to keep him out of uniform?

MLB owners have been caught illegally colluding in the past, most notably in the mid-1980s, when they had to pay $280 million in damages for agreeing to suppress free agent salaries rather than compete for talent in an open market. They had something real to gain with that conspiracy, a cash benefit.

Blacklisting Bonds wouldn't put money in anyone's pocket. What it would accomplish, in theory, is removing the face of the steroid era from baseball's family portrait. A lot of Bonds sympathizers believe that is exactly why he has been shut out of the game.

So why did the people making his case drag other allegedly shunned forty-somethings into the debate? If this is about an under-the-table ban on prominent players connected to steroids, why bring up Kenny Lofton and David Wells, who didn't even make cameo appearances in the Mitchell Report?

If, on the other hand, this is an age-discrimination issue, let's throw Sandy Koufax into the mix. He looked fabulous at the Dodgers' opening-day festivities last month, fitter than Wells has ever dreamed of being. So what if he's 72? People are desperate for left-handed pitching, and the injury problems that forced Koufax out of the game at 30 are probably cleared up by now.

Give him a few months with the kind of personal trainers who kept Bonds and Roger Clemens going for so long, hope that none of those pesky federal agents pays attention, and we have a miracle -- the end of ageism in pro sports.

Does that sound ridiculous? So do Bonds' advocates when they say they're mystified by his failure to find work.

I can't argue that the owners would never illicitly band together to keep him out of the game. But if the only deterrent to signing Bonds is an underground pact, then the owners must have to hold conference calls every day to remind each other not to stick their fingers in electric sockets.

The case in favor of bringing Bonds back is full of holes. His combined on-base and slugging percentage of 1.045 -- third-highest in the majors -- is the biggest piece of evidence on his side. The assumption that he could approach that number this year ignores the fact that the figure was grossly inflated by 132 walks in 126 games. For most of the season, neither he nor the Giants were playing real baseball. They were on a magical history tour.


The rest of the lineup was so listless that pitching to Bonds as he advanced on Hank Aaron's record made no sense at all. That wouldn't be the case if he played this year. A weak, rebuilding team has no use for him or any other one-dimensional fossil. A contender will put him in a lineup where he'll be forced to swing the bat. Seeing more strikes might pump up his batting average. So could being a DH, which would eliminate the fatigue of playing the field. But I wouldn't bet on it.

Bonds has gotten used to teams coming at him in very direct ways, even if they were pitching around him. He didn't walk all those times just by being selective. Opponents telegraphed what they had in mind for him, sometimes on the first pitch of the game. It wasn't that hard to figure out who would challenge him, and who wouldn't.

In 2008, with a decent team around him, he'll have to deal with artful pitching, with people who are trying to do more than either just get him out of the way or prove that they're man enough to throw a potentially history-altering strike.

Granted, he still might be a valuable hitter, but he could also pull up lame, as he did for virtually all of 2005. Which moves us from his advocates' best argument to their most ludicrous.

How many people have made the point that Bonds will now work for cheap? Until Bonds' signature is on a contract worth less than $5 million, don't believe it. And even at $5 million, his knees make him a substantial financial risk.

In mid-July, when he's still unsigned, he might see that as a good deal. For now, he has to be thinking that if Clemens could get a $28 million prorated contract from the Yankees last year, he's worth at least half that much. (OK, let's be honest: He thinks he's worth more.)

Anyone who thinks otherwise is using common sense, which doesn't apply to people who have made more than $15 million annually. They are uncommon. They don't think like the rest of us.

When Bonds was at a public appearance last October, complaining that the Giants had fired him, one of his fans asked whether he would consider coming back for a lot less money. He ducked the question. He did regale the crowd with stories about his youth, including his first day of high school football, when he told the coach that since he was the fastest kid in school, he would decide how a play should be run.

Bonds was still three weeks away from being indicted on federal perjury charges. Even then, I knew he wasn't going to play this year unless some team got really, really desperate.

He has always been more of a niche product than a hot commodity, immensely valuable to the indulgent Giants, of limited value to anyone trying to run a team properly. This shunning is hardly unique. Back in 1984, when he was a young stud at Arizona State, he didn't make the Olympic team. He was probably the best amateur in the sport, and baseball was trying to state its case for a full-time slot in the Summer Games. People said he was unmanageable.

In 2001, after he hit 73 home runs to break the single-season record, the Giants essentially bid against themselves to keep him. In the 2006 offseason, with Aaron's record looming, no one else was seriously interested. The Giants again overpaid, because they were afraid of insulting him.

Should his personality count so harshly against him? If he were 35, with the same stats from a year ago, it wouldn't.

But he's not 35, just as he's not Frank Thomas, who despite injury problems and an encroaching 40th birthday got a new gig with the Oakland A's -- one of the teams that have been criticized for not going after the all-time home-run king. Thomas signed for peanuts and returned to a clubhouse where he functioned as a genuine leader in 2006, emotionally as well as physically.

Bonds didn't contribute leadership. He provided a deficit of it, but his staggering skill more than made up the difference. He can still play, just not well enough to compensate for being 43, unable to play the field, under indictment and, above all, who he is.

Gwen Knapp is a sports columnist at the San Francisco Chronicle.

2008 AOL LLC. All Rights Reserved.
2008-05-09 10:19:04
Bookmark:

Recent Comments

1 - 10 of 39
39 comments

salesplussue 03:08:31 PM May 18 2008

This shouldn't be a race discussion by any means. Performance enhancing drugs are equal-opportunity substances which work for one and all - just ask Barry Bonds or Roger Clemens. As far as molesting someone, what exactly does that have to do with Barry Bonds not getting a contract this year?

nancyw1971 06:19:49 PM May 17 2008

white people screw up everything they come in contact with leave barry alone.do what you do best go molest someone.

jeff4cardinals 05:14:00 PM May 17 2008

Report This! nyy ... another Barry hater. You have no idea how many of your hero's took PED's and since steroids were legal between 1950's and 1992 you have no idea who of your hero's used them legally much less how many are still using them. Your whining BS spin about Ruth and Williams as being better shows your head is up your keaster ... You have no idea how pure they were or where they would sit with todays bigger stronger faster athletes. You have no idea if Barry used and what he used ... you have bought into media BS spin as fact. You and Bob Costas need to go find a dark room and have your affair together ... whining people with God complexes need to get a clue!

reikilight GIVE ME A BREAK, IF YOU DO NOT THINK BONDS DID STEROIDS YOU ARE EITHER THE STUPIDEST PERSON IN THE WORLD OR DID TOO MUCH LSD AS A CHILD. THERE IS NO MEDIA SPIN, THAT ARROGANT JERK ALONG WITH CLEMENS(that's right make it equal, no racism) RUINED THE GAME. HEY MORON, ANY IDIOT OUT THERE LIKE YOU JUST ANSWER TH

patmccrary37 07:42:06 PM May 16 2008

Why must the Bonds situation deteriorate into a discussion of race and racism ? The fact that he is 43 years old, under indictment, an apparently abhorrent personality-and- perhaps most importantly, not interested in signing for less than five million dollars, are nonspeculative issues. Racism, on the other hand, is anything but. Owners and GMs throughout baseball are weighing these factors against his obvious ablility to greatly enhance any lineup's production.

patmccrary37 07:35:41 PM May 16 2008

If healthy, Barry Bonds would almost certainly be an immensely valuable addition to an AL team as a DH. His track record as an unpleasant, arrogant prima donna is quite proven, as is the unassailable quality of his offensive production. It's hard to believe that a team interested in winning a pennant wouldn't be able to tolerate his noxious demeanor and the increased media scrutiny incumbent upon a team that employs him.

rptuckhom 08:11:18 AM May 16 2008

hope no one signs this scumbag!

vislonary 03:08:00 PM May 14 2008

Negroes and other non-whites don't belong in baseball, period.

Blame Jackie Robinson for this whole mess, he's the one that started it.

stilleaglesfan 07:35:23 AM May 13 2008

Gwen, male or female. Please tell us

celmayster 12:29:40 PM May 12 2008

Bottom line - Too much baggage and garbage!! Clubs dont want the B.S. the bad Press and the financial stress. If he would sign for a $million, loose his primadonna attitude, be one of the team and not the team, perhaps some team would take a flyer on him.

rcott1019 09:12:26 AM May 12 2008

What Bonds accomplished was amazing, regardless of the controversy. He should just hang it up and quit the collusion nonsense. If I were a GM I wouldn't take him on, either. Too much money and too much distraction with the media stalking the clubhouse all the time. I'd want my players playing ball and using the time in the clubhouse for preparing for games and unwinding afterward. The income Bonds would generate in ticket sales wouldn't come close to the cost in the disruption to the organization.

1 - 10 of 39
39 comments

Add your own Comments