February 01, 2007
Confused About Bonds
Barry Bonds remains unsigned as of the latest news out of San Francisco. This whole deal is turning into a train wreck. The Giants sent him a new contract after making changes to please the commissioner's office, but:
Borris, without elaborating, told the Associated Press on Wednesday, "At this time, Barry is not signing the new documents."
Secondly, Borris doesn't believe the indictment language in the orginial contract is enforceable:
Meantime, Borris insists a provision that would allow the Giants to terminate the contract if Bonds is indicted in the BALCO steroids case isn't enforceable, though Borris agreed to include the provision in the contract. Borris said the collective bargaining agreement supersedes the "Giants' unilateral assertions."
So why sign that contract in the first place? Does this mean Bonds doesn't intend to stand by a written agreement, or just that the union will break the deal if the Giants try to enforce the agreement? I'm so confused right now.
And does the CBA even apply to Bonds? I thought he withdrew from the Players Union to control all his own rights.
The MLBPA and the collective bargaining agreement still apply to Bonds. He withdrew himself from the MLBPA licensing pool so he can demand more money from video games and the like. The labor agreement provisions still apply. Bonds probably inked the first agreement with the clause because the union would challenge it on principle as a material alteration that is inconsistent with the general terms of the collective bargaining agreement. Bonds signed it because he and his agent likely believe that it is unenforceable and a cost free "consession" in the contract negotiations. The Giants front office probably realized that but did it to look good in front of the public. I don't think either side thought the commissioner's office was going to kill it and that's the real monkey wrench...
Yeah, it's a confusing situation for sure. First he's signed...then he's not...then the deal is finialized...then it's not.
Giants shouldn't have signed Bonds in the first place especially for almost $16 million. Bonds would have taken less if forced to just so he can have the chance to pass Hank Aaron because not many teams would want Bonds and his massive ego in their clubhouse.
Perhaps Barry intended to amend the agreement with a Bush-style 'signing statement'. After all, Barry's been the Giants' Decider for quite some time already.
Barry doesn't have many options. It's not like teams are knocking down his door to sign him. And that's one bad lawyer if he advised his client to sign the k and then realizes that a provision is not enforceable.
To whit, shouldn't both sides have realized what the commish's office will and will not accept as an enforceable k? Don't they have interns to research such things?