Baseball Musings
Baseball Musings
March 19, 2008
Helping the Union

I suspect David Forst's comments on Bonds will help the MLBPA's investigation of collusion against Barry Bonds:

Keri: Barry Bonds! Left field is probably the A's weakest position right now, depending on which way you decide to go at the start of the season. He's in the Bay Area already, the A's are a team that prides itself on performance analysis, and Bonds still projects to be a productive hitter. Is there just an industry-wide philosophy that says, "Wink, wink, we're not going to do this"?

Forst: You expect me to answer this on the record? [laughs]

Keri: On the record, off the record, whatever you want to do.

Forst: On the record, this team has committed to young players.

You can read the whole interview at ESPN.


Posted by David Pinto at 07:42 AM | Management | TrackBack (0)
Comments

How does that help collusion? His off the record answer would probably be something like "he's a proven steroid head and a huge pain in the ass and we don't need the distraction. oh yeah, he's also poisonous in the lockerroom."

Posted by: sabernar at March 19, 2008 08:15 AM

Poisonous in the locker room? I hear this all the time, yet see no evidence of it. The only quote I've seen that would support this comes from Jeff Kent, who hates (among other things) apple pie, Mother Theresa, a good backrub and puppies.

Posted by: Nor at March 19, 2008 08:19 AM

Considering the question may as well have been flat-out "Is there collusion going on?" and there is an answer that he won't give on the record, it's pretty obvious how it helps the collusion case. It wasn't phrased in the vein of "Why won't you sign Bonds?" but directly through the problem of collusion.

Posted by: dan at March 19, 2008 08:55 AM

It was phraaed as poorly as the questions to Bonds by prosecutors which have him in a perjury trial.

Posted by: rmt at March 19, 2008 10:31 AM

I expect the next move made MLB will be to investigate why no teams gave Babe Ruth a managing job in the 1930's.

Then they can merge the studies with the one they are doing with Bonds, the findings will probably be that they both were not worth the trouble they would bring with their limited skill set for the position being offered.

Posted by: Brian at March 19, 2008 10:33 AM

Thanks for the link, David.

However, I can tell you that Forst didn't say anything about collusion one way or another. I made a crack about Emil Brown and he explained that the A's were going with young talent as they attempt to rebuild. I do think the AL West is weak and winnable this season and that, say, a 1 yr/5M deal for Bonds when your starting LF is Emil Brown would be a great move for Oakland, even with a young team. But there really isn't anything sinister here. Certainly Forst never even hinted that the A's or other teams were colluding, even though I basically asked point blank if that was happening, given how many teams would be significantly better with Barry in the lineup.

Posted by: Jonah Keri at March 19, 2008 08:00 PM

Assuming this was after the investigation commenced, or was anticipated, I would think he was well-advised not to answer that.

Posted by: Crank at March 19, 2008 09:14 PM

If Bonds really wants to play, he'll pull a move like Andre Dawson did at the height of collusion in 1987: make an announcement that he'll walk into any GM's office who will have him and put his signature on a blank contract--and let the GM fill in the amount. *Someone* would sign him. He might have too much pride to do such a thing; on the other hand, the idea of putting up big numbers after having done such a thing might appeal to his ego: "F*** all of you--I'm an old man and I'm still the best f***ing hitter on your team." It's not like he needs the money--he's playing for pride and milestones now.

Posted by: M. Scott Eiland at March 19, 2008 10:30 PM

say, a 1 yr/5M deal for Bonds What in God's name would possess you to think Bonds is going to play for $5m?

Posted by: Bandit at March 20, 2008 09:03 AM

Because that's probably roughly the market for a guy who'll play 125 games tops, will be a liability or a non-entity in the field, and is stuck with a buyers market for teams, given how late in the game it is and how many of them could grab him at any moment.

Posted by: Jonah Keri at March 20, 2008 10:04 AM
Post a comment









Remember personal info?