Assessing a Potential Barry Bonds Grievance | FanGraphs Baseball

I agree with this assessment 100%. I think they did collude in a wink, wink nod, nod kind of way. Not enough concrete evidence will see the light of day, the owners aren't that stupid. I don't see what is to gain by Bonds and Co. but then again, I didn't think their appeal would get that far either, so I have been wrong in the past. It will give his enemies in the media renewed ammunition against him, as if they really needed it.

It might have been best to just let it go. LET IT GO, MAN!!!

BTW - Same advice to Josh Hamilton re: his recent divorce from the Angels.

from FanGraphs Baseball:
Assessing a Potential Barry Bonds Grievance | FanGraphs Baseball:

Barring a smoking gun document clearly showing that the MLB clubs had colluded, however, it is uncertain whether circumstantial evidence alone would be enough to convince an arbitrator to rule in Bonds’ favor. Indeed, MLB will undoubtedly contend that its teams had ample reason to each independently decide not to offer Bonds a contract for the 2008 season. Not only had Bonds earned a reputation for being a difficult teammate and a suspected PED user, but he was also entering his age-44 season, and therefore presented a significant risk for a steep decline. In addition, Bonds would have been playing under a cloud of legal troubles in 2008, after being charged in November 2007 with 14 counts of perjury and obstruction of justice (a case that – at the time – was expected to go to trial in early 2009). 

Moreover, as Rob Neyer pointed out last week, only a handful of teams were a logical fit for Bonds at the time. Because his defense had declined significantly by 2008, Bonds’ most natural role at that point would have been as a designated hitter. However, all but 5 or 6 American League teams already had a competent DH on their roster during the 2007-08 off-season. And while it is true that the fact that none of those 5 or 6 teams in need of an upgrade at DH were willing to sign Bonds – even at the league minimum salary – could suggest that there was some sort of collusion taking place, it is also plausible that such a relatively small number of teams did, in fact, each independently decide that signing Bonds wasn’t worth the potential headaches. So given all that, MLB can credibly argue that its teams did not engage in collusion.

'via Blog this'