legalasice.com

Apparently the lack of interest in signing 43-year-old Barry Bonds has roused the attention of the MLB Players Association. This is not to say that some special action will be taken by the organization since it reviews the free-agent market every year. Still the fact that the man who has hit more home runs than anyone else is ready, willing and jobless merits comment.

Bonds is renowned for his prowess at the plate but also for his supersized body which has spurred many steroid-related allegations. Teams don’t want to be involved in a mess a potentially distracting as one of the two most famous (or infamous) players accused of steroid usage (Roger Clemens being the other). Bonds’ indictment only compounds the level of distraction that his mere presence would cause.

Furthermore, Bonds also has a supersized ego. It has brought him into conflict with reporters and teammates alike. When trying to build a ballclub that can work well and hard together, a prima donna is a remarkably counterproductive addition.

Lastly, and most importantly, there is an economic decision that a GM must make when considering acquiring a player: is the player’s potential output worth the money it would take to sign him? A middle-aged Bonds was still reasonably productive last year, hitting .276 with 26 home runs and 66 RBI. But he cost the Giants 19.3 million dollars for that stat line and he only had about 270 plate appearances (a player able to play all season can amass more than 650) due to his fragile aging body. It’s also fair to point out that .276 was only seven points above the major league average of .269 last year, hardly all-star material. And there’s no chance a guy like Bonds is going to sign for much less than he has in the past. No one can afford to pay the salary of superstar to a guy who’s only going to offer slightly better than average stats. It just doesn’t make sense.

Some people might consider that Bonds is a draw at the gate which might provide extra revenue to a team struggling to fill their stadium seats. But does any team really want to endure the circus-like environment that comes with Bonds? And couldn’t his arrival be seen as a hollow publicity stunt by a team like the Rays who are legitimately retooling and developing young talent for a run at the AL East? In that case it could hurt the team in the long run in its credibility with fans. There is no guarantee that Bonds would drive up attendance numbers but an experiment involving him would cost a club tens of millions of dollars.

That’s what you call a bad bet.

If you thought losing a seven-game lead with 17 games to go hurt, try heading back to spring training the next year. The Mets are discovering daily that getting in shape for the season can be a painful proposition.

They’ve accumulated a long list of injured or inactive players. Here is a list of notable players who are still nursing ailments:

1. Alou
2. Beltran
3. Delgado
4. Schneider
5. Church
6. Anderson
7. Gotay
8. Easley
9. Hernandez
10. Sanchez
11. Castillo

It’s luck for the Metropolitans that the season is still a few weeks away because this is a talented list of players. Their depleted squad sure as heck wouldn’t have an 8-4 record if they were facing major league-caliber opposition.

But how do you get ready for the regular season when a substantial portion of your ballclub can’t participate in exhibition games? That’s the quandary facing the Mets right now and some New York-based sportscasters are already discussing the idea that the Mets might start “slow” out of the gate (“slow” being a sports euphemism for lousy).

In general it’s too early to sound the alarm. Not a single meaningful game has been played yet. But after obtaining the best pitcher in the game, Johan Santana, in an effort to erase the embarrassment of last year, this under-performing Mets squad doesn’t need any extra pressure.

Just don’t give in and pick up Barry Bonds as Buster Olney has advocated. There couldn’t be a more expensive or distracting liability.

On Friday, Barry Bonds’ grand jury testimony from 2003 was unsealed by order of the judge in his perjury and obstruction of justice case. The big news, according to ESPN.com, is that the testimony revealed a previously unknown positive test for steroids.

After reading through the document, I was struck by the attitude Bonds took towards his embattled former trainer Greg Anderson. Bonds describes in vague terms how he and Anderson, who had been childhood friends, reconnected in 1998 after decades apart. Here is Bonds’ account of why he decided to ditch his former trainer in favor of Anderson:

And I like Greg’s philosophy. Because my other trainer was, like: You do three sets of legs, three sets of this, three – you know. And Greg is more: 16 sets of chest, more biceps, to really maximize and expand your muscle. And I liked that philosophy. And I admitted that.

And I just believe people are experts in their – you know, in each of their fields. I have a running coach, I have a stretch and flexibility coach, I have a strengthening coach. I just believe people are experts in their field, and there’s not a one shop stop, that’s all.

From p. 16 of the Bonds Testimony

Am I supposed to believe that Barry Bonds had a personal trainer who didn’t push him physically? All it took for Anderson to add Bonds to his client roster was to tell him to do more reps? Seems a little suspicious. But Bonds is known for being moody and mercurial so it’s not hard to imagine a scenario in which he simply grew tired of his old trainer.

Stranger is the picture Bonds paints of his trusting ways. As the case now stands, his defense is essentially that he never knowingly took performance-enhancing drugs despite having tested positive for them on two occasions. In essence, this position relies on the idea that Greg Anderson or one of his associates administered these drugs without Barry’s knowledge—a stretch to say the least. The notion that Bonds “just believe[s] people are experts in…each of their fields,” helps explain why he could be so easily taken advantage of by Anderson, but the gullibility it implies is hard to buy, especially for a man with a famously prickly demeanor.

Where have I heard sentiment like this before? From Roger Clemens, of course.

During the contentious session on Capitol Hill, Clemens was asked to explain how he could have fallen into associating with a fellow like McNamee who held himself out as a doctor after having earned a Ph.D. from a diploma mill. USA Today credits Clemens with this response: “I’m a forgiving man he told me he had a Ph.D.” Roger just trusts McNamee on his word? This isn’t some incidental business; this is the task of maintaining a professional athlete’s most important asset, his body. Someone of Roger Clemens’ experience and expertise should have known better. Could he really have been that foolish?

Clemens’ evident lack of judgment is something I’ve heard called into question in various ways over the past few weeks. David Kaplan of WGN Radio in Chicago in an interview with Todd Hollandsworth brought up another good question:

What bothers me about this whole Clemens thing is here’s a guy who had to have earned $150 million. What is he doing having his—this isn’t the trainer of the club or the team doctor, it’s a guy, who he’s helping lift weights with, injecting him. What’s he thinking?

Even if McNamee only injected B12 and lidocaine into Clemens, as the pitcher contends, why would he have let someone without medical training inject him with anything? It wasn’t like he couldn’t afford to see a doctor.

Could all this performance-enhancing drugs hullabaloo really be caused by naïve, trusting athletes?

How trusting are we willing to be?