Sports and the Law: Are Baseball Teams Colluding Against Barry Bonds?
Last season, Barry Bonds, Major League Baseball’s all-time home run king, batted .276 with 28 home runs and 75 runs scored. Bonds also reached base 48 percent of the time—the best in all of baseball.
This season, however, Bonds is unemployed. The San Francisco Giants, his former team, prefer to play journeymen outfielders Dave Roberts and Rajai Davis. The Washington Nationals, meanwhile, seem to prefer outfielder Elijah Dukes, who has nearly as many lifetime arrests (6) as Major League home runs (10). Stranger still, the New York Mets claim to be content beginning the season with Ryan Church, Angel Pagan and Endy Chavez playing their corner outfield positions. Last season, the Church/Pagan/Chavez combo had 438 more at bats than Bonds, yet combined for eight fewer home runs, not to mention a lower combined batting average.
Bonds recently told the media that he is “working out” and “training,” in hopes of playing for some team this season. With recent notification that prosecutors must revise their perjury indictment against him, Bonds for the moment is free from any legal conflicts. In addition, Bonds is relatively healthy, not to mention just 65 hits shy of the 3,000 milestone.
So what's going on here? Read more, after the jump.
Without any team outwardly expressing interest in Bonds, Donald Fehr, the executive director of the MLB players union, announced recently that he will begin to investigate whether MLB clubs are colluding against Bonds in violation of the league’s collective bargaining agreement (“CBA”). Specifically, Article XX(E)(1) of the MLB CBA states that “players may not act in concert with other players, and clubs may not negotiate with other clubs.” If MLB clubs reached an agreement not to sign Bonds, it would surely violate the CBA.
The history of baseball’s anti-collusion clause is interesting. The article’s current language comes from Article XVIII(H) of baseball’s 1976 CBA, which was drafted at the onset of the game’s free agency. The language was proposed by club owners who feared baseball’s first free agents might attempt to bargain in tandem against the clubs. Nonetheless, most of baseball’s neutral arbitrators have interpreted this clause as a source of potential liability for club owners. On three separate occasions in the 1980s, labor arbitrators found that MLB clubs illegally colluded with one another, leading the MLB clubs to ultimately pay $280 million in damages to the players union.
If Barry Bonds truly believes that he is a victim of collusion, he should encourage Fehr to file a labor grievance quickly. Yet, even if Fehr does so, the matter would not likely be resolved in time to save Bonds’s 2008 season.
Another possibility, albeit humbling, might be for Bonds to sign a blank contract with a team of his choice. During the heart of collusion in the 1980s, veteran outfielder Andre Dawson did just that. Seeking to play for a team that played its home games on grass rather than Astroturf, Dawson called a unilateral press conference and announced that he would sign a blank contract to play for the Chicago Cubs for the 1987 season. Although Dawson saw his annual pay slashed by 50 percent, Dawson still had the last laugh by not only winning the 1987 NL MVP award but also claiming a share of the players union’s $280 million collusion settlement.
Unlike Dawson, Barry Bonds is often described as surly and a poor clubhouse fit. Many general managers further believe that Bonds has used performance-enhancing drugs. However, neither of these purported blemishes to Bonds’s resume seems to fully explain why not a single team has made the slugger an offer at any price. If surliness truly were a disqualifying factor, then players such as Carl Everett, Dave Kingman and Jeff Kent would not have enjoyed careers each stretching for more than a decade. In addition, if alleged performance-enhancing drug use really made a player unmarketable, then players that actually tested positive for drug use under the new policy, such as Guillermo Mota and Rafael Bentancourt, would have never received new contracts.
If Bonds does not start receiving bona fide contract offers by Opening Day, it might be time for Fehr to file that collusion grievance. Although Bonds might not win any contest for Mr. Congeniality, he still is entitled the same rights as every other MLB player. It seems doubtful that any neutral arbitrator would earnestly believe that Roberts, Davis, Dukes, Church, Pagan, and Chavez, amongst others, are all better fits for Major League rosters than one of the game’s all-time most prolific sluggers.
* * * * *
Marc Edelman is an attorney, business consultant, published author and professor, whose focus is on the fields of sports business and law. You can read his full bio by clicking here, and you can reach him by email by clicking here.
(52) Comments
Are you serious? Nice job avoiding that elephant in the room, Vitamin S.
That's so weird!! I wonder why teams aren't interested in Barry Bonds and want to us their own home grown talent instead. Fehr has a real case here.
But Roberts, Davis, Dukes, Church, Pagan, and Chavez aren't under a federal indictment that may cause them to miss part of the season for a perjury trial.
Doesn't this guy read a newspaper?
Bonds is 43. He is a clubhouse cancer. Fans don't like him. He can't field. The last time he had more than 400 at bats in a year was SIX years ago. He has legal issues to resolve. Plus, he will be incredibly expensive to sign because of his veteran status.
Edelman, you can't just compare him to Church, Pagan, Chavez et al. and say there must be collusion if those guys have jobs and he doesn't.
1:11 is spot on. Boo Edelman!
Correct me if I'm wrong, but at least in an antitrust context, if all the clubs were acting in their own independent best interests, it precludes a finding that there was some sort of tacit agreement. So absent any smoking gun conversations or contracts, there isn't much of a claim, right?
Did SEN post this under disguise as a real Sports Lawyer? This post is like Tiger Woods (sub-par).
Edelman has no idea what he's talking about...agree with 1:13 and 1:11!
Gentleman (1:11, 1:13, 1:18),
Prosecutors plan to file obtain a new indictment, and the parties aren't scheduled to return to court until June, with the expectation that the trial wouldn't start in any meaningful way until 2009.
So, while I concur with the overall discontent with Edelman, the fact is that he isn't at all likely to miss any of the 2008 season due to any of these legal issues.
Could that have been more clearly layed out by Mr. Edelman? Yes.
2007 WARP-3
Ryan Church: 7.3 (530 PA)
Barry Bonds: 7.0 (477 PA)
1.26, Thanks. Glad that's "layed" out. Now let's playe ball!
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe that Bonds is one of the few players in the game who refused to be a part of the Player's Union, because he gets more money from jersey sales and other MLB-licensed products by not allowing MLB to license his name. (If you've seen some baseball video games in recent years, you'll notice that the SF Giants occaisionally have Outfielder #25 in the lineup, or something similar, as the game did not pay Bonds to use his name).
Maybe Bonds did recently change that position, but I haven't heard about it...
so where should i draft bonds in my fantasy draft?
1:34:
Late 13th, early 14th.
Some yahoo will draft him in the late 14th, or early 15th if you don't get him first. You be the yahoo.. its the only way.
1:34 - this blog gives you the answer - FIRST!
So just because there is a guy out there who can play baseball means the MLB teams MUST sign him? Even if there are no legal troubles coming this year, news of it will and it would be a huge distraction for the clubhouse and hometown fans of any team that would sign Bonds. Not to mention the fact that in sports years the guy is geriatric. There are plenty of reasons why every single MLB team could reasonably decline to sign Barry "The Juice" Bonds.
Chris,
You're right that he withdrew from the licensing agreements, but I think he is still part of the MLBPA.
In a related story, OJ Simpson has announced that he has asked Gene Upshaw to file a labor grievance on his behalf. No way Julius Jones should have a starting job and not him.
decent article - but you need to re-think the constant use of the MS Word '95 clip art.
Who would want Bonds?
His body is debatable at best. He can't play anything but DH. He commands enormous salary. He is impossible to manage and is hostile to his fellow players. He brings massive poor publicity. His HR's no longer matter.
MLB teams are conspiring against me too. It's because they agreed not to pay me the league minimum when I can't run, catch, throw or hit at their level. All the scouts got together and agreed that I'm not good enough. Will Fehr file a grievance on my behalf too?
Hey, I was an awesome IM softball player in college - I think the MLB teams are colluding to prevent me from playing! I'm considering hiring Marc Edelman to protect my rights!
Marc, I'm sure you know the answer to that question, and it's not really worth asking why teams aren't interested. Regardless of whether other teams sign players accused of using PEDs, Bonds is a one-man media circus who would bring reams of negative publicity upon any team that signs him. He's the only player accused of PED usage who has broken the greatest record of all of sports, and that, combined with his "general surliness," is surely the reason teams are staying away. Fan backlash for Barry Bonds would be monumental, even compared to that of Mota and Betancourt. That's the real issue.
That and the fact he made $17 million last year with no other teams bidding on him. Would Bonds take a $12-$15 million pay cut just to reach 3,000 hits? I'm still trying to figure out why the Giants paid him at all last year.
This really does sound like a SEN-written article, except she at least attempts legal analysis sometimes.
Barry
Obviously
Never
Did
Steroids...
NOT!!
Edelman compares Bonds' deeds with the likes of Kingman and Mota and more or less asserts that if teams kept them around, then there is no reason not to keep Bonds around. On paper, the difference between Bonds and the negatives of these players might not be that different. For argument's sake - suppose they are the same. But is it really arguable that any of these players are remotely as controversial in the public eye - right or wrong - as is Bonds? Isn't the public perception of who Bonds is, in of itself, a legitimate reason to keep him off your team?
1:11 - totally agree. It is hardly surprising that each individual GM can come to the same conclusion about a clubhouse cancer, PR nightmare with declining skills and a high pricetag (word is he wants a $10 mil/year contract, but will take a 1-year deal). Any numbskull would reach the same conclusion. A contrary decision would be taking a flyer, not making an informed decision. Might as well go to Vegas and bet the whole team's payroll on 13 Red.
1:26 - a court case has little or nothing to do with the GMs' decision (except for the abovementioned PR nightmare aspects of it). Lawyers can handle all that crap, even if it happened this year. His attendance would be minimal. Non-issue.
If he'd made himself everybody's favorite guy over the years (i.e. if he was Mark McGwire), he'd probably get a job even with the steriods and indictment hanging over him, and maybe even with a $10 mil pricetag. But everyone hates him, and he hates everyone, so why mess up your team by signing him when you won't even be able to promote him to sell more tickets? You might as well have your team gather in the clubhouse for a meeting, and roll a grenade into the center of the room.
Edelman compares Bonds' deeds with the likes of Kingman and Mota and more or less asserts that if teams kept them around, then there is no reason not to keep Bonds around. On paper, the difference between Bonds and the negatives of these players might not be that different. For argument's sake - suppose they are the same. But is it really arguable that any of these players are remotely as controversial in the public eye - right or wrong - as is Bonds? Isn't the public perception of who Bonds is, in of itself, a legitimate reason to keep him off your team?
Bonds can't field anymore, so that is why the NL teams don't want him. But there has to be at least one AL team that needs a DH, and we all know that Bonds can hit, even if he is an a-hole.
One more reason to hate Bonds more than (most) other juicers: most other juicers did steriods in an effort to either (a) get to and stay in the bigs (desperation), or (b) hit that magical 30 HR level that gets you the big $$ contracts (greed).
Barry Bonds had Hall of Fame talent and all the money in the world already. He did it simply to break all the great records (single season HRs, career HRs, etc) and become the "greatest of all time" (vanity). And he was willing to ruin the game to do it.
To hell with him.
Edelman: "It seems doubtful that any neutral arbitrator would earnestly believe that Roberts, Davis, Dukes, Church, Pagan, and Chavez, amongst others, are all better fits for Major League rosters than one of the game’s all-time most prolific sluggers."
Are you serious???
No GM in their right mind should pay Bonds a salary in the range he is surely demanding.
There is no collusion against Bonds. nobody wants, pure and simple. When he was a free agent after his record setting '01 season, nobody wanted him so he returned to the Giants.
Yes he puts up numbers, but he has health issues that means a 50% guy takes a roster spot from a 100% healthy guy.
Not only that, Bonds wants pay not commensurate to performance (he won't take league min plus incentives), he wants it commensurate to how many fans will show up because of him and merchandise sales. Nobody wants to pay for that.
And, oh yeah, Bonds has been indicted by a grand jury for federal crimes that could lead to prison.
No collusion here, just an unwanted guy with some talent.
1:13, you know that a walk doesn't count as an at-bat, right?
Add up the negatives mentioned above and if you're a GM you come to one conclusion. Bonds is a loser, and he will make your team a loser too. Why would GMs have to collude to reach that conclusion? Any fifteen year old kid could do it on his own in less than a minute. Maybe teams who are out of the pennant race late in the season, and whose attendance has dwindled to the homeless, the unemployed, and the psychotic, will take on Bonds as a freak show attraction to boost attendance. Something like a "Free Picture With Barry Bonds for Every Half Price Ticket Purchased" promotion. Maybe they could even throw in a free tube of the "clear." But as long as winning baseball games is the objective, Barry Bonds is an impediment.
If a baseball clubhouse were a legal blog, Bonds would be a bad clipart logo.
This article is one of the stupider things to be posted on this blog. Sports and the Law is a viable -- and interesting -- topic, but to question whether Barry Bonds is the victim of collusion is ridiculous. He can no longer play in the field, ruling out all NL teams (last year he told the Giants when he would play).
DHs in the AL:
Ortiz
Hafner
Sheffield
Thome
F. Thomas
J. Giambi
This means there are only ten teams that might even compete for his services; of those ten, none are large-market and are willing to take the PR hit, clubhouse problems/infection of the young talent with the prima donna attitude, and likely feel that they can do better than .270/30/90 with a group of other, cheaper players.
@ 2:17
You wrote "as long as winning baseball games is the objective, Barry Bonds is an impediment."
That's the complete opposite of the issue here. Bonds would be an amazing pick-up for an American League team from a baseball standpoint. He reached base in 48% of his plate appearances last year! The second place guy reached base 44.5% of the time and only 18 major league regulars even reached base 40% of the time. And if he didn't have to play the field as a DH in the AL, he wouldn't be a defensive liability and would be able to play more than 126 games a year, increasing his contribution. When you consider that "stars" like Alfonso Soriano only have on-base percentages of 33.7%, Bonds would be a terrific addition from a baseball standpoint.
It's the way he takes over a clubhouse and the ensuing distracting media circus that is leading to his "no-offer" from numerous American League teams. Though he's been rumored to be linked to -- and would be a great fit for -- the Tampa Bay Rays.
And Marc, dude, you gotta change that nasty clipart. No one can take you seriously with it.
There is clearly collusion here. Yeah, Bonds is a jerk and a cheater, but it is beyond comprehension -- unless, of course, the owners are colluding, as they have done and gotten caught repeatedly doing over the last 25 years -- why he has not gotten a single contract offer yet from a desperate MLB team. The contract offer doesn't have to be $17 million. He hasn't even gotten an offer to play for the MLB minimum salary of $380,000. Some serious donkey poo going around here.
All that aside, Marc Edelman is the most boring, long-winded blogger that ATL has ever seen. As a lecturer, he is so boring and unengaging that he makes SEN seem like Barack Obama. Edelman makes me almost sentimental for the loserville days of Billy Merck.
Please go play on the freeway, Marc. Thanks.
There's nothing wrong with not being knowledgeable about baseball, but Edelman should have stated in the beginning that his familiarity with the subject was the result of 15 minutes on espn.com.
It's inexcusable that he failed to mention Bonds's inability to play the field. While that may not rule out all NL teams, it's certainly a counterweight to whatever he can do with the bat. I would certainly not want to see Bonds patrolling the OF at Shea.
He also should have noted that Bonds is likely only going to have value to a team competing for the playoffs. Why would the Nationals burn ABs on him? That makes no sense.
Collusion aside, there is an argument to be made that Bonds should be getting ABs somewhere, but Edelman just did a poor job of making it. Not to mention that citing a player's batting average as evidence of his ability is so 20th century.
To "The guy who hates Marc Edelman almost as much as he hates Billy Merck" at 4:05 - the reason that no team has offered Bonds the league minimum, or anything close to it, isn't necesarily collusion.
Unless you are the Toledo Mud Hens (who pulled off a great PR coup in dealing with A-Rod) professional teams don't make "offers" that they know will be rejected out of hand. Bonds has said he wants a multi-year deal, but would be willing to give something in the neighborhood of 1-yr/$10M a shot. Why risk the bad press to offer him even $4-$5M, when there's the chance he says "No, I want $10M" and you end up being rejected by a player that no one else even wants.
Oh, and with respect the .480 OBP from last year ---
Presumably only a contender would sign him since it doesn't make sense for a young, developing team to take PA from prospects and being a negative attitude to the clubhouse. Any team that considers itself a "contender" would hopefully have more lineup protection to offer Bonds than Ray Durham (.218/.295/.343) and Bengie Molina (.276/.298/.433) provided much of last season. If, for example, Bonds were to have A-Rod or Vlad batting behind him, he'd be a lot less likely to get anywhere near his 43 IBB that he got last year. That's in addition to the fewer times he'd be "pitched around" getting the "unintentional" IBB.
Bonds has never returned to pre-2005/pre-injury numbers, and barring a new BALCO, he won't. He's an aging 43-yr-old prima donna who cannot play the field, who doesn't play nice with others, who has a habit of not coming up big in the postseason, who dictates to his manager when he's going to take a day off, who is a PR nightmare, and who still wants to be paid $10M for ~100-120 games of work. Collusion certainly isn't the only reason no one wants to sign him - Common Sense plays a role too.
I don't know about this article. It reads like Marc got a student from one of his NYLS classes to summarize the class' discussion on anti-trust, as it could pertain to a current situation, and then posted it as an article.
It might have been a cute in-class discussion; however, this was a weak post especially considering the length of time between sports related posts.
BOO!
5:58
"Unless you are the Toledo Mud Hens (who pulled off a great PR coup in dealing with A-Rod) professional teams don't make "offers" that they know will be rejected out of hand. Bonds has said he wants a multi-year deal, but would be willing to give something in the neighborhood of 1-yr/$10M a shot. Why risk the bad press to offer him even $4-$5M, when there's the chance he says "No, I want $10M" and you end up being rejected by a player that no one else even wants."
Couple problems with your statements:
1) Bonds has gotten no offers, but he adamantly wants to play this season. The season starts in a couple of days. What makes you think that Bonds would reject an offer of $380K when he has absolutely nothing else available to him? Or, an offer with a very low base (like 500K) but laden with incentives (like another 500K if he gets 500 at-bats, another 500K if he gets 30 HRs, another 500K if he gets 400 HRs, etc.)? An incentive-laden contract would diminish any risk the team is taking, and it would make the offer worth maybe several million dollars or more per year to a guy like Bonds, who probably thinks he can still do anything.
2) There is no "bad press" to risk. These are private offers. They are done confidentially. Yeah, offers are leaked to the press all the time, often with slightly or grossly incorrect figures, but a team can do what teams in the past have always done when information gets leaked: deny everything. And I don't see why offering a lowball contract would be "bad press." There aren't any teams offering jack, so it's not like there are any points of comparison. So what if you get rejected by a player that supposedly no one else wants? That makes the player look stupid, not the team, because then the player will sit around getting a big zero dollars for the season.
Come on, guys. Collusion is part of how the owners operate. Everytime the issue of collusion has come up in the past, the owners have always been guilty and have gotten nailed with huge judgments.
And the owners have colluded against individual players, as well as against entire free agent classes, too. For instance, the owners colluded so that Jose Canseco wouldn't get a free agent offer some years ago. They did this to make an example of him for being the catalyst for the Steroid Era. Canseco reacted to this by publishing his book that blew the lid off of steroids.
Now, they are making an example of Barry Bonds. Why is this so hard to accept? No one is saying that Bonds still warrants 17 million dollars a year. He does, however, warrant at least one offer from a pitiful American League team certainly for at least the bare minimum in compensation. Even without steroids, he can still hit and draw walks better than most starting DHs out there who are making millions per year.
It sounds like a clear case of age discrimination, too. Or is that art of baseball's exemptions to federal laws, too?
No offense (don't you know that something offensive will always follow that missive?), but stick to the legal analysis, and avoid the baseball analysis.
7:09 underestimates the size of Bonds' ego when discussing what offer he might accept.
11:47 underestimates the idea that reading comprehension may play a role in understanding the point of all this discussion: whether Bonds will accept or reject an offer is irrelevant -- the point is that no offer has been made at all, probably due to owner collusion.
With Bond's reputation (bad attitude the size of Mars), what would be the point of someone offering him league minimum when word is he's looking for at least $10/1 year? Is he even going to look at it?
If his agent was serious about getting him a job so that he can play the game that he loves, he wouldn't be seeking nearly as much money.
He's not worth more than league minimum with incentives because he literally doesn't show up when he doesn't feel like it, is 43, is facing 'roid decay, and has beyond suspect knees.
This argument is silly. The man is old. The man can ruin team chemistry. The man is not worth the trouble. Teams should have a right to pass on him without the threat collusion accusations. If I was an owner, I would not pick him up either.
Barry Bonds to $190,000,000
So what if Bonds is a jerk? Even though his swing has slowed down and he can't turn on inside fastballs as well, he's still posting an OBP around .400 and has good power. The guy is a top-5 DH, so why not offer him a contract for a few million? It'd be a great way for a team like the Orioles, Royals, etc. to get a boost in performance for very little cost(allusion intended). There's no reason he shouldn't at least be getting lowball offers. Reputation and being a jerk don't have any effect on how the team plays and a large proportion of MLB players have used PEDs, so none of those are excuses.
The fans hate him, the coaches hate him, the other players hate him, he's a liar, he's under federal indictment, he's 43, his knees are shot, and he would demand an obscene amount of money even by professional sports standards. You don't need to collude to see why there is no upside to signing him.