Link

"The baseball players' union says it has found evidence teams acted in concert against signing Barry Bonds but it reached an agreement with the commissioner's office to delay the filing of any grievance."

""We have the agreement about the timing of a potential grievance," [Union counsel Michael Weiner] said Thursday. "Our investigation revealed a violation of the Basic Agreement. It's a violation of the Basic Agreement related to Barry Bonds and free agency."

Weiner said the section that had been violated was Article XX (e) of the collective bargaining agreement, which states, in part: "Players shall not act in concert with other players and clubs shall not act in concert with other clubs." Weiner would not say how long the agreement runs to allow the union to file a grievance."

I'd be pretty surprised if MLB teams didn't violate the CBA in this case as the non-signing, or at least non-attempted signing, of Bonds doesn't make any sense without it having been an organized effort.

Bonds should win this grievance and hopefully win big. And, it's not so much that I care about Bonds, but I am tired of MLB thinking it can get away with continuously violating the CBA.

I don't know if it was collusion or that Bonds is such an outcast that nobody would touch him independent of what other teams were doing (which is certainly possible), but from a baseball perspective something was clearly wrong. It doesn't make any sense whatsoever that not a single team would even consider Bonds, even at a pro-rated, league minimum salary donated completely to charity.

The stigma of Bonds is one thing... but Bonds' production may have meant the difference between the postseason or going home for at least three teams. Even though there are no guarantees or absolutes, I would guess that a slightly-worse-than-2007 Bonds was probably good for at least two or three extra wins for a team that needed him.

I wonder if Mets fans, for example, would have rather gone into the postseason with Bonds than witness what happened instead. The Twins could have used a bit more production from LF or DH to get that two or three extra wins they needed. Even Arizona could have used Bonds to win the division rather than lose by two games. Arizona has somewhat of an excuse given that Bonds was mortal baseball enemy #1 in that town for the entire history of the franchise, but still...

I'm just wondering what the deal is with the agreement not to file the grievance until an undetermined later date. Is it a stall tactic to see if he gets convicted of perjury? Would that even matter, other than public opinion? I mean, either they did collude or they did not -- Bonds being convicted has nothing to do with it other than an excuse why teams wouldn't go near him. "See, we KNEW he'd be convicted of perjury six months after the World Series ended, so we didn't want him to be no longer playing for our team after his one-year deal had expired at the end of the season. Um, or something."

I don't think it is outside of the realm of possibility that no team would want to sign Bonds without collusion taking place. Obviously we wait and see the evidence after the World Series before making any conclusions. A league wide collusion would absolutely astonish me, but I guess some talk among a few teams wouldn't so much. I'm also not sure I would believe that whole league-minimum-donated-to-charity thing. Joe Posnanski, in one of his articles, wrote about how the Royals never received that offer despite Bonds' agent saying it was offered to every team.

Couldn't MLB/Selig have avoided this if he suspended Bonds until after his trial using the "best interests of baseball" clause? I know that that might have opened up a completely different set of worms. Other players have had steroid issues and/or legal problems but are any as bad as Barry? I don't know, maybe others could have/should have been suspended too.

Guaranteed if the MLB suspended Bonds for that, the MLBPA would be filing a grievance, saying that action violates the CBA. And they'd be right where they are now, except that they would have provoked the whole thing.

I'm extremely curious how this will play out, and why the MLBPA agreed to delay filing the grievance. That's not something they would normally hold off on, and then comment on it to the press.

Good lord, you Bond defenders just won't give up. You told us ALL SEASON that someone HAD to sign Bonds, he was too good, OPB, etc etc etc. Many of us argued that NO WAY would that happen, given his age, the indictments hanging over his head, his being an asshole to teammates that would ruin a cohesive locker room, his inability to move well in the field and the media circus that it would involve.

We were vindicated when no one wanted to sign up for the "Bonds experience", and so now it has to be collusion - yeah right, I await the rock solid "evidence" of that.

Agreed. I can't imagine why any one would defend Bonds. I wish the dude would just go away all ready. Nobody wants him, and I'm glad....he's made enough of a mockery of the sport already without someone giving him a second chance that he in no way has proven he deserves.

As far as collusion goes, give me a break already. Nobody wants him for all the reasons listed above and more. He's a locker room cancer, there's a reason he doesn't have any rings.

Not a Bonds defender by any means, but this report made me sit up and pay attention.

As foolish as the claims of collusion appear - and they certainly appear laughable on their face to me - I am aware of the fact that the union almost never takes things to the stage where they are filing a formal grievance unless they have the owners dead to rights. And the whole "agreement with MLB to delay the actual filing" is, at minimum, very curious.

So based on the track records of the union and the owners, I'm inclined to see how this develops before assuming there's nothing to it. I'm also assuming that the union isn't just carrying water for Bonds, but taking action primarily to defend their rights under the basic agreement. So if they get what they want from MLB - some sort of consent decree - it would not surprise me if the entire thing just goes away.

My two cents.

Yes and his name is Tim Worrell.

I think you really overestimate his "locker room ruining" reputation, as well as his defensive abilities. As someone who paid attention for 162 games every year for the last 14-15 years of his career, he lost range, but made all the plays you'd expect a left fielder to make, plus some fairly spectacular plays. In fact, I would wince more because he was putting too much effort and I worried about his knee than because he didn't get to an easy fly ball or made an error. He rarely looked Manny-bad out there. He's an eight-time Gold Glover -- you don't lose good instincts.

Regardless, I think it is certainly possible that all of baseball passed on Bonds because of the circus and PR backlash (very possible), but it is impossible to defend it based on baseball standards. There was no indication his offensive production was going to fall off a cliff. Even so, if he weren't named Barry Bonds, someone would have taken a shot at even a 42/43-year-old player with a dicey knee, but who could be counted on for a .400+ OBP and hadn't had fewer than 20 homeruns over a full season for almost 20 years.

That makes sense to me as well. I don't think the MLBPA would make themselves look foolish if they didn't have something they could use to pressure MLB. It may not be collusion, but they have apparently have something embarrassing. This isn't really just about Bonds, either. There were other players teams were seemingly avoiding, and its something that is likely to continue happening as users are identified. Regardless of their poor choices, it's in the Union's best interests to ensure none of their members are blackballed.

My guess:

The union feels it has a valid grievance, but if it goes to arbitration, Bonds's testimony would be needed. Bonds's criminal defense attorney would never let him testify, because anything Bonds says could be used against him in the criminal case. MLB knows this, so they would just take a hard line and force the dispute to arbitration, where the union would be forced to fold. Therefore, the union would seem to be between a rock and a hard place, assuming the statute of limitations on any collusion claim would run before Bonds's criminal trial concludes. (I don't know the rules, but I've heard the SOL for such claims is short.)

So, what does the union do? They play a trump card-- threatening to file their grievance (and air every nasty detail publicly) during the World Series. MLB blanches; the last thing they want is a Bonds-related maelstrom during the game's showcase event. MLB therefore agrees to put the grievance on the back burner until Bonds's trial is over-- which is exactly what the union wanted.

[/speculation]

Might be apples to apples....might be apples to oranges, but....

I wonder if the NFLPA would have the same reaction if/when Vick isn't offered a QB job in a year when he's released. The reasons we all think Bonds isn't offered anything would be the same as Vicks:

-Lack of ability to play (Bonds: injuries, can't play LF everyday...Vick: Hasn't played in 3 years
-PR issues (Bonds steroid concerns....Vick with killing dogs)
-Locker room "cancers" (Bonds fighting with teammates, Vick playing alongside dog/Pit Bull lovers)
-Media would chastise either team for taking a shot (probably more with Vick...)

That's some pretty compelling speculation.

And TheYaz, let's ignore your exaggerations about Bonds's presence in the clubhouse (hasn't been a touching point in 10 years), or his ability to play left field (he was -11 in 2007 - not good but not even in the top five worst left fielders), the indictments (anybody remember that trial during the sea...oh, wait), or the media circus (great publicity, sells tickets) or age (guy put up a 170 OPS+ last year). Let's put all that aside.

I take this seriously because the MLBPA has to my knowledge claimed collusion four times and been right every time. Why not? Scott Spiezio got a job and he's a druggie with an assault charge. Steve Howe repeatedly got a job. You're telling me the greatest ballplayer since Ruth can't get a fuckin' job in baseball because of a bogus Federal indictment which has about as much weight behind it as a feather? Come on. Even ignoring its merits, we all knew a trial wasn't going to happen until after the season - it had been reported throughout the 2007/2008 offseason that a trial likely wasn't happening during the season. Add to it that the best union in the entire world seems to think there's evidence of collusion (something they've been looking into since May), and I'm going with Barry on this. Barry will get a check for triple damages at some point.

Awesome. I hope you're right (though I am not as sure as you about the perjury charges... I don't think they have the evidence, especially without Greg Anderson, but he's almost certainly guilty and the jury might not care about evidence).

Triple damages or not, I'm pissed we didn't get to see him play. And he can never get that back.

I'm pretty confident Bonds never sees jail, just because Anderson isn't going to flip and they've not got a lot else.