Why did no major league baseball team sign Barry Bonds? At any point last season, Bonds could have stepped into any lineup on any team in the game and arguably improved it. Smells.

Bud sez “I can’t fathom” which I totally believe.

16 comments… add one
  • Where did you get that excellent photo of Selig?

    Paul SF July 14, 2009, 4:29 pm
  • > photo of Selig
    From the story in the link. AMAZING pic.

    attackgerbil July 14, 2009, 4:39 pm
  • If it is true that Bonds would have played for league-minimum last year, the fact that no team signed him is damning. Maybe baseball was trying to make him a sympathetic character?

    attackgerbil July 14, 2009, 4:41 pm
  • The book with “Baseball” so prominently on the cover seals the deal in that pic. Looks like he doesn’t know how it works and has given up on understanding.

    Devine July 14, 2009, 5:04 pm
  • The roar of the answer of this question is positively deafening.
    Why did no club sign Barry Bonds?

    attackgerbil July 14, 2009, 5:55 pm
  • I’m posting here because AG told me too and I respect me elders.
    That is all.

    LocklandSF July 14, 2009, 5:58 pm
  • > I respect me elders
    heheheh Lockland. Funny!

    attackgerbil July 14, 2009, 6:15 pm
  • Slightly elder, but elder just the same.

    LocklandSF July 14, 2009, 6:22 pm
  • Absolutely collusion. I know fans outside the SF area hate Bonds and a couple of his teammates have had run-ins with him but a number of his teammates and other players around the league have lots of good things to say about him. He was a top notch ball player long before the steroid issues and certainly plays left field better than Manny.

    rootbeerfloat July 14, 2009, 6:28 pm
  • Possible defense for Bud:
    You know how the same idea can arise in different locations independent of one another, like how the principles of calculus were derived by Newton and Leibniz? This is the same thing, except there were 30 inventors! Not signing Barry Bonds = calculus

    FenSheaParkway July 14, 2009, 8:41 pm
  • FenShea made a joke, but there is a place for this argument. There is a remote chance that every owner, on their own, just said screw him, he’s not worth the trouble. I’m not just talking about the roids, the guy has always been a huge pain in the ass.

    LocklandSF July 14, 2009, 10:17 pm
  • Bonds = cheater, bad knees media circus. He was 44. Only good as a DH. WHY BOTHER?
    Common sense > collusion.

    I'mBillMcNeal July 14, 2009, 10:44 pm
  • Lockland: I do think there’s some plausibility to the argument, even if I was being glib about it. However, then I’m reminded of the scads of moronic personnel decisions made almost weekly by one team or another and then the idea that every team lasted the entire year without signing Bonds reaches a certain level of improbability. Teams on the playoff bubble do incredibly dumb things all the time. For me it comes down to what Bonds was asking for.

    FenSheaParkway July 14, 2009, 11:52 pm
  • Bud Selig is the feared “third anti-Christ” MABUS, as foretold by Nostradamus.

    SoxFan July 15, 2009, 12:20 am
  • Bonds’ offensive numbers were too good to pass up. There are plenty of small-market teams that could have picked him up and used him to sell tickets. For league-minimum? Seriously? It has to be collusion in one form or another.
    I hate Barry Bonds, but he OPS+’ed 156 in 2006 and 170 in 2007. AND THOSE ARE HIS WORST NUMBERS SINCE 1999!

    Atheose July 15, 2009, 8:10 am
  • Yeah, if Bonds had still been demanding multi millions of dollars, then I could see all 30 owners independently deciding against risking the PR hit, clubhouse acrimony and huge media distraction.
    But for league minimum? What team in contention seriously looked at his stats and the possibility of paying him $500,000 for those stats, and thought, “Winning the World Series would be nice, but he’s kind of a jerk.”

    Paul SF July 15, 2009, 9:15 am

Leave a Comment

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.