Ken Davidoff's baseball insider

Shouldn't we also mention the season is half over and the team with the best record is the Tampa Bay Rays?

Why can't we see the Andy Hawkins no hitter on YES? I know, it's a loss and banished forever from Yankee Classics

I am sure Santana's comments were said out of frustration, but he must realize that it is his job as a member of the defense to keep his team in the game and give them a chance to win. He has done so over his past five starts.

If a pitcher slips out of the proper mindset re: their role, it can cause additional problems on a team if he calls out the offense for poor performance.

I disagree with the idea Santana should say "get me a run and I will protect it". It doesn't exist anymore due to relief specializiation. He has to say "get me a lead and I will turn the game over to three other pitchers in the 7th to 9th inning and I hope none of them has a bad day".

The final result is far out of a starting pitcher's hands!

I don't begrudge Manuel's comments about the Mets being no. 2 in town, as long as Yankeelanders remember that it has not always been the case. Yankee fans were usually found hiding under rocks from '84-'93. Give Hank and Hal a few more years to "mature" and it may very well happen again.

Ken, Santana could be on the decline. Since the 2nd half of last season, he has not be the same pitcher. He has given up a lot of home runs. Maybe we seen the best of Santana already.
The Mets are lucky they are in the National League and the NL East. If they were in the AL East they will be in 4th place behind the Rays, Red Sox, Yanks and O's. If the Mets are going to make the palyoffs, they need to play consistant baseball, not inconsistant baseball. They have big road trip coming up starting tonight with 4 with the Cardinals and 4 with the Phillies. We are going to see what this team is made out of. But the way the Mets have play, watch the Mets go 4-4 and split 4 with the Cards and Phillies.
Manuel needs to watch what he is saying. And while Girardi is there for long haul, the expections of making the playoffs from fans like me wouldn't change.
A team that throw a no-hitter but loses the game should not be in the record books. The bottom line is the Angels lost the game.
Thank god Shea stadium will be gone for good. I'm sure a lot of people wouldn't feel sorry to see Shea closed.

After the fake Bob Tufts quote, I think my soft spot is growing for him. That actually made me laugh.

Ken...I LOVE Shea Stadium. If it was up to me, I'd keep it forever. As angry and belligerent a person as I come off sometimes, Shea is my favorite place in the world. I snuck in twice in consecutive Novembers (back in the day) to run around the field. (Hope no cops read this blog) And at least it doesn't take three innings to take a leak like at Yankee Stadium. I only covered a handfull of games at Shea and Yankee Stadium, so I dont know what else is out there reporter wise. But they always had a seat, and that's all I needed. (Though they charged $7 bucks for food which I found weird. Great price but still weird...shoulda been free like at Giants Stadium)

Can anyone tell me what Johan said about Wright? I missed it. The Mets sure could use Gomez this year. I still think at the time it was a good trade, but if I could take it back I would. The Mets aren't ready to win now and though Santana has been good, they're not paying him to be good. They're paying him to win. Yes win. So if he gets a run, it has to be good enough that day.

Lastly, I thought the no-hitter wasn't a no-hitter because it wasn't a 9 inning game for the Angels pitchers. So if they were the home team and lost 1-0 it would have counted.

It could be worse...the Mets or Yanks could have signed Manny Ramirez...http://www.boston.com/sports/baseball/redsox/extras/extra_bases/2008/06/manny_ramirez_w.html

Manny Ramirez was reportedly involved in a physical incident in the Red Sox clubhouse this past weekend in Houston, but unlike his scuffle with teammate Kevin Youkilis earlier this month, this past altercation was with a Red Sox employee.

According to a report by Sean McAdam in today's Providence Journal, Ramirez shoved Red Sox traveling secretary Jack McCormick to the ground in Houston in an argument over Ramirez' ticket allotment of 16 for Saturday night's game.

McAdam reported that several onlookers moved quickly to separate the Ramirez and McCormick, a former Boston police officer who has been the Sox' traveling secretary since 1996.

When McCormick cautioned Ramirez that he might not be able to fulfill his request, Ramirez responded by shouting: "Just do your job!"

An argument iensued and Ramirez pushed McCormick, sending him to the ground.

Later, the two met behind closed doors and Ramirez apologized to McCormick, who accepted the gesture. No further disciplinary action is expected against Ramirez.

--

Why won't anyone sign Barry Bonds and his high OBP as a free agent? The trial isn't until next March, he's in shape and will play for the minimum...oh yeah, he causes problems in the clubhouse.

We all know that Shea ain't pretty, Ken, our occasional bouts of nostalgia notwithstanding. Still, if the 1976 concrete-debased reincarnation of Yankee Stadium is deemed a holy shrine, then Shea is the Roman Coliseum.

For whatever they're worth: my favorite Shea Stadium memories: when not yet 11 years old, I bought lower field box seats for the very first time (I think Kevin Kobel was pitching that afternoon in 1980); the first wave at Shea (yeah, back then it was really cool) during a Gooden masterpiece against the Reds on a Friday night in May, 2004; and sitting through consecutive day, twilight doubleheaders against the Padres in 1985.

By the way, I finally got around to reading the chapter in "Baseball Between the Numbers" on the comparison between four and five-man pitching rotations. What is your take on the conclusion that pitching does not lead to injuries but pitching while tired does? (In other words, keep individual game pitch counts down but go back to the four-man rotation.) Thanks.

Bob, you just hit it on the head. Teams don't want the baggage and distractions Bonds brings to the clubhouse.
Santana had a chance to get out of the 2nd against the Mariners, but he allow the pitcher Felix Hernandez to hit a Grand Slam. And against the Yanks, he walk 4 guys and 3 of those walks came around to score, including balking a runner over to 2nd that st up the 3rd run for the Yanks. So in his last 2 starts, Santana had a chance to pick up his teammates, but couldn't do it.

Shea is a sewer and was built on a swamp. Considering it was modelled after Chavez Ravine when you look at it and Dodger Stadium today, Dodger Stadium is still beautiful and Shea is a disaster.
Ozzie Guillen said the same thing about his Sox against the Cubs a few weeks ago that Manuel said about the Mets (we're #2) yesterday along with a few nice curse words.
The Rays have decided not to pursue the new stadium they wanted in St. Petersburg because most people didn't like the location. They will continue to look for a better location before sending any stadium referendum to a vote.
Ken--Since the Mariners are sellers, and all I read about is how hated Ichiro is in the clubhouse, do you think he might go?
Richie: Santana basically blamed David Wright making the error for him giving up the Grand Slam to Felix Hernandez.

Very happy to see Brett Gardner called up, something I've been hoping for weeks to happen now. I wonder if he's going to get consistent playing time over Melky in CF now. I don't think they'd call Gardner up and not play him, and with Melky's recent struggles, I think Gardner should play and his speed element is needed.

I guess they can also put Gardner in LF and DH Damon if they want to keep Melky in there.

Sandy, are you sure about Shea being modeled after Dodger Stadium? The latter was not built for football, right? Its appearance, the open-air portion, notwithstanding, it has more in common with RFK, the first "multi-purpose" stadium.

Bot Tufts...This isn't Richie G. (Lynbrook). This is Richard G General Manager speaking. If the Mets did this, I would hate them forever. But I'm putting on my GM hat for the next few paragraphs.

Bringing in Barry Bonds and Roger Clemens would be risks to almost any team. The reason is they would obviously disrupt the clubhouse initiially because of all the excess non-baseball baggage. Bonds is also the King of the Loafer. Clemens is supposedly a great teammate.

The thing is...what do the Mets really have to lose? There is not a more dysfunctional clubhouse in all of baseball (as far as I can tell). Also, you wouldn't get the SF Barry Bonds. He owned that lockerroom bc he had a high salary, chasing a record and was a Giant forever. You'd get the Barry Bonds who still wants to play. Sure he'd be a jerk to the media but its not like he can walk in and ask for four lockers. Plus he can wear #24. As for Clemens, at worst you'd get a innings eater with an average ERA. At best you'd get the Astros version and still the best pitcher in all of baseball. And come playoff time, he'd be fresh. I'd sign them both. Not sure if Clemens would come, but I think he might. Bonds would for sure.

OK...back to being the disgruntled crazed lunatic you all know and love!!

Richie, here's the Santana quote from last week:

"We didn't execute the way we were supposed to," Santana said. "We didn't make routine plays that make you win games, little things that make you a winner."

You know, Bob and Richie, I sort of agree with you that the Mets should sign Bonds. And I agree with Bob that there is a de facto conspiracy against Bonds. But here are my two cons about the idea: 1) Someone made this point recently - I wish I could remember who - that .480 OBP last year was inflated significantly by 43 intentional walks. I wonder how good he can be now; 2) Minimum wage? I'll believe that when I see it.

JE, I read that book. I only vaguely recall that chapter. I love Baseball Prospectus because all of the arguments are backed by mounds of research. I do think that it would tough for teams to institute such a dramatic cultural change, however.

Ken thanks for the quote. I think what he said is fine. I think its good sometimes that players hold other players accountable. And if David Wright is as great as we all hope he is...that will only inspire him.

As for Bonds...there is NO WAY he would ever play for the league mininum. Though if he did, I would gain a ton of respect for him. I'm shocked no American League contender has even inquired. Or have they?

JE: I'm pretty sure I read that somewhere the really only difference between Chavez Ravine and Shea was the movable seats. And, I believe at one time the O'Malleys tried to get a team to play football in the stadium. With the exception of the bleachers in LA the stadiums' design looked exactly alike inside.
If the Mets tried to sign Bonds they would have to do it on the down low because the outcry would be enormous. The Rays thought about doing it, and whatever fans they have were so outspoken against it, the owner said he would never do it. I have absolutely no problem with Bonds being blackballed out of the sport, he did it to himself. And what exactly has he ever done to help baseball?

Richie, I have to admit, I am sincerely blown away that you're OK with what Santana said. Does a hard-nosed, hustling player point fingers at a teammate, particularly a teammate like David Wright? Wright made an error. It happens. A good pitcher picks up his teammates, and certainly doesn't throw them under the bus like Santana did. What does your boy Billy Wagner say every time he blows a save? "Blame me. It's my fault."

When you read the history of Shea Stadium there is nothing to indicate it was modeled after Dodger Stadium. It is built on the site of an old landfill, hence the reason it sinks ever so slightly each year. Robert Moses wanted it opened in time for the Worlds Fair, which he was also in charge of in addition to about nine other positions. Read The Power Broker by Robert Caro. It's a fascinating book about Robert Moses and it has a section on the whole Ebbets Field/O'Malley wanting a new stadium and the construction of Shea saga.

Shea was supposed to eventually get completely enclosed. One plan was to expand it to 90,000 seats and another would have added a dome and brought the capacity over 70,000 seats. The later never happened because the foundation the stadium is built on couldn't handle the weight of a dome. It was built as a baseball/football stadium and Dodger Stadium wasn't.

Shea is a dump. I hate going into the upper deck there because it is extremely steep and high - I believe higher than any other MLB stadium. There is also always a wind in the upper deck.

Jim did you see the documentary about the Brooklyn Dodgers that was on HBO last year? A lot of people criticized it as being pro-O'Malley by saying he wanted nothing but to stay in Brooklyn but was forced out by Robert Moses. Does that book by Robert Caro agree with that or does he paint the picture I always grew up with that O'Malley wanted nothing to do with Brooklyn and was a money grubbing @#$%^!^?

It was up to Santana to pick up his teammate, David Wright after his error...not give up a grand slam to the pitcher, Felix Hernandez.

Sandy, the documentary on the Dodgers/O'Malley was a puff piece. O'Malley really wasn't that good of a guy. After you posted, I reviewed The Power Broker, but couldn't find what I wanted. I then reviewed half a dozen other books and still can't find what I want about the whole O'Malley-Moses-LA episode.

I have read a lot about this and watched interviews with Robert Caro, who really grew to dislike Moses as his research progressed. His book is a hatchet job. (Incidentally, Caro was once a Newsday reporter.)

At the time O'Malley was looking to get out of Ebbets Field, Brooklyn was the most profitable club in all of MLB. O'Malley did want a new stadium and even toyed with building one that had a dome. He wanted Moses to condemn land so the new stadium could be built. (A lot of the land is now slated for Bruce Rattner's complex of buildings and the new Nets arena.)

Moses had vast powers as the NY slum clearance czar and as a result of the dozen other hats he wore. He could have done what O'Malley wanted. But, Moses thought the land was very valuable and he didn't want O'Malley to have it. Plus, he wanted a stadium built in Flushing Meadows because he had grandiose plans for a huge park there.

I firmly believe that O'Malley originally would have stayed in Brooklyn if he had gotten his new stadium. But, once he realized he could be outrageously rich if he moved to LA, he was just going through the motions in NY for PR purposes. Don't forget, the Dodgers were still playing in NY until the arrangements in LA were complete and he couldn't completely alienate the fans or he would lose money - which was a cardinal sin to him. LA gave him a sweetheart deal for a new stadium, land around the stadium, all the concession money and 300 acres at an extremely cut rate price in downtown LA. Once that offer became clear, there was no way O'Malley was staying in Brooklyn.

It also cannot be ignored that the demographics around Ebbets Field had dramatically changed, and O'Malley had his eye on the future and didn't like the trend in attendance. The Dodgers were still drawing 1 million a year, which was pretty darn good for that era, but he clearly saw the riches that awaited him in LA.

If I can ever find the book that contains the information I think you would enjoy reading, I will post it here.

Thanks, Sandy/Jim.

Regarding last year's HBO documentary, part of me wishes that O'Malley's dream of having the Dodgers play at the Atlantic/Flatbush intersection was only make-believe. Shlepping out to Shea from Brooklyn Heights while via the subway while growing up was no minor inconvenience. To think that I might have walked for 30 minutes to Dodger games instead makes me shudder....

Bonds and playing for the minimum ...from USA Today
http://www.usatoday.com/sports/baseball/2008-06-25-bonds_N.htm

The outfielder, who turns 44 on July 24, has been offered by Borris to all 30 teams for a prorated share of the $390,000 minimum.

Borris said Bonds even would play for free — offering to donate whatever salary he receives to purchase tickets for children.

"The fact that no team in Major League Baseball has made an offer for Barry even at the minimum salary has created a level of suspicion that is currently being investigated," Borris said.

--

There are more clubhouse cancers in baseball besides Bonds - who was only one of 100 players named in the Mitchell Report.

.

I'm not sure how Bonds can help a NL team considering the erosion of his fielding and baserunning skills. That said, I assume he can still hit. However, I wouldn't want him on my team because he has a "wet rag" personality, his ego knows no bounds and he will be a distraction, no doubt about it. Most teams lament the fact they can't do anything about their distractions because of big contracts, etc. With Bonds, a team would be going into the relationship with open eyes.

Some might say the Mets clubhouse can't get any worse. I say Bonds will make it worse. If Omar does this it is a clear sign he is desperate.

Hang on: Manny Ramirez bitch-slaps Kevin Youkilis, knocks the club's traveling secretary to the ground, but Barry Bonds is the ultimate clubhouse cancer? If Jeff Kent, Milton Bradley, and Jose Guillen are able to command nice-sized contracts of varying length, how can giving Bonds a three-month gig for several hundred thousand be out of the question?

And as for his fielding, I would rather have Bonds in left than Alou, who is a candidate for the disabled list every time he chases a bloop over shortstop.

Bonds wouldn't last long in the field and he would be a liability there. Ramirez should be suspended by Selig. I wouldn't go so far as to say Bonds is the ultimate cancer, but I think his history proves his M.O. is to be distant from his teammates in various ways. When you combine Bonds' age, his indictment, other possible government bombs being dropped, his prima donna ways, etc., I don't blame anyone for not wanting to take the guy. Sure he could pop some balls out of the park. Didn't Ruth hit three HRs in the same game just five days before he retired? Kent, Bradley, etc., are cancers. But, why should the Mets or anyone else saddle themselves with Bonds at this point?

Bonds in 2007: .276/.480/.565/1.045

Wright in 2008: .285/.378/.497/.875

Beltran in 2008: .270/.392/.480/.852

If Bonds performs 10% worse, you'ne added David Wright's bat for the minimum. If he performs 15% worse, you've added Beltran for $ 200,000. (At least it proves that Beltran is terribly overpaid.)

Are the "Bonds haters" the same Met fans who gave cocaine ( a schedulke II drug, deemed far worse than steroids by the FDA) users Keith Hernandez and Dwight Gooden standing ovations on their returns to the lineup at Shea Stadium?

Bob, I am familiar with the numbers. I never gave any ovations in person or spirit to drug users. I also am not opposed to Bonds because of his indictment, which I consider bogus to a large degree. It has everything to do with his attitude. Does anyone need a 44 year old with an attitude? Maybe in this day and age of overpaid players, but is worth the risk at the pro-rated minimum. The media circus in NY will certainly be a distraction. This will be a sign of desperation by the Mets, and probably anyone else that signs him.

Are you saying that there are no prima dona types in Flushing at the moment, Jim? Look, let Bonds be distant. He won't own the clubhouse much the same way that Sidney Ponson doesn't run the Yankee locker room.

Put him in the lineup by late July and Bonds probably nets us at least three wins the rest of the way, even if you take away many of those international passes. Sure, he MIGHT get injured, but we are CERTAIN that Alou is of no use to the Amazins.

Put it another way, how can this team justify giving Alou $8M and not take a chance on Bonds? And if it doesn't work out, it doesn't work out. Where is this team headed right now?

As for Bonds playing in NYC, I am sure that the Mets, who have handled the tabloid media so well this season, can instruct Barry on what to do to avoid being a distraction on and off the field.

My thinking exactly Bob!! We know Bonds can still play at a level worth at least the MLB minimum - pro-rated at that. But, anyone that thinks Bonds will just seamlessly integrate into the team and disappear into the clubhouse are in a fantasy land. Read up on Bonds, how he had his own suite off the main clubhouse, his antics when the team travelled, etc. He better win at least three games for the Mets, and then some, to make the circus worth it. This is a guy with a bad knee who hasn't played in 8 months.

However, knowing how close Selig and Wilpons are, I doubt seriously if Bonds will be coming to Flushing any time soon.

If you haven't already done so, read Joe Posnanski's take on Bonds here:

http://joeposnanski.com/JoeBlog/2008/06/27/only-four-games/
http://joeposnanski.com/JoeBlog/2008/06/26/ok-im-convinced-kc-should-sign-barry/

As you know, Posnanski is one of the few old-school guys who embraces new media.

Jim:

I hate to say it but I was being sarcastic in refering to the Mets' 2008 tales of Randolph, Minaya, Bernazard, Jeff Wilpon, Reyes, Wagner etc. as a tranquil organization in comparison to the irritant Bonds.

All clubs have turmoil. Some learn to conquer it, either through a common enemy (press, Steinbrenner, another team) or a shared experience (firing of a manager, fight, rising a player's hot streak into the playoffs). I doff my cap to Terry Francona for winning two world series with a clubhouse full of truly tumultuous idiots.

Thanks Jim, I know a bit about the history of Ebbets Field and a little about Moses, who was THE man in NYC, even more powerful than Mayor Wagner. I was alive when the Dodgers left, and I believe my Aunt Pat, who had season tickets, took me to see them play when I was 1 1/2. In any case, my father owned a business around the corner and when they were knocking it down, he drove me by the site to see it before it was all gone. It doesn't look like either side should be honored by this episode. But I agree, as do most Brooklynites, O'Malley wanted to be gone. I always wondered what would have happened in Bklyn if the Dodgers stayed because they are given the most blame of all for the reason why Brooklyn went so far downhill.
To be honest, the Mets are such a circus that I don't think Bonds would want any part of them because it would bring unwanted attention upon him. JE, I don't think the three extra wins he could bring would be worth all the b.s.
As far as Manny, Saturday was probably the straw that breaks the Red Sox' backs. I can't possibly see them wanting him back next season since they have Ellsbury, Crisp and Drew that need to play everyday and Papi as the DH. Why pay him the option year and give him an extension?

Bonds put himself in this situation beacuse of his allergic involvement with steriods. He turns off the media. And he not a nice person to deal with. Any team that signs Bonds will have to deal with the distraction and baggage that Bonds brings. And they have to deal with all the negative crowd reactions he is going to get on the road.

Bob, I knew you were being tongue in cheek! As you know, I agree they botched Randolph and are ill-equipped to handle the Bonds fallout. You are right on Francona. He has had to deal with some wackos, to say the least. If Bonds goes to KC no one cares after a couple of days and the story fades. In NYC it stays around for the rest of the year. Anything that happens in NY is magnified 1,000 times. But, it's not happening considering the Selig-Wilpon relationship.

JE, Interesting blog posts by Posnanski. Thanks. Again, my problem with Bonds has nothing to do with his indictment. I think the MLBPA is setting up a collusion case and turth be told, it does look like the clubs are acting collectively. That said: I wouldn't want Bonds on any team that I owned. (Before anyone writes it, let me say, there are several other players I wouldn't want any part of, too.)

Great stuff, guys! I love the simultaneous discussions of history (Brooklyn Dodgers) and morality (Bonds).

Bob, re: Jeff Borris' comments, I like Jeff. But as you well know, it is an agent's job to bluff. I'm betting that if a team called Borris' bluff and said, "OK, we'll sign Barry for minimum wage," the response would NOT be, "Great, let's go!"

I think the Mets would be the one team for which it would make sense to sign Bonds. They are a "win-now" team, and they're also used to the media storm. I also think Manuel could manage him. But I do wonder how much he has left. He was very streaky last year, and if pitchers actually go after him all of the time, rather than pitch around him...I don't know. He'd also be a significant defensive liability.

P.S. Richie G., you're right about the Angels-Dodgers no-hitter. Thank you. I have corrected the text in my main entry.

Ken:

I don't think Bonds (or Borris) are bluffing. It is great theater (and PR and good legally) to have an active case where MLB is "colluding" vs. Bonds and Bonds is trying to prove that he is being targeted.

Signing for the minimum and having an active collusion emphasizes attorney Michael Rains' point " it is U.S. V. Bonds".

Very interesting point, Bob. If this is tied to the criminal case, it is a smart move. It also might work. Maybe money really isn't an issue since Bonds has made so much in the past. Maybe he is looking to save his scalp. With Bud's collusion history, it's something that cannot be dismissed out of hand.

Jim:

Good point back at you on the history of collusion in baseball starting with that $ 280 million decision against ownership )and continuing through the contraction attempts in 2000.

it owuld be fun to have MLB documents out in the open either with an arbitrator and/or open court in the Bonds case..

Please go nuclear on 'em, Barry!

It's funny, but I was thinking the same thing about the Bonds case and the discovery phase. His legal team could very well ask for the e-mail records of MLB and all 30 teams, including the Blackberry/PDA activity, etc. That would be quite interesting to read through and would probably qualify as "going nuclear."

If Major League Baeball is force to open their documents, then the Players union has to do the same thing for their documents. Isn't the union figthing to keep test results from 2003 from going public? I'm sure the union wants all documents from the owners and Selig to go public. But at the same time the union doesn't want their documents to go public. So the union is trying to play it both ways.
I notice everybody is ignoring me. So I figure I'm the Mike and the Mad Dog of this group.

Dennis - turn off the radio.

Yes the MLBPA is fighting the release of the test results which were jointly authorized by the union and management The tests were supposed to be private - an employee assistance program, if you'd like.

Try this link...http://sports.yahoo.com/mlb/news?slug=li-ilstonnovitzky021008&prov=yhoo&type=lgns

The government had a subpoena for information on 10 names. They tried to get everything. When they knew that their subpoena would be curshed, they went judge shopping in the same district for someone to give them a warrnat - despite knowing that there would be a hearing in court on the same day.

Novitzky and his group raided CDT and took more information than their warrants allowed, including computers (straining the legal requirement of plain sight to the extreme) . Novistzky and his agents used the illegally obtained evidence to get warrants for additional athletes.

It is a violation of fourth amendment rights and frankly a pretty fascist move. And, as it has been allowed to stand by the 9th Circuit Appeals Court, it means that the government can go into any employee assistance plan or anyone's medical records whenever they want.

And the judge who is irate about the government's behavior (and that of star witness Jeff Novitzky) is Susan Ilston, who will be presiding over the Bonds perjury case.

I was using Mike and the Mad Dog as a example of me being not an expert just like you guys said the same thing about Mike and Chris not being experts.

I like how Bob is portraying Bonds as a victim here. Probably the only people that look at him as a victim are Bonds and his agent. I wonder how the rest of the players feel about him possibly coming back? Bonds is a victim of his own making. He has a "it's my way or the highway" type of thinking, he won't play in independent leagues to show he can still play, there are certain teams he won't play for, he has to make a certain amount of money etc. He doesn't have that kind of leverage anymore, he's a pariah in the industry. He's a victim of his own making.
I don't know if being blackballed and collusion are exactly the same thing, but it is entirely probable and possible that Selig made it clear he wanted Bonds out of the game and no owner is going to risk crossing him by offering him a contract. OTOH, any owner that does risk signing him is going to have a PR backlash like he has never experienced before.

I can't not beileve the Yanks lost 2-1 to a Texas Rangers team who's pitching stinks. If you can't score more than 1 run against a Rangers pitching staff that stinks, shame on you. It's not the pitching's fault that the Yanks lost. It's the offense fault. This offense has been hot and cold. When they hit, the Yanks score a bunch of runs. When they don't, they hit like garbage.

Concerning the possible examination of records in the Bonds lawsuit - Dennis you said the union would have to release records if MLB did. Why? MLB is the party to a possible collusion, not the MLBPA. What has the union done? Surely the union doesn't want its members to use illegal drugs. But, I'm not so sure about the ballclubs who liked the numbers put up by guys juiced up. Once again Dennis, read the Mitchell Report and you will see examples of how the front office new what players were up to.

Concerning the test results: I doubt if anyone would like their confidential medical records splashed around the newspapers. The drug testing agreement was pretty much an EAP, which can only be effective if confidentiality is insured. Novitsky cares about making a name for himself. I would not be surprised if the fruits of his raid aren't thrown out down the road, perhaps by the US Supreme Court. Personally, I am surprised the Ninth Circuit didn't throw it out since that court is known as pretty liberal on matters of civil liberties.

Sandy:

From the outside and reading the papers, I would not like Bonds. But through my brief time with the Giants and knowing some of the people there, he wasn't the ogre (well, 100% of the time) that he was supposed to be. He is not a victim of being a jerk at the wrong time to some people (the press).

But my greater concern is the unpricipled legal moves by our government during the steroid hunt (little things like all other BALCO players got to review documents pre-testifying when Bonds did not get the same treatment, the selection of Jeff Novitzky drive him to his grand jury appearance and dropping him off in the middle of a media scrum as opposed to using an other entrance as agreed upon, Victor Conte's testimony was taken at gunpoint and also not recorded, Pres. Bush scrambling for a popular note at the State of the Union and going with steroids are bad, m'kay?, the use if international law to punish American citizens without full due process, reporters using their first amendment rights to shred Bonds' 4th, 5th and 6th amendment rights etc. - the list goes on..)

I worry about the legal precedent being set in the Bonds case to go after the rest of us. Just because it is sports is no reason to gut the Constitution and apply laws of failed socialist states to Americans.