Why Bonds won't sign

by Sayhey on Feb 3, 2007 11:48 AM PST Comment 13 comments

Altered Deal Hardly a Done Deal

By MURRAY CHASS
Published: February 3, 2007
It would seem that a player would be delighted if the commissioner's office struck from a contract he signed a clause that benefited the club and not the player. That's what happened with the contract that Barry Bonds signed Monday with the San Francisco Giants.

But is Bonds happy? No, he is not.

That's why he has refused to sign the altered contract the Giants sent to him two days later that didn't have the clause, which dealt with promotional appearances. People on both sides of the issue said yesterday that Bonds wanted the Giants to do something about another contract clause because he was unhappy it became public knowledge.

That provision is the indictment clause, which would allow the Giants to terminate the $15.8 million contract if Bonds were indicted on charges stemming from the Bay Area Laboratory Co-Operative steroid distribution case. Jeff Borris, Bonds's agent, declined to say if or when he thought Bonds would sign the altered contract....

Why the Giants management feels the need to take a swipe at Bonds through leaks to the press, I'll never understand, but I've got a feeling this clause is going to be out of the contract.

This FanPost is reader-generated, and it does not necessarily reflect the views of McCovey Chronicles. If the author uses filler to achieve the minimum word requirement, a moderator may edit the FanPost for his or her own amusement.

0 recs | Comment 13 comments

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

Re: Why Bonds won't sign

(sigh)
He probably will end up signing something (I almost typed "singing"), simply because no one wants him (or, more precisely, the headache that he has become) and he's too greedy about getting the HR record.

His thought at this point is that since he realizes that 90% of fans are already against him, there is nothing to be lost in going ahead and getting to 756.

One thing that's bothered me for years is that pro athletes should all have that sort of "good citizen" clause in their contracts. The majority don't need them because they are adult enough to realize that they're very fortunate to be where they are. However, the others are the reasons why such clauses should be standard.

Since Barry tossed Mr. Sweeney under that big Gillig, whatever tattered credibility I was willing to give him has waned considerably.

by Van Smack on Feb 3, 2007 1:09 PM PST reply actions 0 recs

Re: Why Bonds won't sign

I realized after I posted this thread that the title could be read as my prediction that Bonds won't sign. That wasn't my intention, rather it was just a reference to the article explaining why Bonds isn't signing now.

I'm fairly certain Bonds will sign eventually, but the dance continues because the media, aided and abetted by sources in the Giants management, (Magowan? Baer?) need to take their pound of flesh from Barry in every story they publish.

yob

by Sayhey on Feb 3, 2007 1:23 PM PST reply actions 0 recs

Re: Why Bonds won't sign

I don't think the Giants were the source of the leak. The contract details were most likely leaked by the commissioner's office. I don't think the Giants wanted this public anymore then Barry did. One of the results of the indictment clause becoming public is that it provides significant additional motivation to the Feds to actually indict Barry even if they do not believe they have enough to convict Barry. This is why Barry is now trying to get the indictment clause removed and I at least think it should be removed.

I have no problems with Baseball's (and for that matter most sports) standard morals clause that says a contract can be terminated for a conviction, but I have a big problem with the idea that an indictment is enough. Are not we all (including Barry) entitled to the presumption of innocense? Since when does indictment equal guilt and convection for even Barry? Shame on anyone that thinks this clause is either moral or just.

by giantsrainman on Feb 3, 2007 3:14 PM PST reply actions 0 recs

Wellllllllll..... yes and no

I agree with your notion that in the absence of a conviction, it's wrong to terminate a person. But that's not what this is-- as I understand it, this is an employer reaching an agreement with a contract employee so that he doesn't have to be paid if he's not around to actually do the job. I think what they're envisioning is that if he IS indicted, he will have to be away from the team for extended periods of time and really not doing his job.

In that sense, I think it's totally fair and just: an employer is looking ahead and trying to forecast some fairly foreseeable risks and trying to minimize them; the would-be employee is free to accept, reject, or negotiate the terms (such as, "sure, I'll agree to that termination clause, but you have to pay me $16M + $4M if that doesn't happen even though nobody else is bidding for me.")

So here we have two parties of considerable bargaining power with each other.

Further, this isn't a situation like most employees and employers in which the term of employment is continuous until one or the other side ends the relationship. In sports, it's all by contract so it's all finite and defined already. They are discontinuous. So each time, each side can look forward as best they can and see what's foreseeable or peculiar to THIS NEXT term... and Bonds having to miss considerable time due to non-baseball reasons is definitely a forecastable risk that a team could validly want to protect against.

Love Giants; get heart and mind fried by Giants; repeat.

by Mayor of 311 on Feb 4, 2007 1:43 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Re: Wellllllllll..... yes and no

The clause that has been quoted says the Giants can terminate Barry's contract if he is indicted. I am sure Barry would have no problem if this clause was modified to say that he will not be paid for games missed while taking time to deal with an indictment if an indictment occurs.
But, again, this is not what the current clause says.

Further, it is actually very unlikely that Barry will need to miss any games since any trial is not likely to start until well after the season is over even if Barry were to be indicted tomorrow. As Barry's agent said Barry can likely commute to and from whatever pretrial hearings he might be required to attend just as Kobe did when he was indicted in Colorado for Rape. At most Barry would only miss a handful of games as a result of these hearings.

In conclusion, the Giants need to modify the clause to say that Barry will not be paid for games missed if he is indicted rather then Barry's contract can be terminated if he is indicted.

by giantsrainman on Feb 4, 2007 2:17 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Re: Wellllllllll..... yes and no

You are right IF and only if I was right in my supposition that this clause is about the team protecting itself from paying a gargantuan salary to a guy who foreseeably wasn't there to do part of it. But if I'm wrong, and it's really more about a team wanting to negotiate for the right to say "goodbye" to a guy under any kind of criminal indictment because they are in the public entertainment business, then modifying the language won't help.

I still say anything is valid to negotiate between 2 parties that have considerable bargaining power with each other. If the Giants want to be able to cut loose anyone under indictment, they are entitled to try to negotiate for that. If the player wants to agree to that in exchange for other considerations (such as a large base salary and then quite a large bonus for plateaus he'll almost certainly achieve if he isn't away from the team), that's valid on his part, too.

As to how much time away he'd actually have to take if indicted, I would not rush to the comparison to Kobe for a bunch of reasons (e.g., a local dickweed county district atty in Bumblefuck, Colorado is going to handle things differently from the U.S. Attorney's office; charges are different and have been differently investigated; etc.) We just don't know how much time away BB might have to take in the next 6 months. Again, that is IF the motivation for the clause is to protect against paying big dough for lost time-- about which I could be totally wrong. It could just as easily be motivated by "we're in the public entertainment business and don't want to be associated with indicted persons," in which case it's a fairly negotiated term in exchange for other stuff.

Love Giants; get heart and mind fried by Giants; repeat.

by Mayor of 311 on Feb 4, 2007 9:52 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Re: Why Bonds won't sign

I agree. The Giants should take this clause out of the contract. And like I said before, if Barry is indicted when he's hitting .300 with 25 homers, you really think the Giants are going to terminate his contract?? They're just going to try to get out of it if he's hurt or having a bad year. They're as phony as he is.

by rxmeister on Feb 3, 2007 3:26 PM PST reply actions 0 recs

Re: Why Bonds won't sign

Anybody see the episode of the TV show The Office where the the Diversity Training Manager insisted that The Boss, Steve Carrell aka Michael Scott sign a form and he signed it as "Donald Duck"....

Somehow I can see Bonds doing that at this point.

With Barry back, what could go wrong?

by Rusty the Mechanical Man on Feb 3, 2007 7:45 PM PST reply actions 0 recs

Re: Why Bonds won't sign

Sayhey:

What is the point of bringing attention to yet more rancid brain-vomit from a rabidly biased NYC media?

The latest spray-down from Murray the Mope, is just more of the same pus-infected sputum that too many in mass commercial media have been expectorating on an ill-informed public for the last 3 years. The problem is they think this shit is perfume and wear it proudly and self-righteously.

Almost to the point where you have normal thinking people willing to agree with the rabid anti-Bonds crowd just so they can pull their fingers out of their ears and not have to wince in anxiety everytime they pick up a sports story with the name "SF Giants" or "Barry Bonds"

Everybody here gets it one way or the other. You have a couple who are stubborn in their hatred of Bonds. Nothing is going to change their minds.

Save The Pitcher. Save The World

by E Ticket on Feb 4, 2007 10:52 AM PST reply actions 0 recs

Re: Why Bonds won't sign

ummmm.... because it was a slow news day? Really, I thought the report that the real hang up was Bonds' reaction (justifiable, it seems to me) about the leaking of language in his contract was news. I don't know who leaked it, the league or the Giants management, but I thought it seems a very petty way to take a swipe at Barry. I also don't disagree with any of the sentiments you've express towards the media.

Don't worry, E, pitchers and catchers report in a few weeks and then we will have other stories to scream about, instead of just this junk.

yob

by Sayhey on Feb 4, 2007 11:15 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Re: Why Bonds won't sign

Whatever. I simply have little use for most media in NYC specifically, and mass commercial media in general, as it tends to be inculcated with agenda driven writers, few of which are even interesting, let alone open-minded.

That so many are unwilling to discuss topics other than that which feeds the rumor mill is evidence enough that they are hacks.

Save The Pitcher. Save The World

by E Ticket on Feb 4, 2007 11:39 AM PST reply actions 0 recs

Re: Why Bonds won't sign

I'll say the same thing to you that people said to me regarding your posts. Don't read them. If it makes you so angry, you don't have to acknowledge them. However, if others wan to read what is being said, why do you have to persecute them for it?

by cheno on Feb 4, 2007 2:07 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Re: Why Bonds won't sign

Chass had an item a couple of weeks ago where he said if both the Bonds and Drew contracts blew up, he could see the Red Sox signing Bonds. He then said a few days later he was just kidding, after he got a ton of emails. Believe me, I read the original story and there was no sign anywhere that he was kidding. I think Chass is another writer who doesn't have a clue. Some Boston paper reported yesterday that the contract is back in the hands of Selig and it will be resolved soon. I trust them more than Chass, and I have no clue who wrote the article!! Wasn't it Chass' paper, the "esteemed" NY Times that had the Blair fellow who was just making crap up??

by rxmeister on Feb 5, 2007 8:12 AM PST reply actions 0 recs