The Unintentional Martyring of Barry Bonds

Thanks to loyal reader, Tim, for drawing my attention to this impassioned argument from Crashburn Alley and SweetSpot contributer, Bill Baer.  And, thanks to Jason Rosenberg of It's All About The Money for promoting this very thoughful response from Bill of The Platoon Advantage.  Ok...acknowledgements complete.


Caveat preemptor: Barry Bonds was, is, and always will be my favorite player. Though my vision is not so rose-tinted as to give me the ability to deny that he is, as are we all, quite fallible and undoubtedly has several causes for regret following his controversial career, I continue to believe that he has been more foully treated by the press and the baseball establishment than is warranted by his own admittedly foul treatment of others. He was, I grant, on many an occasion, a mean-spirited motherfucker, but he is certainly not alone in that habit among sublimely talented athletes.

Consider my bias acknowledged.

Now, Bill of The Platoon Advantage (as distinguished from Mr. Baer, also Bill) wisely begins his argument against Bonds collusion case by citing the definition of collusion in MLB's collective bargaining agreement. The moneyshot sentence is, "Players shall not act in concert with other players and clubs shall not act in concert with other clubs." Bill accurately observes that a strong legal case would probably require some documentation - a letter, a recorded conversation, maybe an email - in which somebody from a front office or from MLB was expressly telling a competitor not to negotiate with Bonds or his agent. For such a document to exist (especially some three years later) would bely an extraordinary act of incompetence and lack of foresight.

It should be noted, however, that in the previous instance of proven ownership collusion there was no such document, but the cased hinged largely on the deathbed admission of an owner who was in the room when commissioner Peter Ueberroth instructed an assembly of owners to stop offering long-term contracts to free agents. In this day and age it is almost impossible to keep a secret of this sort buried permanently, so, if there was in fact widespread and systematic collusion against Bonds, I think it's safe to predict that somebody's tongue will be loosened at some point down the road, though it will obviously be of little consequence to Bonds and maybe even to the MLBPA when it happens.

Not to resort to pedantry, but let's highlight that tidbit atop the last paragraph: the previous instance of ownership collusion. In the words of Mrs. Broflovski, "What-What-What?!?!" Yes, in the mid-eighties, an ownership contingent who still remembered the tremendous profitability of the indentured servitude which existed prior to free agency decided they'd bring back the glory days by agreeing that each owner would only offer contracts to his own players. They succeeded in this transparent fraud for three full seasons before getting caught and forced to pay a fine of some $280 Million (that's in 1980s dollars, by the by). Commissioner Peter Ueberroth is long gone. And surely none of the men who spearheaded this deeply anti-American scheme which gave The Pastime an additional black eye are still in positions of power.  Right?  Um...well, besides Ueberroth, two men were generally regarded as the ringleaders. In the AL it was Jerry Reinsdorf. Yes, he's still the owner of the Chicago White Sox. And in the NL it was Bud Selig. Yes, that Bud Selig.
(For more on the '80s collusion situation read Andrew Zimbalist, among others.)

If you can collude against an entire Union for three years and only get caught due to the guilty conscience of a cancerous whistle-blower, how hard would it be to collude against a single controversial player?

Bill frames his argument in terms of six questions to which I'd like to play devil's advocate (perhaps a poor choice of phrase when defending Bonds).

1.) How good was Bonds in 2008?

Bill doesn't have much of a leg to stand on here and he basically admits as much, so I won't dwell too long on the facts. Yes, Bonds was turning 43. Yes, he wasn't much of an outfielder any longer. Sure, his league-leading .480 OBP may have been inflated a touch by the intentional walks earned in part by reputation and in part by a paucity of lineup protection. But the simple fact is Bonds posted a 1045 OPS in 2007 and had a 1025 OPS over his previous three seasons. If Osama Bin Laden posted a four-digit OPS, some AL GM would almost certainly take a chance on him at Designated Hitter, dialysis machine and all.

Was Bonds still the best hitter in all of baseball in 2007? Probably not. Was he still part of that conversation? Most definitely.

2.) How much did he want to play, really?

A part of me, the part of me who watched Bonds religiously for two decades, wants to paint this question as ridiculous. Bonds was (and is?) an obsessive competitor who, though he had broken Hank Aaron's home run record, still had lots of personal milestones to shoot for. He needed 65 hits to get to 3,000. He needed four RBI to get to 2,000. It was not out of the question that he could be the first ever to make a run at 800 HR given a couple more years of good health. But, more importantly, the only thing tarnishing his baseball resume was the fact that he hadn't won a World Series. I think it's safe to say he would've paid an organization for another shot at the postseason, if the CBA allowed for such a thing.

But Bill does make some interesting points. The statements made be Jeff Borris, Bonds' agent, were perhaps hyperbolic (a sports agent exaggerates, what is the world coming to). Maybe Joe Posnanski is correct. Maybe Borris did not write a letter to Kansas City GM, Dayton Moore, specifically offering Bonds services for the league minimum. The question then is, did Dayton Moore, upon hearing that offer in the press, consider calling Borris and taking him up on it? Why not? The hoopla would've been good for the Royals. Just the people coming to boo and throw syringes and hold up asterisk signs could've doubled K.C.'s attendance.  


But I jest.

Where Bill runs a little astray is when he says that after the regular season started "you might forgive baseball's front offices for being a little reticent to go out and hire a guy entering his mid-forties who, as far as they know, hadn't played baseball for nearly a year." Seriously? For the league minimum, you don't think anybody had a cause, maybe even a responsibility, to kick the tires on a seven-time MVP whose last homer was less than a year old? These are the same front offices who didn't hesitate to bring back midseason versions of Roger Clemens and Pedro Martinez, who jumped on the opportunity to employ a 40-year-old Jim Edmonds following an layoff of nearly two years, who continue to find reasons to pay Mark Prior, who hasn't pitched at the major-league level in five years, who brought Rickey Henderson back for the independent leagues at age 44. I do not forgive their reticence, Bill, nor to I believe that thirty men, at least half of whom are either 1.) very bright or 2.) very risk-averse, and a few of whom may be both, actually made such a decision without intervention.

3.) Was there anything to all those off-the-field concerns?

Were there ever to be a real collusion investigation, this is where Bud Selig and his league of blundering gentlemen would hang their hats (Seriously, do all the incompetent rich guys end up owning baseball teams? I'm looking at you Fred Wilpon...and Tom Hicks...and Frank McCourt...). There is, of course, genuine reason to be skeptical of a player with a federal indictment hanging over his head. And, at the time, it wasn't entirely obvious that the indictment was drummed-up by overzealous publicity-hungry thrillseekers from the DEA and DA's office who wouldn't hesitate to throw millions of taxpayer dollars at an unwinnable case. Go, go gadget government. But that's another story.

Still, it was pretty clear that even if the case were absolutely rock-solid, it wasn't going to go to court during the '08 season. You didn't have to be a legal expert to see this, though I'm sure that every franchise does have a few legal experts in their rolodex, just in case they want that type of confirmation.

I don't have time to list all the players who've faced prosecution, sometime even on violent felony charges, at some time or another during their playing careers. I'm going to assume that even the most casual sports fan can bring three examples to mind in under a minute's reflection. Do you think if K-Rod had been a free agent this offseason, nobody would've made him a cheap addition to the back of their bullpen? Has anybody fired Milton Bradley yet? Seriously, anybody? In the wake of the Moneyball revolution, there wasn't a single GM who saw a promising risk-to-reward ratio in adding Barry Bonds for the same price as, say, Alex Cora?

One of the circumstantial pieces of evidence that was so troubling during the 2008 offseason was that in an era where anonymously-sourced rumors get floated more or less constantly (Haven't you heard, Carmelo Anthony's going to the Lakers.), there were curiously few speculative reports about teams even talking to Bonds agent. Borris, who is, granted, a somewhat unreliable source, confirmed after the fact that what few discussions he did have about Bonds were always begun by him. That's just weird.

4.) Who should have wanted him?

Short answer, of course, is EVERYBODY. Remember that four-digit OPS. Yeah? 193 players got 450+ plate appearances in 2007. Nine of them had a 1000+ OPS and only two of them, A-Rod and Big Papi, had a higher OPS than Bonds. If you don't want a hitter like that on your team, you obviously don't belong in a baseball front office. Bill points out that many teams already had players slotted into left field and/or DH and, sure, if you were one of those teams, like the Red Sox, for instance, who had studs at both positions, you could be forgiven for passing on Barry, but have you noticed how many teams employ multiple DH types these days? How many players are in the Rangers LF/DH rotation right now? How about the Orioles? Twins? Frankly, most GMs would seem to be of the opinion, when you have a shot at a premium hitter, you take it and figure out how the pieces fit together later.

5.) Why hasn't a grievance been filed?

Bill believes that because the MLBPA has not recently released any statement regarding the collusion allegations, which they last claimed to be investigating in the winter of 2008, they must not have found anything. Of course, Bill's own point, about the difficulty of legally proving collusion, is one explanation for the delay. It could easily take more than two and a half years for usable evidence to surface. As mentioned above, it took longer than that the last time this happened, and one would expect that Selig & Co. might have learned something from getting caught.

There are other factors here as well. In case you haven't noticed, the MLBPA has had some other things on its plate recently. There's that whole Scarlet S thing and then there's a regime change and there's some fishy stuff going on down in South America and the league is trying to get leverage to change the amateur draft and there's been some tension within the union and Selig is generally regarded as one of the most powerful commissioners in the history of the game (but he can't stay in office forever right) and there's those other two leagues which are about to go on strike/get locked out and it might be really nice for everybody involved in baseball to be on the side of the one major American team sport (hockey doesn't count) not embroiled in ugly labor strife for once. You get the picture.

Be mindful, there is no statute of limitations as to when the MLBPA can come back to the collusion argument.

6.) Would collusion have made any sense to anybody?

I really like Bill's point here:

"Here's the thing, though: it only takes one chiseler. One Andrew Friedman or Billy Beane to decide that no, he doesn't believe that, and that he's going to sign Bonds anyway, the cartel be damned. If that single GM doesn't believe the central premise upon which the collusive agreement is based, there's absolutely no motivation for him to join in the agreement. Likewise, because the other teams have no way of keeping that one team in check, there's no motivation for them to collude in the first place; if the 30 teams agree, they'll simply act accordingly without actually colluding about it (tacit collusion, remember?), and if one of them doesn't, then there was nothing to be done for that at any rate.

The only scenario under which this does make some sense to me, then, is one in which it's not really the thirty teams driving the illicit behavior, but rather some central authority -- we'll call him Spud Cheelig, just because -- who exercises some power over the teams in order to coerce back into line those that might otherwise not obey."

Bill's right, this is territory where one has to tread carefully. There are sharks in the water, which is why, at this point, I want to make a critical distinction. When Bill takes up the question of collusion, the assumption he makes from the start is that we are discussing the potential of legal repercussions; that, to be called "collusion," it must fall clearly within the definition outlined by the CBA. Basically, it's not collusion if no court could reasonably be expected to call it that. And on these grounds I think Bill has a strong case. It will take more evidence than is currently available to the general public for Bonds to make his case stick with a judge or an arbitrator and by the point that evidence surfaces (if it ever does) he may be so sick of courtrooms he wouldn't even want to bother with it.

But, let's go back to Mr. Baer's original article which concludes as such:

"Whether MLB and the owners care to admit it or not, they colluded against Bonds to keep him from playing baseball after the '07 season. That, not the rampant steroid use during the 1990s and early 2000s, will be what ultimately leaves a black eye on baseball's history." 

Mr. Baer's casual use of "collusion" was, by my reading, not a legal argument, but rather a historical one. And, though MLB may never be formally charged with collusion, the court of history gives circumstantial evidence much greater credence.

The "black eye on baseball's history" will not necessarily be founded upon unsealed documents, courtroom transcripts, payrolls, statistics, and deathbed confessions, it may, like many episodes in history, bear only a passing resemblance to truth, but it may go something like this:


Cue Yo-Yo Ma performing a sombre B-minor version of 'Take Me Out To The Ballgame'; Samuel L. Jackson narrates over footage from Bonds record-breaking '07 season.

Barry Bonds, one of the most controversial, most popular, and most talented players in the history of the game, was forced into retirement following a season in which he broke the most hallowed record in professional sports, a record formerly held by his Commissioner's hometown hero. Bud Selig, who ceaselessly voiced his admiration for former home run king, Hank Aaron, was reluctantly on hand to see the record broken and stood somberly, hands in his pockets, as Bonds celebrated #756 with his teammates, his young son, and the ecstatic fans of his longtime team, the San Francisco Giants.


As Jackson and Ma continue, Ken Burns pans and scans across pictures from the Congressional hearings, Bonds' trial, and Selig's press conferences.

Although there was nothing to suggest that Bonds' considerable powers as a hitter had been dramatically reduced, he was unable to find another job following the season. Impeding his search was an ill-timed federal indictment (the case was eventually thrown out of court) and the Selig-sponsored Mitchell Report, released in the winter of 2007. The Mitchell Report, which was not comprehensive or legally binding, named Bonds alongside 80-some other players who allegedly used steroids during the 1990s and 2000s. In the wake of the report, designed to be the last word in the PED scandal (it wasn't, not by a long shot), Selig and much of the baseball establishment were eager to put the so-called Steroid Era behind them. Although no allegations against Bonds ever lived up to the courts' burden of evidence, he became, along with Roger Clemens, Mark McGwire, and Andy Pettitte, one of the faces of the "Steroid Era." It seemed incompatible with Selig's eagerness to move past the scandal for Bonds to remain on the field, adding to record-setting totals which many, including the Commissioner, believed to be of dubious origins.


The narrative jumps forward to footage of Alex Rodriguez in pinstripes, generally looking pleased with himself.

A decade later, a player whose career overlapped with Bonds and who admitted using steroids, though he was never named in the Mitchell Report, managed to break Bonds career home run record in the final year of his career, though he was but a glimmer of his former self. Bonds and Selig were both on hand to honor A-Rod's fete, though neither could disguise their ambivalence. Rodriguez, PEDs or not, never put together a season on par with Bonds at the peak of his powers and many baseball fans are forced to wonder what Bonds career would've been like had he been allowed to end it on his own terms.


The camera retreats from the number 25 affixed to the outfield wall in at San Francisco's PacBell Park.


End scene.

BBWAA Drinks Michele Bachmann's Bathwater (or, Cooperstown, Arizona)

As Ken Burns' Tenth Inning documentary so subtly points out, if we weren't so inclined to call the last two decades of baseball history "The Steroid Era," they would most certainly be defined by the influx of immigrant ballplayers - from Europe, from Asia, and especially from Latin America.  If you demarcate the Steroid Era from the introduction of the "Bash Brothers" (1987) to the retirement of Roger Clemens and Barry Bonds (2007), you see a heretofore unparalleled degree of Hispanic talent.  The Nineties and Naughties were for Latino players and fans what the '50s and '60s had been for African-Americans.

When the "Puerto Rican Jackie Robinson," Roberto Clemente, died bringing supplies to Nicaraguan earthquake victims in the winter of 1973, the BBWAA rightly held a special election, the first and still the only of its kind.  They enshrined Clemente without the usual five-year waiting period.  However, since that time the BBWAA's recognition of Hispanic players has been relatively sparing.  When Roberto Alomar takes the stage in Cooperstown this summer, he will be only the fifth Latino voted in by the BBWAA.  That's right, in nearly forty years the BBWAA has found only five Hispanics worthy of induction: Juan Marichal ('83), Luis Aparicio ('84), Rod Carew ('91), Tony Perez ('00), and Alomar ('11).  A handful of other deserving Hispanic stars, most notably Orlando Cepeda, had to find their way into the Hall through the back door (a.k.a. The Veterans Committee), which only further highlights the BBWAA's distressingly prejudicial track record.

But that's about to change, right?  Alomar is but the first of the floodtide of Puerto Rican, Domincan, Venezuelan, and Cuban megastars who came to dominate the game during the Clinton-Bush decades and will eventually wash up on the Elysium shores of Cooperstown.  Their entrance into the Hall cannot be denied, right?

Not so fast.

You see, one of the dirty little secrets about the tacit ban of PED-abusers being enforced by the BBWAA voters is that it cuts broadly swatches in the Latin-American baseball legacy.  I'm not saying that's it's overt aim, but it is what's happening.  And, when it comes to prejudicial treatment, rationales generally don't carry much water.  Yes, Bonds and Clemens grab more headlines and have been the subject of more legal prosecution (or persecution, depending on how you look at it), but their notoriety, coupled with that of Mark McGwire, may mislead us into seeing this as a black and white issue (pardon the horrible pun).

It always feels a little dirty breaking things down along racial lines, but I think it's necessary to see what I'm taking about.  In the wake of Jeff Bagwell's poor showing, it seems clear the BBWAA intends to stigmatize not only convicted and/or admitted abusers, but also those who have been indicted by widespread rumor.  Here's a rough list of Hall of Fame candidates (let me emphasize, some of these guys would be borderline cases, even without the PED issue) who have been branded with the Scarlet S:

African-American:

Barry Bonds*
Gary Sheffield*

Caucasian:

Roger Clemens*
Mark McGwire*
Jeff Bagwell
Jason Giambi
Andy Pettitte
Kevin Brown

Hispanic:

Alex Rodriguez*
Sammy Sosa*
Manny Ramirez*
Rafael Palmeiro*
Ivan Rodriguez*
David Ortiz
Juan Gonzalez
Jose Canseco
Miguel Tejada
Luis Gonzalez

*Denotes lock for enshrinement if it weren't for PED allegations.

No doubt there will be additions to this list in the intervening years.  Every voter who sees himself as a "moral policeman" has probably already passed judgement on a few players who the general public may not even suspect.  What I want to draw your attention to is the "stars."

Were it not for the stigma of PEDs, we would, over the next decade, be seeing the Hispanic "wing" of the Hall of Fame adding as many members as it did in the entirety of the previous century.  In fact, with guys like Pedro Martinez, Vladimir Guerrero, Omar Vizquel, and Mariano Rivera also gaining eligibility sometime in the relatively near future (none, so far as I know, has yet been linked to PEDs), we could've seen the total Latino contingent as much as tripling in size during the early part of the 21st century.

No place was more associated with the revolution of Latino baseball than the Dominican Republic.  Most now regard the island as the greatest concentration of baseball talent in the world.  As yet, however, there is only one Dominican Hall of Famer, Juan Marichal.  No Dominican position players have been inducted.  Sammy Sosa, who self-consciously took the mantle of "Dominican Clemente," was supposed to change that.  In terms of power-hitting, his five season stretch from '98 to '02 is unparalleled in history.  He leads all Dominican-born players in homers.  But, unless something changes, he won't be in the Hall of Fame.

Nor will Manny Ramirez, possibly the greatest hitter of the Dominican Immigration Era (I'd argue Albert Pujols, but Manny did get a seven-year headstart, making him more of a groundbreaker).  By the end of this season, Manny will lead all Dominican players in hits, runs, doubles, walks, and RBI.  Yet we may have to wait until five years after Pujols retires (2025? 2030?) to see the induction of a Dominican hitter.    

Pudge Rodriguez will likely be the first catcher to 3000 hits.  He was the best of a generation of Latino backstops who revolutionized the position, including Benito Santiago (Puerto Rico), Tony Pena (Dominican Republic), Sandy Alomar Jr. (P.R.), and the Molina brothers (P.R.).  Prior to late '80s, it was totally normal to give Gold Gloves to fat white catchers who didn't throw anybody out.  Then stuff like this started happening routinely.  It's not exaggeration to say Puerto Rican catchers changed the game; however, the BBWAA probably won't find room for a Puerto Rican catcher in Cooperstown.

Rafael Palmeiro was born in Havana, Cuba in 1964.  It wasn't the most important thing that happened in Cuba that year.  But he became, far and away, the most successful Cuban hitter in Major League Baseball history, only the fourth player (of any nationality) to get 3000 hits and 500 homers.  But there's no room for this defector in Cooperstown.

Over the next decade Alex Rodriguez will take aim at several major records.  When he retires, he will be included in the "greatest ever" discussion, alongside Ruth, Bonds, and Mays.  He'll be the first player of Hispanic descent to enter into that conversation.  But, unless something changes, he won't be in the Hall of Fame.

For a long time now, baseball has been a global game.  Hell, MLB has been actively touting itself as such for at least a decade.  Yet, for some odd reason, from 2001 to 2010, during a decade defined by globalization, the BBWAA voted in eight white guys and eight black guys, all born in the United States. That ratio has got to change, but a contingent of patronizing writers within the BBWAA have found a way to assure that it won't, at least not as drastically as it should.

In 21st-Century America, we are sensitive to accusations of racism, which is, perhaps, a good place to start.  But it doesn't mean we aren't racist.  When we want to drum up racist or nativist sentiments, we rail against illegal immigrants, welfare mothers, the uneducated and unemployed, drug abusers, and terrorists.  It isn't our fault that most of the people who make up these criticized constituencies happen to be minorities.  If they happen to observe that their minority status may be the precursor to lack of opportunity, education, etc. which is the stated grounds for their persecution, we call it "perceived racism."  There is no such thing.

The BBWAA has to ask themselves, when history looks back at their moral crusade, what will the Scarlet S really stand for.

The Juiced Hall Era

I was certainly thrilled that Andre Dawson was elected to the baseball Hall of Fame earlier this week, but I was also disappointed to learn that he will be the only member of the 2010 class. Obviously, there are a wide range of opinions among the membership of the BBWAA on what exactly it means to be a Hall of Famer and what exactly the role of the Hall of Fame is, and they are certainly entitled to that debate, since effective ground rules have never been laid out.

Bill James' The Politics of Glory outlines the Hall's humble origins, it's numerous oddities, and its torturous electoral process.  It is a must-read, even for people who aren't generally of the sabermetric persuasion.  Even though I don't fully agree with all of James' arguments, I appreciate that men like himself and Rob Neyer have thoughtful, well-reasoned explanations of what they expect the Hall to represent. Many other pundits (many of them BBWAA voters) are irrational and schizophrenic on the subject.  Sportswriters are prone to prejudice, ignorance, and hubris on many topics, but perhaps none more blatantly provokes these qualities than questions about the Hall of Fame ballot.

Personally, I just can't understand Cooperstown as anything except an archive and a museum.  I honestly don't imagine what other role it is supposed to play.  As such, I don't see the problem with inclusivity.  I have extraordinary liberal standards.  On this particular ballot, I would've supported the candidacies of fourteen players: Dawson, Roberto Alomar, Tim Raines, Barry Larkin, Alan Trammell, Mark McGwire, Edgar Martinez, Burt Blyleven, Lee Smith, Jack Morris, Dave Parker, Dale Murphy, Don Mattingly, and Fred McGriff.  And there are many other players who I believe are too important to a rich baseball education to be excluded from an institution whose primary purpose would appear to be assisting such an education: Dick Allen and Curt Flood, for starters.  What I'm looking for from the Hall of Fame is a relatively complete picture of the various eras of baseball history and I think each of these men are appropriate to a portrait which is vivid and engaging.

I don't think baseball fans are as ignorant at the writers think we are. Just because Jack Morris is in the Hall of Fame, that doesn't mean he will be forever remembered as equal to Bob Gibson or Sandy Koufax.  When writers argue that enshrining a player like Dawson or Blyleven or McGriff might somehow "dilute" the Hall of Fame and diminish the accomplishments of its other members I am appalled.  It portrays egotism and misanthropy, suggesting such writers think everybody else too stupid to make subtle qualitative distinctions.

On the contrary, I believe the Hall of Fame's institutional role should go well beyond increasing the appreciation of "first-ballot" players like Gibson, Koufax, Ruth, and Mays, men whose legends and contributions need very little help remaining in the public eye.  I think it would be wonderful to have a place where people can also learn about players (and other baseball personnel) who haven't been as broadly canonized, but are nonetheless fascinating and inspirational figures. I can't help but ask, "Why not?"  What possible disservice would be done by having a Dave Parker plaque in Cooperstown?  Parker's career was fully of incredible accomplishments and is also defined by a number of curious, humorous, and instructive anecdotes.

A Hall of Fame which successfully rendered an objective and productive history of America's pastime would have to be an independent institution. Bud Selig (and subsequent commissioners) should not have the power to govern the Hall, nor should there be any criteria which makes a player ineligible for entry.   The more the Hall relies upon MLB or the BBWAA, the more it loses credibility and becomes a largely inconsequential syphon for advertising and propaganda.  A truly comprehensive baseball history naturally includes the careers of Pete Rose, Joe Jackson, and Mark McGwire. To argue otherwise is grossly incompetent.  The Hall of Fame won't be a truly legitimate institution until such players are included.

However, I also believe the players should have no say in how they are represented in Cooperstown. Those actions which sullied the reputations of the men listed above are as much a part of baseball history as their achievements on the field. So, yes, Mark McGwire should be in the Hall of Fame...but his plaque will "talk about the past."

Frankly, McGwire's treatment by voters thusfar suggests we are headed down a slippery slope. How do they propose to distinguish which "juiced" players get in and which ones don't.  McGwire's example is a dangerous one especially because he was never suspended for drug abuse or convicted of anything.  Everything we know about his pharmaceutical exploits is circumstantial.  Much the same can be said of Clemens, Bonds, A-Rod, and many of the other so-called "juicers."  The subjectivity of this process endangers the credibility of the institution.  What happens if Clemens is elected, but Bonds is not, or vice versa.

It is possible that ten years from now we will have a Hall of Fame that more or less omits two decades of baseball history and does not include baseball's all-time hits leader (Rose) or baseball's all-time home-run leaders (Barry Bonds and Alex Rodriguez), not to mention other players of extraordinary accomplishment like McGwire, Clemens, Manny Ramirez, Sammy Sosa, etc.

People go to the Hall of Fame largely to embrace their own nostalgia and share a part of those memories with their children. Many men and women who grew up during the "Juiced Ball" era would have very little use for a museum which ignores the existence of those players who most defined their youth. Keeping them out of the Hall of Fame is a fascistic re-writing of history. What must happen, eventually, is that baseball must enshrine the best players of that era, but they must do so without ignoring the ethical questions which also dominated the decade.

What makes a museum different from an amusement park is that it is expected to elicit not only joy, but also curiosity.  When a parent takes a child, they expect not only to entertain them, but also to educate and intrigue.  In such situations, it is imperative that the child see beyond the heroizing phenomenon of athletic celebrity.  Baseball is a wonderful way of exploring American cultural history, and that history much include discussions of addiction, exploitation, prejudice, and even defeat.  Manny's suspension is a part baseball's historical record, as is the Mitchell Report, the Bonds indictment, the Congressional hearings, the BALCO investigation, etc. To pretend otherwise merely compromises your credibility.

Notes on the Noughties

During the last few weeks the baseball media has been dominated by discussions of All-Decade rankings for players and teams. These discussions are, of course, founded upon an arbitrary window, which means they can lead to some odd conclusions. For instance, it has been generally accepted that Player of the Decade consideration comes down to A-Rod and Pujols, both of whom are certainly legitimate choices. However, imagine if we were including Barry Bonds' final two campaigns in the late '90s, or even had he been allowed to continue playing for two more seasons in his mid-forties (seasons which Bud Selig robbed from fans, a sin for which the commissioner should never be forgiven).

Bonds would, of course, lead Pujols and A-Rod in the vast majority of ratios and advanced metrics (OBP, SLG, OPS, WAR, Win Shares, etc.) and would be near the top in several counting categories as well (HR, BB, R, etc.). At the very least, it would have to be considered a three-horse race. A similar assumption can be made about Greg Maddux, who, despite retiring prior to the 2009 season, is still among the top ten starting pitchers of the decade in wins, starts, and innings, among other things.

However, despite the fact that All-Decade debates are purely academic, they operate as a mode for appreciating the recent history of the sport we love and, as such, are an enjoyable aspect of this Hot Stove season. As my contribution, I would like to levy praise upon a few people who have been under-represented in the All-Decade articles I've read so far. Most of these guys aren't worthy of being considered in the greatest players of the decade discussions at any position. In some cases, far from it. But their contributions nonetheless made an impact on the game and its fans, and in many cases, helped to define the way baseball was evolving in the decade of the 2000s.

Innings-Eater of the Decade: Livan Hernandez

The defining rotations of the 1990s were composed of three- and four-headed monsters: Maddux, Glavine, and Smoltz in Atlanta; Nagy, Hershiser, & Martinez in Cleveland; and the revolving door of free agent Aces who joined with Andy Pettitte in the Bronx (Clemens, Cone, Wells, Gooden, Rogers, & El Duque). I'm not sure that the "innings-eating" #3 starter was purely an invention of the Noughties, but teams certainly valued such pitchers more than ever before. Jeff Suppan and Carlos Silva netted nearly $50 Million apiece on the promise of fulfilling that role. Jamie Moyer appears prepared to pitch into his fifties in that capacity. But for me, the quintessential innings-eater is Livan Hernandez.

Too often this decade, organizations like the Giants and Expos asked him to be their Ace and that was not his calling, but Livan Hernandez gobbles up innings at a rate unprecedented in the contemporary era. From 2000 until 2006, he never pitched less than 216 innings in a season, topping out at 255 in 2004. Three times he led the league in innings, twice in complete games, and four times in hits allowed. This decade he threw a total of 2201 innings, 38 more than his closest competitor (Javier Vazquez). In the process he went 129-124 and maintained essentially a league-average ERA (4.46). Only Roy Halladay accumulated more complete games.

Best Season: Expos 2003 (15-10, 3.20 ERA, 1.21 WHIP, 178 K, 233 IP, 8 CG, 3.12 K/BB)

LOOGY of the Decade: Steve Kline & Ray King

The "left-handed one-out guy" got a fair amount of play in Michael Lewis's Moneyball and can safely be counted among the major innovations of the contemporary era, the credit going usually to Tony LaRussa and Dave Duncan. And whether they discovered the LOOGY or not, they certainly possessed the most effective implementation of it, when, in 2004, on their way to 105 wins and the NL Championship with the Cardinals, they employed two LOOGYs, Steve Kline and Ray King, who combined for 153 appearances and 112 innings. King and Kline completely shut down opposing left-handed sluggers, allowing one lonely homer during the entire season and an opponent's OPS under 450.

Both King and Kline had relatively prolonged careers in this capacity. From 2001 to 2007 King made at least 67 appearances every year and maintained a 3.52 ERA. From 2000 to 2007 Kline made at least 66 appearances every year and maintained a 3.32 ERA. They rank #9 and #11 in relief appearances over the course of the decade, combining for 1173 appearances and 889 innings. But 2004 was the best for each.

Best Season: 2004 Cardinals (Kline: 1.79 ERA, King: 2.61 ERA)

TTO of the Decade: Adam Dunn

The "Three True Outcomes" hitter was another topic of discussion in Moneyball, referring to players who ended the vast majority of their at-bats with either a strikeout, a walk, or a home run. In the "Juiced Ball" era, such players were valuable, despite the high number of "unproductive outs" they were prone to make.

49.1% of all of Adam Dunn's plate appearances ended in one of those outcomes. Compare that to a more traditional RBI man like Mark Texeira, whose TTO rate is 33.9% or a more extreme opposing example like Albert Pujols, whose TTO is just 28.7%, despite the fact that he has similar homer and walk rates.

Dunn led the league in strikeouts on three occasions in the Noughties. He led in walks once. Most importantly, he had a truly impressive run of five straight 40 HR seasons, which ended last year, when he hit "merely" 38.

Best Season: 2004 Reds (46 HR, 108 BB, 195 K, 102 RBI, 105 R, 956 OPS, 51.2% TTO)

WAR-rior of the Decade: Franklin Gutierrez

The Wins Above Replacement statistic has become a favored metric of sabermetricians in recent years. It, like Bill James' Win Shares, attempts to balance offensive production with defensive efficiency and positional scarcity. The names at the top of the list usually aren't too surprising - Pujols, Mauer, Utley, etc. - but the performance of Franklin Gutierrez has continued to defy projections.

Over the last three seasons, the performance of the Mariners 26-year-old centerfielder went from 1.8 wins above replacement t0 5.9, ranking him twelfth among all hitters in 2009. Base on FanGraphs tabulations, that means Gutierrez is worth somewhere in the vicinity of $20 Million a year, even though in 2009, he made the league minimum.

Obviously, Gutierrez's performance is based largely on his off-the-charts defensive ratings. His only comparable is Andruw Jones in his prime. This coming arbitration season will be interesting on many accounts (Tim Lincecum, anybody?), not the least of which is whether Gutierrez's agent can make a case for a large award based on the new evolutions in defensive analytics.

Best Season: 2009 Mariners (.283 AVG, 18 HR, 85 RBI, 764 OPS, 27.1 UZR, 5.9 WAR)

Most Underrated Pitcher: Mark Buehrle

I was listening to a Baseball Today podcast earlier this week as they discussed their All-Decade selections and Eric Karabell and Peter Pascarelli scoffed when a listener suggested that Mark Buehrle might be part of the All-Decade rotation. I will admit, he's probably borderline, but if you don't think he's in the running, you haven't been paying attention. Only Livan Hernandez and Javier Vazquez threw more innings during the 2000s, despite the fact that Buehrle was just 20 when the decade began. Among pitcher who pitched in every season of the 2000s, he ranks eighth in ERA at 3.80. He's won 135 games during that span, also good for eighth. And has been the picture of consistency.

From 2001 to 2009 Mark Buehrle never made less than 30 starts. He has five seasons of 15+ wins and has netted double-digit wins in every year. He ERA has risen above the league average only once, in his rough 2006 campaign (12-13, 4.99), and on many occasions he has been among the league leaders (as low as 3.12 in 2005). He has a World Series ring, a Gold Glove, four All-Star nods, and, of course, a no-hitter and a perfect game.

Best Season: 2005 White Sox (16-8, 3.12 ERA, 1.18 WHIP, 149 K, 237 IP, 3.73 K/BB)

Most Underrated Hitter: Bobby Abreu

His performance in this year's ALDS went a long way towards raising people's awareness, but Abreu's extraordinary performance this decade was often overshadowed by his teammates in Philadelphia and the Bronx. Abreu got to the plate more times than anybody in baseball during the 2000s and he finished in the top ten in hits (#8), runs (#5), RBI (#10), stolen bases (#6), walks (#2), and OBP (#8). He was a 30/30 man twice and a 20/20 man in every season except '06 (15/30), '07 (16/25), and '09 (15/30).

Best Season: 2004 Phillies (.301 AVG, 118 R, 30 HR, 105 RBI, 40 SB, 971 OPS)

Most Underrated Fielder: Pedro Feliz

I'm certainly open to debating whether a man who has never posted an OPS of 800+ is worthy of being a major-league starter at the hot corner, as Feliz has been for most of the decade. I will strongly contend, however, that Feliz is one of the smoothest and most impressive glovemen to ever play that position. He fields the barehanded dribbler better than anybody I've ever seen, ranges well in all directions, and has a canon for an arm. Thankfully, the stats back me up. Over the course of the decade he compiled a UZR of 76.4 and a UZR/150 of 15.5. Here's how that compares to other third basemen from the top ten in games played during this decade.

UZR/150:

Pedro Feliz 15.5

Scott Rolen 15.5

Adrian Beltre 13.9

Brandon Inge 6.9

Mike Lowell -0.2

Aramis Ramirez -1.5

Alex Rodriguez -2.2

Melvin Mora -2.8

Chipper Jones -3.3

Troy Glaus -5.4

As you can see, Feliz deserves to be ranked on equal footing with Rolen and Beltre as the best defenders of the decade at their position, leaps and bounds ahead of the rest of the field. That Feliz did not win a Gold Glove, while David Wright and Mike Lowell did, is among this decade's significant injustices.

Best Season: 2007 Giants (20 HR, 72 RBI, 708 OPS, 22.3 UZR, 2.8 WAR)

The Sporting Hippeaux's All-Decade Team:

C - Joe Mauer

1B - Albert Pujols

2B - Chase Utley

3B - Alex Rodriguez

SS - Miguel Tejada (This isn't just because I hate Jeter, stats back me up.)

LF - Barry Bonds

CF - Carlos Beltran

RF - Ichiro Suzuki

DH - David Ortiz

SP - Roy Halladay

SP - Randy Johnson

SP - Johan Santana

SP - Pedro Martinez

SP - C. C. Sabathia

RP - Mariano Rivera

RP - Billy Wagner

RP - Trevor Hoffman

RP - Francisco Rodriguez

RP - Joe Nathan

Honorable Mentions:

C - Victor Martinez

1B/3B - Carlos Delgado

2B/SS - Derek Jeter

OF - Vladimir Guerrero

OF - Andruw Jones

Offseason Prospectus #12: The Pitiful Pittsburgh Pirates & The Curse of Barry Bonds

It's official. As of the end of the 2009 season, the Pittsburgh Pirates, one of the most storied franchises in the National League, have set a new record for ineptitude, having now failed to achieve even a .500 record for 17 consecutive seasons. Their last winning season came to an end in October of 1992, when a back-up catcher named Francisco Cabrera laced a single into left field, driving home former Pirate, Sid Bream, to end Game 7 of the NLCS. I was twelve-years-old and I'll admit it, I cried. The Pirates were my father's team. He'd spent much of his youth in Pittsburgh, and thus, as was natural, they were my team as well, at least until I was old enough to cultivate my own allegiances. As Bream slid past Mike LaValliere and Barry Bonds' throw arrived just a tad too late from left field, I broke into tears and my father said sternly, unselfconsciously quoting Tom Hanks in A League of Their Own, "There's no crying in baseball."

Obviously, I didn't know how long and how dreadful the slump would be, but even as a kid whose understanding of baseball was largely guided by card collecting, I knew that those Pirates, the team that had be the object of my first baseball infatuation, would not be the same by the time the next season began. My three favorite players were all becoming free agents. Doug Drabek, who'd be the Ace during Pittsburgh's run of three consecutive pennants, and had a career record of 92-62 with a 3.02 ERA as a Pirate, would sign with the Houston Astros. Jose Lind, the slick-fielding second-baseman who entertained fans during batting practice by jumping over teammates, joined the Kansas City Royals. And, of course, Barry Bonds, coming off a year in which he won his second MVP (and it really should've been three in a row), set a new benchmark for free agents by agreeing to a six-year, $43.75 Million contract with the San Francisco Giants.

The Pirates had had their chance to sign the man who led them to three straight pennants. The previous winter Bonds had been prepared to negotiate with the team that drafted and developed him. The Pirates chose instead to prioritize the retention of Andy Van Slyke, who was a fine player, certainly, but, well, I think we can all agree that even at his very best, Van Slyke was no Barry Bonds. And so Bonds walked and Pittsburgh baseball has been cursed ever since.

Not only have they been without a winning season, they've hardly come close. The Pirates haven't even won as many as 70 games since 2004. They've only won more than 75 twice in the last seventeen years. They've been through six managers, two of whom went on to win Manager of the Year with other teams (Jim Leyland and Jim Tracy), and six general managers. When you go back and look at these Pirates teams, you will find very little to be proud of. Since 1992 only five Pirates have recorded even one season of 100+ RBI: Jason Bay, Aramis Ramirez, Brian Giles, Jeff King, and Kevin Young. Bay, Ramirez, Giles, King, and Reggie Sanders are the only Pirates who've hit 30+ HR in a season over that span. To put that in perspective, over the same span, the Yankees have had ten different players who achieve both marks in the same year. And the pitching side of things is even more depressing. Since '92 only one Pirate has had a season of 15 wins. It was Todd Ritchie (15-9) in 1999.

Perhaps it's too soon to label Bonds' curse equal to that of the Billy Goat or the Bambino, but consider this. The general manager who was responsible for letting Bonds walk, Ted Simmons, suffered a heart attack only months after Barry signed with the Giants. Van Slyke, expected to be Pittsburgh's star in the post-Bonds era, hurt his knee midway through '93 and never recovered. He retired in 1995, at the age of 34, after three straight injury-plagued campaigns.

Not only did the Pirates franchise fall into a period of historic suffering following Bonds exodus, even his former teammates had a horrible run of luck. Drabek went 9-18 in 1993 and despite being only 30-years-old never again showed anything resembling the form he'd displayed in Pittsburgh. Lind, just 29, played only one season in Kansas City before his cocaine addiction spiraled out of control. He was out of baseball completely within three years and spent a year in prison after being arrested driving drunk and naked through the streets of KC. Sid Bream, 31, put all he had into that final dash for home. His balky knees gave out for good in '93 and he retired in '94.

Neal Huntington took over as Pittsburgh's GM in 2007. Clearly, he had a lot of work to do, but one has to believe that by 2010 it would be reasonable for Pirates fans to expect to see some progress. Well, Bonds is still officially a free agent? Maybe it's time for the an exorcism.

Free Agents:

Matt Capps (26) RHCL

Arbitration Eligible:

Ronny Cedeno (27) SS

Zach Duke (27) LHSP

Jeff Karstens (27) RHSP

ETA 2010?:

Pedro Alvarez (23) 3B

Jeff Clement (26) 1B/C

Brad Lincoln (25) RHSP

Daniel Moskos (24) LHSP

Steve Pearce (27) 1B/OF

Jose Tabata (21) OF

Donnie Veal (25) LHSP

Neil Walker (24) 3B

One thing you can certainly say about Huntington is that he has a strategy which is crystal clear. During his three season as the helm he has been a trading fool, sending away Jason Bay, Nate McLouth, Freddy Sanchez, Xavier Nady, Jack Wilson, Nyjer Morgan, Adam LaRoche, Salomon Torres, Tom Gorzelanny, Ian Snell, Damaso Marte, John Grabow, Jose Bautista, Tyler Yates, Rajai Davis, Eric Hinske, and Ronny Paulino. Basically, if you're a Pirate who's older than 25 and possesses even a modicum of talent which might be marketable to another team, you'd best sign a month-to-month lease.

The good news for Pittsburgh is that via this revolving door Huntington has been able to restock a farm system which was shamefully shallow, especially considering how many high draft picks Pittsburgh has gotten over the last decade. Huntington has been particularly adept at acquiring players who were once considered top prospects but who for whatever reason fell out of favor with their original organizations; examples include Lastings Milledge (Mets/Nats), Jeff Clement (Mariners), Donnie Veal (Cubs), Delwyn Young (Dodgers), Charlie Morton (Braves), Brandon Moss (Red Sox), and Jose Tabata (Yankees). Huntington figures, I assume, that some of these guys may turn out to be as good as professional scouts once believed they would be.

More importantly, Huntington has begun making the most of Pittsburgh's inevitably high draft position. His predecessors squandered top ten picks on guys like J. J. Davis (#8, 1997), Bobby Bradley (#8, 1999), John Van Benschoten (#8, 2001), and Bryan Bullington (#1, 2002). From '93 to '02, Pittsburgh's most successful first-rounders were Kris Benson and Jermaine Allensworth (many of you are saying, "Who?"). Five first-round picks failed to even make it to the major leagues, even for a cup of coffee. For two others, a cup of coffee was all they got.

In recent years, the Pirates have finally drafted and signed some serious talent. Andrew McCutchen, the #11 pick in '05, made a splash this past season as a serious contender for Rookie of the Year (he actually won he BBA version of the award). Paul Maholm, the #8 pick in '03, has become the Pirates top starter (though that isn't saying a whole lot) by making 30 starts in four straight seasons and posting basically a league average ERA (4.45). Neil Walker (#11, 2004), Brad Lincoln (#4, 2006), Daniel Moskos (#4, 2007), and Pedro Alvarez (#2, 2008) have all performed at least decently in the minors and can be expected to arrive in Pittsburgh sometime in 2010.

The major challenge for Huntington and Pirates manager, John Russell, will be figuring out how to get their best hitters into the lineup without entirely compromising their defense. Several of Pittsburgh's most powerful prospects - Garrett Jones, Jeff Clement, Steven Pearce, Neil Walker - are essentially DH types. They will be prone to defensive adventures when slotted at first base and in the outfield. The two main offseason acquisitions thusfar are middle infielders, Akinori Iwamura and Bobby Crosby. When healthy, both are sure-handed and should help to solidify the infield with the help of Andy LaRoche at third base, but injuries have been an issue for both, especially Crosby, a former Rookie of the Year who fell out of favor in Oakland because of his inability to stay on the field.

McCutchen and Milledge make for two thirds of a high-octane outfield. Both are five-tool talents, although Milledge has struggled to demonstrates his skills consistently at the major-league level. The final spot will probably be manned by some combination of Jones, Pearce, and Moss, all of whom can slug a little, but none of which will flash a whole lot of leather.

On the pitching side of things, Pittsburgh surprised most of the baseball establishment by releasing their resident closer, Matt Capps, rather than offering him arbitration. Capps had a bad season in '09, but was as young and talented as any reliever in the organization. Huntington, however, figured the money he would earn in arbitration (probably as much as $5 Million) could be better spent somewhere else. The bullpen will undoubtedly be a major issue again in 2010.

The rotation, however, has some promise. While Pittsburgh still lacks a true frontline starter, the trio of Maholm, Zach Duke, and Ross Ohlendorf will provide more reliable innings than any Pirates rotation in a long while. And the organization finally has some depth to offer for the remaining spots, as Veal, Lincoln, Moskos, Morton, Kevin Hart, and Daniel McCutchen will all get a long look during Spring Training.

Having accumulated a admirable number of talented pieces, Huntington is now faced with the more daunting task of figuring out whether or not those pieces will develop as he'd hoped. That remains to be seen. Wise decisions will need to be made by the front office and the on-field staff to assist in their development.

Huntington seems to have no sense of urgency, which is probably a good thing. He will not rush his best prospects, guys like McCutchen and Alvarez. Even if everything goes exceptionally well, I don't expect 2010 will be the year the Pirates break the curse, but they could very well bypass Houston or Cincinnati (or both) and at least save themselves from a fourth consecutive last place finish.

Projected 2010 Opening Day Roster:

CF Andrew McCutchen (R)

2B Akinor Iwamura (L)

RF Garrett Jones (L)

C Ryan Doumit (S)

3B Andy LaRoche (R)

1B Jeff Clement (L)

SS Bobby Crosby (R)

LF Lastings Milledge (R)

SP Paul Maholm (L)

SP Zach Duke (L)

SP Ross Ohlendorf (R)

SP Donnie Veal (L)

SP Kevin Hart (R)

CL Joel Hanrahan (R)

SU Steven Jackson (R)

SU Javier Lopez (L)

MR Evan Meek (R)

MR Jose Ascanio (R)

SWING Charlie Morton (R)

C Jason Jaramillo (S)

IF Ronny Cedeno (R)

IF Ramon Vazquez (L)

1B/OF Steven Pearce (R)

2B/OF Delwyn Young (S)

OF Brandon Moss (L)

The Next Generation (Part One)

A recent post from ESPN fantasy analyst Eric Karabell applauds Justin Upton's recent prolonged hot streak by saying, "Honestly, in a keeper league he's someone I'd target on a similar level to the top young players in the game, like Matt Wieters and David Price."

One would be tempted to gather from such a sentence construction that Karabell is saying something unusual or insightful, when in fact, this has to be seen as an incredible understatement. For one thing, the phrase "similar to the top young players in the game" is highly misleading. The necessity of declaring "similarity" would suggest that Upton is either older than said players or less likely to be considered "top." Justin Upton, despite the fact that he has nearly two full years more major league experience, is, in fact, two full years younger than either Price or Wieters, born August 25, 1987, whereas Price was born August 26, 1985 and Weiters on May 21 of that year. Both Price and Wieters, of course, elected to play college ball, which may or may not have delayed their development as major-leaguers, thus making them seem younger, when quite the opposite true.

So, the question is, what does Karabell mean by "top." Both Upton and Price were #1 overall draft picks (Wieters was #5) and the arrival of all three was highly anticipated. Each was handed a starting job (or closing job in the case of Price in 2008) upon arrival and all must be feeling the pressure of spectacular expectations. But while Wieters draws comparisions with Joe Mauer and Johnny Bench, and Price with C. C. Sabathia and John Smoltz, Upton has been forced to reconcile himself with a trio of outfielder who also entered the majors in their late teens (or very early twenties) with "five-tool" skills and went on to become arguably three of best to ever play the game: Willie Mays, Barry Bonds, and Ken Griffey Jr. Hype doesn't get any bigger than that.

My point is, Upton has flown under the radar recently because he plays in Arizona, because he battled injuries last season, and because he isn't the most recent call-up, but don't be tempted to rate him in any "level of young players" other than one unto himself (witness the 500-foot homerun he hit early in May). Since April 24th, when he ended a prolonged slump with a double off Tim Lincecum, Justin is hitting .373 with 9 HR, 28 RBI, 6 SB, and a 1153 OPS in 35 games. Mind you, at the age of 21. While Wieters ans Price very well may become perennial All-Stars, Justin Upton very well may be the future of game, dominating our perception of the sport the way Mays did in the 50s and 60s, Griffey did in the 90s, and Bonds did for most of this decade.

Trade Waiver Fantasy #1 (Giants Edition)

The deadline has past, rumors and speculations have waned, and we assume that the dozen or so remaining postseason contenders are resigned to winning or losing with what they already have. There are only two options for change. One I posted on earlier today. You can bring up a young stud like Justin Upton and hope that he has a couple of games like the one he had last night (3-4, 2B, 3B, HR). Or, you can attempt to sneak somebody through trade waivers, as Oakland did with Mike Piazza. Deals made after the waiver deadline rarely have significant impact. Although, last year guys like Phil Nevin, David Wells, Javy Lopez, Jeff Conine, and Matt Stairs all were involved in deals after July 31. As this group suggests, waiver deals are usually reserved for overpaid veterans who fill minor bench rolls, or act as the replacement for an injured regular. Teams that offer a player on waivers see three alternatives. They can get the player through waivers and negotiate a deal for him on the open market. Presumably, if the player is put on waivers, the GM thinks he has at least two or three bidders in mind. Or, if the player is claimed, the GM can then negotiate with that team or withdraw the player from waivers. A player who has been withdrawn cannot be offered up again by the same team.

When, for instance, your team loses a player like Alfonso Soriano after the trade deadline, it is easy to find yourself exploring waiver fantasies. As I said before, big names rarely pass through waivers, but there are occasions which inspire such fantasies. Like 2004, when the Cardinals claimed Larry Walker on August 6th from the Rockies. Walker gave the Cardinals one of the most lethal orders in recent memory hitting in front of Pujols, Rolen, Edmonds, Sanders, and Renteria. He hit 11 HR in the season's remaining 44 games and 6 in the playoffs before the Redbirds lost to the Red Sox in the World Series. He also stayed around for a relatively productive, though injury-shortened, season in 2005, when St. Louis again returned to the postseason.

I'm stringing together waiver fantasies on a daily basis as I see infernal teams like the Yankees and Braves gaining ground. Many of these would never happen due to issues like publicity and ticket sales, but I think each scenario, when considered closely, has potential benefits for both teams involved.

Barry Bonds - LF - San Francisco Giants

The media frenzy is over. ESPN has stopped covering the lowly last-place Giants on an everyday basis just because of Barry's quest (although the topic is still consuming the network 24 hours a day). Bonds will continue to draw people to the ballpark as he sets a new record each time he parks it, but even in San Francisco fans will settle into the recognition that now there team isn't playing for anything. And, perhaps more importantly, Bonds will face that recognition. Despite all his accomplishments, he still lacks that thing which ballplayers crave most: the Ring. Brian Sabean has said repeatedly, on national broadcasts, that this offseason he will push to make the team younger. He has a good rotation already, with several quality arms still on the horizon. But he needs young position players, and he needs the young position players he already has - guys like Fred Lewis, Kevin Frandsen, Rajaj Davis, and Todd Linden - to play everyday. The more Bruce Bochy learns about these guys in the next two months, the better chance he has of putting a contending team back on the field within the next two years. Doesn't it seem then, that it would be best for everybody involved if Barry did now what he will almost surely do at season's end. That is, join the American League. Bonds is earning $15.5 Million this season. Who would be willing to take on a third of that?

Detroit : Sheffield, who deserves more credit for what he has done on the field this season, is hurting and missing games. His patience and power have been essential to the productivity of Detroit's lineup, which is second in the MLB in scoring. He leads the team in Runs, HR, SB, and OBP, and is 3rd in RBI and SLG. Sheffield's game is almost identical to Bond's, except that he still has his speed. They have perhaps the two most intimidating swings in the game and they don't swing at anything they can't murder. Manager Jim Leyland would find himself with the most lethal platoon in the game's history. He would be able to rest both aging sluggers, giving himself a dangerous late-inning pinch-hitter, or, when he wanted them both in the lineup, they both can still play a moderately plausible left field, conveniently one of the few positions where the Tigers are struggling to get consistent production.

The Tigers are in the position to win now. As such, they should be going for it as best they possibly can. However, they also have one of the most productive farm systems in the majors. They would almost certainly be willing to part with a top-tier offensive prospect (they have several of them) if it might push them ahead of the Yankees, Indians, and Mariners down the stretch, and help them in the playoffs. The Giants need that kind of prospect (they have none).

New York : This is an obvious combination. The Yankees will not bark at the pricetag. They are looking for a DH. They have a famously short left-field porch. Bonds fits perfectly into their program: seeing a lot of pitches and driving them into the seats. He is close friends with A-Rod. The only problem is, he can't pitch.

On the other side of the coin, this is not as perfect a match. Most of the Yankees top prospects are pitchers, which New York is (and should be) reluctant to part with. And which, though everybody needs them, the Giants need less than most. However, San Francisco is in no position to be picky. They need prospects in bunches. The Yankees Alberto Gonzalez (SS), Juan Miranda (1B), or Bronson Sardinha (OF) might make good matches.

Anaheim : The Angels desperately need another thumper besides Vlad. Batting in front of Guerrero, Bonds would see more pitches (as he would with any of these teams) and Vlad would get more RBI opportunities. The Angels are rumored to be in the running for Piazza. This would be a step better. The presence of Garrett Anderson would allow Mike Sciossia some flexibility. In all honesty, the Angels could probably use both Piazza and Bonds in their lineup if they are going to be serious about holding off the Mariners and being a contender in October.

The Angels system is the single most replete with young talent in all of baseball. They don't have enough room in Anaheim for all the players that are major league ready: Aybar and Wood Kendrick and Izturis and Willits and Haynes. Because of the abundance, the Angels would probably part with an excellent player, like Kendry Morales, or some decent players, like Tommy Murphy and Nick Guernhalt, because their progress is blocked and they haven't been exceptional in brief MLB stints.

Omar Vizquel - SS - San Francisco Giants

Like Bonds, Vizquel has left a mark on Giants fans. If he does intend to retire after the season, it would perhaps be insensitive to let him go elsewhere. However, also like Bonds, Vizquel has never won a World Series. He hasn't been to one in a decade. Giving him one more shot at the postseason would be the best thing the Giants could do for him. Now, nobody is going to give up a top-tier prospect for a shortstop hitting .256. But, despite his age and mediocre numbers this season, Vizquel is still a wizard with the glove who doesn't go a week without a web gem nomination.

Boston : This is the only situation where the argument could be made on offensive grounds. Vizquel has a 25-point advantage in AVG and OBP to Julio Lugo, who has been downright awful with the Red Sox. Lugo has also be below average with the glove, while Vizquel is among the league leaders in every defensive category, including 1st in Errors (only 6), Fielding Percentage, and Zone Rating. Vizquel would mean a great deal to this pitching staff, which induces a fair amount of groundballs and allows too many baserunners via walk. Perhaps the Giants would be interested in Wily Mo Pena?

Detroit : With Neifi Perez' career likely ended by his most recent stimulant suspension (80 games), the Tigers need a back-up infielder and late-inning defensive replacement for Carlos Guillen. It would seem likely that in certain situations Leyland would opt for Guillen at 1B, rather than Sean Casey, and Vizquel at SS to benefit the groundball-inducing pitchers like Bonderman and Robertson. As I said earlier, the Tigers have a lot to offer as far as prospects, particularly in the outfield, where Cameron Maybin, Curtis Granderson, and Magglio Ordonez are likely to be slated for several years to come.

Dave Roberts - CF - San Francisco Giants

There's not a huge market for a 35-year-old speedster coming off an injury who has a career .268 AVG., but Roberts proved in his career's defining moment that speed off the bench is a necessity in a short series. He is 22 for 25 in stolen base attempts this season, despite his injury, including 15 for 17 since returning, and he is hitting .279 in that span. He is a solid defender who plays all three outfield positions and has been to the postseason each of the last three years. And, unlike Bonds and Vizquel, he has no symbolic or sentimental tie to San Francisco.

Chicago : With no true centerfielder, a manager who likes to run and juggle his outfield, and a leadoff hitter on the DL, Chicago seems a likely destination for Roberts. Chicago doesn't have a whole lot to offer, but San Francisco shouldn't demand much in return, since they need that space in center to test Rajaj Davis and Fred Lewis.

What Conundrum?

10 Reasons Why Bonds is an All-Star:

1. Bonds leads NL in OPS, OBP, OPS+, Runs Created/27 Outs, BB/K, Secondary Average, BB, IBB, and SB%.

2. He ranks 2nd in AB/HR and SLG%.

3. He ranks 3rd in Isolated Power.

4. He is 8th in HR and Runs Created.

5. It has taken Barry Bonds (42) 194 AB and 281 PA to accumulate 43 R and 40 RBI. Prince Fielder (22) got to those numbers in 238 AB and 275 PA. Alex Rodriguez (32) got to those numbers in 181 AB and 211 PA.

6. He is one of 18 NL hitters hitting over .300. 11 of them are All-Stars.

7. Of the 40 NL players with 11 or more HR, he has the least strikeouts (and the most walks).

8. He is one of six players in the NL to attempt to steal 5 or more bases without getting caught. Of those six players, he has the most HR, RBI, and R.

9. The other potential all-stars from San Francisco were Matt Morris (7-4, 3.25 ERA), Matt Cain (2-9, 3.38 ERA), and Benji Molina (.289-8-44, w/.311 OBP).

10. He's the greatest player of any of your lifetimes. You deserve to see him play one more All-Star Game.

Soul Sleepers

It's spring. The season is a week away. Countless fantasy baseball drafts are taking place everyday. The preparation for those drafts takes many forms, but among the most exciting aspects of it is the prediction of "sleeper" candidates. Players who can be had in the middle or late rounds of the draft, but have the potential to outperform many of the players taken ahead of them. It's easy to highlight players who are coming off of injuries or who struggled last year, there are an abundance of them. Experts dig into their statbooks to find reasons why Jose Vidro will hit for more power in AL West or Ian Snell will win 15 games in Pittsburgh. Casual players usually rely more on their instincts. They pick up sleeper candidates because they play for their favorite team or because they once saw them hit a pair of homers in a Triple-A game. Experience shows that both methods have about the same chance of succeeding. Only a handful of the sleeper candidates talked about incessantly during spring training will have a sizable impact on the season. But that impact can be dramatic. Last year Justin Morneau (AL MVP), Francisco Liriano, and Michael Cuddyer took the Twins to the playoffs and fantasy teams to the top. Today, rather than telling you which sleepers I'm drafting, I'm going to take a look at the most soulful players on my sleeper radar. Players who, were they to succeed, would provide this season with outstanding storylines.

Josh Hamilton - OF - Cincinnati Reds

Anybody who knows anybody who's struggled with addiction, particularly that especially abominable variety brought about by crystal meth, can appreciate what an unbelievable fete it would be for Hamilton to recover from years on the tweak to become an productive professional athlete. Hamilton is a former bonus-baby #1 draft pick whose biggest claim to fame so far is being the subject of an HBO documentary about drug abuse. Despite the aggressive deterioration of the body (and passion for mediocre tattoos) which accompanies meth addiction, he still makes even the most hyper-homophobic sports commentators use phrases like "perfectly sculpted baseball body." He's batting .440 in 50 spring training ABs, playing great defense, and as a Rule 5 pick he must spend the entire season in the majors or be returned to his former team, so he seems destined to be the Reds fifth oufielder. Cincinnati's current starting outfield features Ken Griffey Jr. (43% of games since 2000 spent on DL), Ryan Freel (27% of games in last two seasons spent on DL), and the uber-healthy, but defensively-challenged Adam Dunn. With Dunn likely to share some time with Scott Hatteberg at 1B, it's fairly safe to say Hamilton should get 300-400 ABs and, depending on what he does with them, maybe considerably more. He will have to compete with another talented young Reds outfielder, Chris Denorfia, which could impede his opportunities. But in the age of performance-enhancing drugs, Josh Hamilton has the potential to bring good old-fashioned performance-impairing substances back into the limelight where they belong.

Russell Martin - C - Los Angeles Dodgers

He's the only African American starting catcher in the major leagues. His father is a Canadian street saxophonist. His middle name is Coltrane! What more can you possibly ask for? Oh, yeah, he's a pretty damn good player too. Last year, at age 23, he became only the third rookie catcher in MLB history to get to double digits in home runs and stolen bases. One of them, John Roseboro, perhaps most famous for being the object of a brutal beating by Juan Marichal, never did it again, but was a four-time all-star. The other, Benito Santiago, went on to be a five-time all-star and one of the best catchers of his era, offensively and defensively.

Sammy Sosa - DH - Texas Rangers

His .429 spring batting average, with 4 home runs and 13 RBIs, has put Sosa into the position to start the season as the Rangers everyday DH. Still, it's been three seasons since he put wood - corked or otherwise - on a breaking pitch, and the fastballs he's been pounding haven't exactly been of the John Lackey, Rich Harden, Felix Hernandez variety. But, were Slammin' Sammy, the man born to be a bobblehead, to rediscover the stroke that netted him six consecutive years of 40+ homers for the Cubs, he could really do some damage at Ameriquest Field, a ballpark that has made such luminaries as Rusty Greer, Lee Stevens, Herb Perry, and Gary Matthews Jr. into perennial 20-homer candidates. And, of course, if he joins fellow beefy-headed alleged 'roid-ragers Barry Bonds and Gary Sheffield in climbing the all-time leaderboard, Bud Selig will have even more historic moments to avoid.

Kerry Wood & Mark Prior - P - Chicago Cubs

There is a tradition in Arizona every March. Bushy-tailed beat reporters gather around a dirt mound and wait for one of the Cubs highly talented homegrown pitchers to emerge from the dugout. The long and short of it is, when he sees his shadow, he promptly fall and dislocates his right shoulder and the Cubs are in for eight more months of winter. It's been winter in Chicago for three straight years and - guess what? - just announced this week, Kerry Wood and Mark Prior are going to start 2007 on the disabled list. Just for a few weeks though, Lou Pinella says, just to be safe. It's a familiar song and dance. Will Rich Hill be next? Or Jeff Szmrajx#@r*za, their $8,000,000 bonus-baby from Notre Dame? If I were a successful amateur pitcher, a guaranteed 100% surefire future all-star, one thing is for certain, no amount of Tribune money could get me to sign in Chicago. You might as well lay your arm down in the middle of Michigan Ave., year after year after year.

So what's the story here? Well, it's pretty simple. If Wood becomes a dominant back-of-the-bullpen arm, joining Dempster, Howry, Eyre, and Cotts, and Prior sands the rust off his golden arm and slides into the middle of the rotation, than the Cubs cannot help but be a contender. They have too much offense not to be. In the weakest division in the weaker league, they have the opportunity to perhaps put an end to the last century-old baseball jinx. If that doesn't happen - and, of course, it never does - they might still make the playoffs, but lets put it this way. The St. Louis Cardinals, last year's World Champs, when they put together their postseason roster, they took Aaron Miles (671 OPS, 2 HR), they took Randy Flores (5.62 ERA), they took Tyler Johson (4.95 ERA), and the took Jeff Weaver (8-14, 5.76 ERA), but they left off the Cubs current #4 starter, Jason Marquis. Why? Because he had a 6.02 ERA, nearly as many walks as strikeouts, and led the league in one crucial category: Home Runs Allowed. The only thing about him that's changed: now he gets to face Albert Pujols about a dozen times. I'll take Mark Prior at 80%, Lou. How 'bout you?

Barry Bonds - LF - San Francisco Giants

Despite everything, it is difficult to make a case for the greatest player in the history of the game as a "sleeper." But, in the various drafts I've participated in and read about, Bonds has not once been picked before the 10th round. Considering his second half tear a year ago and his 5 home runs in just 30 spring ABs, that's too low. Not to mention: He's Barry-Fucking-Bonds! If you're not rooting for him to break the record and win another MVP, you're a racist. You hate baseball and America. You know why he's going to hit 30 homers and draw 150 walks? Because he feels like it. I don't care how old he is. His agent, Jeff Moorad, predicted this offseason that Barry wasn't just going to pass Hank Aaron, he was going to hit 1000 homers. I buy it. Remember Michael Jordan. Remember Miles Davis. Remember Frederick Douglass. Barry's that class of pimp. Draft his sweet ass (in the middle rounds). You won't be sorry.

Sure, despite looking sprier this spring than he has since his second divorce, Barry might only play 75% of the Giants games. And they haven't exactly built a powerhouse lineup around him (He's batting between Rich Aurilia and Ray Durham!?!), but San Francisco has the potential to surprise. They've got a solid starting rotation. They've got no shortage of "veteran presence." They've got solid defence up the middle. And it's a wide open division. If the Giants are still in the playoff hunt in August...well, check out Barry's August and September splits from 2002, and last year for that matter. You all remember that home run he hit off Troy Percival in the first game of the World Series. P. I. M. P.