please explain

[centexorange]

The Major League Baseball Players Association said last week it was investigating whether to file a collusion grievance against teams for not pursuing Bonds, who became a free agent when the Giants decided they didn't want him back after 15 seasons.

What this means? When does having to pursue someone become mandotory? Or am i reading this wrong??

 

[HenryGandorf]

i guess in theory, if there was some agreement amongst certain owners not to pursue someone, then the agreement itself would break some rules or some ****. but yeah, seems odd.

 

[Vote For Pedro]

Makes sense to me. A group of men who have gotten rich from trying to make smart investments decide they want nothing to do with a washed up a-hole with an attitude problem who might be in jail before the end of the season and has more baggage than Paris Hilton would need for a 6 month safari. And of course it must be collusion that these owners wouldn't jump on that opportunity.

The MLBPA and the resulting spoiled nature of baseball players is the reason I haven't cared about pro baseball in 20 years.

 

[accuratehorn]

It is illegal for a group of business owner to agree in private to manipulate a market. If basball owners all suddenly offered no more than $50,000 a year to each rookie, for example, it would obviously indicate that some secret agreement had been made.
But in this case, it doesn't require a secret agreement, because there are numerous good reasons not to go after Barry Bonds on the free agency market, and the players association may have difficulty finding proof of any collusion among the owners.

 

[Beau Vine]

In reply to:

---

---

 

[Beau Vine]

In reply to:

---

---

 

[Beau Vine]

In reply to:

---

---

 

[UofTOrange]

Neither group is evil, but this is just dumb on the MLBPA's part. There have been plenty of players that it made no sense to blackball in the past, Bonds is not one of them. Yes, he could help a lineup as a DH, but is it worth it to have to possibly lose him in time for the playoffs?

 

[Beau Vine]

In reply to:

---

---

 

[centexorange]

I agree totally here i feel it's not the fact that an owner wouldn't feel they could benefit by taking a shot with Bonds but the timing and the fact he may not be available in a few months isn't worth the risk. I don't see the owners getting in a powow and saying hey let's all give Bonds the cold shoulder.