Owners may have to answer for Barry Bonds’ unemployment

Barry Bonds popped up twice in recent days. Not at bat, of course, since he does not have a job this season.

But Bonds popped up in the news last week, when Angels owner Arte Moreno reiterated his long-held stance on Bonds on national television.

“I can’t speak for the other owners, but I will not sign Barry Bonds,” Moreno told HBO.

And Bonds popped up again today, when New York Yankees co-chairman Hank Steinbrenner said he would bring up Bonds’ name as team executives meet for a strategy session in advance of next week’s trading deadline.

“I’ll mention it,” Steinbrenner told Associated Press. “We’ll cover everything.”

This was almost certainly a polite answer. Bonds has not faced live pitching in 10 months, and the Yankees can afford to take on a big contract in order to trade for a big bat, or even a not-so-big bat.

However, since Steinbrenner brought it up, the players’ union undoubtedly will be interested to hear his explanation should the Yankees pass on Bonds.

The union anticipates filing a grievance claiming owners acted improperly and in concert in keeping Bonds out of uniform this season, according to a source not authorized to speak publicly in advance of a final decision.

We asked a baseball official to outline how a grievance hearing might unfold, should the union decide to file a grievance and proceed to a hearing. The official, who has experience representing owners and players, was granted anonymity because he is not authorized by his employer to speak publicly on this matter.

The union first could compare Bonds’ statistics with those of the designated hitters and left fielders signed last winter as free agents. Bonds hit .276 with 28 home runs, leading the major leagues with a .480 on-base percentage.

This would essentially be the argument: Milton Bradley, Cliff Floyd and Luis Gonzalez all were hired, but Bonds was not. The agent for Bonds, Jeff Borris, has said his client has gotten no offers, not even for minimum wage.

In addressing the steroid allegations surrounding Bonds, the union could point out that clubs have offered numerous contracts to players with a documented history of drug abuse, including Steve Howe and Darryl Strawberry.

The union also could note that clubs signed several players cited in the Mitchell Report. The Kansas City Royals signed outfielder Jose Guillen for three years and $36 million, with the club aware that he was about to be suspended after reports linked him to performance-enhancing drugs. The suspension was later voided.

In response, owners could point out that neither Howe nor any of the players cited in the Mitchell Report have been indicted. Bonds has been charged with lying to a federal grand jury by testifying he did not knowingly use steroids. Strawberry was indicted in 1994 for tax evasion and was later ordered to repay back taxes and sentenced to home confinement.

Owners also could use the Mitchell Report as one of several ways to show Bonds often did not comply with club policies. In the Mitchell Report, former San Francisco Giants trainer Stan Conte is cited as asking major league officials for assistance with “security issues related to Bonds’ entourage.”

Also, owners could chronicle Bonds’ oft-expressed unwillingness to help promote his club by interacting with fans and the media. The owners could cite polls and anecdotes in which Bonds was described as unpopular with fans outside San Francisco.

The ultimate question is this: Could an arbitrator find it believable that all 30 clubs made an independent decision to pass on Bonds? So the ultimate evidence could be this: What explanations were provided to Borris as to why each club passed on Bonds, and were they all too similar?

Hank Steinbrenner might be providing an explanation, and perhaps another bit of evidence, very soon.

 bill.shaikin@latimes.com