Q: Why is it that guys like Griffey and Randy Johnson receive warm receptions upon returning to play in Seattle, but Alex Rodriguez is always treated as the villain?

GB: It's all a matter of perception. Alex Rodriguez will always be perceived as the guy who took the money and ran. Not only in Seattle, but in Texas, maybe New York if he leaves there. It's not always right. But that's the price you pay for being the top-paid player in the game. Rodriguez has always been perceived -- not only by fans and media, but by players -- as aloof and quietly arrogant. Those two traits never play well in public. I think the Griffey lovefest in Seattle has been overdone and that fans here forget the facts surrounding his departure. But he always seemed a little more genuine than A-Rod did in public. Randy Johnson was a guy who never seemed to care much about his image one way or the other. He spoke his mind and hasn't always tried to be perfect in the media. Once again, perhaps that gruffness comes across as more genuine than what A-Rod shows. I think that Jason Varitek branding A-Rod as "eyewash" in Sports Illustrated a few years back doomed Rodriguez forever in the eyes of some players and fans. Not only in Seattle, but all across the game.

Q: Other than baseball, I can't think of any sport where half the teams play by different rules. How do you feel about the DH? Does it help define the leagues, or divide the sport?

GB: The only comparable thing I can think of is in the CFL, where you have a quota of Canadian players that have to be put on every roster. That means, if you're an American-born kicker, you have to be able to perform multiple duties. There is rarely room on a CFL team for an American "import" who can punt, but can't do placekicking duties as well. Canadian kickers face no such barriers. Teams love to get one of their Canadian quota requirements into any kicking position they have open so they can use American imports in more "skill" positions. So, that's where you have two sets of rules for players, even though they are sort of unofficial rules. I grew up in Montreal, so I'm an NL guy. I don't like the DH. You can either play the game of baseball or you can't. The DH can become almost a type of pension plan for some players and I think it's helped lead to the vast disparity between leagues.

Q: Although the Players Association would never allow it, do you think that Major League Baseball would benefit with a salary cap?

GB: Of course I do. While the lack of a cap has forced teams to get smarter in how they spend their money, the spoils still tend to go to teams that spend big bucks. The Angels, Red Sox, and Yankees claimed three of the four AL playoff spots again this year and they are three of the top-spending teams. Yes, there are lesser-spending NL squads in the post-season, but you have to remember that NL teams tend to spend less than AL squads to begin with. Free-agent dollars have headed the AL's way for years. We all celebrate teams like the Indians, Rockies and recently the A's, who have spent money wisely and managed to win. Well, I think that a cap would still force teams to spend wisely and prevent them from throwing dollars at a problem. So, you don't lose that aspect. And had you had a cap over the past decade, teams like the Mariners and Orioles would have been forced to get a whole lot smarter years ago rather than throwing big-time payrolls at mediocre squads. There's nothing wrong with putting all teams on an equal footing. Works in the NFL, doesn't it?

Q: After Clemens' sub par year with a bloated contract, will the love affair over him finally end if he decides to pitch again next year?

GB: My love affair with Clemens ended years ago. He is now a six-inning pitcher. There are tons of those all over the place. As a clubhouse motivator, you can also find those for less than $20 million per season.

Q: Who would you say are the top two pitchers and hitters of all time?

GB: How do you measure across generations? You can argue that Babe Ruth played in a game that was segregated. But then, you can argue that Barry Bonds played in a game with watered-down, expansion-era pitching.

For pitchers, I'd go with Bob Gibson. He pitched in an era when the game was integrated, but not yet diluted by expansion. He put up fantastic stats and intimidated some of the top hitters of all-time. His ERA+ is right up there with the all-time greats. And he won the big games, at World Series time. Warren Spahn is my top lefty and right up there with Gibson, though the era Spahn played in was still not as fully integrated. Both of these pitchers had the career longevity required of an all-time great, but without the access to steroids or human growth hormone that today's pitchers enjoy.

Hitting-wise, I'd still go with Babe Ruth and his .207 OPS+ over 22 seasons ahead of Bonds and his 187 OPS+ over the same span. Ruth revolutionized the game at a time when home run hitting was not as common as the era Bonds has played in. His teams won championships in the game's golden era with him leading the way. And for me, well, the steroids thing just won't go away. Ruth inhibited his performance with alcohol. Imagine what he'd have done had he enhanced it with steroids?

Q: We end all of our interviews with word association, so I say "wombat" and you say...

GB: Luke Skywalker.