As the saga of Barry Bonds’ contract for the 2007 season — now just two weeks away from the beginning of spring training — devolves into a complete fiasco, Giants owner Peter Magowan emailed season ticket holders explaining why the signing was necessary, despite the many problems that have attached themselves to the deal like crocodiles to a watering wildebeest.

The putative signing, that is. For even though the two parties — the team and their erstwhile left-fielder — signed a contract on Monday night, that contract was in doubt before the ink was dry.

First Major League Baseball objected to a personal appearance clause. Then the team removed the clause and invited Barry to come back and resign the revised deal — but he is refusing — because, according to the NY Times’ Murray Chass, details of another contract provision had leaked out.

The supposedly secret provision, which was so obvious that everybody already knew what it was before the details were confirmed, says that the team’s contract with Bonds is void if he is indicted in the ongoing steroids case.

Bonds was only forced to accept the clause because details that he had tested positive for amphetamines last season and blamed a teammate for it.

Now he thinks he has some kind of bargaining chip because he’s — what — embarrassed by the contract clause he was forced to accept? Well, at least something embarrasses him. Now that’s news.