PDA

View Full Version : Jayson Stark thinks collusion is afoot


WhiteSox5187
02-06-2009, 11:07 PM
http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/columns/story?columnist=stark_jayson&page=rumblings090206

If he honestly thinks this is collusion, he's nuts. But evidently the fact that not every team can have the payroll the size of the Yankees or Red Sox is a foreign idea to ESPN.

DumpJerry
02-06-2009, 11:10 PM
So, he wonders why Manny has not been signed yet? I guess the rule "it takes one to know one" does not apply here.

He is aware that Manny turned down $25M?

Starks is proof that anyone who knows how to turn on the power to a computer can get a job as an "expert" in sports journalism.

Martinigirl
02-06-2009, 11:33 PM
It seemed to me that Harold Reynolds and the rest of the people on the MLB Network were implying the same thing. They were saying how they couldn't believe that no one has contacted Manny after the Dodgers, and if no one has contacted him, how do they know that he won't accept less than (I think) 8 million a year.

They didn't come right out and say it but the implication was very clear, which I found entertaining since MLB owns the network.

Fenway
02-07-2009, 12:00 AM
The reality is corporate sponsors are drying up and that is where a lot of the money is.

Red Sox TV and radio are having a big problem with ad sales and WRKO/WEEI is going to have an impossible task of making back their 16 million rights fee. Southwest Airlines and Aflac have yet to renew with NESN. It is brutal out there.

A lot of owners don't have the wealth they had a year ago. The NY Times is desperately trying to sell 17 percent of the Red Sox for 300M and nobody is knocking at the door.

It seemed to me that Harold Reynolds and the rest of the people on the MLB Network were implying the same thing. They were saying how they couldn't believe that no one has contacted Manny after the Dodgers, and if no one has contacted him, how do they know that he won't accept less than (I think) 8 million a year.

They didn't come right out and say it but the implication was very clear, which I found entertaining since MLB owns the network.

Bucky F. Dent
02-07-2009, 12:59 AM
The operative word is not collusion, it is recession.

LoveYourSuit
02-07-2009, 01:59 AM
So, he wonders why Manny has not been signed yet? I guess the rule "it takes one to know one" does not apply here.

He is aware that Manny turned down $25M?

Starks is proof that anyone who knows how to turn on the power to a computer can get a job as an "expert" in sports journalism.


How about the fact that Manny is an ass hat?

I actually thought Jason Stark was one of the few writers left with a brain, but I guess he can fit right in with the rest of the clown car.

Same way we would justify high contracts as it simply being "the market," same goes for "No Contracts." It's the market. There is no demand for expensive players and kudos for the 29 owners who are sticking to their guns.

Is it possible for one year a team spending $8 million on a very average player and the next season that player doesn't get a contract ...... If WAMU, Countrywide, Lieman Brothers, AIG, Merryl Lynch, etc can all go down in a 6-8 month time frame.... anything is possible.

Get a clue Jason Stark.

Fenway
02-07-2009, 02:16 AM
Manny has not been signed for one reason. He wants up to 4 years and after what happened in Boston no team will risk having him quit.

Worcester of the Can-Am League offered Manny 24K for 2 years :tongue:

Adam Dunn is a head scratcher unless he comes with more baggage than we know.


So, he wonders why Manny has not been signed yet? I guess the rule "it takes one to know one" does not apply here.

He is aware that Manny turned down $25M?

Starks is proof that anyone who knows how to turn on the power to a computer can get a job as an "expert" in sports journalism.

Nellie_Fox
02-07-2009, 02:35 AM
Manny has not been signed for one reason. He wants up to 4 years and after what happened in Boston no team will risk having him quit.Yeah, ain't it a bitch when your own behavior comes back to bite you?

Domeshot17
02-07-2009, 02:45 AM
that was ACTUALLY a good read (and I am not, by any means, a Stark fan).

Basically what he is saying is a lot of what we know and how BOTH SIDES are manipulating it.

I see where his head is at with the Manny stuff. You would think, the Mets and Dodgers, while not division rivals, are teams who could easily square off in the playoffs. So why would the Mets come out and say We are not chasing Manny (along with 4 other teams) instead of saying Manny makes us a world series contender and trying to drive he price up on the Dodgers.

Maybe the owners got smart. Maybe the owners looked at the situation and said the economy is bad we can not be held hostage by Agents driving prices up this winter. Thats a Grey Area but is it Collusion?

The Economy is bad, but are you seriously telling me the best offensive LF in baseball, baggage or not, can't find a job? There are 30 SS out there better than Cabrera or 30 2b better than Hudson?

There is so much going on, this is like the perfect storm. Its a staring match between owners and agents as to who blinks first.

Nellie_Fox
02-07-2009, 02:50 AM
...are you seriously telling me the best offensive LF in baseball, baggage or not, can't find a job?He has been offered a job, and at big money. He turned it down because it wasn't multi-year. He's proved that he becomes a liability on a multi-year contract. His situation is perfectly rational.

...
02-07-2009, 02:52 AM
How about the fact that Manny is an ass hat?

I actually thought Jason Stark was one of the few writers left with a brain, but I guess he can fit right in with the rest of the clown car.

Same way we would justify high contracts as it simply being "the market," same goes for "No Contracts." It's the market. There is no demand for expensive players and kudos for the 29 owners who are sticking to their guns.

Is it possible for one year a team spending $8 million on a very average player and the next season that player doesn't get a contract ...... If WAMU, Countrywide, Lieman Brothers, AIG, Merryl Lynch, etc can all go down in a 6-8 month time frame.... anything is possible.

Get a clue Jason Stark.

Manny thinks you're an ass hat.

Nellie_Fox
02-07-2009, 03:00 AM
Manny thinks you're an ass hat.Both Manny and LoveYourSuit are correct.

LITTLE NELL
02-07-2009, 06:17 AM
The operative word is not collusion, it is recession.
And maybe depression, the sports world could be in for a major reality check. The PGA tour is starting to lose sponsors for some of their tournaments and yet some of the bigshots refuse to show up to play.

dickallen15
02-07-2009, 08:52 AM
Manny has not been signed for one reason. He wants up to 4 years and after what happened in Boston no team will risk having him quit.

Worcester of the Can-Am League offered Manny 24K for 2 years :tongue:

Adam Dunn is a head scratcher unless he comes with more baggage than we know.


I heard a theory that Manny's excellence with the Dodgers last year hurt him more than helped him. It cemented in everyone's mind the trouble he could be like he was at the end with Boston, and although still putting up big numbers, obviously was hafl-assing it.

SoxandtheCityTee
02-07-2009, 09:03 AM
These sports media types are not economic realists. They're so deeply programmed to think -- and say -- that the sports world is "special" that they probably suppose, at some level, that it's immune to what is going on.

Each team has an absolute right not to deal with a player. In Manny's case, depite his undeniable huge talent, there are rational reasons to make the choice to take a pass. That negates any inference of concerted action. Jason Stark and the others want Manny in the game, so they can talk about him nonstop. It's in their professional interest. But they don't sign his check. If I were them, I'd be a tad more careful about defaming the owners. (That's our job here at WSI!)

Bucky F. Dent
02-07-2009, 09:18 AM
And maybe depression, the sports world could be in for a major reality check. The PGA tour is starting to lose sponsors for some of their tournaments and yet some of the bigshots refuse to show up to play.


Ran by Bulls.com the other day, they had a buy one get one free deal on Bulls-Pistons tix. Bulls-Pistons! There was a time when that would have been the hotest ticket in the city. A substantial part of that, obviously, is the fact that the Bulls stink, but when you are "marquee" selling tix half price, that (to me) is also an indication of a fundamental economic problem.

Oblong
02-07-2009, 10:06 AM
Owners being smart is not collusion.

When I see the FA list I see a bunch of guys who overvalue themselves and aren't worth 3 or 4 year deals for the money they want. In nearly every case I can see the team regretting it in year 2 or 3 and the guy clearing waivers. Yes it sucks for them that they have unfortunate timing and can't cash out with a mega multi year deal but that's life.

Lip Man 1
02-07-2009, 11:06 AM
Reading Phil Rogers' latest column left me with the same impression...i.e. the 80's are back.

Given the figures produced by Phil and the questions he asks' I think he feels the same way:

http://www.chicagotribune.com/sports/baseball/cubs/chi-08-rogers-inside-baseball,0,3553166.column

Lip

jdm2662
02-07-2009, 11:18 AM
All I have to say is, cry me a river. As Fenway says, a lot of revenue came from sponsers. Well, those sponsors are pulling out. I know for a fact my company is not sponsering the Bulls this year. I'm willing to bet they won't be sponsoring the Sox as well. They also happened to cut so many jobs at my place. Hell, I'm lucky I'm still employeed. Three years ago, jobs and revenue was easy to come by. Sound fimilar?

Remember when average players were getting close to $10 million a year. Well, we were told that is what the market dictates. I had no problem with it. Whatever you can get, more power to you. Now, the market blows. Yet, some people just don't get it. The market blows were I work, hence, no raise, less jobs, etc.

Lip Man 1
02-07-2009, 11:24 AM
JDM:

After re-reading Phil's story and finding Stark's at ESPN.com, do I honestly think collusion is going on?

At this point in time no.

However, given the documented history of ownership in MLB, let's say that I wouldn't be surprised if they are "milking" this economic situation for everything that they can get out of it.

Lip

jdm2662
02-07-2009, 11:44 AM
JDM:

After re-reading Phil's story and finding Stark's at ESPN.com, do I honestly think collusion is going on?

At this point in time no.

However, given the documented history of ownership in MLB, let's say that I wouldn't be surprised if they are "milking" this economic situation for everything that they can get out of it.

Lip

When times get better and this still happening, then you can suspect it. Now? Every realtor that I work with that's been around says this time was much worse than it was in the late 70s/early 80s. When I first started at my job (December 2006), we got plenty of free lunches, a high budget, free Bulls, Sox, Cubs, Hawks, Fire, tickets, and lots of other perks. Now? I have to run through hoops just for my travel expenses. And, it was a whopping $11 last month. It's just how it is, and baseball is not alone in this.

pearso66
02-07-2009, 12:34 PM
The Economy is bad, but are you seriously telling me the best offensive LF in baseball, baggage or not, can't find a job? There are 30 SS out there better than Cabrera or 30 2b better than Hudson?

There is so much going on, this is like the perfect storm. Its a staring match between owners and agents as to who blinks first.

There may not be 30 better SS better than Cabrera, or 30 better 2b better than Hudson, but there are teams that probably figure they won't compete anyway, or teams that don't spend big money on free agents, so that probably takes your list down to probably half that, so of the teams that can afford them, half of them probably have better options, so you're really down to about 7-8 teams or less that might have a fit for those 2. Now take into account what that teams 2b or SS are making, maybe they are overpaid, or young. Bring in that those guys would require losing a draft pick, now with the way the economy is, it makes perfect sense why those 2 guys are still out on the market. Same with Dunn, Abreu, and Manny. These guys don't think the economy affects them, so they are out looking for the contract they could have gotten last year, or near the money they were already making. With the guys that were offered arbitration out there, teams would rather go with the draft pick and go young instead of paying through the nose for overpriced talent.

jabrch
02-07-2009, 02:35 PM
Had Manny and his agent not been complete assbags in orchestrating his exit from Boston and his release from his contract, there would be tons of interest in him.

He's a scumbag. Nobody trusts him. Owners and GMs don't want to give him 3/75 or more. The Dodgers were one of only a few teams who'd even talk about a 1 year 25mm deal.

He's going to regret forcing himself out of Boston the way he did.

Lip Man 1
02-08-2009, 12:45 PM
Me thinks the folks at MLB aren't particularly happy that writers are now apparently beginning to wonder:

http://www.suntimes.com/sports/couch/1418085,CST-SPT-greg08.article

Lip

NardiWasHere
02-08-2009, 02:25 PM
Me thinks the folks at MLB aren't particularly happy that writers are now apparently beginning to wonder:

http://www.suntimes.com/sports/couch/1418085,CST-SPT-greg08.article

Lip

Couch is such a dog**** writer.

Steelrod
02-08-2009, 05:57 PM
Had Manny and his agent not been complete assbags in orchestrating his exit from Boston and his release from his contract, there would be tons of interest in him.

He's a scumbag. Nobody trusts him. Owners and GMs don't want to give him 3/75 or more. The Dodgers were one of only a few teams who'd even talk about a 1 year 25mm deal.

He's going to regret forcing himself out of Boston the way he did.
Wouldn't want him on my team with a long term contract, no matter the price. About as selfish as they come!

pearso66
02-08-2009, 06:01 PM
Wouldn't want him on my team with a long term contract, no matter the price. About as selfish as they come!

I would, but only if it was less than $10 mil a year, which he'd never accept anyway. At least at that cost, he's a very easy chip to trade if he pouts. A 4 year deal at $15-25 mil a year is one that you wouldn't be able to give away.

Lip Man 1
02-08-2009, 07:58 PM
Nardi:

That may be true but it nothing to do with the original issue...that it seems a number of writers nationally are now beginning to ask the question and it is probably making ol' Proud To Be Your Bud uncomfortable.

Lip

I_Liked_Manuel
02-08-2009, 08:40 PM
Nardi:

That may be true but it nothing to do with the original issue...that it seems a number of writers nationally are now beginning to ask the question and it is probably making ol' Proud To Be Your Bud uncomfortable.

Lip

The question is whether there's actually an agreement to keep salaries down. I don't think there's any argument that every team (sans the Yankees/Mets/Dodgers) is making an effort to spend as little as possible for fear that people won't have the disposable income this summer to spend on tickets and concessions.

MLB is entering uncharted territory in this economy - the NFL, NBA, and NHL all had the bulk of their tickets and advertisements sold before the economy started to go sour.

I have no doubt that every baseball exec would like to see Boras et al go the way of the buffalo. I don't think that they're colluding here to do it though. Simply stating that your team isn't interested in a particular free agent doesn't mean that you're colluding - it just means that you're not going to take part in whatever game of public opinion the agents are trying to play.

It's not just Manny that hasn't been signed, and this would be a completely different issue if it was. There are a lot of good players that haven't signed anywhere yet, and those that have aren't getting what they would have last year. While Garland might not be coming off a great season, a 14 game winner that's going to log ~200 innings would have gotten a multi-year contract at $10m/year last offseason. It's just not happening right now.

Daver
02-08-2009, 09:30 PM
Anyone can get on their soapbox and scream collusion at the top of their lungs till the cows come home.

Proving it is an entirely different matter.

Lip Man 1
02-08-2009, 09:31 PM
Manuel:

That's true although MLB went this route before in the 1980's with their "information bank" system and having owners and G.M.'s make statements about 'not being interested in ________'

The courts ruled that type of activity was collusion if I remember correctly.

I'll have to re-read that chapter in Helyar's book "The Lords Of The Realm.'

Lip

gosox41
02-08-2009, 11:33 PM
http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/columns/story?columnist=stark_jayson&page=rumblings090206

If he honestly thinks this is collusion, he's nuts. But evidently the fact that not every team can have the payroll the size of the Yankees or Red Sox is a foreign idea to ESPN.


I don't like Stark. He's the same moron that says he would vote the cheaters of the game into the hall. His logic of them not being proven guilty in a court of law and that if everyone else was doing them in the era, it was OK for guys like Bonds and Sosa to do them too.

He's a puppet for the players.

But now he is ready to declare collusion even though there is less proof of that then there are of Bonds and all the other fools doing 'roids.


Bob

kitekrazy
02-09-2009, 12:20 PM
Starks is proof that anyone who knows how to turn on the power to a computer can get a job as an "expert" in sports journalism.

at least for ESPN

FedEx227
02-09-2009, 12:33 PM
Starks is proof that anyone who knows how to turn on the power to a computer can get a job as an "expert" in sports journalism.


http://gothamist.com/images/2005_04_johnstarks_big.jpg
"Hey, what the hell did I do to you?"

soxinem1
02-09-2009, 01:16 PM
The operative word is not collusion, it is recession.

Bingo!!!!

Hokiesox
02-09-2009, 06:19 PM
Not meaning to hijack the thread, but I wonder what all this means for the NBA's much ballyhooed free agent class of 2010?

I think we're entering (sadly, given the economic circumstances) into a great era for fans of all sports where the players come crashing down to earth with salary demands.

I hope the days of needing 20 million for star athlete X so he can "put food on the table" are gone.

DSpivack
02-09-2009, 06:30 PM
Not meaning to hijack the thread, but I wonder what all this means for the NBA's much ballyhooed free agent class of 2010?

I think we're entering (sadly, given the economic circumstances) into a great era for fans of all sports where the players come crashing down to earth with salary demands.

I hope the days of needing 20 million for star athlete X so he can "put food on the table" are gone.

Probably nothing for the NBA since it has a rigid salary structure in place.

FedEx227
02-09-2009, 06:38 PM
Exactly. There will not be any offseason breaking moves, most guys pretty much know what they'll end up with.

spawn
02-10-2009, 09:37 AM
Can't find a job? Silly me, I thought that the Dodgers offered him two contracts this offseason.
Well, it's hard to feed a family on $25 million a year. :shrug: