PDA

View Full Version : Union smells collusion


Fenway
11-01-2009, 05:20 PM
Here we go again

http://www.boston.com/sports/baseball/articles/2009/11/01/are_players_and_owners_heading_for_another_collisi on_of_collusion/

Daver
11-01-2009, 05:30 PM
Watching them try to prove it ought to be a hoot.

Brian26
11-01-2009, 10:30 PM
Here we go again

http://www.boston.com/sports/baseball/articles/2009/11/01/are_players_and_owners_heading_for_another_collisi on_of_collusion/

Circumstances are a lot different right now with the general state of the economy than they were back in 1985. The reduced-salary signings last winter were simply a sign of the times. I expect it to continue this winter too.

JB98
11-02-2009, 12:43 AM
The union is out of touch with reality.

DumpJerry
11-02-2009, 08:15 AM
The union is out of touch with reality.
Not necessarily. How do you know there isn't an element of taking advantage of the current economic situation for the owners to claim they are too poor to pay what they were three years ago? Daver is right, it will be extremely difficult to prove, but with creative accounting, the teams can look more cash-poor than they really are.

Given the public statements made by observers that there were fewer long term signings last year, there is no need for the owners to actually discuss the issue, they know what to do. Without communications among the owners about price-setting, proving collusion will be very, very difficult to prove. If contract prices are lower this offseason, it is just a market reaction, not illegal collusion. That's the response.

soxfanreggie
11-02-2009, 08:30 AM
Not necessarily. How do you know there isn't an element of taking advantage of the current economic situation for the owners to claim they are too poor to pay what they were three years ago? Daver is right, it will be extremely difficult to prove, but with creative accounting, the teams can look more cash-poor than they really are.


Even if they're cash-rich, do they have to give someone a 5 year, $50 million deal to a one-hit wonder who would be more likely to get a 2 year, $10 million deal? Maybe they paid way too much 3 years ago and things are now going back to what they should be. We could look at that side of it too.

cws05champ
11-02-2009, 08:54 AM
http://i.a.cnn.net/si/2007/more/02/28/raids/t1_matthews.jpg

I don't believe there to be any such thing as collusion. Is that a new steroid I haven't heard about?

ewokpelts
11-02-2009, 08:59 AM
Hard to prove collusion when the yankees signed 3 players for a combined $450 million payroll commitment last year.

khan
11-02-2009, 12:08 PM
Crap like this is why I hate the players' union, and growing up, my family was a [teamsters] union family.

Daver
11-02-2009, 01:19 PM
Crap like this is why I hate the players' union, and growing up, my family was a [teamsters] union family.

Comparing the MLBPA to a trade union is like comparing apples to onions.

LoveYourSuit
11-02-2009, 01:31 PM
The two biggest sample arguements the union has are Bobby Abreau and Orlando Hudson.

khan
11-02-2009, 02:26 PM
Comparing the MLBPA to a trade union is like comparing apples to onions.

Sure. But the clowns running the MLBPA will try to get legions of morons to believe otherwise.

At any case, if anyone should be a supporter of the MLBPA, it should be people with a tie to a union...

asindc
11-02-2009, 03:07 PM
Well, I think any group (MLB team owners) that refuses to reveal its financial records to its associates (the players through MLBPA) leaves itself vunerable to accusations like collusion. The "just take our word for it" approach does not exactly foster trust and goodwill.

Daver
11-02-2009, 03:26 PM
Sure. But the clowns running the MLBPA will try to get legions of morons to believe otherwise.

At any case, if anyone should be a supporter of the MLBPA, it should be people with a tie to a union...

I don't know that I would call the people that run the most powerful athletic association on the planet clowns, and the people that understand trade unions would never consider the MLBPA as a union, but rather a bargaining collective.

Well, I think any group (MLB team owners) that refuses to reveal its financial records to its associates (the players through MLBPA) leaves itself vunerable to accusations like collusion. The "just take our word for it" approach does not exactly foster trust and goodwill.

The MLBPA does have access to the books, as well as the books of the league itself, they have since the collective was formed.

asindc
11-02-2009, 03:49 PM
I don't know that I would call the people that run the most powerful athletic association on the planet clowns, and the people that understand trade unions would never consider the MLBPA as a union, but rather a bargaining collective.



The MLBPA does have access to the books, as well as the books of the league itself, they have since the collective was formed.

That has not been my understanding since 1994, when the owners were found to have violated the National Labor Relations Act by refusing to bargain in good faith. I could be wrong about this, but I thought one of reasons why the owners were found to have bargained in bad faith is that they did not fully disclose their financial records to MLBPA. If that is not the case, then I retract my statement.

Daver
11-02-2009, 03:55 PM
That has not been my understanding since 1994, when the owners were found to have violated the National Labor Relations Act by refusing to bargain in good faith. I could be wrong about this, but I thought one of reasons why the owners were found to have bargained in bad faith is that they did not fully disclose their financial records to MLBPA. If that is not the case, then I retract my statement.

Part of the MLBPA's case when they sued for collusion, and won, was because the owners submitted cooked books to the association, it was only of very small part of the evidence however. The letter from Peter Uberroth is what sunk MLB in that case, and MLB got off without paying treble damages because they are exempt from anti trust laws.

asindc
11-02-2009, 04:01 PM
Part of the MLBPA's case when they sued for collusion, and won, was because the owners submitted cooked books to the association, it was only of very small part of the evidence however. The letter from Peter Uberroth is what sunk MLB in that case, and MLB got off without paying treble damages because they are exempt from anti trust laws.

Yes, that what I was trying to recall. "Cooked books" vs. "Refuse to reveal financials," your call as to whether there is a meaningful distinction between the two. What I remember is that the owners claimed that they could not afford to meet MLBPA's demands, but did not honestly disclose their financial records. Hence, "just take our word it," for which the NLRB called them out.

khan
11-02-2009, 04:02 PM
I don't know that I would call the people that run the most powerful athletic association on the planet clowns,
So [in your view] the guys who are bitching about paycuts in the middle of the worst recession any of us have seen in our lifetimes are respectable contributors to society?

Or is it that [in your view] the guys who fought tooth and nail to forestall the progress of the Mitchell Report are upstanding individuals that aid the human experience?


I happen to disagree with this line of thought: Each and every one of those guys are clowns. Each and every one of those guys are a wart on a horse's ass. Each and every one of those guys contribute little to nothing to humanity.

and the people that understand trade unions would never consider the MLBPA as a union, but rather a bargaining collective.
Sure. YOU know that. And I know that. But the *******s that run the MLBPA try to portray their organization as a union. And scores of imbeciles that watch ESPN believe that the MLBPA is a union.

Daver
11-02-2009, 04:12 PM
So [in your view] the guys who are bitching about paycuts in the middle of the worst recession any of us have seen in our lifetimes are respectable contributors to society?

Or is it that [in your view] the guys who fought tooth and nail to forestall the progress of the Mitchell Report are upstanding individuals that aid the human experience?


Please point out exactly where I posted any of that, or stop putting words in mouth, your choice.

khan
11-02-2009, 04:14 PM
Please point out exactly where I posted any of that, or stop putting words in mouth, your choice.

Not trying to put words in your mouth. You said that those guys aren't clowns, and I say that they are.

FielderJones
11-02-2009, 04:39 PM
The article has a couple other bullet points that are intriguing:

■ A shortened schedule.

It's interesting that owners wouldn't be interested in that. Northern teams must have some April days where just opening the park loses money. The 162-game schedule is an artifact of the initial expansion to 10-team leagues. I would think going back to 154 games would be doable.

■ Small-market teams not spending on payroll

*cough*Pittsburgh*cough* Although, to answer the question ‘why are we subsidizing these teams?’, I'd answer, "So you have opponents to play." Economic reality is that most baseball teams around the country will not be able to charge ticket and concession prices that New York teams will. For a 30 team league to remain viable, some revenue sharing will be required. On the flip side, the small-market teams do have to show an effort in using the revenue sharing money on free-agent signings or rewarding home-grown stars.

Daver
11-02-2009, 04:41 PM
Not trying to put words in your mouth. You said that those guys aren't clowns, and I say that they are.

Yes, I should just automatically accept your opinion, even though it is not based in either fact or reality.

Daver
11-02-2009, 04:43 PM
The article has a couple other bullet points that are intriguing:

■ A shortened schedule.

It's interesting that owners wouldn't be interested in that. Northern teams must have some April days where just opening the park loses money. The 162-game schedule is an artifact of the initial expansion to 10-team leagues. I would think going back to 154 games would be doable.

■ Small-market teams not spending on payroll

*cough*Pittsburgh*cough* Although, to answer the question ‘why are we subsidizing these teams?’, I'd answer, "So you have opponents to play." Economic reality is that most baseball teams around the country will not be able to charge ticket and concession prices that New York teams will. For a 30 team league to remain viable, some revenue sharing will be required. On the flip side, the small-market teams do have to show an effort in using the revenue sharing money on free-agent signings or rewarding home-grown stars.

Move to more teams to New York and you solve a lot of the financial disparities.

DumpJerry
11-02-2009, 04:58 PM
The article has a couple other bullet points that are intriguing:

■ A shortened schedule.

It's interesting that owners wouldn't be interested in that. Northern teams must have some April days where just opening the park loses money. The 162-game schedule is an artifact of the initial expansion to 10-team leagues. I would think going back to 154 games would be doable.
I don't see the owners giving up the revenues the additional eight games bring in. Up here in the north, we can have cold weather games into May, so how would starting the season a week later help? Also, if we did go back to the old 154 game schedule, I would expect the eight games removed from the schedule would be at the back end of the season so we don't have late October World Series games. 154 games should be the death knell of Interleague or at least result in scaling it back 50%.

BeeBeeRichard
11-02-2009, 05:08 PM
Move to more teams to New York and you solve a lot of the financial disparities.

Interesting concept, but how would the existing teams be compensated for giving up part of "their" territory?

FielderJones
11-02-2009, 05:10 PM
I don't see the owners giving up the revenues the additional eight games bring in. Up here in the north, we can have cold weather games into May, so how would starting the season a week later help? Also, if we did go back to the old 154 game schedule, I would expect the eight games removed from the schedule would be at the back end of the season so we don't have late October World Series games. 154 games should be the death knell of Interleague or at least result in scaling it back 50%.

If the expenses of just opening the park are greater than the revenues, why wouldn't you want to cut those loser dates? Taking the games off both ends of the season would ensure the season is done in September.

The death knell or scaling back of interleague is a bad thing because ... ?

Lip Man 1
11-02-2009, 05:14 PM
Fielder:

There is nothing in the constitution that says MLB has to have 30 teams or that cities like Oakland, Kansas City, Milwaukee, Pittsburgh, San Diego have to have a franchise.

If certain teams can't at least have a decent chance of success (due in large part to the incompetence of ownership or unwillingness to spend money) than fold the clubs and disperse the players.

MLB will do very nicely with 24 teams thank you and the quality of play will be better.

Basically what I'm saying is that Proud To Be Your Bud needs to tell certain owners, '**** or get off the pot...period.'

Lip

Daver
11-02-2009, 05:18 PM
Interesting concept, but how would the existing teams be compensated for giving up part of "their" territory?

The commissioner can cite the best interest of baseball and award them nothing if he so chooses, one of the reasons it would be nice to have an autonomous commissioner.

DumpJerry
11-02-2009, 05:25 PM
Interesting concept, but how would the existing teams be compensated for giving up part of "their" territory?

New York City has supported as many as three MLB at once (Yanks, Dodgers and Giants).

If the expenses of just opening the park are greater than the revenues, why wouldn't you want to cut those loser dates? Taking the games off both ends of the season would ensure the season is done in September.

The death knell or scaling back of interleague is a bad thing because ... ?
I don't know if the teams lose money in April. They open fewer concession stands and have few other employees working the cold days. They still get media revenues.

There is nothing bad about the death knell of interleague play other than fans of NL teams won't see any good teams.

palehozenychicty
11-03-2009, 12:06 AM
Fielder:

There is nothing in the constitution that says MLB has to have 30 teams or that cities like Oakland, Kansas City, Milwaukee, Pittsburgh, San Diego have to have a franchise.

If certain teams can't at least have a decent chance of success (due in large part to the incompetence of ownership or unwillingness to spend money) than fold the clubs and disperse the players.

MLB will do very nicely with 24 teams thank you and the quality of play will be better.

Basically what I'm saying is that Proud To Be Your Bud needs to tell certain owners, '**** or get off the pot...period.'

Lip

The apocalypse will come first, although I agree with you.

cws05champ
11-03-2009, 08:03 AM
Fielder:

There is nothing in the constitution that says MLB has to have 30 teams or that cities like Oakland, Kansas City, Milwaukee, Pittsburgh, San Diego have to have a franchise.

If certain teams can't at least have a decent chance of success (due in large part to the incompetence of ownership or unwillingness to spend money) than fold the clubs and disperse the players.

MLB will do very nicely with 24 teams thank you and the quality of play will be better.

Basically what I'm saying is that Proud To Be Your Bud needs to tell certain owners, '**** or get off the pot...period.'

Lip

Considering some of the smaller mkt teams just got new stadiums(Pirates, Twins), completely renovated their stadium (Royals) or will get a new stadium soon (Marlins), these teams are not going anywhere realistically.

Lip Man 1
11-03-2009, 09:51 AM
CWS:

As the Pirates have shown having a new stadium with a crappy team doesn't mean much attendance wise or revenue wise for an area. If MLB really wanted to get rid of some teams, having a new stadium wouldn't have as much of an impact as you think.

It's all speculation anyway and isn't going to happen just as small market teams with garbage/cheap owners aren't going to win anything of substance.

Fielder:

Regarding your point on teams having to use revenue sharing money. This comment from Phil Rogers in his interview with me is enlightening, originally published in August 2002:

ML: Revenue sharing and competitive balance were the central issues in this discussion but the agreement makes no provisions that teams have to spend revenue sharing money on players. What safeguards are there that owners will try to get better?

PR: "There isn’t a minimum payroll requirement because the union objected to having one, the owners tried to get one put in. That being said, it has recently come out that clubs who get revenue sharing money must file a report every year to the commissioner’s office detailing where and how that money was spent. The commissioner then has the power, if he doesn’t like where the money is going, to levy substantial fines on teams. The money has to be spent on things like player salaries, adding minor league teams or stadium improvement."

ML: Then how does that square with published accounts quoting Jerry Reinsdorf as saying in the owners ratification meeting, that teams should use that money towards reducing operating debt rather then going to player acquisitions or salaries?

PR: "I’ve seen that story. All I can tell you is that I was at that meeting and all reporters were outside the conference room. I know that when I’ve tried to get comments from owners afterwards in these kind of situations, they were always tight lipped. I can’t vouch for the veracity of that story. Assuming that comment was made, I don’t think reducing team debt would fall under the guidelines of where revenue sharing money has to go, therefore the commissioner would get involved to stop it."

It looks like Selig could order teams to spend that money on talent if he wanted to...the problem is, he won't.

Lip

FielderJones
11-03-2009, 01:07 PM
There is nothing in the constitution that says MLB has to have 30 teams or that cities like Oakland, Kansas City, Milwaukee, Pittsburgh, San Diego have to have a franchise.

If certain teams can't at least have a decent chance of success (due in large part to the incompetence of ownership or unwillingness to spend money) than fold the clubs and disperse the players.

MLB will do very nicely with 24 teams thank you and the quality of play will be better.

I never said there was any constitutional guarantee of a 30 team league. I implied that MLB might not want the negative publicity that comes with contracting its franchise count. Trying to sell contraction as a good thing is an uphill battle. Contraction implies that you overreached, oversold, were too optimistic in the face of reality. MLB has had more than 24 teams for 32 years now. The average fan (not old guys like us) probably can't even remember the pre-wild-card days.

I guarantee you the NFL does not want to become like MLB and have a few rich franchises and the rest also-rans. The NFL's popularity stems from the ability of even the most downtrodden franchise to turn things around quickly, in the range of a year or two. MLB could learn a lot from the NFL, and whiny owners complaining about subsidies are unhelpful.

Daver
11-03-2009, 01:22 PM
Comparing the NFL with MLB is a very poor comparison.

Oblong
11-03-2009, 04:02 PM
It all depends on how success is measured. There's financial success and on the field success. A group of investors or owner may be perfectly willing to accept a $30 million profit each year and expanding franchise value due to stadium deals even if that means a .500 season is about all they can hope for.

(I just made that $30 million up. My point is profit vs W-L)

Lip Man 1
11-03-2009, 04:45 PM
Fielder:

The NFL shares all revenue equally...MLB does not. Also in the past the NFL has slanted their scheduling in order to promote parity and offer bad teams hope by easing the schedule. I don't know how much they do that now, but it used to be a 4th place team in a division would play a schedule facing a number of other 4th place clubs for example. That helped to 'promote' the idea that any bad team can be great in two years.

MLB does not ease a schedule to help teams like the Nationals, Pirates, Padres or Royals for example.

Daver's right, it's not a good comparison.

Oblong's also making a very strong point (i.e. Jeffrey Loria) some owners could care less about "winning" on the field as long as the bank account is expanding. That is where a ''real" commissioner could have an impact by wanking their franchises and selling them to the Mark Cubans of the world...but with an "owner's" commissioner that will never happen.

Lip

Mohoney
11-03-2009, 05:11 PM
Also in the past the NFL has slanted their scheduling in order to promote parity and offer bad teams hope by easing the schedule.

As of right now, only 2 games per year in the NFL are scheduled as the result of the previous year's standings.

A team plays the other three teams in their division twice per year, plays all 4 teams in another AFC and NFC division on a 4 year-3 year rotating basis, and the last 2 games are scheduled against the teams in the other 2 divisions in your conference that shared the same place finish in the standings the year before.

Frontman
11-04-2009, 06:28 PM
The union is out of touch with reality.

As is the sport itself at times. Selig never thought he had a steroid issue in his game.....

Seriously, the union needs to shut up and be thankful games are still being played. The fans might be still coming out for certain teams; but if the economy doesn't improve soon even teams like the Sawx and Cubs and Yanks might start feeling it at the turnstyles.

gosox41
11-04-2009, 11:19 PM
Here we go again

http://www.boston.com/sports/baseball/articles/2009/11/01/are_players_and_owners_heading_for_another_collisi on_of_collusion/


If the union can prove it, great. But if the economoy is still lousy when the next labor agreement is up (I think it's 2011 so negotiations should start late 2010??) then they are not going to get any sympathy from the fans.

But I'm assuming they can't prove it. Maybe they can.

Bob

Balfanman
11-05-2009, 08:56 AM
As is the sport itself at times. Selig never thought he had a steroid issue in his game.....

Do you really think that Bud Selig never thought that there was massive steroid use going on? I think that even most casual fans knew this(except for Cub fans of course, Sammy would never......oh, nevermind). :o:

I think that Mr. Selig not only knew, he purposely turned a blind eye to it because it was making him and the other owners a boat load of cash. Selig just didn't think that it would blow up in his face like it has.