White Sox Interactive Forums
Sox Clubhouse
 Soxogram: 
Congratulations on the Rookie records for HR and RBI in April, Jose!

Welcome
Go Back   White Sox Interactive Forums > Baseball Discussions > Sox Clubhouse
Home Chat Stats Register Blogs FAQ Calendar Mark Forums Read


Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 01-04-2003, 12:37 PM
Paulwny Paulwny is offline
WSI High Priest
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: In a Field
Posts: 6,312
Default Collusion case possible

By RONALD BLUM
AP Sports Writer

January 4, 2003, 2:52 AM EST


NEW YORK -- In a possible prelude to another collusion case against baseball owners, the players' association has asked agents to keep detailed records of negotiations involving free agents.

http://www.newsday.com/sports/baseba...ll%2Dheadlines
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 01-04-2003, 01:36 PM
TornLabrum's Avatar
TornLabrum TornLabrum is offline
Brrrrooooowwwwffffffff!!!
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Joliet, IL
Posts: 13,394
Default Re: Collusion case possible

Quote:
Originally posted by Paulwny
By RONALD BLUM
AP Sports Writer

January 4, 2003, 2:52 AM EST


NEW YORK -- In a possible prelude to another collusion case against baseball owners, the players' association has asked agents to keep detailed records of negotiations involving free agents.

http://www.newsday.com/sports/baseba...ll%2Dheadlines
Interesting. Just under a month ago a former Sox player said the following when asked if he thought there might be collusion going on this year:

"It wouldn't surprise me at all. They've done it before."
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 01-04-2003, 01:57 PM
SI1020 SI1020 is offline
WSI Church Elder
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Deep in the heart of Dixie
Posts: 4,359
Default

When we were debating the CBA in this forum I admitted that PHG and Daver "schooled" me on the issue. They were simply more informed and knowledgeable than I was at the time. That should be one of the better aspects of these internet forums, to educate yourself on a variety of topics. So at the risk of opening up a new (or old) can of worms let me ask a question. Should it be ruled "collusion" if some of the owners decide that they just don't want to pay what some of the players want them to pay? Isn't that in itself artificially distorting supply and demand? I know we have a frugal owner who would be reluctant to sign players no matter what.
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 01-04-2003, 02:04 PM
Brian26's Avatar
Brian26 Brian26 is offline
WSI Guru
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Chicago
Posts: 29,262
Blog Entries: 52
Default

The very nature of the new CBA makes this argument different than the '85 collusion case. The owners now have a reason to not offer the high-end salaries per the luxury tax. There was no luxury tax in '85. Interesting topic and maybe a bit of grey area here.
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 01-04-2003, 02:05 PM
voodoochile's Avatar
voodoochile voodoochile is online now
Soda Jerk/U.P.W./Lester Pooh Bear
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: San Jose, CA
Posts: 47,499
Blog Entries: 9
Default

Quote:
Originally posted by SI1020
When we were debating the CBA in this forum I admitted that PHG and Daver "schooled" me on the issue. They were simply more informed and knowledgeable than I was at the time. That should be one of the better aspects of these internet forums, to educate yourself on a variety of topics. So at the risk of opening up a new (or old) can of worms let me ask a question. Should it be ruled "collusion" if some of the owners decide that they just don't want to pay what some of the players want them to pay? Isn't that in itself artificially distorting supply and demand? I know we have a frugal owner who would be reluctant to sign players no matter what.
The people distorting supply and demand are the actual providers of that demand. Provided each of them is acting independently and only spending what they truly can afford and not working in consort to artificially drive the prices down there is no collusion. Wouldn't surprise me if there was some nudge nudge wink wink stuff going on, but I doubt the owners are stupid enough to leave a paper trail. What do you think the owners meetings are really all about?

But, if they are actually dumb enough to leave evidence to be found then they deserve what they get. I wonder if JR's comments about using the money to pay down debt could be construed as a message from Bud in a court of law. Was that the signal they were all waiting for to reduce costs and not spend the money on players? I know Pohlad is going to pocket the majority of his money. He did it before and is currently upset that he wasn't allowed to cash out when given the chance. You think he is going to pump tons of cash back into a franchise he wishes was dead you should take a look at this bridge I have for sale...
__________________

Riding shotgun on the Sox bandwagon since before there was an Internet...
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 01-04-2003, 02:10 PM
Dadawg_77 Dadawg_77 is offline
WSI High Priest
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: North Side of Chicago
Posts: 8,252
Default

MBL owners wanted to prevent players from going into contract talks together, like Joe DiMaggio and Whitey Ford did (Joey though backstabed Ford when he accepted the Yankees offer). Thus the collusion clause in the CBA, which says owners and player may not act in concert when negotiating with each other. So the question is whether or not owners won't pay it whether or not the owners are working together so they don't play.
__________________
"You'll get one good pitch to hit. One good pitch. That's all. Don't count on more. So you better know the strike zone. And when you get that one good pitch you better hit it and hit it hard. Remember, just one good pitch"

-Ted Williams as told in The Teamates.
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 01-04-2003, 04:15 PM
PaleHoseGeorge's Avatar
PaleHoseGeorge PaleHoseGeorge is offline
Webmaster - French Fryer
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: W. Connecticut
Posts: 14,910
Default

Quote:
Originally posted by SI1020
.... Should it be ruled "collusion" if some of the owners decide that they just don't want to pay what some of the players want them to pay? Isn't that in itself artificially distorting supply and demand? I know we have a frugal owner who would be reluctant to sign players no matter what.
It is not collusion if individual owners independently decide not to bid on free agent players. This was not the case back in the 80's, when meetings held by the commissioner and attended by the owners and their GM's where the ways and means to hold down the bidding for the players' services were discussed. MLB was talking collective action against the spirit of the collective bargaining agreement they signed with the MLBPA.

A federal labor arbitrator found the commissioner (Ueberroth), the owners, the GM's, and their lawyers, all guilty of collusion--not once, not twice, but three times! He awarded simple damages to the affected ballplayers (e.g. guys like MVP Andre Dawson who literally handed Cubs GM Dallas Green a signed contract with no dollar figure filled in).

Had any of us been found guilty in similar anti-trust circumstances, we would have been slapped with punitive damages for treble the amount the judge found us guilty of taking. The law is meant to serve as a deterrent; it's not enough simply to return the money. Otherwise it would be like a bankrobber getting off simply by giving back the money he stole.

The owners paid no punitive damages because they have an exemption from U.S. anti-trust laws (thanks to Chief Justice Holmes who ruled baseball a "pastime", not interstate commerce). Since then, the MLBPA has since gotten language added to the CBA explicitly stating the MLB must pay treble damages with regards to anti-trust matters involving labor issues.

I doubt the owners are dumb enough to blatantly collude like they did 15 years ago. However, nobody ever got rich betting on the smarts of this group. I wouldn't be surprised if the MLBPA builds a convincing case against them, forcing MLB into court and probably a settlement.

Are the owners dumb enough to get caught a fourth time? I wouldn't bet against it.
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 01-04-2003, 10:46 PM
Daver's Avatar
Daver Daver is offline
The Grand Wazoo
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: SW Suburbs
Posts: 26,640
Blog Entries: 11
Default

Quote:
I doubt the owners are dumb enough to blatantly collude like they did 15 years ago. However, nobody ever got rich betting on the smarts of this group. I wouldn't be surprised if the MLBPA builds a convincing case against them, forcing MLB into court and probably a settlement.
I think they would have a very hard time proving collusion for this offseason,the pattern for spending was made last offseason,when very little was done in the FA market,and guys like Barry Bonds and Brett Boone chose to accept arbittration because there was no market for them,yet there was no call for a collusion conspiracy.

The MLBPA did this to themselves by agreeing to salary constraints in the new CBA,they agreed to a deal that was going to hurt the middle class players,Jim Thome and Tom Glavine were able to land big contracts as the top players,but middle of the road guys like Ismael Valdes and James Baldwin will be lucky to sign for below the money they played for last year,because of the new CBA,the owners would rather gamble with young ,cheap talent than spend on older proven talent to avoid growing their payroll.The fact that baseball contracts,unlike those in the NFL,are guaranteed compounds the situation.

This is one of the reasons why there will be another threat of a work stoppage in MLB four years from now,the players will realize that they agreed to a deal that gave the owners an excuse NOT to spend,and has also done nothing to correct the competetive balance within the game,and they will want to demand a repeal of the luxury tax in the next CBA.

And so goes the soap opera that is Major League Baseball.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 01-04-2003, 10:58 PM
ma-gaga's Avatar
ma-gaga ma-gaga is offline
WSI Church Elder
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Minny
Posts: 4,513
Default

Pandora's Box is open. The owners have revenue sharing in the books throughout the new CBA. Don't expect that to disappear.

I guess we'll see what happens in the next 4 years. If 4 different teams win the WS, and 16-18 different teams make the playoffs, the CBA will be deemed a success and we can expect more revenue sharing and luxury taxes.

If the Yankees buy the next 4, then I have no clue what'll happen. Probably more revenue sharing and luxury taxes... When all is said and done, I really don't have a HUGE problem with taxing the Yankees/Braves to help the Brewers/Royals.

They'll just put in a minimum team salary to appease the players union. why not, they've already caved in theory on the 'salary cap' er uh luxury tax, why not get a little more.

They'd (players union) be better served by increasing the minimum salaries 3 fold. There's the people that are getting 'screwed', the minimum salary typed.
__________________
I am not a GUN!
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 01-05-2003, 02:50 AM
WhiteSoxWinner WhiteSoxWinner is offline
WSI Personality
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Lombard
Posts: 734
Default

The interesting thing that has not been brought up in this thread is the insurance issue. In prior years a guy could be signed for $10 million a season over 6 season and the announced amount of the contract was $60 million. The $60 million made fans and reporters questions the sanity of MLB owners.

However, now I argue that insurance company, like Lloyds of London and other outfits, are no longer willing to ensure contracts greater than 3 years. As such, it only makes sense that guys are getting similar offers from teams. No one wants to go longer than 3 years, and the money has to be relatively similar, varying only within a $1 million range.

Finally, a force outside of baseball has said enough of these multi-year ridiculous deals forcing owners back to some sort of reality.
Reply With Quote
  #11  
Old 01-05-2003, 09:17 AM
PaleHoseGeorge's Avatar
PaleHoseGeorge PaleHoseGeorge is offline
Webmaster - French Fryer
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: W. Connecticut
Posts: 14,910
Default

Why would insurance companies care? They only pay out if a player gets injured. Those costs are built into the premiums they charge all the teams seeking insurance.

What's happened to make the risks greater today than they were 10 years ago? Are players more susceptible to injuries? Salary inflation alone wouldn't effect their willingness to insure. The premiums go up with the price of the contract. The proportional cost differences are negligible.

I can't recall reading anything about insurance costs affecting players' salaries.
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old 01-05-2003, 09:36 AM
34rancher 34rancher is offline
WSI Church Elder
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Posts: 4,721
Default

Can we as fans then claim collusion since the ticket price goes up every year, despite the economy (and the product) going down? I mean when the Cubs, along with others charge more for "Certain" teams, isn't that collusion against the other teams, since visiting teams get part of the gate receipts? I want my cake and be able to eat it too.
__________________
I named my bulldog DH because he's lazy.
-Ozzie
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old 01-05-2003, 11:16 AM
gosox41 gosox41 is offline
WSI High Priest
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Chicago
Posts: 5,027
Default

Quote:
Originally posted by PaleHoseGeorge
Why would insurance companies care? They only pay out if a player gets injured. Those costs are built into the premiums they charge all the teams seeking insurance.

What's happened to make the risks greater today than they were 10 years ago? Are players more susceptible to injuries? Salary inflation alone wouldn't effect their willingness to insure. The premiums go up with the price of the contract. The proportional cost differences are negligible.

I can't recall reading anything about insurance costs affecting players' salaries.
I've read that insurance premiums have sky rocketed while the coveraege gets skimpier. For example, the Phillies have insurance on Thome's contract. But because Thome has a history of back problems, the insurance won't cover that type of injury if it ends his career. The Phillies hope Thome's most injured part holds up over the length of the contract or else it does them no good.

Bob
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old 01-05-2003, 11:32 AM
voodoochile's Avatar
voodoochile voodoochile is online now
Soda Jerk/U.P.W./Lester Pooh Bear
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: San Jose, CA
Posts: 47,499
Blog Entries: 9
Default

Quote:
Originally posted by PaleHoseGeorge
Why would insurance companies care? They only pay out if a player gets injured. Those costs are built into the premiums they charge all the teams seeking insurance.

What's happened to make the risks greater today than they were 10 years ago? Are players more susceptible to injuries? Salary inflation alone wouldn't effect their willingness to insure. The premiums go up with the price of the contract. The proportional cost differences are negligible.

I can't recall reading anything about insurance costs affecting players' salaries.
Since 9-11 insurance costs everywhere have skyrocketed and there is talk of a federal bailout in the near future. It isn't that baseball players have become bigger risks, it is that insurance carriers are up to their necks in redink and other nastiness and won't take the risks on getting burned on long contracts high value contracts.
Reply With Quote
  #15  
Old 01-05-2003, 12:48 PM
MarkEdward MarkEdward is offline
WSI Church Elder
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Oak Forest, Illinios
Posts: 1,899
Default

Quote:
Originally posted by ma-gaga

I guess we'll see what happens in the next 4 years. If 4 different teams win the WS, and 16-18 different teams make the playoffs, the CBA will be deemed a success and we can expect more revenue sharing and luxury taxes.
If this happened, the owners would have a hard time getting more revenue sharing and luxury tax rates passed.
__________________
Proud sponsor of the Mark Johnson and Eddie Collins pages at baseball-reference.com.
"We believe in a government strong enough to use the words "love" and "compassion" and smart enough to convert our noblest aspirations into practical realities."
Mario Cuomo- 1984.
Reply With Quote
Reply


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



Forum Jump




All times are GMT -5. The time now is 05:28 PM.




Design by: Michelle

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Site-specific editorial/photos Copyright ©2001 - 2008 White Sox Interactive. All rights reserved.