Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

51 Low A-Ball

About GuidoSarducci

  • Rank
    Advanced Member
  • Birthday 3/16/1979

Recent Profile Visitors

539 profile views
  1. It may have been reasonable at the time because revenues didn’t cross state lines to my knowledge. Revenues were local, except maybe radio broadcast but those were local as well, and not sure to what extent teams got revenue from them anyway. A judge who inclined to rule against MLB would not necessarily have to explicitly overturn Holmes decision or claim it was wrong. But instead rule that when baseball teams started doing things like broadcasting games out of market, amongst other things, they ceased to be purely local businesses and instead became interstate enterprises. That way the courts could maintain their precious stare decisisis.
  2. Baseball's antiturst exemption was based on a Supreme Court ruling in 1922. Most recently, it was kind of upheld in 2018 when the Supreme Court denied to hear an appeal. https://ballparkdigest.com/2018/06/12/supreme-court-yet-again-declines-to-strike-down-mlb-antitrust-exemption/#:~:text=The antitrust exemption%2C first granted,subject to federal commerce laws. I doubt the courts would now view baseball as a unique pro sport compared to the NFL, NBA and NHL. In other words, I don';t see an anti-trust case against NFL, NBA or NHL proceeding any differently. But it hasn't really been challenged, outside of a few incidents, I think during one of the lockouts, the NFLPA decertified and was going to pursue an anti-trust case, but a CBA was done before that happened. Edit: Well apparently I'm wrong. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radovich_v._National_Football_League Although the Court then openly admitted that there was little difference between MLB and NFL, and would have ruled agains tthe MLB had a similar case been brought up at the same time. Great example of how contradictory and the confusing the law can be.
  3. They can try to do that, but then get sued out the a$$. MLB cannot just unilaterally cancel players' contracts. Otherwise they would do it all the time.
  4. Its not a poor business decision if the owners can't turn a profit If you own a business and suddenly conditions change where its no longer profitable without your employees taking a temporary paycut, does it make sense to continue operating if they won't? Or does it make sense to suspend operations until economic conditions improve.
  5. And if the owners decide that playing the season isn't worth it if they aren't getting any stadium revenue?
  6. It would amount to a unilateral cancelling of player contracts. Players would sue the league and win easily. Right now owners can get away with not paying players because baseball isn't being played at all. This leads me to another interesting question, is there any language in the CBA or elsewhere that ties player compensation to a functioning league. It does seem kind of one of those "obvious" things, but are the owners even obligated to have a season at all. For the past few months there have been of course extraordinary circumstances, but if the issue is now that baseball can be played, but the owners want the players to take a paycut, do the players have a legal case that MLB is obligated to pay them regardless of whether or not the owners feel like having a season.
  7. Who decides what the players deserve to be paid?
  8. With adequate separation, yes. Would have to figure out concessions ... maybe switch to deliver to seat, I know some arenas n NHL NBA already do this
  9. Analogy does not hold. Baseball does not have the promotion / relegation like European football clubs. MLB, AAA, AA and A teams are fixed for the most part, outside of moving and sometimes folding. The Baltimore Orioles are not going to start playing in AAA if they finish outside of the top 28 teams. 1860 was in the top division until 2004 when they got relegated into 2. Bundesliga (presently they're on 3. Liga) Real Man City fans are not going to just start rooting for Man U because Man City gets relegated.
  10. i posted a while back, but tickets and concessions amounted to about 35% of the average MLB teams revenue. I don't think that even included parking fees. The MLBPA are asking the owners an awful lot for full pro-rated, if the owners are losing 35% of their revenue stream.
  11. A bank robber who robs one bank is going to get a lesser sentence than a bank robber who robs ten banks.
  12. As I understand it Boston wasn't relaying to the batter unless a runner was on second.
  13. Yes, this is who I thought. Drafted #7 in 2000 draft. Rockies offered $4 million, but he wanted $4.95. Actually Boras wasn't his client then, but it was Tommy Tanzer. Goes unsigned and re-enters the draft next year, slipping to second round. Padres offered $1.2 million. Tanzer was fired and Boras hired a few months into negotiation, but they still can't agree. Boras wanted over $2 million. Goes unsigned, enters into the Independent league, where he bombs going 2-6 with a 6.57 ERA. Padres pull their offer after seeing the poor perfromance. In 2002, drafted by Tampa Bay in the 13th round. Offers up to $200k apparently, which he rebufffed. Reenters the draft, drafted in the 24th round by the Reds in 2003, who offered him maybe a few K. Then drafted in the 36th round by the Yankees, who never even offered a contract. According to Wikipedia, as of 2009 he was working in Costco tire center making $11.50/hr. Dude literally won the lottery, didn't feel it was enough money and rolled the dice for a even bigger payday, and came up snake eyes. Twice.
  14. Who was that Boras client who was drafted high, kept demanding a big payday which he never got, and ended up waning out of baseball in a few years, missing out on millions of dollars ? I think this was early 2000s.
  • Create New...