Where is the starter market? Where are the O's?

[tntoriole]

1 minute ago, Can_of_corn said:

You have a higher opinion of the owner's ability to collude than I do.  I've seen what the owners colluding looks like and it isn't nearly this subtle.

Learning to be more subtle was also what PEDS guys did and have done.  Owners can learn too.  And I don’t recall there being a players training camp ever opening since the last strike so no markets before ever led to that happening.  We shall see how many of the 100 or so actually get contracts.   

[Can_of_corn]

Just now, tntoriole said:

Learning to be more subtle was also what PEDS guys did and have done.  Owners can learn too.  And I don’t recall there being a players training camp ever opening since the last strike so no markets before ever led to that happening.  We shall see how many of the 100 or so actually get contracts.   

Frankly some of them shoudln't get contracts.

[tntoriole]

4 minutes ago, Can_of_corn said:

Frankly some of them shoudln't get contracts.

I agree...but if there is an email somewhere suggesting that they (owners) should “hold the line”... or whatever....we shall see.   Will this just be seen as a free market correction (3 decades coming if it is) or is it the result of a “strategery”?  lol.  

[Can_of_corn]

2 minutes ago, tntoriole said:

I agree...but if there is an email somewhere suggesting that they (owners) should “hold the line”... or whatever....we shall see.   Will this just be seen as a free market correction (3 decades coming if it is) or is it the result of a “strategery”?  lol.  

Does an email suggesting they "hold the line" actually constitute punishable collusion?

 

[billw76]

I honestly don't think there is any colluding, I think it's owners being less willing to give out big long term deals to players, especially guys that are over 30 or ones with injury history.

 

[tntoriole]

22 minutes ago, Can_of_corn said:

Does an email suggesting they "hold the line" actually constitute punishable collusion?

 

It likely would not even take that smoking gun type of evidence.  The CBA language is deceptively simple...Players shall not act in concert with other players and clubs shall not act in concert with other clubs.

Here is an interesting take on this...and Rosenthal had an article about agents taking notes in their negotiations for a possible action against owners. 

http://wrigleyville.locals.baseballprospectus.com/2018/01/08/collusion-by-any-other-name-would-smell-as-foul/

You wonder if this Cubs guy feels differently tonight...lol

[Can_of_corn]

4 minutes ago, tntoriole said:

It likely would not even take that smoking gun type of evidence.  The CBA language is deceptively simple...Players shall not act in concert with other players and clubs shall not act in concert with other clubs.

Here is an interesting take on this...and Rosenthal had an article about agents taking notes in their negotiations for a possible action against owners. 

http://wrigleyville.locals.baseballprospectus.com/2018/01/08/collusion-by-any-other-name-would-smell-as-foul/

You wonder if this Cubs guy feels differently tonight...lol

Quote

waiting for their prices to drop late in the offseason so they can snatch up good players for a fraction of the deals they would have received in previous years, is evidence enough to conclude that the owners are colluding.

No it isn't.

[tntoriole]

7 minutes ago, Can_of_corn said:

No it isn't.

Depends on the arbitration/labor judge.   It will not likely come to that, but the owners hopefully have been more careful about their informal and formal interactions with each other than they have been in the past.   Look at the issues with the Marlins sale, for example.   MLB required Jeter's group and the Fish to submit a financing plan that essentially telegraphed the firesale coming....all the other clubs saw it, had to know it and adjusted their market strategy accordingly.  Hard to see how direct involvement by MLB like that could not be seen as a potential violation of the spirit of the CBA.  

[Can_of_corn]

1 minute ago, tntoriole said:

Depends on the arbitration/labor judge.   It will not likely come to that, but the owners hopefully have been more careful about their informal and formal interactions with each other than they have been in the past.   Look at the issues with the Marlins sale, for example.   MLB required Jeter's group and the Fish to submit a financing plan that essentially telegraphed the firesale coming....all the other clubs saw it, had to know it and adjusted their market strategy accordingly.  Hard to see how direct involvement by MLB like that could not be seen as a potential violation of the spirit of the CBA.  

There is zero chance that they can go in front of anyone with "They are waiting for the market to come to them." as evidence of collusion and receive a reward.

[tntoriole]

6 minutes ago, Can_of_corn said:

There is zero chance that they can go in front of anyone with "They are waiting for the market to come to them." as evidence of collusion and receive a reward.

Not if their decision to wait was completely and absolutely spontaneous on the part of all 30 teams.   If there is any suggestion in writing or communications or if the deal negotiating from team to team uses the same phrases or reasoning...any evidence that the collective strategy was going to be "wait" (even if that strategy could be viewed by the outside observer as the "best business practice" or "just being a smart GM" or whatever) and this was communicated in ANY fashion between ANY teams, then different ballgame.  

[MurphDogg]

1 hour ago, Frobby said:

Percentage is down, but salaries were at an all time high last year, so I’m not crying for them.  

Nobody is crying, but I would rather the players maintain their share of the increased revenue instead of lining the pockets of the owners. The bigger issue is that minor league salaries haven't even kept up with inflation over the last 50 years while the owners profits are increasing exponentially.

 

I also think a key focus of the next round of negotiations, is an increase of minimum salaries in years 1-3 to prevent the stars and scrubs model of team building that has become so prevalent. The union has always fought for their stars increased salaries with the idea that the rising tide will lift all boats, but teams now more than ever are devoting the majority of their payroll to their 5-8 highest paid players.

[Can_of_corn]

1 minute ago, tntoriole said:

Not if their decision to wait was completely and absolutely spontaneous on the part of all 30 teams.   If there is any suggestion in writing or communications or if the deal negotiating from team to team uses the same phrases or reasoning...any evidence that the collective strategy was going to be "wait" (even if that strategy could be viewed by the outside observer as the "best business practice" or "just being a smart GM" or whatever) and this was communicated in ANY fashion between ANY teams, then different ballgame.  

But it wasn't.

Some players, albeit a smaller amount than usual, signed early.

And teams like the Orioles have been waiting until late in the FA season for years.

I think you are drastically underestimating the burden of evidence needed.  (Freely admitting I'm not a lawyer)

[Can_of_corn]

3 minutes ago, MurphDogg said:

Nobody is crying, but I would rather the players maintain their share of the increased revenue than lining the pockets of the owners. The bigger issue is that minor league salaries haven't even kept up with inflation over the last 50 years while the owners profits are increasing exponentially.

 

I also think a key focus of the next round of negotiations, is an increase of minimum salaries in years 1-3 to prevent the stars and scrubs model of team building that has become so prevalent. The union has always fought for their stars increased salaries with the idea that the rising tide will lift all boats, but teams now more than ever are devoting the majority of their payroll to their 5-8 highest paid players.

First thing I think happens is that service time games will be eliminated.

Also an increase in minimum salaries for year two and three players, which in turn will help them come the arbitration years.

 

I'm not sold that players will win an earlier free agency before at least parts of six seasons.

[tntoriole]

1 minute ago, Can_of_corn said:

But it wasn't.

Some players, albeit a smaller amount than usual, signed early.

And teams like the Orioles have been waiting until late in the FA season for years.

I think you are drastically underestimating the burden of evidence needed.  (Freely admitting I'm not a lawyer)

Me neither.  (freely (and gladly) admitting I am not a lawyer, either.)   Although I did stay at a Holiday Inn Express....lol.  

[MurphDogg]

11 minutes ago, Can_of_corn said:

First thing I think happens is that service time games will be eliminated.

Also an increase in minimum salaries for year two and three players, which in turn will help them come the arbitration years.

 

I'm not sold that players will win an earlier free agency before at least parts of six seasons.

Yeah, I would be fine with that. Also, I believe there should be a floor on the percentage of revenue going to the players. The fact is that players are taking home a smaller share of revenue than ever before, and minor leaguers aren't even making a living wage, while revenues are exceeding $10 billion per yer.