A season of AAA guys?

[GuidoSarducci]

29 minutes ago, DrungoHazewood said:

And I don't know if that would make any difference.  None of the other leagues have one, and they do fine.

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.

Edited June 18, 2020 by GuidoSarducci

[HowAboutThat]

2 hours ago, SteveA said:

Really?   I never realized you were against those deals.   Thanks for sharing this information for the first time.

For once Corn and I are in total agreement. I was against all of those, and I am mildly annoyed that he mentioned Gallardo because I had forgotten him.

Praise God from whom all blessings flow, one of which is Dan no longer being a part of this organization.

[DrungoHazewood]

10 hours ago, GuidoSarducci said:

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.

@Frobby could offer a lot more meaningful insight, but I don't think the Federal League Terrapin's case has ever been considered well-thought-out judicial reasoning. It would not be in any way surprising to me if it was one day challenged and overturned.

[spiritof66]

3 hours ago, DrungoHazewood said:

@Frobby could offer a lot more meaningful insight, but I don't think the Federal League Terrapin's case has ever been considered well-thought-out judicial reasoning. It would not be in any way surprising to me if it was one day challenged and overturned.

Not so fast. 

For a long time, the conventional wisdom was that the 1922 Terrapins/Federal League decision was poorly reasoned, and that the Supreme Court and legendary Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, the author of the decision, didn't understand antitrust law, didn't know anything about how "modern" big league baseball operated, or didn't want to do anything that would impair National and American League baseball. In 1970, one of the country's most eminent judges declared that the "Federal Baseball [decision] was not one of Mr. Justice Holmes’ happiest days."

By the late 1990s (maybe earlier), that view of the Federal League decision was shifting. A number of recent scholarly books and articles have defended the decision by focusing closely on its reasoning in the light of how federal antitrust law was interpreted at the time.The most compelling of the stuff I've read -- and I haven't read it all, or stayed current in the last few years -- is Baseball on Trial, a 1914 book by a law professor, Nathaniel Grow. Grow's main point is that in the early 1920s the scope of "interstate commerce" under antitrust laws was both much narrower and far less certain than it is today, and that the decision was reasonable at the time, even if it seems nuts today. In a very good and balanced article, Grow recently wrote this synopsis of his book: "

"As I’ve argued in my recent book on the Federal Baseball lawsuit, the Court’s ruling in the case was actually quite defensible at the time. Back in the 1920s, federal courts typically interpreted the phrase “interstate commerce” quite narrowly. In particular, courts defined “commerce” differently than they do today, typically limiting the term to apply to only those activities related to the production or distribution of physical goods. Because MLB teams produced no physical products, but instead only played ephemeral games in a single state, the Court could reasonably determine professional baseball was not engaged in interstate commerce and thus was not subject to federal antitrust law." https://blogs.fangraphs.com/baseballs-antitrust-exemption-a-primer/

What doesn't make sense is not the Federal League decision itself, but the Supreme Court's consistent adherence to its result in later cases. Usually when a case comes before it, a court applies the law as it exists at the time. But in its baseball antitrust decisions since 1922, the Supreme Court has held, in effect, that the result is determined by what was decided in 1922 -- that ruling should be adhered to unless Congress enacts a law reversing it. While there have been rumblings to the effect that baseball has been accorded that protection from modern antitrust law because it's so damn important to the country, in fact the only difference between MLB and other major sports leagues is that the baseball major leagues (now MLB) are older and got themselves sued earlier, when the antitrust laws were at an earlier -- one might say primitive -- stage of development. Not much of a basis for an important legal distinction.

NOTE:  Since I brought up Justice Holmes, I wonder whether anyone out there can identify the coincidental relationship between Oliver Wendell Holmes, Sr. and the earliest days of baseball.

 

[spiritof66]

2 hours ago, DrungoHazewood said:

@Frobby could offer a lot more meaningful insight, but I don't think the Federal League Terrapin's case has ever been considered well-thought-out judicial reasoning. It would not be in any way surprising to me if it was one day challenged and overturned.

Not so fast. For a long time, the conventional wisdom was that the Terrapins/Federal League decision was poorly reasoned, either because Oliver Wendell Holmes, the author of the decision, had a bad day (    ) or because the Supreme Court didn't want to hurt major league baseball. Some recent books and articles have taken a different view. ___ is especially compelling. Grow's main point is that in the early 1920s the scope of "interstate commerce" under antitrust laws , which were only __ old, was both narrower and less certain than it is today, and that the decision was reasonable at the time, even if it seems nuts today. Gow recently wrote this:

 

[GuidoSarducci]

1 hour ago, spiritof66 said:

Not so fast. For a long time, the conventional wisdom was that the Terrapins/Federal League decision was poorly reasoned, either because Oliver Wendell Holmes, the author of the decision, had a bad day (    ) or because the Supreme Court didn't want to hurt major league baseball. Some recent books and articles have taken a different view. ___ is especially compelling. Grow's main point is that in the early 1920s the scope of "interstate commerce" under antitrust laws , which were only __ old, was both narrower and less certain than it is today, and that the decision was reasonable at the time, even if it seems nuts today. Gow recently wrote this:

 

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. 

[foxfield]

22 hours ago, Tony-OH said:

Hey, you just brought up one good thing in all of this, Chris Davis is not collecting that pay check he hasn't earned in three years. There's a little justice in this world afterall! "D

True, but the portion of his salary that is deferred WILL still be paid right?  

[spiritof66]

1 hour ago, foxfield said:

True, but the portion of his salary that is deferred WILL still be paid right?  

I would think so, but you would have to see what the March agreement says. Good luck with that.