MLBPA considering collusion grievance

ey215 · 10-30-2003, 06:17 PM

ESPN.com is reporting that the MLBPA is considering filing a grievance alleging collusion in last years free agency period.

Link to the story.

On a side note. something I've never understood is on one hand the union is always on the lookout for collusion (justifiably so). However, when it comes to CBA negotiation time and the owners ask for a salary cap the union's point of view usually has something to do with, "Well the owners shouldn't need us to help them control spending."

I understand that collusion is illegally conspiring to keep workers wages down but if the owners just up and decided they weren't going to let salaries keep rising at an astronomical level can't the union cry collusion.

Am I the only one that sees something odd here or am I way off base?

akw4572 · 10-30-2003, 07:24 PM

I agree wholeheartedly with you. How could anyone say the owners were colluding if they just don't want to let salaries keep inflating?

jazzrack · 10-30-2003, 07:34 PM

in my opinion the players are going to kill the game with overpaid players. and anytime the owners try to keep salaries down the damn babies start crying collusion. thats why i don't goto baseball games anymore. (i do goto see our local AAA team sac. river cats).

crackpott · 10-30-2003, 07:49 PM

If the owners discuss strategy to affect player salary regardless of if it's to cap salaries, cut them, keep them steady, whatever, effectively it's eliminating the free market and is collusion. I'm not saying i agree with all this, I'm just replying to akw's comment.

Kezzek · 10-30-2003, 08:06 PM

If I'm an owner, I'm colluding my ass off.

**** the players.

holyroller · 10-30-2003, 08:08 PM

Well, sure it is inconsistent. However, it is the job of the player's union, just as it is the job of any union, to get the most money possible for its members. A salary cap or self-imposed fiscal restraint obviously means less money for players so of course the union is going to be upset.

FWIW, I would not be surprised if there is collusion going on. The owners couldn't get it done at the negotiation table yet salaries have indeed been holding steady. Either all 30 owners have suddenly found some self-control or something fishy is going on. It has happened before, remember.

Crapshoot · 10-30-2003, 08:30 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by jazzrack
in my opinion the players are going to kill the game with overpaid players. and anytime the owners try to keep salaries down the damn babies start crying collusion. thats why i don't goto baseball games anymore. (i do goto see our local AAA team sac. river cats).

what an incredibly ignorant statement.

ey215 · 10-31-2003, 12:11 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by holyroller
FWIW, I would not be surprised if there is collusion going on. The owners couldn't get it done at the negotiation table yet salaries have indeed been holding steady. Either all 30 owners have suddenly found some self-control or something fishy is going on. It has happened before, remember.

I'm not trying to take sides in the matter but it feels like a damned if you do damned if you don't situation for the owners.

If they go out and spend excessive amounts of money of players then the financal model is even more out of whack than it is now. But if they don't spend as much and stay within budgets there is an assumption of collusion (which as is said in the article is VERY hard to prove.)

Most of these owners are owners for a reason. They've made their fortunes in other parts of business. Maybe some of the new breed of owners are finally wising up and realizing they can't run a sports franchise like their own Roto team but like one of their other businesses.

Eh.. just thoughts.

ey215 · 10-31-2003, 12:12 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Kezzek
If I'm an owner, I'm colluding my ass off.

**** the players.

dola...

Like the avatar Kezzek!

kq76 · 10-31-2003, 01:01 AM

I'd find it hard to believe that all 30 teams could be colluding on players' salaries. It only takes 1 to break a cartel. However, for the top salary players you probably only need the 5 or so richest teams to collude effectively. Still, I'd be surprised if one didn't cheat to gain an advantage. And I don't think it would be possible to hide any imposed penalties severe enough on the cheater to keep them in line like most cartels can.

EDIT: I just read the article and noticed that they cited the "60-40 rule". For obvious reasons they don't call it this, but in effect it acts like a salary cap, just that the salary cap ends up being different for different teams. If MLB really enforced the rule, most of the teams in the league would be screwed (maybe that is another reason why Boston is trying to dump Manny), but my impression is they're only interested in enforcing it for salary cap purposes. Is that technically "collusion"? Perhaps.

dougaiton · 10-31-2003, 04:05 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by ey215

I understand that collusion is illegally conspiring to keep workers wages down but if the owners just up and decided they weren't going to let salaries keep rising at an astronomical level can't the union cry collusion.

The othr thing the MLBPA may be annoyed about is that media rights values are rising astronomically, yet the FAs didn't see any of this money. So where is the money going? The owner's pockets. As has been pointed out, these owners have made a fortune in other businesses, and are making a fortune in baseball - with their profit rising so quickly, shouldn't free agents expect a similar cut?

Kelric · 10-31-2003, 04:53 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by dougaiton
The othr thing the MLBPA may be annoyed about is that media rights values are rising astronomically, yet the FAs didn't see any of this money. So where is the money going? The owner's pockets. As has been pointed out, these owners have made a fortune in other businesses, and are making a fortune in baseball - with their profit rising so quickly, shouldn't free agents expect a similar cut?

Nope, not at all. The owners own the team, it's their business to do whatever they want with the money. If more owners are coming to realize that overpaying mediocrity year in and year out is a bad strategy and refuse to pay high salaries to average ballplayers, good for them.

dougaiton · 10-31-2003, 06:25 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Kelric
Nope, not at all. The owners own the team, it's their business to do whatever they want with the money. If more owners are coming to realize that overpaying mediocrity year in and year out is a bad strategy and refuse to pay high salaries to average ballplayers, good for them.

I was playing devil's advocate, trying to put forward a reason why the MLBPA was annoyed, but I'll run with it...

If you want to treat baseball as a business, how can you justify a downturn in the business if profits are going up? The lack of competition means that players cannot offer services to other bidders - there is no national competition. Thus, (if you feel that the business is the MLB, and the owners are frachisees, which I do), there is a responsibility on any monopoly business (and this is the key here) to have a responsible and acceptable attitude to its employees wages. If profits are going up even with ludicrous wages, and then these wages take a downturn, then the monopoly is acting unethically, like if traffic wardens were paid less despite higher profits.

However, unethical is not the same as evidence of collusion, and as I said, this argument may have inspired the MLBPA rather than actually having legal substance. The bigger question here is what responsibilities does MLB have as a monopoly to the players?

miami_fan · 10-31-2003, 07:11 AM

I think collusion is a very real possibility just as I believe there was a plan by the players to get as much money as possible. Each side is looking after their OWN best interests. Speaking of personal interests....since profits are consistently going up, and the cost of the employees are at least holding steady (maybe even on a downturn), ticket prices will be dropping next year right?

Skipaway · 10-31-2003, 10:03 AM

Ripping off employees is common practice in the United States.

Brick · 10-31-2003, 10:29 AM

I wish the MLBPA would push a grieveance to get the Expos sold. It's certainly a workplace issue that the 22 "home games" are in San Juan. They could argue that MLB is dragging its feet just so the Expos can be contracted. The union should push the sale so that MLB can get on with blackmailing another city. After all, how effective is the threat to move when a team never moves?

KurtBevacqua · 10-31-2003, 03:19 PM

I suppose it's proof of collusion when nobody wants to pay Manny Ramirez $20M.

SoxWin · 10-31-2003, 03:26 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Aadik
what an incredibly ignorant statement.

And yours is better how? You may disagree but you certainly didn't further your point, whatever that may be.

SoxWin · 10-31-2003, 03:31 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by miami_fan
I think collusion is a very real possibility just as I believe there was a plan by the players to get as much money as possible. Each side is looking after their OWN best interests. Speaking of personal interests....since profits are consistently going up, and the cost of the employees are at least holding steady (maybe even on a downturn), ticket prices will be dropping next year right?

I'd be surprised if collusion wasn't happening.

There were several agents complaining last year that their clients received identical, not similar, identical offers from multiple teams.

I'm not opposed to the superstars making huge money since they sell the tickets. I see a problem when proven mediocrity like Jeff Reboulet gets a 3 year big money deal. That is positively assinine.

akw4572 · 11-01-2003, 10:00 AM

Can owners file a grievance against Albert Belle and other players that sign long term deals and then suck?

10-30-2003, 06:17 PM	#1
ey215 All Star Reserve Join Date: Oct 2002 Location: Woodstock, GA Posts: 581	MLBPA considering collusion grievance ESPN.com is reporting that the MLBPA is considering filing a grievance alleging collusion in last years free agency period. Link to the story. On a side note. something I've never understood is on one hand the union is always on the lookout for collusion (justifiably so). However, when it comes to CBA negotiation time and the owners ask for a salary cap the union's point of view usually has something to do with, "Well the owners shouldn't need us to help them control spending." I understand that collusion is illegally conspiring to keep workers wages down but if the owners just up and decided they weren't going to let salaries keep rising at an astronomical level can't the union cry collusion. Am I the only one that sees something odd here or am I way off base? __________________ "It is a haunted game in which every player is measured against the ghosts of all who have gone before. Most of all, it is about time and timelessness, speed and grace, failure and loss, imperishable hope - and coming home." Ken Burns, Baseball

10-30-2003, 07:34 PM	#3
jazzrack Hall Of Famer Join Date: Oct 2003 Location: still kicking Posts: 3,229	in my opinion the players are going to kill the game with overpaid players. and anytime the owners try to keep salaries down the damn babies start crying collusion. thats why i don't goto baseball games anymore. (i do goto see our local AAA team sac. river cats). __________________ . "Never confuse composure for ease" Was once Head Cheese of Corporate League Baseball

10-30-2003, 07:49 PM	#4
crackpott Hall Of Famer Join Date: Dec 2001 Location: Toronto Posts: 2,961	If the owners discuss strategy to affect player salary regardless of if it's to cap salaries, cut them, keep them steady, whatever, effectively it's eliminating the free market and is collusion. I'm not saying i agree with all this, I'm just replying to akw's comment. __________________ Abandoned Planet - Check it out. The photos don't suck anymore.

10-30-2003, 08:06 PM	#5
Kezzek All Star Reserve Join Date: Dec 2001 Location: Keyboard - frantically typing in subtle insults to raise my self-esteem Posts: 973	If I'm an owner, I'm colluding my ass off. **** the players. __________________ - Kez, P.E.

10-30-2003, 08:08 PM	#6
holyroller Hall Of Famer Join Date: Jun 2002 Location: OTBL Forums Posts: 3,532	Well, sure it is inconsistent. However, it is the job of the player's union, just as it is the job of any union, to get the most money possible for its members. A salary cap or self-imposed fiscal restraint obviously means less money for players so of course the union is going to be upset. FWIW, I would not be surprised if there is collusion going on. The owners couldn't get it done at the negotiation table yet salaries have indeed been holding steady. Either all 30 owners have suddenly found some self-control or something fishy is going on. It has happened before, remember. __________________ Back to work, but not drawing a paycheck. TonyJ et. al.'s alias “I confused it with the chicken’s neck,” Mocanu, who was admitted to the emergency hospital in Galati, was quoted as saying. “I cut it ... and the dog rushed and ate it.”

10-30-2003, 07:24 PM	#2
akw4572 Hall Of Famer Join Date: Jul 2002 Location: Kentucky Posts: 2,601	I agree wholeheartedly with you. How could anyone say the owners were colluding if they just don't want to let salaries keep inflating?

10-31-2003, 01:01 AM	#10
kq76 Global Moderator Join Date: Nov 2002 Posts: 11,995	I'd find it hard to believe that all 30 teams could be colluding on players' salaries. It only takes 1 to break a cartel. However, for the top salary players you probably only need the 5 or so richest teams to collude effectively. Still, I'd be surprised if one didn't cheat to gain an advantage. And I don't think it would be possible to hide any imposed penalties severe enough on the cheater to keep them in line like most cartels can. EDIT: I just read the article and noticed that they cited the "60-40 rule". For obvious reasons they don't call it this, but in effect it acts like a salary cap, just that the salary cap ends up being different for different teams. If MLB really enforced the rule, most of the teams in the league would be screwed (maybe that is another reason why Boston is trying to dump Manny), but my impression is they're only interested in enforcing it for salary cap purposes. Is that technically "collusion"? Perhaps. __________________ My OOTP Wishlist \| My FAQ List OOTP Wiki \| Your Recommended Team Nicknames, By City (A Crowdsourced Project) For Beta/Devs: Full screen (1920x1080) Last edited by kq76; 10-31-2003 at 01:17 AM.

10-31-2003, 07:11 AM	#14
miami_fan Minors (Double A) Join Date: Oct 2003 Location: Panama City, FL Posts: 152	I think collusion is a very real possibility just as I believe there was a plan by the players to get as much money as possible. Each side is looking after their OWN best interests. Speaking of personal interests....since profits are consistently going up, and the cost of the employees are at least holding steady (maybe even on a downturn), ticket prices will be dropping next year right?

10-31-2003, 10:03 AM	#15
Skipaway Hall Of Famer Join Date: Apr 2003 Location: Where you live Posts: 11,017	Ripping off employees is common practice in the United States. Attached Images __________________ Jonathan Haidt: Moral reasoning is really just a servant masquerading as a high priest.

10-31-2003, 10:29 AM	#16
Brick Minors (Triple A) Join Date: Jul 2002 Location: A legend in my own mind Posts: 289	I wish the MLBPA would push a grieveance to get the Expos sold. It's certainly a workplace issue that the 22 "home games" are in San Juan. They could argue that MLB is dragging its feet just so the Expos can be contracted. The union should push the sale so that MLB can get on with blackmailing another city. After all, how effective is the threat to move when a team never moves?

10-31-2003, 03:19 PM	#17
KurtBevacqua Hall Of Famer Join Date: May 2003 Posts: 2,968	I suppose it's proof of collusion when nobody wants to pay Manny Ramirez $20M. __________________ "The type and formula of most schemes of philanthropy or humanitarianism is this: A and B put their heads together to decide what C shall be made to do for D. The radical vice of all these schemes, from a sociological point of view, is that C is not allowed a voice in the matter, and his position, character, and interests, as well as the ultimate effects on society through C's interests, are entirely overlooked. I call C the Forgotten Man" - William Graham Sumner

11-01-2003, 10:00 AM	#20
akw4572 Hall Of Famer Join Date: Jul 2002 Location: Kentucky Posts: 2,601	Can owners file a grievance against Albert Belle and other players that sign long term deals and then suck?