Good article from Buster Olney reference free agent prices falling

[BREWCREW5]

I thought this was a really good article from Olney.

 

It actually makes me very comfortable that Melvin hasn done very little during these economic time. With that being said though, I do hope the crew can jump at some of the "deals".

 

http://sports.espn.go.com...423&name=olney_buster

[Patrick425]

I'm sure that eventually the players union will whine about collusion.

[endaround]

Yes because the owners have never, ever colluded.

[JohnBriggs12]

Yes because the owners have never, ever colluded.

Were the oil companies colluding when gas was over $4 a gallon and not colluding now that it's under $1.70?

 

Are the Yankees colluding?

 

It's business and owners are rightfully worried. They are seeing sponsorships dry up, season ticket holders not renewing and suite holders disappearing. Because it's happening across the industry doesn't make it collusion.

[edod]

It's business and owners are rightfully worried. They are seeing sponsorships dry up, season ticket holders not renewing and suite holders disappearing. Because it's happening across the industry doesn't make it collusion.

Legally speaking, I don't believe it is a business. http://forum.brewerfan.net/images/smilies/wink.gif

[Invader3K]

I'd laugh if the player's union tries to cry about collusion. You could just as well say that they have colluded in the past to drive the price paid for talent into the stratosphere. It's sports, and if you want to play and make all that money, you have to accept the business end from both sides. It has to be a give and take.

[JoeHova]

I'd laugh if the player's union tries to cry about collusion. You could just as well say that they have colluded in the past to drive the price paid for talent into the stratosphere. It's sports, and if you want to play and make all that money, you have to accept the business end from both sides. It has to be a give and take.

 

 

Yes, but back when the owners first started collectively bargaining with the players, the owners agreed that they would not work together to set prices for free agents. As usual, they were too stupid to realize the consequences that that would have in the future.

[monty57]

This could definitely help the Brewers shore up their pitching staff. A one-year $5-8MM deal for a #3ish starter would make me feel much better about their rotation. Heck, if no one's making decent offers, it may even allow them to lure Sheets back.

[davego]

"It's business and owners are rightfully worried. They are seeing sponsorships dry up, season ticket holders not renewing and suite holders disappearing. Because it's happening across the industry doesn't make it collusion."

 

I agree with this statement, however lets not forget that factually, owners have been found guilty of collusion once before.

[Patrick425]

endaround[/b]]Yes because the owners have never, ever colluded.

I realize that the owners were found guilty of collusion in the past. However, I always wonder what the facts of the case were. Was it just circumstantial evidence. Were there taped conversations between owners? Were there other written communications? Did some owners admit to colluding? Or, was it purely based on the fact that baseball was making a ton of money and they were not sharing it accordingly with the player, therefore, by definition, that's collusion?

[Invader3K]

Patrick, in the late '80s example I think you were referencing, it was pretty obvious they were colluding, since basically every free agent did not get a single offer from any team but their own. The players union sued, and the owners had to pay something like $200 million to the players in compensation. So yes, it was basically proven.

[snyttri]

Not only was it obvious owners were colluding in the 80's, but convicted felon George Steinbrenner withdrew an offer to Carlton Fisk after talking to Jerry Reinsdorf.

 

http://www.bizofbaseball....lusion_Neyer_Blunders.pdf

 

There are many reasons for baseball salaries to fall along with the prices of other things but it would only be consistent with baseball history for owners to take advantage of the situation to hold prices down illegally. It's interesting that Fuentes price has supposedly fallen to $6M per year while 10 teams are supposed to be interested in him.

[Thurston Fluff]

Good read.

Funny how Scott Boras thought the baseball market didn't run the same way as normal business did in the economy. He seemed to think baseball economics was entirely controlled by TV revenue or something. He must have missed the part about naming rights, suites, season tickets, ad revenue and luxury boxes not being renewed. Perhaps the genius agent was wrong? Either that or he will be at the head of the line crying collusion.

[monty57]

Players shall not act in concert with other players and clubs shall not act in concert with other clubs.

So what exactly is a "union" if it's not players acting in concert with other players?

[kramnoj]

So what exactly is a "union" if it's not players acting in concert with other players?

 

The players don't act in concert with each other when it comes to negotiating for contracts. As much talk as there is that the union pressures players to take the most money, it is a toothless request.

 

I believe the issue stems from Koufax and Drysdale trying to tie their raises together. I don't know what kind of leverage the players had, other than retiring, but IIRC Koufax and Drysdale went to ownership and demanded that they get equal, or at least similar compensation.

 

If this rule didn't exist, Boras could tell teams "If you want Teixeira, you need to sign player X as well".