Slow moving FA market, collusion?

[jaybird2001wi]

Manny Ramirez, Adam Dunn and Jason Varitek are still on the Free Agent market. SI.com's Tom Verducci just did a story on this a bit ago. Has there ever been a market as slow as this so late in the offseason? There is less than three weeks from pitchers and catchers reporting to their respective camps and some of these guys would have been scooped up by mid December if it were any other offseason.

I know there are a lot of factors for teams not signing these guys, I noticed the bigger names are Type A or B free agents and teams do not want to lose their draft picks. But does anyone believe the MLBPA will attempt to file a collusion case against the owners because it seems like none of the teams have touched these players with a ten-foot pole this offseason?

This could go down as the most bizarre offseason, with the Dodgers and Andruw Jones "mutually" agreeing to end their arrangement and teams basically bidding against themselves (Yankees) and agents artificially creating a market for their clients (Oliver Perez). Its like nothing is going on. It makes me wonder if we will picture Ramirez, Dunn, etc. waiting at home by their phones while watching ESPN's Spring Training Coverage and seeing their peers gear up for the season.

 

Aside from all of this, it seems like the past two or three winters have been either slow moving or players have been forced to play on one-year deals. Following 2007, it was Barry Bonds not being looked at and there were whispers that all teams were colluding together to not sign Bonds. Then this winter when the only major spender is the Yankees.

In prior offseasons, you would see teams overspending on guys like Ben Sheets and Ramirez going to the highest bidder. Is it really the economy? In an industry where the Commissioner has touted a flourishing revenue stream, you would think teams can sign players. But this winter is not the case. I wonder what is really going on behind closed doors.

[Ennder]

Part of it is a market adjustment with GMs valuing defense a lot more so the expectations for big sluggers who can't field are too high, they are going to need to come down a little bit. Another part is a market adjustment with GMs valuing draft picks more than in the past and most of the guys having problems signing are type A free agents. part of it is the economy of course. Part is that the owners know all of this so they are waiting to find the odd men out so they can sign them at a huge bargain.

[monty57]

Has there ever been a market as slow as this so late in the offseason?

Was there free agency in the 1930's, 1970's or early 1980's, because those are the only times we've seen economic times as bad or worse than we're currently seeing. Jack Welch put it this way, "it's like there's a big cloud on the horizon and no one knows what's coming in the future."

But does anyone believe the MLBPA will attempt to file a collusion case against the owners

Well, with some owners calling for a salary cap due to the actions of other owners, I doubt a collusion case would hold much merit.

it was Barry Bonds not being looked at and there were whispers that all teams were colluding together to not sign Bonds

There were also whispers that Bonds was going to go to a federal penitentiary on purgery charges, and most teams didn't want to have to pay him a big contract while he was sitting in jail. Also, while he's probably still good, he's no longer good enough that anyone wants to put up with his team-shredding attitude. I think Terrell Owens is fading into this category as well.

I think that, like the majority of Americans, teams are simply cutting back and looking a little closer at their budgets. In past years, teams would see a player and say "what the heck, it'll put us over budget but so what," just like in past years individuals would say "I know I can't afford it, but I'll put it on the credit card." At least for now, that attitude has changed. I think that next offseason teams will look back and wish they had signed some quality players to cheap deals during this offseason, but without foreknowledge of what's coming with the economy, more and more people are playing the "better safe then sorry" strategy.

[JohnBriggs12]

The stock market has lost 40% of it's value in the past year and baseball should be immune? 500,000 jobs are being lost per month and I'm certain that some of those have bought tickets in the past. Home values are down 20% just in the past 12 months.

 

It's economics and uncertainty is driving all businesses right now. Owners don't yet know how bad it's going to be. Most teams are already stuck with bad contracts. Creating more makes no sense.

 

As for the commissioner touting record revenue streams, do you realize what's happened since just September? Revenue streams can dry up. Some of the biggest banks in the world are in trouble. Sponsors are pulling out of sporting events right and left. Just ask the PGA tour and Nascar.

 

I was in the economy in the 70's and early 80's. The 70's was minor compared to this. The early 80s were very tough, but totally different. Much of the suffering was regionalized. The Midwest lost tons of jobs, many of which went to the south. This potentially could end up being much worse. Back then you didn't have anywhere near the situation with foreclosures or banks holding such bad loans.

[TuesdaysWithRillo]

The smart thing that these players should do is to sign a 1 year deal to let all of this economy crap pass over and then capitalize when it's hopefully better at this point next year. If it isn't better, then you sign another 1 year deal. It could really pay off barring a career ending injury.

[endaround]

Except there is absolutely no reason to believe the economy will be better next year and a decent reason to believe it could be worse. One other thign to keep in mind is that this FA market was really, really, deep in some areas. Starting pitching is incredibly deep, Suppan was like the #2-3 pitcher in his class while he would be like Wolf this year, as well as having a whole bunch of all hit no field sluggers. The most surprising player without a job is Hudson just because there is no depth at 2B in this market. And thats most likely due to the Mets being stuck with Castillo at this point.

[Roderick]

I know there are a lot of factors for teams not signing these guys, I noticed the bigger names are Type A or B free agents and teams do not want to lose their draft picks.

 

But does anyone believe the MLBPA will attempt to file a collusion case against the owners because it seems like none of the teams have touched these players with a ten-foot pole this offseason?

Type B FAs don't cost a draft pick to the signing team.

 

There is no way that the union will file anything like collusion for a few years. Other than I don't believe there is collusion (just logical conservatism), if there was, the players would get absolutely killed by the court of public opinion with the economy where it is at. Which may not mean anything in a court of law, but would hold quite a bit of weight with congress. And you never know when you might want them on your side.

[Invader3K]

The union could file some kind of collusion charge, but I can't imagine they'd have a leg to stand on. Note that two of the players you mentioned are both Boras clients, and their situations seem to be more the doing of their agent than any lack of interest from perspective teams.

 

I admit I am a bit baffled that Dunn is still on the market. Seems like we're not even hearing any real solid rumors on him. I'm guessing his camp is waiting to see what happens with Manny before they shop him around more?

[TuesdaysWithRillo]

Well there are some optimists out there that say the economy will be better by Q4 this year, but I agree, that might be extreme optimism. Either way, you can just go year to year and then get the big deal after the storm has passed.

[BCZF]

Well look at an owner like Wilpon for the Mets, he got swindled in that Madoff scandal, didn't he? That and with the market down as it is, it's got to affect the capitol an owner can sink into payroll..

[GAME05]

Type B FAs don't cost a draft pick to the signing team.

i thought they cost a second-round pick.

 

if there were a couple guys out there who you'd really wonder why they haven't signed, maybe there'd be an argument. but there's really nobody left that doesn't carry some sort of negative. i think there's also a ton of teams that are starting to put a greater value on draft picks, recognizing that they can't compete with Boston or New York, and that giving up a first-round pick is too detrimental. Really, would you trade Brett Lawrie for Adam Dunn, plus pay Dunn's asking price?

[MNBrew]

It's too bad it took such a severe downturn in the economy for MLB owners to finally come to their senses and quit handing out "stupid money" to mediocre players. Carlos Silva, for instance, has never been a $12M/yr pitcher. If it were this offseason that he were on the market, he'd likely be looking at a $3M salary, which is actually far more commensurate with his performance.

 

Would the MLBPA cry collusion? I wouldn't put it past 'em, not for one second. They're notorious for pressuring the owners but taking none of the blame for it. The "market correction" is happening all over the financial world. No reason baseball should be immune. People have said there's only so much money out there. We may have finally found where that limit is. Unfortunately, apparently too many players & agents still seem to be in denial about it. When enough still-capable players can't land jobs because their salary expectations are too high, maybe the point will finally sink in.

[ILuvDaBush]

Type B's no longer require any compensation from another team, only from MLB in the form of a supplemental pick. As for this market, unfortunately in 1929, there was no free agency. If not for the Yankees, and in a broader light, Manchester City, sports teams would be uniformly thrifty. Instead, since TV and oil are still booming industries, NYY and Man City can just throw caution to the wind.

[fallingleaves]

I hope bad economic times bring a salary cap to baseball. This offseason, the elite few ball players have cashed in while the many remain looking for work.

[snyttri]

Would the MLBPA cry collusion? I wouldn't put it past 'em, not for one second. They're notorious for pressuring the owners but taking none of the blame for it.

 

The question is whether the owners will collude again. The owners have been caught red handed colluding before. Steinbrenner withdrew an offer to Fisk after a call from Reinsdorf. The players cannot logically rule out the possibility that the owners will use the deep recession or depression as cover to artificially hold down salaries again; just as they used their purported industry wide losses as an excuse in the 80's. Some of the colluders from the 80's are very influential today.

From Rob Neyer's Big Book of Baseball Blunders

 

Well, with some owners calling for a salary cap due to the actions of other owners, I doubt a collusion case would hold much merit.

 

This is a reason to watch out for collusion. The salary cap and collusion are two strategies for owners to hold down salaries. I don't think the owners are colluding. Because there are good reasons not to spend money and because the owners are still under well-earned suspicion.

[Patrick425]

I'm sure there are a lots of unemployed people out there that would love to sue corporate America for collusion. It would be completely tasteless for men who are paid millions to play a game to cry about collusion in these times. I really can't stand the players union.

[Thurston Fluff]

I think the owners are less worried about the economy short term since most of them are locked in to their tv deals for varying number of years as well as many of their sponsors. What they probably are worried about is making a huge multi-year deal for someone then have their tv deals run out and not get as good a one again. The SOP for the past few decades was when one deal ran out it was expected to be replaced by a new one for even more. That may not be the case when their current tv deals run out.

[endaround]

I'm sure there are a lots of unemployed people out there that would love to sue corporate America for collusion. It would be completely tasteless for men who are paid millions to play a game to cry about collusion in these times. I really can't stand the players union.

 

But it is always the right time for billionaire owners to complain about having to pay players what they are worth!

[Patrick425]

endaround wrote:

---

Patrick425 wrote:

---

I'm sure there are a lots of unemployed people out there that would love to sue corporate America for collusion. It would be completely tasteless for men who are paid millions to play a game to cry about collusion in these times. I really can't stand the players union.

 

But it is always the right time for billionaire owners to complain about having to pay players what they are worth!

The owners are the investors. They are the business men (As much as players like to think they are business men, they are not. They have made no financial investment towards ownership of a baseball team). Baseball is a business. MLB is played in USA and Canada . The goal of businesses in a capitalistic society (USA and Canada still support capitalism...correct? Sometimes I'm not sure anymore), is to maximize profits for its shareholders/owners. The fact that the players reportedly receive over 50% of the revenues (not profits..revenues!) and that they have any say in how the business of baseball is run (approval of salary caps and revenue sharing) is a complete joke to me. I'm not saying that the business of baseball in the first half of the 20th century was fair at all to players. However, it's completely ridiculous that the owners hands are tied by the player's union when it come to making decisions that effect the business and profitability of baseball.

[endaround]

Agreeing to a contract is just so unfair!

 

The fact that the most important input in a baseball team only get 50% of the revenue tells you how much money owners are getting.

[vacin8r]

Im a little confused as to what even constitutes collusion in the baseball market. The way I understand the case of collusion from several years ago is that the owners had an information bank of the offers they were giving to players so the agents couldnt lie to an owner about an offer from another team. With the information networks out there for the public, a lot of the information in this type of bank is readily available to fans and GMs alike. Is it collusion if when Boras leaks out a story through SI or whoever that the Brewers are interested in Oliver Perez and Melvin states publicly that its just not true? How is that very different than the information bank from a few years ago. If, as long as the reports are in the public eye, you can legally report offers, and having this information available to owners and GMs is beneficial too them, cant they use the media to skirt the collusion issue to begin with? I guess I should have been a labor lawyer if I was meant to understand such things.

-Don

(edited for a typo)

[endaround]

Nope the collusion was that no other team would offer a fair market contract to a free agent.

[Tbadder]

I love this thread and this idea. All offers and all demands should be a matter of public record. Just state them every morning in the newspaper on the front page of the sports news. I'd love it! CC Sabbathia and his agent demand 145 million for 7 years. Milwaukee Brewers offer 125 million for 6 years. KC Royals offer 35 million for 10 years. Again, this kind of transparency would eventually be good for eberyone. And quite frankly a true marketplace would eventually would emerge.

[vacin8r]

Apparently (and you have to trust Wikipedia which seems to be how I remembered things), there were three grievances filed. The 1st 2 had to do with teams agreeing to not offer contracts to free agents, the third had to do with the information bank. The first case awarded the players $10.5M and gave 7 players back their free agent status. The 2nd case awarded the players $38M and again at least six players were re-granted free agency. The 3rd case (to which I refered in my previous post) awarded the players $64.5M plus damages due to lost salaries and bonuses. An agreement ended up being reached where the owners paid the players $280M to settle all three cases.
reference link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baseball_collusion
-Don

[monty57]

Well there are some optimists out there that say the economy will be better by Q4 this year, but I agree, that might be extreme optimism. Either way, you can just go year to year and then get the big deal after the storm has passed.

 

Well, you can count the Fed as "extremely optimistic," as they're looking at positive GDP in Q4. Of course economists are terrible predictors, so no one knows for sure. If velocity kicks up (people start spending some of the $8.8 trillion they're currently hoarding in bank accts and money markets), this could be over sooner rather than later. We'll have to see how it plays out. Since there is tremendous uncertainty, most people and businesses are being cautious. As a player, I agree that the best bet would probably be to sign a one-year deal. As a team, it may pay off to offer a 2-3 year deal, since the going price is low now.

 

For example, if no one will offer Sheets more than one year / $9MM, try offering him two years at $16MM. He may bite, and you get an ace starter for $8MM / year. Actually, I think teams are trying to get him on a Pettite-style $5.5MM + incentive type deal, so it might cost even less if it's guaranteed money. Same goes for Dunn, if someone offers him a three year deal, it will probably be for a lower annual base then it would've cost last year, and you're going to get a pretty consistent performer. There's risk involved, but the reward could be pretty nice.