SoxProspects News
|
|
|
|
Legal
Forum Ground Rules
The views expressed by the members of this Forum do not necessarily reflect the views of SoxProspects, LLC.
© 2003-2024 SoxProspects, LLC
|
|
|
|
|
Forum Home | Search | My Profile | Messages | Members | Help |
Welcome Guest. Please Login or Register.
|
Post by jimed14 on Mar 28, 2019 16:31:30 GMT -5
Detroit at Toronto on opening day. Neither team with a hit through 5 innings. Zimmerman at 55 pitches through 6.
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Mar 28, 2019 16:42:33 GMT -5
Awww, it's over on a soft ground ball single. Still 0-0 though.
|
|
|
Post by iakovos11 on Mar 28, 2019 17:36:25 GMT -5
Dodgers set MLB record for HR's on opening day - 8 HR's (so far). Game in the 7th inning.
|
|
|
Post by grandsalami on Mar 29, 2019 9:22:31 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by swingingbunt on Mar 29, 2019 9:37:35 GMT -5
Smells like collusion to me
|
|
|
Post by swingingbunt on Mar 29, 2019 9:55:32 GMT -5
Smells like collusion to me How exactly to you collude in an arbitration hearing? I'm not an arbitration expert or fully versed in how collusion applies to baseball, but I'm not seeing it. I'm not condoning the behavior, just trying to find the proper word for describing it. The league is coming together with the sole purpose of, and rewarding teams for, depressing salary for players. I don't know how that's NOT collusion.
|
|
|
Post by umassgrad2005 on Mar 29, 2019 10:29:29 GMT -5
I 100% believe teams engage in Collusion to keep salaries down. I just don't see how you do that in arbitration.
|
|
|
Post by grandsalami on Mar 29, 2019 10:32:16 GMT -5
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 29, 2019 10:32:58 GMT -5
What is the point to continuing to play Chris Davis? He should have been at home by the pool by now. There really is no one worth playing over the player with the worst season in MLB history? Not even a young guy with a tiny bit of upside? If the Red Sox were in their situation, I'd be screaming for Travis or Ockimey to be the full time starter and for Davis to be off the team. I mean hell, they should have taken Ockimey in the Rule 5 and released Davis. How on earth could Ockimey be worse? I mean, cmon. Davis was an all star back in 2013. If Davis and Travis were on the same team with no better 1st baseman, I could see them platooning with each other, but not cut Davis. And Ockimey has not yet shown that he can handle Pawtucket, so why do you think he could handle the MLB?
|
|
|
Post by James Dunne on Mar 29, 2019 10:49:17 GMT -5
I mean, cmon. Davis was an all star back in 2013. Justin Masterson, Prince Fielder, Torii Hunter, and Michael Cuddyer were All-Stars in 2013. Mariano Rivera was an All-Star and he's been retired so long that he's been elected to the Hall of Fame. There's probably an argument that Davis has something left in him, and he's almost certainly better than he was last year, when he was arguably having THE worst season in the history of baseball players... but being a 2013 All-Star is pretty far out of the equation here. And it's possible that Ockimey is worse, but it's pretty impossible that Davis is on the next Orioles contending team. So it probably would've made sense for them to see if a lottery ticket like Ockimey can play.
|
|
|
Post by James Dunne on Mar 29, 2019 11:13:59 GMT -5
If they're getting an award, that seems like an extra, agreed-upon, shared incentive for submitting arbitration values at a lower value, which seems like textbook collusion. If so, then any player who has lost in arbitration would have a case here, and those who settled beforehand might as well.
And for those who want to claim that the real inequality in baseball isn't between capital and labor, it's between younger and older players, and who want to scream "IT'S THE UNION'S FAULT!" every time, here is actual physical evidence of teams incentivizing each other to keep those salaries lower for those who haven't reached free agency yet.
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Mar 29, 2019 12:17:08 GMT -5
How could you ever prove that teams with common interest are colluding to do what's in every teams best interest?
|
|
|
Post by James Dunne on Mar 29, 2019 12:27:29 GMT -5
If they're getting an award, that seems like an extra, agreed-upon, shared incentive for submitting arbitration values at a lower value, which seems like textbook collusion. Seems that any player who has lost in arbitration would have a case here, and those who settled beforehand might as well. And for those who want to claim that the real inequality in baseball isn't between capital and labor, it's between younger and older players, and who want to scream "IT'S THE UNION'S FAULT!" every time, here is actual physical evidence of teams incentivizing each other to keep those salaries lower for those who haven't reached free agency yet. You consider temporary ownership of a $20 piece of plastic an incentive? Yep. A monumentally stupid, totally admissible incentive that provides evidence that they discuss depressing salaries as a league-wide unit.
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Mar 29, 2019 12:30:28 GMT -5
You consider temporary ownership of a $20 piece of plastic an incentive? Yep. A monumentally stupid, totally admissible incentive that provides evidence that they discuss depressing salaries as a league-wide unit. Wouldn't you have to prove that they altered their behavior because of it? I mean what teams don't try to keep arb salaries as low as possible?
|
|
|
Post by swingingbunt on Mar 29, 2019 13:04:44 GMT -5
The league is coming together with the sole purpose of, and rewarding teams for, depressing salary for players. I don't know how that's NOT collusion. The person deciding the outcome is an arbitrator, not the owners. Generally speaking, you're supposed to act in your own self interest in these cases. Again, not arguing or disagreeing. Just not understanding. I can't see the whole article, but the excerpt appears to be more indignation about the handing out of a belt and the callousness that implies rather than the actual symposium on arbitration. I'm assuming that the symposium is normal course of business and no real point of contention with anyone involved, or the article would read differently. I don't know if this meets the legal standard for collusion, and I don't think the article goes there either. To me, it's just more smoke that the league actively engages in discussions on how they can depress the marke and I doubt it stops with arbitration.
|
|
|
Post by James Dunne on Mar 29, 2019 13:32:24 GMT -5
The person deciding the outcome is an arbitrator, not the owners. Generally speaking, you're supposed to act in your own self interest in these cases. Again, not arguing or disagreeing. Just not understanding. I can't see the whole article, but the excerpt appears to be more indignation about the handing out of a belt and the callousness that implies rather than the actual symposium on arbitration. I'm assuming that the symposium is normal course of business and no real point of contention with anyone involved, or the article would read differently. I don't know if this meets the legal standard for collusion, and I don't think the article goes there either. To me, it's just more smoke that the league actively engages in discussions on how they can depress the marke and I doubt it stops with arbitration. "Oh, don't worry, Marge. Her idea of wit is nothing more than an incisive observation humorously phrased and delivered with impeccable timing."
|
|
|
Post by umassgrad2005 on Mar 29, 2019 14:04:18 GMT -5
If they're getting an award, that seems like an extra, agreed-upon, shared incentive for submitting arbitration values at a lower value, which seems like textbook collusion. If so, then any player who has lost in arbitration would have a case here, and those who settled beforehand might as well. And for those who want to claim that the real inequality in baseball isn't between capital and labor, it's between younger and older players, and who want to scream "IT'S THE UNION'S FAULT!" every time, here is actual physical evidence of teams incentivizing each other to keep those salaries lower for those who haven't reached free agency yet. The value is set by an independent arbitration process right? So that would put the player and players union vs the team and MLB right? I'll assume the team that wins the most cases gets a belt. Yet if a player losses either they asked for too much or made a bad case right? As long as the process is legit, the players aren't getting lower salaries than they should. Heck don't we need to look at the data? Who wins more cases the players or teams? For me it's more like a nothing reward for teams that actually do the CBA agreed practice, rather than just pay player slightly more to make them happy and get it over with. The fact it isn't secret and isn't against the CBA kinda proves it isn't Collusion. If they set the prices too low the should lose all the cases right? Every employer in this Country will try and keep wages low no? Fast food managers get bonus pay for keeping labor costs low on a monthly basis. Those workers don't get anywhere near the percentage of revenue MLB players get right? Isn't your issue more inequality which the players union certainly could fix?
|
|
|
Post by grandsalami on Mar 29, 2019 14:16:36 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by James Dunne on Mar 29, 2019 14:22:45 GMT -5
Every employer in this Country will try and keep wages low no? Fast food managers get bonus pay for keeping labor costs low on a monthly basis. Those workers don't get anywhere near the percentage of revenue MLB players get right? Isn't your issue more inequality which the players union certainly could fix? It's. The. Talking. About. It. That. Is. Collusion. IF all the fast food chains called each other and agreed not to pay above $9.00 an hour and then had a yearly banquet to congratulate each other for it, that would be illegal, too. Collusion and "percentage of revenue" (which has absolutely zero to do with this) are entirely different issues. I know you keep wanting to turn every damn conversation into "well it's capitalism and that's just how this stuff works," but the difference between all teams legally independently acting to keep salaries low and illegal collusion is the simple act of discussing it with each other. The ENTIRE process, the whole CBA, is based on the notion that the teams are competing against each other and not against the players, and that the arbitration process is a good-faith effort by teams to pay their players with that in mind while also knowing the business side dictates the need to keep costs down. The idea being that, since teams are competing with each other, they have an incentive not to individually low-ball players even while trying to keep overall costs down. But if they're talking to each other, and promoting keeping costs down to each other, and handing each other a Costco Brand WWF Intercollusionatory Championship Belt for their efforts, then it breaks down that fantasy that the other teams that they are competing against.
|
|
|
Post by umassgrad2005 on Mar 29, 2019 14:33:36 GMT -5
Every employer in this Country will try and keep wages low no? Fast food managers get bonus pay for keeping labor costs low on a monthly basis. Those workers don't get anywhere near the percentage of revenue MLB players get right? Isn't your issue more inequality which the players union certainly could fix? It's. The. Talking. About. It. That. Is. Collusion. IF all the fast food chains called each other and agreed not to pay above $9.00 an hour and then had a yearly banquet to congratulate each other for it, that would be illegal, too. Collusion and "percentage of revenue" (which has absolutely zero to do with this) are entirely different issues. I know you keep wanting to turn every damn conversation into "well it's capitalism and that's just how this stuff works," but the difference between all teams legally independently acting to keep salaries low and illegal collusion is the simple act of discussing it with each other. The ENTIRE process, the whole CBA, is based on the notion that the teams are competing against each other and not against the players, and that the arbitration process is a good-faith effort by teams to pay their players with that in mind while also knowing the business side dictates the need to keep costs down. The idea being that, since teams are competing with each other, they have an incentive not to individually low-ball players even while trying to keep overall costs down. But if they're talking to each other, and promoting keeping costs down to each other, and handing each other a Costco Brand WWF Intercollusionatory Championship Belt for their efforts, then it breaks down that fantasy that the other teams that they are competing against. dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/english/collusionTalking isn't Collusion, in most cases it's a secret agreement that is illegal or dishonest to deceive or cheat someone. All low revenue teams forming a secret pact to not spend in free agency is collusion. A secret pact among rich teams to not go over the luxury tax is collusion. It drives down free agent wages. Teams don't compete against other teams in arbitration, it's the player versus the team and the value is set by an independent arbitration process that doesn't involve other teams. Your fast-food example is 100% Collusion, yet in Baseball the teams aren't and can't set a wage in arbitration.
|
|
|
Post by swingingbunt on Mar 29, 2019 14:46:25 GMT -5
Kill me please
|
|
|
Post by orion09 on Mar 29, 2019 14:53:16 GMT -5
Every employer in this Country will try and keep wages low no? Fast food managers get bonus pay for keeping labor costs low on a monthly basis. Those workers don't get anywhere near the percentage of revenue MLB players get right? Isn't your issue more inequality which the players union certainly could fix? It's. The. Talking. About. It. That. Is. Collusion. IF all the fast food chains called each other and agreed not to pay above $9.00 an hour and then had a yearly banquet to congratulate each other for it, that would be illegal, too. Collusion and "percentage of revenue" (which has absolutely zero to do with this) are entirely different issues. I know you keep wanting to turn every damn conversation into "well it's capitalism and that's just how this stuff works," but the difference between all teams legally independently acting to keep salaries low and illegal collusion is the simple act of discussing it with each other. The ENTIRE process, the whole CBA, is based on the notion that the teams are competing against each other and not against the players, and that the arbitration process is a good-faith effort by teams to pay their players with that in mind while also knowing the business side dictates the need to keep costs down. The idea being that, since teams are competing with each other, they have an incentive not to individually low-ball players even while trying to keep overall costs down. But if they're talking to each other, and promoting keeping costs down to each other, and handing each other a Costco Brand WWF Intercollusionatory Championship Belt for their efforts, then it breaks down that fantasy that the other teams that they are competing against. It’s not great optics, but IMO this particular practice isn’t the same as Free Agency Collusion because arbitration isn’t an open market. Teams aren’t in direct competition with each other for the services of players in arbitration, and arbitration salaries are effectively decided by a third party based on well-established criteria, so there’s not really a direct opportunity for artificial salary supression. IMO a more accurate comparison would be a bunch of prosecutors getting together at the end of the year and presenting an award for highest conviction rate. You can argue about the systemic ethical ramifications, but ultimately it’s just a peer-to-peer award for how well mid-level employees are doing their jobs. The bigger ramification here is a PR one - it’s just one shot fired by the players union in a long battle for the upper hand in public sentiment.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 29, 2019 15:04:48 GMT -5
I mean, cmon. Davis was an all star back in 2013. Justin Masterson, Prince Fielder, Torii Hunter, and Michael Cuddyer were All-Stars in 2013. Mariano Rivera was an All-Star and he's been retired so long that he's been elected to the Hall of Fame. There's probably an argument that Davis has something left in him, and he's almost certainly better than he was last year, when he was arguably having THE worst season in the history of baseball players... but being a 2013 All-Star is pretty far out of the equation here. And it's possible that Ockimey is worse, but it's pretty impossible that Davis is on the next Orioles contending team. So it probably would've made sense for them to see if a lottery ticket like Ockimey can play. I guess that makes sense. Ockimey probably will at some point be better than Davis is now, yes. I think part of what happened last year is that he started off poorly, got discouraged, and that cycle just continued to go down hill. I don't really have any evidence, but that's the only possible reason I can think of. I don't think he is completely fried.
|
|
|
Post by Chris Hatfield on Mar 29, 2019 16:03:11 GMT -5
I don't see collusion here. Because of the way arbitration works in MLB, if you submit the number too low, the arbitrator will just go with the player's number.
For me, the bigger deal is that while the two sides recently agreed to start CBA talks early, an apparent acknowledgment that they had a lot to work through for the good of the sport, crap like this makes a strike so much more likely.
I seriously can't believe this was a thing. Just unreal.
|
|
|
Post by jerrygarciaparra on Mar 29, 2019 16:22:16 GMT -5
It's. The. Talking. About. It. That. Is. Collusion. IF all the fast food chains called each other and agreed not to pay above $9.00 an hour and then had a yearly banquet to congratulate each other for it, that would be illegal, too. Collusion and "percentage of revenue" (which has absolutely zero to do with this) are entirely different issues. I know you keep wanting to turn every damn conversation into "well it's capitalism and that's just how this stuff works," but the difference between all teams legally independently acting to keep salaries low and illegal collusion is the simple act of discussing it with each other. The ENTIRE process, the whole CBA, is based on the notion that the teams are competing against each other and not against the players, and that the arbitration process is a good-faith effort by teams to pay their players with that in mind while also knowing the business side dictates the need to keep costs down. The idea being that, since teams are competing with each other, they have an incentive not to individually low-ball players even while trying to keep overall costs down. But if they're talking to each other, and promoting keeping costs down to each other, and handing each other a Costco Brand WWF Intercollusionatory Championship Belt for their efforts, then it breaks down that fantasy that the other teams that they are competing against. It’s not great optics, but IMO this particular practice isn’t the same as Free Agency Collusion because arbitration isn’t an open market. Teams aren’t in direct competition with each other for the services of players in arbitration, and arbitration salaries are effectively decided by a third party based on well-established criteria, so there’s not really a direct opportunity for artificial salary supression. IMO a more accurate comparison would be a bunch of prosecutors getting together at the end of the year and presenting an award for highest conviction rate. You can argue about the systemic ethical ramifications, but ultimately it’s just a peer-to-peer award for how well mid-level employees are doing their jobs. The bigger ramification here is a PR one - it’s just one shot fired by the players union in a long battle for the upper hand in public sentiment.I don't know why there is even a battle. The data point suggest that players are losing the share of the revenue. If there are fans still complaining that "players are spoiled and make too much money.....blah...blah...." they are just willfully ignorant or too, sorry, stupid, to realize that the owners are the ones really making bank. As far as collusion, it is too hard to prove. The problem is owners are seeing bottom line increases and are liking it a bit too much.
|
|
|