Collusion?

by tklawless on Nov 9, 2007 12:21 PM CST Comment 22 comments

Seems like teams would be smarter than this.

http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/news/story?id=3101262

0 recs | Comment 22 comments

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

Ed called it

first!

Sideshow ... onto 800. You can do it!

by Chase Irwin on Nov 9, 2007 12:35 PM CST reply actions 0 recs

Collusion Call

Actually, I called it first. Ed provided the details.

I'm just saying...

by 3Bagger on Nov 9, 2007 6:35 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

I still think Boras will be surprised at A-Rod's LACK of money. Boston sells out w/o A-Rod. They really don't need him. Anaheim may need him, but at that price he would hamper the team's finances. Bottom line, 3 teams can comfortably afford his $30 million a season request. NY, NY, Boston. Two are already dead in the water.

by 3Bagger on Nov 9, 2007 6:51 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Collusion

I don't see it happening - at least not for one player.

Win/Loss-wise, baseball is a zero-sum game. As a team, your choice dealing with ARod is a> stick to the collusion and don't sign him or b> defect from the collusion and try to sign him. If you choose to defect and try to sign him, and every other team opts to not sign him, then you get him really cheaply. Likewise, if you see a rival trying to defect and pay him, then you also want to defect to keep him from going to your opponent. So there is a HUGE incentive to break from the collusion and get ARod.

Basically, with 30 players, it only takes one team to say "screw this, I'll risk making Selig mad to get ARod cheap" to ruin the whole thing. It won't happen.

by JBImaknee on Nov 9, 2007 7:49 PM CST reply actions 0 recs

i kind of agree

one of the big teams is going to sign him and they are going to make a high offer to do it. so, it seems strange that they would collude and cap the contract at 300M.

the only way it works is if the big teams (read Bos, LAA, Mets) all decided they would stay out of the Arod negotiations. and they could reasonably decide to do so - coming to the conclusion that as long as some other contending team doesn't get him, they are ok with letting him go to a lesser team for less money. Still, you gotta think an LAA who is on the cusp would just break ranks and think the huge contract would be worth it.

by ab03 on Nov 9, 2007 8:02 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

There is no collusion.

Boras has just priced himself out of a market. If I remember correctly the Yanks offered him a 5 year 150 million dollar extension which is way more than fair. Boras, A-Rod and the Union have some sort of warped agenda here. I can't see any team giving the guy those kinds of dollars. It just doesn't make sense. As the Rangers proved when he signed here that a) he doesn't draw more fans, b) you will lose a ton of money because of him, and c) you still won't win the world series(also proven by the Yanks).

I think that by asking for this kind of contract and his past behavior he has proven unequivocably that he is not a team player. Not being a team player dramatically lowers his value. A-rod is a stat whore and a good one at that but the last time I watched a baseball game it reminded me that it is a team sport. Sometimes it is better to have a lesser talent (see Mike Lowell and his multiple WS rings) who will play to win instead of be the hero.

So this whole thing is a dramatization to try to bully some screwball owner into biting on this asinine contract. No team wants to pay the guy and for valid reasons. The Union is scared by this and realizes that because the salary demands are so public that if no owner bids more than say 20 mil/year over 5 or 6 years that not only will A-Rod have stupidly voided the final 3 years of his deal and turned down a far more lucrative offer than he should receive but he very well may be unemployed going into next season because he can't very well accept a contract at say 15 mil/year.

by gp on Nov 9, 2007 8:15 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

naw i heard much different

175 on xm was discussing it today, turns out it is a violation of the CBA for GM's to discuss FA's along with any MLB official. Turns out that is exactly what has happened and it turns out they have pretty good evidence. Sounds cut and dry.

.500 or bust!

by Jayslick on Nov 9, 2007 8:27 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Seems that the article

from ESPN states otherwise. MLB said that "no discussion about players free agent or otherwise ocurred."

Of course that could be a lie and Fehr and the Union could be telling the truth. Because, you know Fehr and the MLB players union is...ahem, super trustworthy and aren't trying to politick, manipulate and push MLB salaries into the next stratosphere. Nah, couldn't be that.

by gp on Nov 9, 2007 8:32 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Fehr & Collusion

Fehr became the head of the players' union during the middle of the collusion era (1985-87) and filed the lawsuit that resulted in the owners paying a $280 million settlement.

Selig (as owner of the Brewers) was one of the ringleaders of collusion. Fehr's no saint either, but IMO, Selig will always be suspect any time there's even the slightest appearance that the owners are working together to hold salaries down.

"Then I met some friends for a beer, went to a BoDeans's concert, and son of a vondruke, if I didn't leave him at the concert hall."

by RCCook on Nov 9, 2007 8:58 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

I don't believe anything that Selig, MLB owners,

and Don Fehr say. All are extremely dishonest people and all have one agenda on the menu............greed.

by gp on Nov 9, 2007 9:05 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

And if you can't visualize what Fehr

is trying to accomplish by pushing and exhorbitant salary for the games top player see the main page where a 40 year old washed up player got an obscene contract. Trickle down economics at its best. Very similar to merchandising several products together. You have 1 high priced product that has a nice markup. You have 1 medium priced product that has a stupendous markup and you have 1 cheaply priced product. The one you want to sell is the medium priced product. By merchandising them all together most of the customers will buy the middle priced item thinking its the best value when in fact it is the worst value. A-Rod is why no one blinks when Torii Hunter or Jones or someother very good player gets 10-15 mil/season. He is also why nobody blinks when a bad player gets 4 or 5 mil / season. Methinks the baseball owners have been getting hustled by some pretty good retailers.

by gp on Nov 9, 2007 8:43 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

i understand that but...

at the gm's meetings, they cant even say, "man its gonna be an expensive offseason"

players have the same restrictions with each other to protect the owners.

.500 or bust!

by Jayslick on Nov 9, 2007 8:53 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

i think they can say

which free agents they are going to go after. they can so those things to the local beat writers, why can't they so those things while they are in the same room. I don't think they said anything more than that. And, I don't even think they named specific players, just positions of need.

by ab03 on Nov 9, 2007 9:00 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

I think it is getting about time that

they change the rules. Hicks claimed he lost around 30 mil/year while A-Rod was here. Salaries have skyrocketed since that time. I don't see how these teams are going to continue to afford these exhorbitant salary increases especially with the economy teetering on the brink. Afterall, baseball is a luxury item and it is only entertainment. I fear that if teams don't curtail spending then MLB could be in jeopardy if/when the bottom drops out of the economy and their television deals start to falter.

by gp on Nov 9, 2007 9:02 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Hey, gp

So A-rod plays to lose? Interesting discovery.

Since he doesn't play to win, clearly, he must be trying to be the hero, which is the equivalent of playing to lose.

You're a moron.

Mike Lowell plays to win ... look at all those WS rings he won, by his single-handed team sport!!

Sideshow ... onto 800. You can do it!

by Chase Irwin on Nov 9, 2007 9:21 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Quit being asinine.

And don't be calling me names that you would never, ever call me to my face.

A-Rod plays to be a star. It is obvious for anyone who watches him play. He would rather strike out trying to hit a home run than take a walk or hit a single up the middle. How many times has he struck out with his team down by 2 or more late in the game? How many times has he hit that homerun? He plays to be the hero.

How about you bring something to the discussion once in a while except name calling? Maybe offer up some facts that disproves my statement which was clearly an opinion statement with nothing to back it up? Noooooo. Can't do that. Just call me a name. What the hell is wrong with you young people? Has republicanism addled your brain or something. If you want to win an argument you don't call people names. You refute them with a logically thought out argument AND you bring facts into the discussion. Otherwise, nobody takes you seriously. Now go find some facts that proves me wrong.

by gp on Nov 10, 2007 10:50 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs

No name calling but ...

A-Rod is the best player in baseball...now is he financially the best deal in baseball, that would be a better debate.

"The only good is knowledge and the only evil is ignorance."-Socrates

by slc ranger on Nov 10, 2007 11:57 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Never said he wasn't the best player though

I do think there are some players like Albert Pujols who would argue with you about that. I happen to like A-Rod a lot but he isn't perfect and he has yet to win the World Series and he has been on some teams with the greatest collections of talent in the history of the game. That Seattle team he played on was absolutely loaded and he played for the Yankees who had close to a 200 million dollar payroll. If I was a GM I'd definitely sign the guy if the price was right. However, anything more than 20 mil/season which is still an unbelievable amount for a baseball player is just stupid. A 6 year deal for 120 million seems fair to me and the guy turned down way more than that. It speaks volume to how selfish the guy really is and what his priorities are. How can any team build a winner around a guy who makes 30-35 million per year? I don't see how it can be done unless the owner of the team is willing to lose a hell of a lot of money. I can't see it.

by gp on Nov 10, 2007 3:03 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

I agree that he will have to win a

W.S. eventually or his salary will always be the biggest issue for the reasons you stated but I do think a lot of the greed issue does come from Boras. However it is still A-Rod's fault that he allows it.

Also Pujols can argue that point, and he is a great player...but he's not A-Rod.

"The only good is knowledge and the only evil is ignorance."-Socrates

by slc ranger on Nov 10, 2007 7:30 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

I would love to say it to your face

but, unfortunately, since we probably don't live in the same town, I will just have to say it here, again: you are a moron.

You want facts? How about the best player in baseball?

"Thanks to the good people at Baseball Prospects, a good statistic is available to measure offensive production. Value Over Replacement Player (VORP) represents the number of runs a player contributes beyond a replacement player at the same position. Rodriguez led the majors among position players in VORP with a mark of 97."

Do some research. Every 10 points of VORP accounts for approximately one additional win above what the replacement level player would have produced from that position. Translated for idiots like you, if you had A-Rod on your team as opposed to the 2007 replacement level player, he would have likely contributed to your team winning an additional 10 games. More than any other player who "plays to win" in MLB.

Digest. Moron.

Sideshow ... onto 800. You can do it!

by Chase Irwin on Nov 10, 2007 11:51 AM CST reply actions 0 recs