Dave Cameron Signs Manny Machado for ~$300MM/10 years

[mse326]

2 minutes ago, ramssuperbowl99 said:

Do we know that the MLB are "colluding" in that they're having secret meetings or whatever? No. It is possible that all 30 teams have become aware that a strike is imminent and have independently decided to drastically reduce player compensation as a way to harden against the upcoming strike and give themselves a better initial negotiating position. 

But there are 2 things that are just reality:

1. The players' share of revenue has sharply declined
2. The players' share of revenue is about 20% lower than any other major sport

As a baseball fan, that bothers me. There is nothing about the game that has changed since I have started watching it that has made the relative value of the players go down, or the owners risk go up (the opposite is true of the latter, in fact), but yet it's the owners suddenly seizing the lion's share of the profits. There's nothing bias about being concerned about that.

I said the people claiming collusion are doing so on the basis of bias. Not people that simply think people are getting an unfair shake. I don't agree with the latter but I acknowledge it is a perfectly reasonable position to take. It was the former that attribute to bias.

And your 20% claim is pretty far off. Do you have a source for that. Even the sources I've seen saying it is low have put it at around 40% rather than 50% of other leagues.  Or are you actually being being truly mathematically accurate in talking about actual percent less rather percentage points as is the usual way people use that phrase?

[ramssuperbowl99]

13 minutes ago, mse326 said:

How does file and trial help the teams IF they are trying to decrease salaries? It doesn't is the answer. "File and trial" in it of itself is neutral but when the arbitration baselines are based on historical awards and teams now want to lower that it would tend to make it more player friendly in terms of award.

Historically (not about this in particular) it is not unusual for a small number of people to try something and then after some time a large number to change to that after they see it is working.

Also talking about strategy (e.g. why we think this is best strategy) is not the same as collusion (e.g. we should all do this to lower strategy so doe we all agree?).

A team would announce a file and trial strategy beforehand to get the players' initial offer down. There have been some landmark arbitration amounts set over recent years - Mookie, Bryant, and a few others, so a club like the Astros would tell Carlos Correa that he needs to file a number to keep it at a rate he could win. It's been long thought that this approach saves money. I'm not really sure why you're arguing that - the Pirates, Blue Jays, Reds, and Rays have all done this (the trend here being small market teams with lower payrolls).

The cost is that you actually have an arbitration hearing where you crap on your own player for 90 minutes. I haven't seen this done recently, but historically players who go to an arbitration hearing are much less likely to sign extensions with the team. 

So, since all of the sudden all 30 teams in baseball decide that file and trial is the way to go - or put more bluntly that the few hundred thousand or less in expected cost savings is worth their relationships with their cost controlled talent, I see 2 explanations:

• Every team in baseball knew that this would save money, and knows a strike/lockout is imminent, so who cares about good relationships with your players, and they independently decided this new approach all starting on the exact same year
• Collusion

 

I find the former much less likely. Hence, I consider the file and trial strong indirect evidence of collusion.

But we'll find out eventually. I'm expecting an MLBPA grievance, and I highly doubt the MLB has gotten smarter about this since they've been caught colluding 3 times already. Not when their GMs text everything with passwords of Eckstein123.

[mse326]

1 minute ago, jrry32 said:

Actually, that makes a lot of sense logically. If you find a body with a gunshot to the head, you're going to assume murder. Now, maybe that person killed himself, and somebody took the gun from the scene. But that doesn't make it illogical to assume murder. You also keep claiming people have no evidence. That is inaccurate. People have circumstantial evidence. They lack direct evidence.

You'd be a terrible investigator if you assumed that. You would do an autopsy and other analysis regarding gun shot residue and stippling to determine distance and angle of the shot and whether any GSR is on the hand. This is basic logic; If P then Q does not mean that If Q is true then P is true. That is a classic logical fallacy.

There is no circumstantial evidence of collusion either because there is no circumstantial evidence of an agreement unless you choose to view the result as circumstantial evidence. That I think pushes the term to far.

[ramssuperbowl99]

8 minutes ago, mse326 said:

I said the people claiming collusion are doing so on the basis of bias. Not people that simply think people are getting an unfair shake. I don't agree with the latter but I acknowledge it is a perfectly reasonable position to take. It was the former that attribute to bias.

And your 20% claim is pretty far off. Do you have a source for that. Even the sources I've seen saying it is low have put it at around 40% rather than 50% of other leagues.  Or are you actually being being truly mathematically accurate in talking about actual percent less rather percentage points as is the usual way people use that phrase?

40% of revenue is 20% lower than 50% of revenue.

To be fair, that math always trips me up. I probably should have just spelled out 40% versus 50%.

[ramssuperbowl99]

11 minutes ago, mse326 said:

You'd be a terrible investigator if you assumed that. You would do an autopsy and other analysis regarding gun shot residue and stippling to determine distance and angle of the shot and whether any GSR is on the hand. This is basic logic; If P then Q does not mean that If Q is true then P is true. That is a classic logical fallacy.

There is no circumstantial evidence of collusion either because there is no circumstantial evidence of an agreement unless you choose to view the result as circumstantial evidence. That I think pushes the term to far.

Are you suggesting we give the MLB owners, GMs, and POBO's e-mails/phones an enema and see what we find?

I think @jrry32 and myself would be more than okay with that.

 

EDIT: And before anyone else makes this joke, I nominate someone else for the Rickett's devices.

[mse326]

2 minutes ago, ramssuperbowl99 said:

A team would announce a file and trial strategy beforehand to get the players' initial offer down. There have been some landmark arbitration amounts set over recent years - Mookie, Bryant, and a few others, so a club like the Astros would tell Carlos Correa that he needs to file a number to keep it at a rate he could win. It's been long thought that this approach saves money. I'm not really sure why you're arguing that - the Pirates, Blue Jays, Reds, and Rays have all done this (the trend here being small market teams with lower payrolls).

The cost is that you actually have an arbitration hearing where you crap on your own player for 90 minutes. I haven't seen this done recently, but historically players who go to an arbitration hearing are much less likely to sign extensions with the team. 

So, since all of the sudden all 30 teams in baseball decide that file and trial is the way to go - or put more bluntly that the few hundred thousand or less in expected cost savings is worth their relationships with their cost controlled talent, I see 2 explanations:

• Every team in baseball knew that this would save money, and knows a strike/lockout is imminent, so who cares about good relationships with your players, and they independently decided this all starting on the exact same year
• Collusion

 

I find the former much less likely. Hence, I consider the file and trial strong indirect evidence of collusion.

But we'll find out eventually. I'm expecting an MLBPA grievance, and I highly doubt the MLB has gotten smarter about this since they've been caught colluding 3 times already. Not when their GMs text everything with passwords of Eckstein123.

Teams aren't going to collude to do something that isn't a benefit to them. So if that few hundred thousand isn't worth as much as being on good terms they wouldn't do it. It didn't just happen this year though it started last year and then continued this year. Teams saw that it was working for the small market teams so they decided to do it as well. That happen all the time. Especially on 1 year deals that won't mean anything come CBA negotiations because they'll be off the books. Just because a strike may be imminent doesn't mean they don't care about relationships anymore. It's also important to remember that in "file and trial" teams are still more than willing to negotiate long term deals (Severino and Nola) just not 1 year deals.

And again if the players are asking for the right amount based on history they'll win in the arbitration hearing. That is why the three biggest names (Cole, Bauer, Trienen) all won their arbitration hearings. Like I said, in this case it doesn't hurt the players.

[jrry32]

6 minutes ago, mse326 said:

You'd be a terrible investigator if you assumed that. You would do an autopsy and other analysis regarding gun shot residue and stippling to determine distance and angle of the shot and whether any GSR is on the hand. This is basic logic; If P then Q does not mean that If Q is true then P is true. That is a classic logical fallacy.

There is no circumstantial evidence of collusion either because there is no circumstantial evidence of an agreement unless you choose to view the result as circumstantial evidence. That I think pushes the term to far.

No, I wouldn't be a terrible investigator if I assumed that. I would be human. The investigation would either prove or disprove my hypothesis. That is why we have investigations. However, none of us can investigate here. We can only observe the market and note the incongruencies.

P.S. The circumstantial evidence is the anomalous results + the meetings/open lines of communication between the owners. It's the same circumstantial evidence that led people to believe that NFL owners were colluding with regard to Kaepernick.

[mse326]

12 minutes ago, ramssuperbowl99 said:

40% of revenue is 20% lower than 50% of revenue.

To be fair, that math always trips me up. I probably should have just spelled out 40% versus 50%.

That's fine. As I was typing I realized that may be what you were saying which is why I asked. Most people would say that is 10% less even though that's incorrect so on first reading that is how I thought you may have meant it.

[mse326]

2 minutes ago, ramssuperbowl99 said:

Are you suggesting we give the MLB owners, GMs, and POBO's e-mails/phones an enema and see what we find?

I think @jrry32 and myself would be more than okay with that.

 

EDIT: And before anyone else makes this joke, I nominate someone else for the Rickett's devices.

No I'm not. But if this went to court even in civil suit it would end in summary judgment because the plaintiffs (MLBPA) can't prove by a preponderance of the evidence (more likely than no) there was agreement to make collusion. There needs to be evidence and the result looking like there may have been isn't enough. 

[candyman93]

I don’t understand the complaints. Blame the unions for not having the foresight to realize analytics had this type of potential.

[mse326]

4 minutes ago, jrry32 said:

P.S. The circumstantial evidence is the anomalous results + the meetings/open lines of communication between the owners. It's the same circumstantial evidence that led people to believe that NFL owners were colluding with regard to Kaepernick.

And I rejected the argument there too.

The problem is that is only anomalous because salaries were out of whack before. You've created a situation where owners can't fix past mistakes without it likely being collusion which is an untenable situation. Can I ask you honestly as a lawyer here, not your personal feelings. Do you think this would get past summary judgement if it went to court? I'm not even sure it would get past a motion to dismiss.

Also do you then think the players are/were colluding for high salaries? If not, why not? If so why is that OK but the other way not?

[ramssuperbowl99]

5 minutes ago, mse326 said:

No I'm not. But if this went to court even in civil suit it would end in summary judgment because the plaintiffs (MLBPA) can't prove by a preponderance of the evidence (more likely than no) there was agreement to make collusion. There needs to be evidence and the result looking like there may have been isn't enough. 

See, this is the problem with you separating the results and the agreement. You have defined any evidence of collusion as only evidence of the agreement, and categorically denied that the behavior consistent with the type of agreement is evidence. So there would be no circumstances where any investigator could ever prove collusion as long as the MLB keeps colluding in a sealed space. Even hyperbolic, obvious, blatant collusive activities like every MLB team offering Bryce Harper the league minimum and telling him to take or leave it wouldn't be evidence of an agreement.

You've overcompartmentalized what evidence is good where, to the point where the law is toothless.

 

[mse326]

5 minutes ago, ramssuperbowl99 said:

See, this is the problem with you separating the results and the agreement. You have defined any evidence of collusion as only evidence of the agreement, and categorically denied that the behavior consistent with the type of agreement is evidence. So there would be no circumstances where any investigator could ever prove collusion as long as the MLB keeps colluding in a sealed space. Even hyperbolic, obvious, blatant collusive activities like every MLB team offering Bryce Harper the league minimum and telling him to take or leave it wouldn't be evidence of an agreement.

You've overcompartmentalized what evidence is good where, to the point where the law is toothless.

 

The problem is you are saying since this could be the result of collusion it likely is. That makes any demand for evidence toothless if that is enough for you. There need's to be some evidence to the actual agreement not just the result. That is basic conspiracy law (which is essentially what collusion is)

As for your Harper hypo I disagree because there is no other explanation for that.

[ramssuperbowl99]

3 minutes ago, mse326 said:

The problem is you are saying since this could be the result of collusion it likely is. That makes any demand for evidence toothless if that is enough for you. There need's to be some evidence to the actual agreement not just the result. That is basic conspiracy law (which is essentially what collusion is)

As for your Harper hypo I disagree because there is no other explanation for that.

If you're saying I don't hold myself to the same standard as a jury or an arbiter..well...yeah. My opinion doesn't mean anything. If it did, I'd have been fining the Cardinals for years.

Right now, yes, I think it's more likely the MLB owners have colluded than not based on their behavior. That's based on the history of the league, which has proven collusion during most of the periods where you saw a downturn in player salary, the behavior of teams with identical contract offers, and the file and trial. I could be wrong. Really I care more about the results than I do about the collusion. In the hypothetical that there was a central database with contract offers for every player, and the players ended up with their 50% of revenue, I'd be less annoyed than teams independently deciding to give them 40%.

But I'd be interested in having you reconcile these 2 sentences:

Quote

There need's to be some evidence to the actual agreement not just the result.

As for your Harper hypo I disagree because there is no other explanation for that.

The second sentence sure sounds like you're willing to accept that there is behavior radical enough that you would consider it evidence of an agreement.

[mse326]

3 minutes ago, ramssuperbowl99 said:

The second sentence sure sounds like you're willing to accept that there is behavior radical enough that you would consider it evidence of an agreement.

It comes down to "could" vs "must". It goes back to basic statements of logic.

The current situation is an If P then Q. Just because Q is true does not make P true.
The Harper hypo is a P if Q. Q is true so P is true.