jrry32 Posted February 20, 2019 Share Posted February 20, 2019 33 minutes ago, mse326 said: 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? How are the players going to collude for higher salaries? Prior to summary judgment, there would be discovery. They would have access to a lot more information. That would make or break the case. I also disagree with the contention that the owners can't fix past mistakes. That's not just the issue here. Look at how difficult it was for Harper and Machado to get mega contracts (Harper hasn't even gotten his yet). There has been some majorly weird behavior from teams. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ramssuperbowl99 Posted February 20, 2019 Author Share Posted February 20, 2019 13 minutes ago, mse326 said: 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. I'll just remove the hypothetical: could there be behavior egregious enough that with no evidence of a collusive agreement, you would consider it evidence of collusion? Based on the answer to the Harper hypothetical, I'm assuming yes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mse326 Posted February 20, 2019 Share Posted February 20, 2019 1 minute ago, jrry32 said: How are the players going to collude for higher salaries? Prior to summary judgment, there would be discovery. They would have access to a lot more information. That would make or break the case. I also disagree with the contention that the owners can't fix past mistakes. That's not just the issue here. Look at how difficult it was for Harper and Machado to get mega contracts (Harper hasn't even gotten his yet). There has been some majorly weird behavior from teams. The MLBPA constantly pushes the players to get the most they can get. They can easily say we won't sign for less than $X. But is the evidence out there now? Why believe it now if there isn't the evidence to support it. I'm asking if the evidence we have now would support getting past summary judgement. If no then you acknowledge that what we have here doesn't make it more likely than not. Plus you can't go fishing a judge likely doesn't even allow discovery without more of an actual agreement. Again you see a struggle to get $30M a year as weird because they spent too high and freely in the past. That is what they are trying to fix. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
redsoxsuck05 Posted February 20, 2019 Share Posted February 20, 2019 37 minutes ago, candyman93 said: I don’t understand the complaints. Blame the unions for not having the foresight to realize analytics had this type of potential. "Analytics' is being used as an excuse. There's just less incentive for owners to compete because attendance doesn't mean anything anymore. It wasn't that long ago where you had a handful of owners who cared more about winning than maximizing profits, but it seems most here have forgotten that humans have virtues other than greed. Everything is a god-damn business and nothing more. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ramssuperbowl99 Posted February 20, 2019 Author Share Posted February 20, 2019 1 minute ago, mse326 said: Again you see a struggle to get $30M a year as weird because they spent too high and freely in the past. That is what they are trying to fix. MLB teams never spent out of line with traditional sports leagues, even at the height of free agency. Calling their spending "too high" when it was right in the norm for pro sports leagues says more about your biases then their spending. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mse326 Posted February 20, 2019 Share Posted February 20, 2019 1 minute ago, ramssuperbowl99 said: I'll just remove the hypothetical: could there be behavior egregious enough that with no evidence of a collusive agreement, you would consider it evidence of collusion? Based on the answer to the Harper hypothetical, I'm assuming yes. Maybe it's semantics but I wouldn't consider in terms of egregiousness. It is whether there is a different reasonable explanation. If there is then you need evidence of the agreement. If not then fine collusion. It's not about egregiousness but implication. If there is no other reasonable explanation then the result/consequent implies collusion. If there is another reasonable explanation then it doesn't. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jrry32 Posted February 20, 2019 Share Posted February 20, 2019 Just now, mse326 said: The MLBPA constantly pushes the players to get the most they can get. They can easily say we won't sign for less than $X. But is the evidence out there now? Why believe it now if there isn't the evidence to support it. I'm asking if the evidence we have now would support getting past summary judgement. If no then you acknowledge that what we have here doesn't make it more likely than not. Plus you can't go fishing a judge likely doesn't even allow discovery without more of an actual agreement. Again you see a struggle to get $30M a year as weird because they spent too high and freely in the past. That is what they are trying to fix. But how can they collude to do that? This isn't a court of law. I'm not required to have something proven before I believe it. Again, I see the market being overly cold and player revenue decreasing at an anomalous level to not just be coincidental. I don't have to prove it to you. You can believe whatever you want. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mse326 Posted February 20, 2019 Share Posted February 20, 2019 1 minute ago, ramssuperbowl99 said: MLB teams never spent out of line with traditional sports leagues, even at the height of free agency. Calling their spending "too high" when it was right in the norm for pro sports leagues says more about your biases then their spending. Your talking overall spending. I'm talking top end spending. Until those top salaries come down the lower middle can't go up. How many times have said player X got too much. Plenty of times. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ramssuperbowl99 Posted February 20, 2019 Author Share Posted February 20, 2019 1 minute ago, mse326 said: Maybe it's semantics but I wouldn't consider in terms of egregiousness. It is whether there is a different reasonable explanation. If there is then you need evidence of the agreement. If not then fine collusion. It's not about egregiousness but implication. If there is no other reasonable explanation then the result/consequent implies collusion. If there is another reasonable explanation then it doesn't. So then we're on the same scale here. I don't see a reasonable explanation for all 30 teams to independently decide this is the year they file and trial. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MWil23 Posted February 20, 2019 Share Posted February 20, 2019 Just now, ramssuperbowl99 said: So then we're on the same scale here. I don't see a reasonable explanation for all 30 teams to independently decide this is the year they file and trial. In Dolan's defense (I laughed typing this too), he's been doing it for years in Cleveland. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mse326 Posted February 20, 2019 Share Posted February 20, 2019 2 minutes ago, jrry32 said: But how can they collude to do that? This isn't a court of law. I'm not required to have something proven before I believe it. Again, I see the market being overly cold and player revenue decreasing at an anomalous level to not just be coincidental. I don't have to prove it to you. You can believe whatever you want. Why believe what you can't prove to be likely? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ramssuperbowl99 Posted February 20, 2019 Author Share Posted February 20, 2019 3 minutes ago, mse326 said: Your talking overall spending. I'm talking top end spending. Until those top salaries come down the lower middle can't go up. How many times have said player X got too much. Plenty of times. Those salaries, relative to revenue, have gone down. Manny Machado just got a $25MM raise from A-Rod a decade ago, while revenue has doubled. And frankly, Derek Deitrich, who was been worth on average 1.5 WAR/year each of the last 3 years and is only 29 years old, just had to settle for a MiLB deal with an invite to spring training that maxes out at $2MM a year. The lower middle is getting absolutely steamrolled right now, worse than anybody else. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mse326 Posted February 20, 2019 Share Posted February 20, 2019 1 minute ago, ramssuperbowl99 said: So then we're on the same scale here. I don't see a reasonable explanation for all 30 teams to independently decide this is the year they file and trial. Again it didn't just happen this year. It started 3 years ago. Big jump last year. Rest this year. Again I also still fail to see how "file and trial" is necessarily bad for the players. If it's that where you get collusion I'll admit being lost. Colluding to help players makes no sense to me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ramssuperbowl99 Posted February 20, 2019 Author Share Posted February 20, 2019 3 minutes ago, MWil23 said: In Dolan's defense (I laughed typing this too), he's been doing it for years in Cleveland. There were always like 5 to 7 teams who did it. Didn't know the Indians, but the Rays, Pirates, Blue Jays (who were dicks about it shout out to AA), and Reds always did IIRC. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ramssuperbowl99 Posted February 20, 2019 Author Share Posted February 20, 2019 Just now, mse326 said: Again it didn't just happen this year. It started 3 years ago. Big jump last year. Rest this year. Again I also still fail to see how "file and trial" is necessarily bad for the players. If it's that where you get collusion I'll admit being lost. Colluding to help players makes no sense to me. Teams go to file and trial as a cost savings option. That's pretty well documented. It's why smaller market teams were the ones who historically did it - they have less resources so the savings were more impactful and they were unlikely to be able to extend players so there was less value in maintaining a good relationship. You're arguing file and trial doesn't help teams, which is just wrong. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.