They're gonna share the information eventually. Why not do it in an open, organized format, where plans can be made more clear, instead of misunderstood purple monkey dishwasher.

The first signs of Boras cracking under the pressure. Get real, you don't need collusion to explain why no one wants to pay $300M for A-Rod's decline years.

Re: Arod. I think since the Yankees are not bidding, there's no way Arod will get as much money as he's asking, or even as much as he opted out of. Yes, there are many teams that would love to have him, but what he's asking is ludicrous, and the only team that could afford to pay him that won't. He'll still get a lot. My guess is 10/253. It's just a question of how high some GM's will bid up against eachother will go.

If it is conceivable for this to constitute collusion, it's time to overhaul the collusion laws. Teams can't discuss the players which they are willing to make available, really?

If it is conceivable for this to constitute collusion, it's time to overhaul the collusion laws. Teams can't discuss the players which they are willing to make available, really?

Of course they can. But there was also a quote where the Angels reassured Selig they wouldn't overspend on A-Rod.

Of course they can. But there was also a quote where the Angels reassured Selig they wouldn't overspend on A-Rod.

Source?

#3 gets this exactly right, IMO. However, when A-Rod fails to get the money he would have had the Yankees been in the bidding, the union likely will cite that as evidence of collusion.

And then we'll hear from Boras an excuse to save face that he really choose a discount to play in X place because he loves it so much, whether that be in Boston or Anaheim.

Bud Selig is trying to hold down the price of Alex Rodriguez’s next contract

In other shocking news, Selig took a #### today.

Can't wait for this scum to be elected to the HOF. The truest player-hater to walk the earth.

Source?

Here's one:

According to one major-league official, Angels owner Arte Moreno assured commissioner Bud Selig, with whom he is close, that he wouldn't obliterate spending records to land A-Rod.

It's too bad that the rest of that Moreno quote doesn't exactly support the charge of collusion:

According to one major-league official, Angels owner Arte Moreno assured commissioner Bud Selig, with whom he is close, that he wouldn't obliterate spending records to land A-Rod.

However, Moreno has spoken for more than a year about acquiring a high-impact player, and following the Angels' American League Division Series loss to Boston, Angels manager Mike Scioscia publicly pleaded for an accomplished hitter to join Vladimir Guerrero in the lineup.

Furthermore, Reagins said that he factors in issues such as marketing and public relations when evaluating an acquisition. A-Rod would create a buzz in Anaheim like no one else.

"In this day and age, I think that is a part of it," Reagins said.

Reagins added: "At the end of the day, we're going to make a decision that makes sense from a baseball standpoint and makes sense economically. We have to evaluate what that is, but we're looking to improve our club. We're looking to win."

And Jesus, when Boras quotes a minimum, starting figure of something like $320 million, what in the hell does he expect?

He's made his strategy, and he's made his comments, but there is no obligation at all for any team to be forced to go along with them.

A-Rod is such a relatively hot property that he'll quite likely get what Boras wants, but if he doesn't, that in itself doesn't prove a damn thing about any "collusion." It may simply be that teams know the risk of committing that much long term money to guy who would be turning 40 in the last year of an 8 year contract.

That said, I hope that Cashman's read the situation right, and that he succeeds in driving the price down, and then pounces at the last minute with the best offer. He certainly has the resources to do it.

I'm normally as pro-player/anti-owner as they come, but I'll gladly side with Selig and Co. stooping to any level against A-Hole.

boras is the one who spent all last year setting the price at 30 mill a year and talking 10 years and if the teams don't want that arod is stuck

ESPECIALLY if hanky poo means it about no rod

When you say "the teams", that to me implies some sort of collusion. If A-Rod signs for 8/200, and nobody can conjure up 8/220, that will not pass the smell test. If A-rod signs for 8/250 and nobody puts up 8/260 - well, that might be debatable.

I can't foresee collusion with a FA like this.

In Coll. I, no one would sign someone else's FA.
In Coll. II, mediocre FAs were all given the same $9M for 3, or whatever it was.

If someone thinks A-Rod is worth $250/8, I don't think they'll sit on their hands and watch someone else sign him for $200/8.

Now, fearing the wrath of Seligula is another matter, and teams may shy away for that reason. I wouldn't consider that collusion so much as the Commissioner being a piece of #### who hates the players and will punish those who do not.

According to one major-league official, Angels owner Arte Moreno assured commissioner Bud Selig, with whom he is close, that he wouldn't obliterate spending records to land A-Rod.

The funny part that no one's mentioned yet is the source. A major-league official leaked this? I'm sure that's purely coincidence, Selig had nothing to do with it and it has nothing to do with putting Moreno on the record.

Now, fearing the wrath of Seligula is another matter, and teams may shy away for that reason. I wouldn't consider that collusion so much as the Commissioner being a piece of #### who hates the players and will punish those who do not.

I haven't looked through the CBA, but I'm pretty sure that would still violate it.

This does smell like Boras trying to get out ahead with an explanation as to why the A-Rod deal winds up lower than he claimed he'd get.

Now, fearing the wrath of Seligula is another matter, and teams may shy away for that reason. I wouldn't consider that collusion so much as the Commissioner being a piece of #### who hates the players and will punish those who do not.

Except that is how collusion started back in the 80's. It was Petey who created the collusion mess by trying to force the owners not to purchase other teams free agents or hand out crazy long term contracts.

The commish is not above the CBA.

This does smell like Boras trying to get out ahead with an explanation as to why the A-Rod deal winds up lower than he claimed he'd get.

Yes, by Nov. 9, after the most profitable season in the history of the game, the super agent realized that the employment prospects of his MVP client looked hopeless. 30 million? He'd be lucky to get 29.5.

Reportedly it was 350 mill for 10 years to open for the Yanks, FYI.
So you're already off by 5 million per year, unless you have better sources than the rest of us.

The "employment prospects.... looked hopeless" line strikes me as nonsensical.

Maybe you can try again.

It was Petey who created the collusion mess by trying to force the owners not to purchase other teams free agents or hand out crazy long term contracts.

The commish is not above the CBA.

I didn't remember/realize that it was Uebberoth pressuring owners.

I definitely was not saying that Selig is above the CBA or that it wasn't wrong. I think it's disgusting how obviously he tries to force salaries down. I just meant I didn't think of it as collusion, which in my mind was all owners choosing to repress salaries by not going after FAs or agreeing on salaries they would offer. If it's fear of retribution from the commish, the result is the same, but it's not necessarily the owners making that decision on their own.

But if you don't want to draw a distinction there, hey, I won't argue.

It's a shame I couldn't find the "Money to A Rod so he go to strip clubs with his mistress" on my CFC form at work. I had to settle for charities like Susan Komen and the Red Cross.

"It's hard to sympathize with either the owners or the players. Both sides are greedy and both may end destroying baseball" Tom Wicker, 1970

It will be interesting to follow the A-Rod saga to see how Boras will change contract strategies. An 8-year contract, as many have mentioned, will be tough for most teams to swallow. And an opt-out clause, a Boras staple, wouldn't seem to be prudent if he did get a team to bite. It might instead be a negotiating strategy for the TEAMS this time.

If I were to pursue ARod, I would want a pretty short guaranteed contract but with rolling team options and some reasonable 1-time buyout. I'm just kind of winging some numbers here but I'd look at something like 27/28/29 guaranteed for the first three years, followed by perpetual 1-year team options with a 1M increment for every year. And have an escalating buyout clause, starting at $5M after 4 years and increasing by 1M per year.
3 years 84
4 years 114 + 5
5 years 145 + 6
6 years 177 + 7
7 years 210 + 8
8 years 244 + 9
9 years 279 + 10
10 years 315 + 11

Share the risk; if ARod can stay on his game for 10 years (heh), he has a 10 year, 326M contract. Boras could tout that figure and the team is protected against long term disaster. If they want an opt-out clause after say the 5th year, I would be fine with that.

A major-league official leaked this?

Does the term "major league official" necessarily mean someone who works for MLB, as opposed to someone who works for an MLB team? I always assume that the media is intentionally ambiguous or obfuscatory when describing their un-named sources.

The "employment prospects.... looked hopeless" line strikes me as nonsensical.

Maybe you can try again.

Could someone please post a link to the rules about who is and is not allowed to be sarcastic on this board? Thanks.

When A-Rod signed his contract with the Rangers it was stated that the next highest bidder was something like $200M and Hicks went up to $252M. But Boras could freely have gone in and told the Rangers that the Mets bid $240M, right? And it would have been collusion for the Rangers to call the Mets and ask if they really offered that much, right? How is that fair? OK, not fair, but what's the legal justification for allowing an agent to talk to all of the teams and say whatever he wants and not allowing the teams to check on his claims?

Of course the Mets could lie in order to drive up the price, but the Rangers should at least be able to decide if they believe the Mets.

Greg, what's your source for the $200M? The way I remember it, the only team other than Texas that made an official contract offer was Seattle, and they were under $100M. This is why I find it laughable that people think Boras needs to start a bidding war. His major skill in negotiation seems to be an amazing ability to get people to bid against themselves.

what's the legal justification for allowing an agent to talk to all of the teams and say whatever he wants and not allowing the teams to check on his claims?

If a team thinks he's bluffing, they can call his bluff. Tell him you don't believe it. Ask to see the fax. Say, "Wow, Theo offered you that? I'm gonna call him right now and congratulate him." It's not that hard, and it doesn't require anything remotely resembling collusion.

Greg, what's your source for the $200M?

Purely memory, which of course is suspect. Of course, there's always the possibility that a team offered $240M, but later said they only offered $100M. We don't really know.

If a team thinks he's bluffing, they can call his bluff. Tell him you don't believe it. Ask to see the fax. Say, "Wow, Theo offered you that? I'm gonna call him right now and congratulate him." It's not that hard, and it doesn't require anything remotely resembling collusion.

That's what I don't get. Why is checking the agent's sources considered collusion? Why can he ask to see the offer, but not ask the other guy what the offer is?

Why can he ask to see the offer, but not ask the other guy what the offer is?

I'm not sure that he can't, but why does it matter? If the agent won't show you the offer, then it's a pretty safe bet that he's making it up.

Why is checking the agent's sources considered collusion?

Because it's in the CBA, and so was agreed to by both sides. Or, at least, there is verbiage in the CBA that has reliably been interpreted to mean that teams communicating about contract offers equals collusion.

Greg, what's your source for the $200M? The way I remember it, the only team other than Texas that made an official contract offer was Seattle, and they were under $100M.

While I agree with you that your recollection matches the official history, keep in mind that the only thing we actually know is that nobody else made a public offer higher than $100M. The media has somehow twisted "Nobody leaked a higher offer" into "Nobody made a higher offer."

Get real, you don't need collusion to explain why no one wants to pay $300M for A-Rod's decline years.

No you don't, but some posters here think anything less than 35mm/year would be a sign of collusion

It's a shame I couldn't find the "Money to A Rod so he go to strip clubs with his mistress" on my CFC form at work. I had to settle for charities like Susan Komen and the Red Cross.

I was just listening to "Razor's Edge" by AC/DC, featuring "Mistress for Christmas"

Because it's in the CBA, and so was agreed to by both sides. Or, at least, there is verbiage in the CBA that has reliably been interpreted to mean that teams communicating about contract offers equals collusion.

I get that it is collusion, I just don't understand the logic behind defining it that way.

I get that it is collusion, I just don't understand the logic behind defining it that way.

The logic starts with "The Commissioner of Baseball is chosen by the Owners."

I get that it is collusion, I just don't understand the logic behind defining it that way.

The only logic that matters is that is what both sides agreed to.

BTW, players are barred from colluding also. A players cannot say to a team "I will sign with you, but only if you sign that guy as well." In fact, the whole collusion bit came into being at the behest of the owners, following Koufax's and Drysdale's joint holdout in the 1965 offseason.

I get that it is collusion, I just don't understand the logic behind defining it that way.

The other reason is that MLB is not a market, it's a cartel. What the owners get from being a cartel is that no entrepreneur can start his own baseball team and challenge them for profits, or drive up salaries. The price they pay, as collectively bargained, is that they can't use the fact that there are only 30 of them to artificially drive down prices of free agents.

In a typical business ecosystem, if the owners decided not to pay free agents what they were worth, another business could start up that offered the players a better deal and challenged the existing businesses. Because of the owners' cartel, that can't happen. The best way, then, as collectively bargained, for the players to get their share of the profits, is to keep the owners from communicating in order to keep costs down.

When A-Rod signed his contract with the Rangers it was stated that the next highest bidder was something like $200M and Hicks went up to $252M. But Boras could freely have gone in and told the Rangers that the Mets bid $240M, right? And it would have been collusion for the Rangers to call the Mets and ask if they really offered that much, right? How is that fair? OK, not fair, but what's the legal justification for allowing an agent to talk to all of the teams and say whatever he wants and not allowing the teams to check on his claims?

Of course the Mets could lie in order to drive up the price, but the Rangers should at least be able to decide if they believe the Mets.

Yeah, all the talk of a "free market" is just that (as it usually is). Each side defines a free market as what they most want and then labels people opposed to that position as being on the wrong side of history. What is really needed here is a big ebay like system with all the free agents on the board. Anonymous bidding begins ten days after the World Series ends and the site can be linked to and commented on from places like that. To me, that is a free market and if you disagree, you're on the wrong side of history.

What is really needed here is a big ebay like system with all the free agents on the board. Anonymous bidding begins ten days after the World Series ends and the site can be linked to and commented on from places like that.

That would be great, with one more thing. The player being bid on should be able to know who placed what bid. He shouldn't be forced to go to the Pirates just because they bid the most. But he could always wait until the end and then take the highest bid from a place that he wanted to go.

The teams could also retract their bids at any time so the player might feel like taking a bid early. Basically it would be pretty much like the current system, then, except the agent couldn't lie.

I'm not sure that he can't, but why does it matter? If the agent won't show you the offer, then it's a pretty safe bet that he's making it up.

I have absolutely no idea how a free agent offer works. Is there some official template that you fill out? I guess I'm saying that the offer may have come from a phone conversation with Theo and thus might be legitimate without a piece of paper.

This all makes sense, until A-Rod signs for a record deal that shocks us all once again.

#26 sounds like a very likely scenario to me.

When A-Rod signed his contract with the Rangers it was stated that the next highest bidder was something like $200M and Hicks went up to $252M.

According to the article below, the braves made A-Rod an offer in 2000, but according to Schuerholz the Rangers topped it "by $126m". That indicates the braves offered him $126m themselves (and Schuerholz though that was the second-highest bid):

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9F04E4DC1E39F93AA15757C0A9679C8B63

The teams could also retract their bids at any time so the player might feel like taking a bid early. Basically it would be pretty much like the current system, then, except the agent couldn't lie.

Nothing prevents any team -- or every team -- from deciding that from now on, it is only going to make public offers, not private ones. That's legitimate.

What you're ignoring, though, is that it's generally not in the interest of a team to make a public offer; it's in the interest of the team's competitors. If I know how much you've bid on a player, that enables me to tailor my decisionmaking based on that information. If you've "only" offered $200M for ARod, I can drop my planned offer from $250M to $201M. If you've offered $350M, I can focus my attentions elsewhere and not waste time bidding on him. That's a great benefit to me -- but not to you.

Of course, it's collectively in the teams' interests to know how much everyone else is bidding -- but there you see the problem. That was, in fact, Collusion III. The Information Bank.

So it would be OK for the Angels to have a press conference announcing that they've offered A-Rod 10/325, but it would not be OK for them to call each MLB GM and tell them the same thing?

I'm honestly not being snarky here, I don't get the difference.

So it would be OK for the Angels to have a press conference announcing that they've offered A-Rod 10/325, but it would not be OK for them to call each MLB GM and tell them the same thing?

I'm honestly not being snarky here, I don't get the difference.

Either would be "okay" in the sense of not being collusion. The essential element of collusion is an agreement between the teams. The agreement to share information is such an agreement.

The Angels could unilaterally tell that to each MLB GM -- but as I explained, they would have no reason to do so. It isn't in their interest. (Teams don't call press conferences to announce offers.*) The only way it becomes in their interest is if there's a quid pro quo -- that is, if all the teams agree to provide that information to each other. And that's collusion.



* The information often gets leaked, but that's a principal-agent issue; it's not in the team's interest to leak the information, but it's in the individual leaker's interest to do so. Same reason everyone leaks, whether in politics, business, or the like: to cultivate reporters for future gain.

So it would be OK for the Angels to have a press conference announcing that they've offered A-Rod 10/325, but it would not be OK for them to call each MLB GM and tell them the same thing?

I'm honestly not being snarky here, I don't get the difference.

The difference, as I see it, is that in a public press conference, everybody is assured of getting the correct information. In 29 different private conversations, know one really knows if you told everybody, more importantly, if you told everybody the same thing, and perhaps most importantly, what information went the other way.

Or maybe there is no stipulation against. The prohibition would be requiring the others to do the same in exchange for your information. Since, as david points out, there's no direct benefit for me to tell you without some ### for tat, no one will unilaterally disarm, and the CBA prevents multilateral disarmament.

David,

So what's the minimum contract that A-Rod can wind up with that won't have you hollering "collusion?" Is it the minimum amount ($320 or $350 million) that Boras gave to the Yankees to be willing even to sit down at the table? Is anything less than that a sign of something fishy?

And who's the judge of that? Boras?

And why did you ignore the entire last part of that statement of Moreno's, when you implied by selective quoting (in #10) that what he said was evidence of collusion? That seems less than forthright on your part.

OK, that makes sense to me. Still, there would be some value in it, in two ways. First of all, if the Angels GM was lied to by the Red Sox GM there would be some hard feelings there. Plus if the Red Sox GM was honest about an offer to A-Rod, the Angels GM is more likely to be honest about an offer to Lowell. But of course, that's certainly very close to a de facto quid pro quo, so I could see the argument.

Secondly, though, look at the Rangers case. If in fact there was a $126M offer out there, then even if Atlanta told the Rangers that they had offered $175M, the Rangers wouldn't have to have offered $252M.

So I get the collusion argument, it's just that it seems to me like the teams are playing 5 card stud while the agents get to play 5 card draw.

So I get the collusion argument, it's just that it seems to me like the teams are playing 5 card stud while the agents get to play 5 card draw.

Well, the player side of the anti-collusion rules is a bit more subtle. It's where Tom Glavine and Greg Maddux are prohibited from marketing themselves as a package deal. That would be a bigger problem from the owners' standpoint, because it would really change the playing field. And even worse, it could lead to a large enough group of free agents deciding to sign one-year deals to go to one team, and really cause problems to the other teams.

But that side is less visible, and less interesting as a story, and therefore doesn't get played out in the media.

So I get the collusion argument, it's just that it seems to me like the teams are playing 5 card stud while the agents get to play 5 card draw.

That may be true, but for the first 8-10 years of a player's professional career, he was playing indian poker.

I think omitting the length of the offer is very misleading. a 5/126 offer would have been quite attractive to A-Rod at that age (though Boras opt-out works better as an inflation hedge, as it is unilateral).

The Peter Ueberroth collusion era took place at the very beginning of Scott Boras' career as an agent. I'm actually curious as to how the Scott Boras of today, with his stable of clients, would/will respond to such a tactic.

I assume owners of today wouldn't be so stupid as to simply refuse to negotiate for any FA, but what if collusion was directed at one player- or one agent?

How many teams refuse to deal with Boras now as it is? What's a few more? At what point does Boras' supply (his players) outstrip the demand for players repped by Boras?

So what's the minimum contract that A-Rod can wind up with that won't have you hollering "collusion?"

None whatsoever. Collusion is not based on the size of the contract, but the behavior of the actors. (Behavior which includes an explicit promise to a third party that he won't spend too much is pretty telling.)

And why did you ignore the entire last part of that statement of Moreno's, when you implied by selective quoting (in #10) that what he said was evidence of collusion? That seems less than forthright on your part.

What entire last part of that statement of Moreno's? You didn't cite any statement of Moreno's except that he "has spoken about acquiring an impact player." (And I provided the link so people could see the context, so there's nothing "unforthright" at all.)

How many teams refuse to deal with Boras now as it is?

Don't know, but I'd guess those same teams wouldn't be offering A-Rod a contract even if Walter Cronkite were his agent.

Is it collusion for Mitchell to only name free agents?

And why did you ignore the entire last part of that statement of Moreno's, when you implied by selective quoting (in #10) that what he said was evidence of collusion? That seems less than forthright on your part.

What entire last part of that statement of Moreno's?

Again, this part. Judge for yourself if that changes the meaning of the part that you quoted. And you know that few people bother to go to links.

You quoted only the first part of what follows, and omitted the rest:

According to one major-league official, Angels owner Arte Moreno assured commissioner Bud Selig, with whom he is close, that he wouldn't obliterate spending records to land A-Rod.

However, Moreno has spoken for more than a year about acquiring a high-impact player, and following the Angels' American League Division Series loss to Boston, Angels manager Mike Scioscia publicly pleaded for an accomplished hitter to join Vladimir Guerrero in the lineup.

Furthermore, Reagins said that he factors in issues such as marketing and public relations when evaluating an acquisition. A-Rod would create a buzz in Anaheim like no one else.

"In this day and age, I think that is a part of it," Reagins said.

Reagins added: "At the end of the day, we're going to make a decision that makes sense from a baseball standpoint and makes sense economically. We have to evaluate what that is, but we're looking to improve our club. We're looking to win."

You're taking one sentence about "not obliter[ating] spending records" as if it were some sort of sinister remark, and ignoring the rest of what he said, which certainly does not imply that he won't be going after Rodriguez.

Backing up a bit,

So what's the minimum contract that A-Rod can wind up with that won't have you hollering "collusion?"

None whatsoever. Collusion is not based on the size of the contract, but the behavior of the actors. (Behavior which includes an explicit promise to a third party that he won't spend too much is pretty telling.)

So "not obliterat[ing] spending records" is the equivalent of "not spending too much," which in turn is some sort of evidence of collusion? If you say so.

I can see why Boras would like to follow this sort of convoluted line of logic, but that's because it's in Boras's interest to do so. But I'm not so sure why the rest of us are under any particular obligation to go along.

At least I'm glad that you won't be calling for a special prosecutor if Boras doesn't get his wet dream contract. We should be thankful for small favors.

According to one major-league official, Angels owner Arte Moreno assured commissioner Bud Selig, with whom he is close, that he wouldn't obliterate spending records to land A-Rod.

Andy, this statement tells every other team that no matter how much the Angels might want ARod (which the rest of what you posted talks about), they will not spend much more (if any) than the previous record contract - ARod's Texas contract. So that tells other teams they won't have to spend much more than the Texas contract to outbid the Angels.

If the commissioner's office leaked this conversation - it is already collusion - since any employee of the Commissioner's office is an employee of the owners. And knowing the Angels' max to spend on ARod can affect what other teams would bid.

If an employee of the Angels leaked this information, it is not collusion - unless they did so knowing that there would be other leaked conversations involving other teams.

You know what is so cool.

A-Rod is going to break Barry Bonds Homerun record as a Halo.
He will probably go in the Hall, as a Halo ..
Just the thought of that. Just an average team for years, always playing second fiddle to the Dodgers.
Who would have thought it just a year ago? And all because of spoiled Yankee fans ..

thanks ..

So what you say.
Well for one, He is going to break it in California. I'll just go ahead and call that right now. But that also means, it'll happen at about 12:30 PM eastern, so New Yarhker's are going to get bombarded with it all day. From the time they roll out of bed, and open their sad little eyes, flip on the radio to Mike and Mike ...

A Rod .. A Rod .. All day.

that's so cool.

As a Halo.

must have been angels in the outfield. :)

Thank you yankee fans.

Well, the player side of the anti-collusion rules is a bit more subtle. It's where Tom Glavine and Greg Maddux are prohibited from marketing themselves as a package deal.

The players can tell each other what offers they've received, right? Maddux can tell Glavine that the Braves offered him $15M and he's thinking about it. That would have to be the case since they are allowed to have the same agent.

Anyway, I think I understand the rationale now, even if I don't exactly agree with it.

According to one major-league official, Angels owner Arte Moreno assured commissioner Bud Selig, with whom he is close, that he wouldn't obliterate spending records to land A-Rod.

Andy, this statement tells every other team that no matter how much the Angels might want ARod (which the rest of what you posted talks about), they will not spend much more (if any) than the previous record contract - ARod's Texas contract. So that tells other teams they won't have to spend much more than the Texas contract to outbid the Angels.

Beyond the possibility that this is simply a feint on Moreno's part, this still leaves the Angels' offer in the realm of the unknown. Unless you think you're qualified to read Moreno's mind and define his idea of "obliterate."

At some point it has to be acknowledged that Boras's idea of A-Rod's value does not necessarily coincide with the risk vs reward reality of taking on a long contract at $320 to $350 million at minimum. And that it's entirely legitimate for any owner to announce that he doesn't intend to buy into Boras's figure.

And this is especially true since we have no way of knowing what sort of offers are being made in private. Any public statement (or "promise") by any owner can be taken with a grain of salt. And the bottom line is that A-Rod will eventually get exactly what he's worth to the most deep pocketed owner, and not a penny more---or less.

Let's just leave this mess alone and let them sort it out for themselves. None of us have any dog in this fight.

Right now I think that Gambling Rent is closer to the reality of what Moreno is likely to do than anyone else. We might want to watch what Moreno does, as opposed to our interpretation of what he's said.

You're taking one sentence about "not obliter[ating] spending records" as if it were some sort of sinister remark, and ignoring the rest of what he said, which certainly does not imply that he won't be going after Rodriguez.

First, I didn't say a damn thing about whether he'd be "going after" Rodriguez. The issue of potential collusion here appears to involve the size of the offer, not the existence of one.

Second, you seem to have reading comprehension troubles. None of the boldfaced part, except the vague claim that he had "spoken about acquiring a high impact player," is attributed to Moreno. It's attributed to other people. (And, moreover, the statement about acquiring a high impact player is (a) obviously not a specific reference to ARod since it says he had "spoken for more than a year" about it, and (b) not relevant to the issue of how much he was willing to pay.)

So "not obliterat[ing] spending records" is the equivalent of "not spending too much," which in turn is some sort of evidence of collusion? If you say so.

The "evidence of collusion" is that any statement was made on the subject to Selig. What legitimate reason is there for an owner to make a promise to the commissioner about how much he'll bid on a player?

Right now I think that Gambling Rent is closer to the reality of what Moreno is likely to do than anyone else. We might want to watch what Moreno does, as opposed to our interpretation of what he's said.

I think I will get my jersey in an extra large, so it will fit me well when I am old and fat.
I would have ordered it already, but there is just that one little hang up.

maybe for Christmas.

Come on Arte. Write the check!

Given the owners' history of collusion, isn't it sensible for the Union to fire a few warning shots like this across the owners/Bud's bows every now and then to remind them that they are watching closely? I wouldn't be so sure Boras is behind this one (sure he is manipulative, but it doesn't necessarily follow that everything is evidence of Boras manipulation).

And it would have been collusion for the Rangers to call the Mets and ask if they really offered that much, right?

Merely checking might not be collusion. What appears to be the relevant part of the CBA only says:

Players shall not act in concert with other Players and Clubs shall not act in concert with other Clubs.

Not sure if merely checking would be enough to be "acting in concert" if there wasn't any agreement between the teams to limit their offers or not compete for the same players. Perhaps the arbitration decisions give more guidance. In any event, this CBA provision has a treble damages provision, and given the owners' repeated collusion violations, you can see why they'd be well-advised to steer clear of any behavior that even hints at collusion. They aren't going to get the benefit of the doubt.

I get that it is collusion, I just don't understand the logic behind defining it that way.

Greg: One other aspect is that Boras making up a fake offer is not without risk. Let's say at some point the Rangers offered $200 million. If he went to Hicks and said that the Mets offered $240 million, there is a non-trivial chance that Hicks will say, "Wow, I'd love to go higher, but I just can't afford it. Have fun on the Mets."

If Boras was lying, he'd have left $200 million on the table, and would either have to try to get that from someone else (unlikely, given the limited market for employers), or he'd have to go back to Hicks, at which point Hicks would know or strongly suspect that he was lying.

So essentially, it's a problem of information and leverage. Agents can lie about offers, but lying carries substantial risks for them (which can be mitigated by the negotiating savvy of good agents like Boras). That's why it's NOT unfair for agents to lie about offers.

As to the press conference example, it's not collusion because the owners aren't cooperating. The key point in "collusion" isn't the sharing of information, per se, but the agreement to act on that information in a way that's not beneficial to players.

One example that WOULD be collusion would be this:

1) Teams speak honestly when talking about offers to each other. (This is essential).

2) Teams (or a subset of teams) then agree on the "worth" of a player or players. For example, Theo and Cashman get together and say, "Okay, Theo, I hate A-Rod, I'm not going to bid on A-Rod, but only if you don't bid on Lowell."

In that example, A-Rod's market is artificially depressed because three teams have cooperated with each other when they are supposed to be working against each other.

The key distinction there between that and the press conference is that there is no arrangement (presumably) to cooperate.

i studied antitrust economics in college (which was a while back). lawyers, please jump in and correct me, but as i remember it, it is very easy for firms to get in trouble with collusion by things that seem innocuous. for example, if you were to fax your competitor a price list dated two weeks in the future that shows you plan on raising prices 5% in two weeks, you could be at risk of a sherman act violation.

I think I will get my jersey in an extra large, so it will fit me well when I am old and fat.

I wouldn't. Rodriguez is going to opt out of his Angels' contract in 2011.

The whole collusion thing may be the Union telling the owners that they have an equal right to the mlb.com revenues ($30mm/team, I believe). If MLB is getting this huge new influx of dollars, I can see the Union doing whatever it can to make sure the owners know that those monies go into the collective pot (ie, player salaries, not owner’s pockets). I think this is where Boras is coming from when he says teams can support a $30mm/yr player. Of course, that may be true in the short run, but a proposed 8-10 yr length of commitment, for a guy with baggage in his decline years, is probably what really has teams balking.

You're taking one sentence about "not obliter[ating] spending records" as if it were some sort of sinister remark, and ignoring the rest of what he said, which certainly does not imply that he won't be going after Rodriguez.

First, I didn't say a damn thing about whether he'd be "going after" Rodriguez. The issue of potential collusion here appears to involve the size of the offer, not the existence of one.

And neither you nor I have any idea of what the size of that offer might eventually be.

Second, you seem to have reading comprehension troubles. None of the boldfaced part, except the vague claim that he had "spoken about acquiring a high impact player," is attributed to Moreno. It's attributed to other people.

Yeah, the "other people" in this case being Moreno's own General Manager, who presumably conducts his own foreign policy without any input from Moreno.

So "not obliterat[ing] spending records" is the equivalent of "not spending too much," which in turn is some sort of evidence of collusion? If you say so.

The "evidence of collusion" is that any statement was made on the subject to Selig. What legitimate reason is there for an owner to make a promise to the commissioner about how much he'll bid on a player?

Well, by the link you provided, the "evidence" of this "collusion" is "According to one major-league official, Angels owner Arte Moreno assured commissioner Bud Selig..."

But Moreno was not contacted to confirm or deny this.

And gee, I always thought that one of your favorite words in the dictionary was "hearsay." "According to" a whole lot of people, a certain former Giants slugger is a certified juicer, but somehow I don't recall your accepting those "according to"s at face value. Funny that.

i studied antitrust economics in college (which was a while back). lawyers, please jump in and correct me, but as i remember it, it is very easy for firms to get in trouble with collusion by things that seem innocuous. for example, if you were to fax your competitor a price list dated two weeks in the future that shows you plan on raising prices 5% in two weeks, you could be at risk of a sherman act violation.

Indeed. But once again, if you publish the list, it can have the same effect but there can't be a sherman act violation. Neither one is price fixing -- as with collusion, that requires an agreement -- but one can infer an agreement from private information sharing in a way one can't for public information sharing.

I wonder how many people remember that collusion wasn't just a 1980s phemenon? When the players/owners last negotiated, the owners made a $12 million payment to resolve 2002-2003 grievances related to collusion. (No admission of guilt, obviously.)

Yeah, the "other people" in this case being Moreno's own General Manager, who presumably conducts his own foreign policy without any input from Moreno.

No, probably not, which is precisely the problem. If he operated without input from Moreno, then his personal views on how much he was willing to offer A-Rod would be relevant. But since he presumably does not make these sorts of decisions on his own, his statements aren't really very important; they can't override Moreno's decisions. (Not, mind you, that he actually said anything which contradicted Moreno's implication of collusion to begin with.)

In any case, I don't understand your point. Is it your position that if an employee of an owner says something, it's okay for you to repeatedly falsely claim that the owner actually said it? You didn't say "Moreno's GM said it"; you said "Moreno said it."

Well, by the link you provided, the "evidence" of this "collusion" is "According to one major-league official, Angels owner Arte Moreno assured commissioner Bud Selig..."

But Moreno was not contacted to confirm or deny this.

Sure, and if your argument had been that you questioned the reliability of the quote, I would have had no quarrel with your statements. But instead you pretended that a GM's statements were actually Moreno's, and then pretended that those vague statements somehow mitigated an explicit promise by the owner to limit his offer to ARod.

And gee, I always thought that one of your favorite words in the dictionary was "hearsay." "According to" a whole lot of people, a certain former Giants slugger is a certified juicer, but somehow I don't recall your accepting those "according to"s at face value. Funny that.

Wrong again. In fact, not a single person has said that. Not even anonymously. Nobody -- not a whole lot of people, not one person -- said that they witnessed Bonds use steroids, witnessed Bonds possess steroids, witnessed Bonds sign for a package that contained steroids, witnessed a doctor or dentist writing a prescription for steroids, etc.

Everyone should get a mistress for Christmas.

It's at the top of my wish list this year.

As for ARod -- I don't care how much money he spends or who he spends it on, but I predicted a year ago he'd either end up a Dodger or and Angel.

And with Torre taking over in Chavez Ravine, that leaves the Angels.

I really don't see him playing anywhere else -- SoCal is perfect for him.

Collusion?

It'd be an easier task to pinpoint the brief periods in baseball history when the owners weren't stacking the deck against the players.

Actually, it wouldn't -- they're non-existent.

I don't understand why anyone thinks that the owners need to be protected in anyway here. There is no way for them to be taken advantage of. The front office should determine ahead of time the maximum offer that they can make. If negotiations get beyond that point, you stop making offers. Teams will only lose if they set their minds on a target and allow themselves to outspend their budget when the price gets higher.

Second, you seem to have reading comprehension troubles. None of the boldfaced part, except the vague claim that he had "spoken about acquiring a high impact player," is attributed to Moreno. It's attributed to other people.

Yeah, the "other people" in this case being Moreno's own General Manager, who presumably conducts his own foreign policy without any input from Moreno.

No, probably not, which is precisely the problem.

In which case, what was your point of making the distinction between Moreno and "other people" in the first place, other than to demonstrate (accurately, I should note) that I'd too briefly glanced at the source of the latter part of what I thought was "Moreno's" statement? I plead guilty to the misread, but it seems that we both agree that it's a trivial distinction to begin with.

Well, by the link you provided, the "evidence" of this "collusion" is "According to one major-league official, Angels owner Arte Moreno assured commissioner Bud Selig..."

But Moreno was not contacted to confirm or deny this.

Sure, and if your argument had been that you questioned the reliability of the quote, I would have had no quarrel with your statements.

In that case, why didn't you question the reliability of the quote yourself, rather than assuming it was legit---and basing your hints of "collusion" on the fact that it was legitimate?

And gee, I always thought that one of your favorite words in the dictionary was "hearsay." "According to" a whole lot of people, a certain former Giants slugger is a certified juicer, but somehow I don't recall your accepting those "according to"s at face value. Funny that.

Wrong again. In fact, not a single person has said that.

No, not a single person.

Of course this can certainly be considered "hearsay," but then again so can what "one major league official" claimed that Moreno said. In both cases we have to accept them at their word, or choose not to.

And the bottom line here is that your ruminations on "collusion" are based on hearsay about what Moreno said, combined with speculation about what he might offer. That's quite some "evidence" of "collusion" that you've produced so far.

Alex Perros Posted: November 09, 2007 at 07:21 PM (#2610882)

Everyone should get a mistress for Christmas.

- oh really you think so??? yeh i can just see him all wrapped up under my christmas tree...

no i can hear the kidz now
MAMIIIIIIIIIIIIIII
santa claus done took offn his clothes and he tie a bow around his thingy and he lyin nekkid under the treeeeeeee

husband - yeh baby i got you a lil somethin for christmas

nekkid guy - yeh baby, i'm your christmas mistress

me - and WHAT am i supposed to do with HIM??? and boy you just cover that lil ol thang theres kidz here you know

nekkid guy - happy smile - well there grrrl, i need to you tell me i'm hot, f*** me, feed me, buy me stuff, clean my house and gaaaaaaaaaaaaakkkkk

me to CSI - gee i got NO idea how i could have strangled 2 men twice my size at the same time. but it was DEFINITELY self-defense

Let's assume that Arte Moreno did say that? Why would the second statements invalidate the first? If someone said:

"While I would probably hire a black person at some point, I assured the stockholders that I wouldn't if they were too much trouble. That being said, it's the best person for the job."

Would anyone actually say that it wasn't a racist statement because, after all, he also said that hiring the best person for the job?

The first statement, if said by Moreno, is strongly against self-interest while the second statement isn't. That gives me more reason to think that the first is closer to his true feelings.

Let's assume that Arte Moreno did say that?...

The first statement, if said by Moreno

Maybe someone might want to ask Moreno whether or not he said any of this in the first place. I hear that phone calls are pretty cheap these days.

Maybe someone might want to ask Moreno whether or not he said any of this in the first place. I hear that phone calls are pretty cheap these days

Andy, you sure give long "to-do" lists to those of us who oppose you in arguments here at BTF:

Get Greg Anderson in court
Lobby the BBWAA about McGwire
Get the HoF to set up a display about Selig to balance Ecko's asterisk
Call Arte Moreno

Maybe someone might want to ask Moreno whether or not he said any of this in the first place. I hear that phone calls are pretty cheap these days

Andy, you sure give long "to-do" lists to those of us oppose you in arguments here at BTF:

Get Greg Anderson in court
Lobby the BBWAA about McGwire
Get the HoF to set up a display about Selig to balance Ecko's asterisk
Call Arte Moreno

Well, the Christmas season is fast approaching.

What piques my interest is whether Moreno is happy about this. There are two strategic reasons this was leaked, as I see it - 1) MLB is putting Moreno on the record (You said you wouldn't bid high, now we're going to make sure everyone knows you said that so you have to stick to it), or 2) The leak is a negotiating ploy. If it's #1 Moreno has to be pissed right now for various obvious reasons. If it's #2 we're starting to sniff collusion if the leak is indeed coming from the MLB office, which the title of the leaker would indicate. They would have to be insane to collude right now with the league swimming in money (the settlement could be rather large) but lord knows people decide they "HAVE TO DO!!!" very stupid things sometimes.