Baseball Musings
Baseball Musings
November 21, 2004
Advice?

I had doubted the existence of collusion over the last couple of seasons. I assumed that smarter management and a flood of free agents had worked to help fix the value of players. So I was surprised to see this article and this form.


But there sure were a lot of agents who thought they knew it when they saw it over the last two winters.

So this offseason, Bud Selig and his friends at Major League Baseball have agreed to answer those collusion allegations by doing something 100 percent unprecedented:

Any time a team requests "advice" from MLB on how much to offer any free agent -- whether it's Carlos Beltran or Adam Hyzdu -- the team will no longer be allowed to receive that guidance via phone, cell phone, carrier pigeon or even masked courier.

Instead, MLB's Labor Relations Office now will have to dole out that advice in writing, via something called a "Free Agent Advice Form." And eventually, the players' union will get to inspect a copy of every one of those forms.


Why is the league giving advice? Aren't these teams supposed to be competing against each other? Aren't they supposed to hire people to figure these things out?

So over the last two seasons, clubs could just call up MLB and ask, "How much is this guy worth?" Yes, I'd say that was collusion. You'd be silly as a club not to do it. So even though the teams are not supposed to share information, they would be idiots not to ask for data that's available. (By the way, it's not clear if the clubs are charged for this, or if it's just a service of being part of the club.)

My general feeling is that MLB should not be in the business of giving clubs advice on the price of free agents. Part of building a winning club should be good management that knows the value of a player. However, if MLB wants to get into this business to save the clubs money by centralizing the gathering of this information, then it should be available to every club, the players, the agents and the general public. The the players would know what the league thinks they are worth, and can negotiate with clubs, giving them reasons why they deserve more. Either no information or transparent information.



Posted by David Pinto at 10:13 AM | Free Agents | TrackBack (0)
Comments

That's the thing with MLB, they've got that antitrust exemption.

Posted by: Adam Villani at November 21, 2004 01:09 PM

Wasn't that anti-trust exemption cut back some a few years ago? It also didn't help them in the last collusion case. I can't feel too bad for the players, if they only get $3-4 million instead of $6-8 mil. Of course I've got no sympathy for owners either.

Posted by: Robert at November 21, 2004 04:12 PM

The antitrust exemption was scaled back, but the wording of the law renders it largely impotent. (Just my opinion, and what do I know?)

I disagree that the existence of appraisal info for owners is evidence of collusion. They're like real estate comps or baseball card trading guides or like crappy stock advice on CNNFN--just because you know what the market has been and can be expected to be doesn't mean you are working against the market. Rather, it indicates that you're interested in behaving within the bounds of the market.

Free agency is an auction system, anyway, in which the winner necessarily loses because he has, by definition, paid over the market value (e.g., what everyone else bid), so I'm not convinced that the "research" really means anything anyway.

I'm not saying collusion doesn't exist. I'm just saying that this seems like pretty weak evidence of it.

Posted by: candi at November 21, 2004 04:44 PM

You left out what I thought was one of the more interesting lines in the article: "And it should mean that there won't be another duplication of last winter, when four outfielders (Reggie Sanders, Jose Guillen, Rondell White and Jose Cruz Jr.) all -- by sheer coincidence -- signed contracts worth two years, $6 million." Also, suddenly this year after two years of restraint, the owners are overpaying again. Something definitely smells funny about the last few years.

Posted by: Man of Leisure at November 21, 2004 05:57 PM

"The antitrust exemption was scaled back, but the wording of the law renders it largely impotent. (Just my opinion, and what do I know?)"

It's not impotent. What it does is allow the MLBPA to decertify and sue MLB for violation of antitrust laws if they unilaterally impose artificial salary restraints during a labor impasse, something they were unable to do in 1994, which is why they went on strike.

Posted by: Larry Mahnken at November 21, 2004 06:18 PM

You're right, Larry, but my admittedly limited understanding is that the law only gives standing to sue to people who are already baseball players with MLB (like the PA). What this means, then, is that MLB is still a legal trust--no outsider (like, for example, someone who wanted to establish a competing league) can petition the courts. So, although existing players are benefitted, the general idea of a free market is still thwarted.

Posted by: candi at November 21, 2004 08:03 PM

I believe Candi is correct in her last statement.

Posted by: David Pinto at November 21, 2004 10:26 PM

The Antitrust exemption doesnt apply in the case of collusion. Collusion is not illegal because it is an Antitrust violation, it is illegal because the Basic Agreement prohibits it. That's why the owners lost the collusion cases in the 80s.

Posted by: Bob Scharnberger at November 22, 2004 10:09 AM

Doesn't MLB rule on the legality of certain contract provisions? For example, Schilling's now infamous "World Series" clause?

Posted by: DominicJD at November 22, 2004 01:14 PM