Player collusion in Seattle?

[bt12483]

Right, but you're "proof" was D. Smith

And, you mean the agents, the guys that get a percentage of a contract? Yup, no reason they would like to see no cap and higher contracts...

Not all agents are crooked and money hungry scumbags.

When they see guys that could previously get a 5/$50M only getting offered 1/$5M...it tends to set off buzzers and alarms.

Suppose you had a business partner that previously bought your goods for $10...and the next time you talk to him he says I will give you $2 maximum. You wouldn't be perplexed as to why the sudden drop? You wouldn't want to know why his new $2 point is so low, when he never had any issue at the $10 level?

[iggyman555]

Not all agents are crooked and money hungry scumbags.

When they see guys that could previously get a 5/$50M only getting offered 1/$5M...it tends to set off buzzers and alarms.

Suppose you had a business partner that previously bought your goods for $10...and the next time you talk to him he says I will give you $2 maximum. You wouldn't be perplexed as to why the sudden drop? You wouldn't want to know why his new $2 point is so low, when he never had any issue at the $10 level?

not sure why there is so much hostility towards you here but i tend to agree that something 'fishy' is going on but not sure if its collusion or not

[NCRAVEN]

Not all agents are crooked and money hungry scumbags.

Who said they were crooked money hungry scumbags?

When they see guys that could previously get a 5/$50M only getting offered 1/$5M...it tends to set off buzzers and alarms.

Yes, when they see guys who were previously in their prime and well under 30 getting big dollars who are now past their prime and well over 30 not getting big dollars, something must be up, like collusion!

I know if I was an agent and my client was asking me why he can't get the big dollars like X, I would be happy to tell him, "collusion", instead of, you're old, you're past your prime, your skills are diminished and you got burnt every other play last year.

Suppose you had a business partner that previously bought your goods for $10...and the next time you talk to him he says I will give you $2 maximum. You wouldn't be perplexed as to why the sudden drop? You wouldn't want to know why his new $2 point is so low, when he never had any issue at the $10 level?

That's not really not comparable, but yes, I would want to know why. It would likely be that someone else has a better product or at least a better value.

[GOTA]

Not all agents are crooked and money hungry scumbags.

When they see guys that could previously get a 5/$50M only getting offered 1/$5M...it tends to set off buzzers and alarms.

Suppose you had a business partner that previously bought your goods for $10...and the next time you talk to him he says I will give you $2 maximum. You wouldn't be perplexed as to why the sudden drop? You wouldn't want to know why his new $2 point is so low, when he never had any issue at the $10 level?

Ultimately teams are required to spend a certain amount of money. If they choose to spend more on less players then how are they doing anything wrong? We've read many times that more than half the Ravens cap next season will be spent on just 7 players. The new CBA has pushed that mentality throughout the league. As long as the total remains the same it doesn't matter how it's allocated.

Now if you are an agent and you don't represent one of those 7 players you're screwed. You just took a massive hit and your client might fire you. If you are D Smith and the votes of Romo and Flacco are equal to the votes of the guys who now are on a 1 year contract you are also screwed because there are now a hell of lot more have nots than haves. Agents and Smith are going to do every possible to make themselves look good and who can blame them? What choice do they have?

The can set off all the buzzers and alarms that they want but unless the total money spent is way down it's just going to be talk.

[bt12483]

Ultimately teams are required to spend a certain amount of money. If they choose to spend more on less players then how are they doing anything wrong? We've read many times that more than half the Ravens cap next season will be spent on just 7 players. The new CBA has pushed that mentality throughout the league. As long as the total remains the same it doesn't matter how it's allocated.

Now if you are an agent and you don't represent one of those 7 players you're screwed. You just took a massive hit and your client might fire you. If you are D Smith and the votes of Romo and Flacco are equal to the votes of the guys who now are on a 1 year contract you are also screwed because there are now a hell of lot more have nots than haves. Agents and Smith are going to do every possible to make themselves look good and who can blame them? What choice do they have?

The can set off all the buzzers and alarms that they want but unless the total money spent is way down it's just going to be talk.

That is not what you legally need to prove for collusion.

Sherman Act, section 1:

Every contract, combination...or conspiracy, in restraint of trade...is declared to be illegal.

[moose10101]

Unfortunately this is the real world. And you don't always have 100% of the proof on day one.

Go ask a lawyer what happens when you have 0% of the proof when you file.

[bt12483]

Go ask a lawyer what happens when you have 0% of the proof when you file.

OK. I will ask myself since I am a 3rd year law student. Is that close enough for you?

With "0%" proof I would say you might run into Iqbal/Twombly issues. Care to comment on those?

[moose10101]

Positional (de)valuation can show collusion.

For example, say 2 years ago the average value of top defensive player contracts was $10M/year.

Say this year it is $8M/year.

Say next year it is $6M/year.

Say the year after that it is $4M/year.

So has the average for top defensive players gone down? What is your definition of "top defensive player"? Based on what you've written, it seems to be "a guy who got a big contract five years ago", and it should be obvious that your definition is totally off base.

In a world where Kruger signs for $8 million/year, Ellerbe signs for $7 million/year, Cary Williams signs for $5.7 million/year, and Clay Matthews is on the verge of signing for $13 (!!!) million/year, you're going to have to prove that defensive player salaries are dropping more than any other non-QB position.

[moose10101]

OK. I will ask myself since I am a 3rd year law student. Is that close enough for you?

With "0%" proof I would say you might run into Iqbal/Twombly issues. Care to comment on those?

IDK, are you a good student? Are you practicing for Moot Court?

[bt12483]

IDK, are you a good student? Are you practicing for Moot Court?

I'm just saying, I actually have done pleadings. I actually have an antitrust class. I've actually studied the antitrust suits filed against the NFL, MLB, NBA, etc.

I actually have a sports law class. I actually have talked to agents and Mark Levin from the NFLPA. I actually have a teacher that was an agent in the 80's and knows people like Tom Condon, that graduated from the University of Baltimore. I actually have Pat Moriarty coming in to speak to my class in a few weeks.

So I would appreciate a little less shit from people that haven't done those things and aren't privy to such discussions.

I created this thread because I thought weird things were happening in free agency. My suspicion is not alone.

You can believe it or not, but the fact is other people actually in the industry and not on a message board are worried.

[GOTA]

That is not what you legally need to prove for collusion.

Sherman Act, section 1:

Every contract, combination...or conspiracy, in restraint of trade...is declared to be illegal.

How is it restraint of trade if the totals end up the same? In fact because this is the first year of the salary cap floor teams are going have to spend more money this year than last year. How is there even a case if more money is spent?

By the way I am not trying to give you shit over this. I think it's a good conversation and it's definitely in the news. I disagree with you but I think this is a good thread.

[bt12483]

How is it restraint of trade if the totals end up the same? In fact because this is the first year of the salary cap floor teams are going have to spend more money this year than last year. How is there even a case if more money is spent?

If owners conspire together to fix wages there is an issue. You seem to only be looking at it from a salary cap perspective, which is not where the legal focus fully resides.