Those other roster spots aren't of concern in this free agent market, right? There are x number of players up for free agency this summer...that's your market. The guys under contract taking up roster spots can't possibly be part of the market right now. These guys make up a huge percentage together of total dollars spent in the current free agent market. This may keep it from being a Sherman problem.....but I don't think it addresses the question of whether this is technically collusion...and whether there's not a remedy otherwise for that. Hmmm...it actually seems to me that you're making an argument here that there COULD be antitrust problem simply because the law is fluid and judge-made. If the statutes weren't so vague, I'd be much more in the camp of, "there's nothing here...." But get the right judge?????
MadMax, I'm with you and respect your valiant effort in this thread. I think the case you make, supported by arguments and examples is pretty compelling and in a perfect world, it should be investigated as classic collusion. OTOH, I see what SamFisher is saying. I personally disagree that this "collusion" had no impact on the "market". David Lee's contract was entirely impacted by the collusion. Absent the collusion, Lebron may have signed with the Knicks, who may not have then been able to sign and trade Lee, or might have only been willing to do so to a different team or etc., etc., etc. Granted, it's also possible to say Lee probably got the type of contract he would have otherwise gotten...but it's impossible to know for certain, especially when you broaden the scope to include other contract terms. And that's just David Lee. Sticking with the Knicks, Raymond Felton's contract was certainly impacted by the "collusion". The Knicks wouldn't have signed Felton to his contract had they signed another max FA, leaving Felton to sign with ???...or back with his old team, at a reduced rate, I'm sure. Still, I think SamFisher is right, that it is all just too "speculative" and un-determinable to really prove.
Of course they will disagree. It's a power shift from them to the players, and the players are to dumb to stick together and fight.
interesting...the players union in baseball has been pretty strong, historically, and they agreed to this a long time ago.
Baseball also doesn't have a salary cap. So if 10 of the best players want to go play for the Yankees then they can as long as they Yankees are willing to pay. And that seems to happen all the time. I honestly don't think it's going to be an issue in basketball either. I don't see many players turning down $$. I'm still shocked those 3 did.
How much did they really turn down, though? They turned some down, to be sure...but not as much as it would seem, from a pure contract perspective, as there is no state income tax in Florida. Ohio, on the other hand, would tax Lebron 5.925% on pretty much all of his income. I'm not an expert on taxes, but I'd guess this would also apply to some of his endorsement income as well. Whereas in Florida, Lebrons income (endorsement included?) has no state income tax...
No - they are of concern - that's the narrowest definition of a market your're going to get here. YOu can't really say that a worker has substantial market power simply because he makes a lot of money, in the end he sells the same product - 82 games worth of services. If a team doesn't have access to LeBron, it can sign any number of players to take his place and deliver 82 games worth of services. Likewise, LeBron can't clone himself and deliver 15 LeBrons to fill out your entire roster. Even in dollar terms it's not that much. Assume the big 3 make 20mm per annum. There are 30 NBA teams with a median real payroll of, IIRC, around 60 mm (higher than the cap i believe). that means that LeBron & Co's 60 mm per year take up 3% of the 1.8 billion of NBA payrolls, that's not really enough even on those terms. There's not, there's no common law crime of "collusion" that i know of. The statutes might be vague, but the law isn't. I also haven't researched it but I bet there's a number of exceptions for labor contracts here as well. You're confusing effects on the competitors in the marketplace with effects on the competitiveness on the market. Actions which harm or weaken competitors aren't antitrust injury. If you buy a used car I wanted before I get to the lot, it certainly effects my choice of car, and probably the price I pay for a similar car, but it's not an act in restraint of trade that negatively affects competition and inflicts an antitrust injury on me.
Well, it's a nearly impossible to distinguish distinction, then. How was the competitiveness of the marketplace not impacted? Using the Felton example, you now have very few remaining wing players / ball-handling guard types left, Felton now being the cream of that crop, but with maybe more buyers still out there looking to fill that need, making it a more competitive marketplace, no? Or using David Lee. Had Lebron gone to NY the Knicks wouldn't have even possibly been able to resign David Lee, meaning the marketplace of potential "acquirors" shrinks from virtually any sign and trade partner to just teams with cap space. It's an unclear distinction to me how that doesn't impact to competitiveness of the marketplace for a free agent big man, like David Lee. New Jersey, for instance, is unable to acquire David Lee now, partially because NY was able to sign and trade him. This, in turn, as Rockets fans know, may now drive up the price for a player like Scola, which in turn means the Rockets may not be able to competitively match the bid if the Nets make a ridiculous offer because they are in need of an experienced PF.
1. I have a difficult time understanding how people who aren't in the market as sellers still make up the market. The rest of the payrolls don't factor in to the market of players that these 3 players comprised in the offseason. They weren't roster spots anymore....they were players without contracts. Sellers on the open market. The market is comprised solely of sellers and buyers...not those who've already sold and now comprise roster spots. 2. Courts in these cases don't take a "live in the bubble approach." Who these players are relative to the rest of the market would draw consideration and factor in. These guys were the most impactful persons in this market. And the money relative to the rest of the guys in that market is signficant. 3. Again...I'm not talking about crime. I'm talking about civil actions where teams or others could seek relief. And I'm not saying they would, even if it were available to them.
I always hated him, but in this situation, that whiny attitude may help the entire league's parity and competition.
Because if you define markets that narrowly, all antitrust analysis falls apart and every single consumer or producer or worker becomes a single product monopolist. The test is based on reasonable substitutes. Will Cleveland be able to find somebody to sub in for LeBron? Yes. More than likely, they will be able to get somebody to fill in the roster slot. Further, you can't really time-limit a market the way you are trying to do. You are basing it on available UFA's at a given time and available slots. Players become and do not become UFA's at various points. Second, teams acquire/hire/fire palyers in may ways, like trade, draft, buyouts etc. If we tried that approach, we would have all sorts of crazy antitrust claims, like "monopolizing the price of bread at 5 pm on a wednesday" or something like that. You stop defining a market when you run out of the ability to substitute for the product in question. Not when the money was fixed in advance, and when their ultimate decision had zero impact on the available cap dollars, which was also fixed in advance. Doesn't matter, there's no common law civil crime of collusion either, there is a civil conspiracy but that requires an underlying illegal/unlawful act and it's a theory of liability i htink in most states rather than a cause by itself.
This is pretty bad for the NBA if the Heats become unbeatable. All the top superstars will start forming their own trio.
As much as I think this sucks for the competitive balance in the league, I don't have a problem with players getting together to decide where to play. Once they are under contract player are mostly (excluding the rare no-trade clause) at the mercy of the teams to be traded anywhere at any time. Free agency is one of the few times they have leverage. For me the bigger issue is when players sign contracts at less than the market rate, as this distorts the competitive balance. The Lakers tried it (and failed, thankfully) with Payton and Malone. Now Miami will get that with the big 3 taking less and all the vet-min bandwagoners to come.
Could happen. The NBA could actually turn into European soccer, where there's only 3-4 teams that a relevant. However I already beat the Heat in the whole "trio" stuff on my Live. Had Rose, Wade, MerGady, Bosh, Yao. They need to stop copying me.
I disagree with your take on this.... but it doesn't matter anyway, because even if I'm right, no one is going to have the willpower to put this together.
