I get what you are saying. What I am saying is that's just a consequence of free agency. Logically speaking, guys who can sign anywhere should be able to get together and decide where they want to go. So technically that is the definition of collusion. But when is a free agent really "free"? Saying you three are free agents but can't collectively decide where you go, while free agents, isn't true free agency to me.
this is what upsets me. Maybe that's what a salary cap necessarily begets though. If you know everyone is making the same offer, and you know that 3 years ahead of time, wouldn't you have made your mind up already? Think about it. If you knew that 3 years from now, five different companies would offer you essentially identical contracts, what would you spend the next 3 years thinking about? I'd think about my potential coworkers and where I'd most enjoy living and working. How could you NOT think about it and have made that decision way before "free agency" started in July?
what? so unless you talk with other players about where they're going, you're not free?? free agent means simply you can sign with any team you wish. nothing more. not that you can go out and manipulate the market. there is no distinction for teams dealing with free agents or players playing under contract with respect to collusion, either.
absolutely...not gonna happen. what will happen is they'll write something much stronger in the CBA next time it's up...something akin to what MLB has that prohibits this sort of thing.
other teams had the chance to offer you their "other considerations" as well in a typical market....those other factors are what distinguishes one team from another. if the decision is made ahead of time by the agreement of the sellers, there is no market.
I don't think players are manipulating the market by deciding to play together. The market can only pay so much, and teams can clear cap space to sign as many players as they like. If anything, these players took a loss financially to team up. This summer is a clear example, as multiple teams tried to clear enough cap space to sign two of those guys. It's not completely free if there is some hinderance in place like saying you can't go wherever you want, to play with whoever you want. Additionally, how is it manipulating the market when Lebron and Wade, both unsigned, talk before deciding where to play, but it's not manipulating the market when the Knicks sign Amare and he is like I'm gonna call guys to come play here with me? What's the difference?
because anything can happen once you start negotiating, for instance, did anyone see amare going to NY?
There is a market because the narrowest definition you're going to get in the legal sense is for NBA players overall - rather than a single product market like the "LeBron market" or the Wade market", because then everybody would be their own monopolist.
1. there is no hindrance in place for you signing whereever you want and playing with whoever you want. the potential hindrance would be the sellers in a market conspiring to determine where they're going. 2. once amare is signed, he's no longer part of the market.
ok...so if the top 3 free agents all conspire...that's a pretty sizeable chunk of the market, wouldn't you say? 3 players who would ordinarly all be looking at max dollar contracts in the same free agent pool.
So it's ok for the team to have their players (recently signed or not) talk to guys to come, but not the players themselves...even though they are free to sign wherever. That makes sense to you?
you can talk all you want about ''if you sign me, i can get other players to sign here..." what you can't do in MLB and arguably can't by law is go to other free agents and agree as to where you'll go together.
if you understand collusion it makes sense. what you're talking about would ARGUABLY be tampering.....IF the player that's being courted were actually still under contract. that a "rep"/player of team x contacts a player for team y and talks to him about leaving team y for team x. but in this scenario: 1. amare is no longer IN the market of sellers; 2. the free agent isn't conspiring with other sellers in the market; and 3. the free agent doesn't owe responsibilities to a franchise (a la, free agent) that could be tampered with.
It's not really a sizable chunk of the market, it's 3 roster spots out of a few hundred leaguewide. But the key issue is taht their agreement didn't have any impact on the market for NBA players. It wasn't used to make their salary demands higher since they were capped. It didn't drive any of their own offers up since they got max offers from multiple bidders anyway. None of them are making any more money, nor did they ever think they could in light of the strictures of the CBA. In fact they are probably making less money. Overall effects on the competitive nature of the NBA player free agent market were nil. Maybe - MAYBE you could find a collusive anticompetitive effect if LeBron said that "I'm a package deal, anybody that pays the max for me must also pay the max to my boy Damon Jones." Now, Damon Jones is clearly not a max-contract player so it seems liek a horizontal tying arrangement (athough it's not clear) so that MIGHT have some anticompetitive effects. But even then I think it would be a close call since LeBron, ultimately, only fills one roster spot, so if you don't want LeBron and Damon Jones you have a chance to sign Wade and Bosh or whoever - effectively it's a market definition exercise again. I should also state that I went back and read the original blog post and some of the bloggers comments and I'm even less impressed than before with the antitrust theorizing. The guy seems like a hardcore ideologue trying to make a point that antitrust enforcement is bad or misplaced and keeps going back to the fact taht some of the statutes are really vague, and that the DOJ just goes after the little guy blah blah blah. Well yeah, of course they are, all antitrust statutes are super-vague, that's why we have hundreds of years of judge made doctrine in the form of rule-of-reason analysis, per se liability, antitrust injury etc - and under those doctrines there doesn't seem to be any grounds to try to craft an antitrust remedy for this situation since it's not an antitrust problem.
Then I guess my point is it's stupid and illogical to apply collussion to NBA free agency, as far as 2 guys getting together and deciding where they want to play. It may be the technical definition of collussion, but it still makes no sense. Life is like that sometimes. Everything doesn't fit every scenario. I don't believe there is anything wrong with 10 guys who can sign wherever they want getting together and deciding as a group, since at the end of the day it's still their right to sign wherever they want....and the rules don't prohibit them from talking (now this is different assuming they were still under contract, ie tampering).
