batmagadanleadoff

batmagadanleadoff wrote: batmagadanleadoff wrote: batmagadanleadoff wrote: I'm not sure what the distinction would be, in any event. US courts have been enforcing arbitration agreements to decide antitrust issues for about 30 years. The distinction is that Courts in the US cannot change an arbitrator's findings. They can only assess whether the arbitrator acted properly. The Court in Finley noted this on numerous occasions. Are the courts bound by all of the arbitrator's findings, or only the findings of fact? Because otherwise, there would hardly be anything left to litigate.

Edgy DC wrote: It's amazing how much drama is built up around this vesting option. Really dramatic considering the team is counting change and doubling down to meet their debt obligations, and they have every incentive to make a $17 million dollar obligation go away, but counter incentives (1) to make their fans think they would never make a baseball move to make them less competitive, and (2) not incur any more legal trouble. If K-Rod's option doesn't vest and a grievance is filed, the Mets may not be able to afford the legal fees to fight K-Rod, the way things are going. Anyway ... my new theory on "the option" is that it was Jeff's handiwork. Jeff was coming into his own as a COO, was eager to erase the memory of the Mets bullpen calamity of 2008, thought that the family's money grew on trees, and targeted K-Rod as the solution at any cost. This was how Jeffy was going to splash onto the scene and make his mark as a smooth baseball operator ... and hence the idiotic K-Rod contract. In this scenario, Minaya is the loyal soldier falling on his sword to insulate ownership from the blame and ridicule they'd otherwise deserve.

The Second Spitter wrote: I'm not sure what the distinction would be, in any event. US courts have been enforcing arbitration agreements to decide antitrust issues for about 30 years. The distinction is that Courts in the US cannot change an arbitrator's findings. They can only assess whether the arbitrator acted properly. The Court in Finley noted this on numerous occasions. Are the courts bound by all of the arbitrator's findings, or only the findings of fact? The Second Spitter wrote: In any case, I had a quick look in the 1973 CBA and there was an arbitration procedure in place, very similar to the current one. Well ... Flood's case preceded the 1973 CBA. But more to the point, what the hell are you doing with a copy of the 1973 CBA, and where did you get it from?

The Second Spitter wrote: batmagadanleadoff wrote: I don't know that Flood would've "been appealing" from his arbitration. Isn't the arbitration procedure insular and separate from a judicial proceeding. Had flood lost in an MLB arbitration, he would then have started a brand new case in the US Courts, raising whatever challenges he saw fit. Ok. It just sounded like you were speculating whether Flood appealed against arbitration ruling to the Courts, in continuance. If I was speculating, I would've been speculating on a hypothetical, since we now know that Flood didn't arbitrate his case. MLB decided Flood's case through a series of correspondence exchanges. I'm not sure what the distinction would be, in any event. US courts have been enforcing arbitration agreements to decide antitrust issues for about 30 years.

The Second Spitter wrote: batmagadanleadoff wrote: Of course it could have. MLB's rules back then, could have required that all grievances be initially arbitrated through a procedure designed by MLB, before the losing side (in that case, Flood, obviously) proceeds to a Court of Law. To this day, labor agreements in many industries routinely obligate the worker to arbitrate before trying his or her case in a court of law. As to the specifics of the Flood case, I assumed that he arbitrated (and lost) before he took his case to the Federal courts. If Flood didn't first arbitrate, then it was because he didn't have to, not because he couldn't. I'll look it up to see what actually happened, but the idea that it was not possible for Flood to lose in arbitration as a prerequisite to litigating in the US courts is wrong. My point is that you don't bring a action based a violation on the Sherman Act to an MLB arbitration procedure, because clearly there's a lack of juridiction. Because Flood could not appeal to a Court on substantive grounds from Arbitration, he need to find another cause of action. Thus, he filed initated a seperate action in the District Court based on the Sherman Act. Exactly the same thing in the Finley v Kuhn case (the one involving Rollie Fingers). I don't know that Flood would've "been appealing" from his arbitration. Isn't the arbitration procedure insular and separate from a judicial proceeding. Had flood lost in an MLB arbitration, he would then have started a brand new case in the US Courts, raising whatever challenges he saw fit. Arbitration procedures are encouraged by the courts -- they ease the burden of litigation on the judicial system by often resolving matters before they're litigated. Doesn't, for example, the SEC also require arbitration, even of issues that the US courts have exclusive jurisdiction over?

The Second Spitter wrote: There was an article in the SABR circular in the late 90's comprehensively analysing vesting options, including the duties and obligations of ballclubs, in relation to them. I'll take a squiz to see if I can find it, but can you post your articles so I'm not looking for the same thing? Your articles would be greatly appreciated. The articles I read appeared online very recently and quoted Union rep Michael Weiner in the context of discussing K-Rod's vesting option.

It appears that MLB did not have an arbitration system set in place when Curt Flood was traded. Back then, baseball's system for settling grievances was primitive and one-sided: The commissioner of baseball, Bowie Kuhn, --who was hand-picked by the owners-- had unilateral powers to settle player grievances. Before Flood could start his Federal suit against MLB, challenging the reserve clause, he was first required to take his case to the commissioner. It was only after Kuhn denied Flood's request to void the trade that he was eligible to litigate in the Federal courts, as per the then existing rules of MLB.

The Second Spitter wrote: batmagadanleadoff wrote: I recently read some news articles, specifically on the K-Rod option situation, where Union reps stated that there is precedent within MLB that a team is obligated to use a player in ways that are consistent with a team's good faith effort to compete. But who knows how that rule, if it exists, would or should be interpreted. I would think that managing payroll for both the long and short term is also an element of competing. There was an article in the SABR circular in the late 90's comprehensively analysing vesting options, including the duties and obligations of ballclubs, in relation to them. I'll take a squiz to see if I can find it, but can you post your articles so I'm not looking for the same thing? . I also recall an article in SI circa 1992. batmagadanleadoff wrote: On second thought, I would assume that ultimately, the losing side would have the opportunity to have a Court of law review the issue after the arbitration procedure has been exhausted. That's how Curt Flood's case progressed. I should just google this to be sure. It should be in MLB's CBA, but I'm feeling lazy right now. Flood's case was an anti-trust case -- it could not have possibly originated from the arbitration procedure. Also I'm fairly sure if you agree to arbitration in the US you lose grounds for substantive judicial review. The only appeal you make to a Court is on procedural grounds. Of course it could have. MLB's rules back then, could have required that all grievances be initially arbitrated through a procedure designed by MLB, before the losing side (in that case, Flood, obviously) proceeds to a Court of Law. To this day, labor agreements in many industries routinely obligate the worker to arbitrate before trying his or her case in a court of law. As to the specifics of the Flood case, I assumed that he arbitrated (and lost) before he took his case to the Federal courts. If Flood didn't first arbitrate, then it was because he didn't have to, not because he couldn't. I'll look it up to see what actually happened, but the idea that it was not possible for Flood to lose in arbitration as a prerequisite to litigating in the US courts is wrong.

John Cougar Lunchbucket wrote: Just consider yourself lucky you found a joint that still bothers to sell the things at any price. I was a real slut for the cheap bin at Tower back before that chain was crippled by the Internet. I am streaming 'Schmillson' right now. Of course, those bargain bin CD's wouldn't be bargain bin CD's if not for the internet and digitized computerized music. Chicken or egg? Egg or chicken?

LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr wrote: There's bad with money... and then there's BAD with money, plus cheap, plus knee-jerk-interfering, plus racist, plus ACTIVELY sticking it to the fans. Trust me: most, if not all of the above trammel lawns in which the grass is far from green, much less greener than ours. If you disagree, it's because you don't know enough about guys like Snyder, Sterling and the rest... or because you're being willfully ignorant. That's some endorsement: Fred Wilpon - He's no Marge Schott.

G-Fafif wrote: batmagadanleadoff wrote: What's funnier than the rogues' gallery of owners photos posted above is that you all think that the Wilpons are better. Over at the Billy Grabarkewitz Board or wherever seasoned Dodger fans engage and amuse each other, I can't imagine the Wilpons' pictures wouldn't have gone up in their "it could be worse than the McCourts" thread. Maybe it wouldn't have gone up immediately (or three years ago), but Fred and Jeff have probably arrived on the grand stage of oh no owners. Not that it isn't an extraordinarily immense stage. You know ... you beat me to that Jeff Wilpon posting. I saw those owner pictures go up from on the road, and immediately though to to post Jeffy, but I don't know how to do that from my smartphone, so I didn't. Then I scrolled down a few more messages and saw that it was no longer necessary.

Well ... then I stand uncorrected. I finally get to experience one of the rare fringe benefits of aging: that the music I liked when I belonged to the "18 years old - 30 years old" demographic is suddenly dirt cheap ...and I can now buy [crossout:pjc3ikk4]a CD[/crossout:pjc3ikk4] an album that I like for less than the price of a magazine.

I picked up the Nilsson Schmilsson [crossout:2avae6z7]album[/crossout:2avae6z7] CD yesterday. It was in the $5.00 bargain bin at J&R Music, NYC. Great stuff.

Riches to rags: A guide to New York Mets decrepitude It's a bad sign for any business when getting sued for a billion dollars is the narrative�and then things get worse. But that's exactly what happened to the New York Mets this week, with the news that Major League Baseball had provided the team with a $25 million loan, and wouldn't be providing any additional money. The New York Post now reports that the Mets are seeking a new loan elsewhere, this one to cover basic operating expenses. And it is far from clear than anyone will give it to them. The news provides further evidence that the team has run out of conventional ways to stay afloat financially. Which means that what was unthinkable just a few months ago may soon be a reality: massive cuts in salary. The Mets are well-positioned to dump salary following the 2011 season, merely by letting expiring contracts go without replacing them. In some instances, the effect on the baseball team will be minimal: Luis Castillo's $6 million annual salary and the $12 million owed Oliver Perez for 2011 will come off the books. But others will need to be replaced on the field: Carlos Beltran, Jose Reyes and Francisco Rodriguez can all be free agents following the season (though, should he finish 55 games, Rodriguez's absurd $17.5 million 2012 option will vest). The team currently has a payroll of around $135 million, but just under $66 million committed for next season. It is impossible to know what the salary restrictions on the 2012 Mets will be, but as long as the Wilpons both own the Mets and face the financial pressure they are currently under, everything is on the table. Here's a look at the diminishing options the Mets will have, depending on where the budget is set. $150 million: This would represent an increase over 2011, but would keep the Mets in line with their 2010 payroll. At this price, Jose Reyes could be retained, even if a strong 2011 season prices him at around $20 million per season over a long-term deal. If Albert Pujols reaches free agency, the Mets could sign him, and move Ike Davis to right field. That only gets the Mets to around $125 million, including raises from arbitration for players such as Mike Pelfrey, Jon Niese and Angel Pagan. Should CC Sabathia opt out of his contract with the Yankees, the Mets could be serious bidders for him as well. And free-agent pitchers Chris Capuano and Chris Young could be replaced by either free agents with stronger health track records, or through trades that take on additional salary. In other words, the sky's the limit. In this scenario, the Mets also have $90 million to spend. Right now, they are pursuing a loan just to meet basic operating expenses. So they aren't likely to increase their payroll 150 percent. $125 million: This would bring the Mets back to around 2006 levels. Reyes could be retained, either Sabathia or Pujols could be chased, and other marginal improvements could also be made. Having an overachieving GM like Sandy Alderson in charge of making these decisions will maximize what they can do. But once again, this would involve an additional outlay of around $60 million above and beyond the expenses they already are having trouble meeting. $100 million: Jose Reyes can be retained, but that leaves around $12 million to fill the closer's role, several rotation spots, right field, and second base if neither Brad Emaus nor Daniel Murphy proves up to the task. It will mean another off-season of penny-pinching. $80 million: Goodbye, Jose Reyes. The Mets would have around $14 million to fill all the positions mentioned above, along with shortstop. The talent remaining on the team would consist of David Wright, Jason Bay, Angel Pagan, Josh Thole, Johan Santana, Mike Pelfrey, R.A. Dickey, D.J. Carrasco, Ronny Paulino, and that's it. They'd have $14 million to fill out the rest of the roster. And remember: That's still $14 million in additional expense. If they are in receivership, for instance, they may not be allowed to spend that money. $60 million: With Bay likely untradeable, they could either decimate the pitching staff by dealing Pelfrey and Dickey�Santana could also be immovable, unless he has a monster second half upon returning from shoulder surgery�or they could just free up salary by dealing David Wright. Clearly, the picture starts to get ugly around $100 million and below. Baseball teams have certainly experienced success below that figure, but they did so on the backs of young, cost-controlled talent. Unfortunately, the biggest liability Sandy Alderson inherited from Omar Minaya was a lack of near-ready minor league talent. Re-stocking that farm system should take several years. Without an injection of new capital, it's hard to see how the Mets will be able to avoid cutting costs. Then they'll lose their most productive players and, before long, their ability to compete with teams whose owners haven't bet the farm on a Ponzi scheme. As long as the Wilpons are hanging on, there is no relief in sight.

What's funnier than the rogues' gallery of owners photos posted above is that you all think that the Wilpons are better.

I don't assume that new owners will be any better but the Wilpons are bad enough that I'd welcome the risk that change brings. With all of their resources, The Mets have managed just one first place finish in the last 21 seasons. In the same time frame, the Pirates won the division three times, and they haven't competed in the NL East since 1993. The Pirates haven't even finished above .500 since 1992. The Mets play in the most important metropolitan area in the world, and the USA's largest market. NYC could probably support two more baseball teams. And yet the Wilpons buiit a 45,000 seat stadium that's probably too small for most of the other cities hosting MLB, let alone NY. It's the biggest fuck you to the fans from among too many fuck you's from the Wilpons to keep track of. They didn't care because they were going to make their ticket money on the sale of their luxury suites and $200 tickets. How much worse could it get?

On second thought, I would assume that ultimately, the losing side would have the opportunity to have a Court of law review the issue after the arbitration procedure has been exhausted. That's how Curt Flood's case progressed. I should just google this to be sure. It should be in MLB's CBA, but I'm feeling lazy right now.

Edgy DC wrote: I would think that managing payroll for both the long and short term is also an element of competing. Agreed here. But as long as no team is willing to make that argument, each case in which they support the player's alleged rights to pursue his vesting numbers become precedent in favor of the players, with Cora a rare counterprecedent. You raise a question about baseball's arbitration procedure that' always interested me, but that I admit to not knowing the answer. In baseball --- what counts as precedent? In the real world, a lower court is usually bound by the higher courts' rulings, but not by a court of equal jurisdiction. MLB may operate differently, but applying real-world dynamics to MLB's grievance process, the rulings from an earlier arbitrator of equal or coordinate jurisdiction, no matter how sound or persuasive, shouldn't bind the next arbitrator that is confronted with the same or similar issue. So I always wondered if there is an appeals process in MLB available to the losing side in a grievance -- an opportunity for a higher court or panel of arbitrators to review the lower decision. I would assume that there has to be, but I don't know for sure. Otherwise, MLB would be bound by the incorrect or flawed or unreasonable decision of the first arbitrator that gets to decide the issue.

Assuming Grimm's hypothetical scenario plays out, what team would want to sign K-Rod, where signing K-Rod virtually guarantees a $17.5M contract for 2012? Earlier in this thread, I wrote that I would manage K-Rod, not only to purposely avoid the vesting option, but also so that K-Rod would never be on pace to vest -- this would facilitate an in-season trade because the acquiring team won't necessarily be burdened with the option, either.

You know that my opinion on this issue is with ownership. I'd think that managing payroll is a legitimate business purpose, and should qualify as grounds for cutting K-Rod right before his option were to vest. If a team were to raise this defense in a grievance, it might have to open up its books though, in order to prove that defense. If I were in charge, I might not require evidence of the team's finances, because I'm of the opinion that a team may do as it wishes here, and that a player should have no legal expectation of the amount of playing time he's alotted. I recently read some news articles, specifically on the K-Rod option situation, where Union reps stated that there is precedent within MLB that a team is obligated to use a player in ways that are consistent with a team's good faith effort to compete. But who knows how that rule, if it exists, would or should be interpreted. I would think that managing payroll for both the long and short term is also an element of competing.

Prince: I can't keep up with you. You crank it out faster than I can read it. Congrats on the gig. Good for you.

The Mets are tapped out. Even their lender of last resort, MLB, has cut off their credit. Multiple sources report that the team won't be able to finance basic operating expenses unless they are approved for yet another loan in the $25 - $50M range -- this, the sports franchise equivalent of, say, one of us needing to borrow $500.00 from our neighbor to maintain basic phone, gas and electric services. Yesterday, the NYT reported that more panic has gripped the front office because the early returns on 2011 ticket sales are dreadful. Today's WSJ reports that the Mets financial losses for this season are "expected to climb significantly". So my questions are ... can all of this be reconciled with Alderson's repeated comments that his operating budget won't be affected? How can this be true when the Mets can barely keep the lights on, it seems? Or are Alderson's comments wordplay ... that his operating budget won't be affected because it's already been reduced, and that it's the reduced budget that is still intact? How many of the dozens of millions of dollars that come off the payroll for 2012 will be reinvested into new player salaries, given the heavy debt service that will burden the Mets next year, just like this year? "Cause it seems to me, that the team has to pay the electric bill before they can think about re-signing Jose Reyes and any other big name, and if they're struggling to borrow money to pay for the basic necessities, than they won't be re-signing Reyes even if they'd like to.

Fuck Jeff Francoeur.

At least some of Picard's allegations now seem to have more than a ring of truth -- namely that the Mets were so leveraged that they came to rely on Madoff''s unrealistic profit stream, without which the team could not function. (And hence, the owners looked the other way).

Baseball pulls plug on Mets. Where's Tim Marchman to pile on? Baseball Said to End Big Loans to Mets By DAVID WALDSTEIN Published: March 1, 2011 The Mets, in need of cash to pay off loans and meet other financial obligations, can no longer look to Major League Baseball for substantial monetary assistance, according to two people briefed on the team�s finances. The league, having already extended the Mets a $25 million loan in November to help the team meet operating costs, will not make another major loan to the club, according to the two people. The people would not be identified because they were not authorized to speak publicly on the matter. Baseball�s decision to restrict the Mets� access to further emergency funds probably leaves the team�s beleaguered owners, Fred Wilpon and Saul Katz, without their best remaining source of cash as they struggle to maintain control of the team in the face of a $1 billion lawsuit brought by the trustee for victims of the Bernard L. Madoff fraud. Mets officials did not respond to two requests for comment. The two people briefed on the situation said baseball could conceivably re-evaluate its position in the coming months if it thought it needed to protect its larger interests, like trying to avoid a fire sale of one of its elite clubs. In addition, with opening day a month away, baseball could make a modest short-term loan to help the Mets avoid defaulting on certain payments, like player salaries. But it would not be enough to rescue the Mets� owners in any long-term sense, the people suggested. �It�s tapped out,� one of the people briefed on the situation said, referring to the availability of more money. After months spent denying they faced any financial difficulties, the Mets, with significant debt on their team and cable television operation, announced in January that they were seeking to sell 25 percent of the team, valued by Forbes magazine last year at $858 million. They recently acknowledged they would consider selling a larger stake but maintained they would never sell a controlling interest. The Mets say the sale offering is because of the �uncertainties� surrounding the lawsuit filed by the Madoff trustee, Irving H. Picard. The lawsuit, filed in December, accuses the owners of having turned a blind eye to the possibility Madoff was operating a fraud, all while they invested ever more of their money and reaped ever more of his �fictitious� profits. The judge overseeing the suit has chosen Mario M. Cuomo, the former New York governor, to try to serve as a mediator in settlement talks. But the Mets appear to be under significant financial duress independent of the lawsuit. The $25 million loan, which was made after the Mets had already used up an M.L.B.-sponsored line of credit worth tens of millions of dollars, was extended to the Mets before the lawsuit was filed. Some in the industry see the loan as an indication that because of their heavy indebtedness, they are no longer able to borrow substantially from traditional commercial lending institutions. With pressure mounting, and the financial pipeline from M.L.B. shut off in any meaningful way, the Mets� ability to keep creditors at bay could hasten the sale of a portion of the team as they seek cash. The Mets, of course, would love to get the best price for the piece of the club, but the process takes time as potential buyers must be vetted first by the club�s representative in the sale, Steve Greenberg, and then Major League Baseball. Baseball recently intervened to try to shore up another franchise, the Texas Rangers. In June 2009, soon after Texas� holding company defaulted on $525 million in loans, Major League Baseball provided the club with a $15 million line of credit. Then, in November 2009, baseball again used its $1.2 billion credit facility to let the Rangers borrow up to $10 million more. The Rangers had apparently used $18.5 million of the $25 million by the time they filed for bankruptcy protection last May. Several days after the filing, baseball agreed to provide the team with another $21 million loan. When the loans became public, the owners of several other teams complained that the loans gave the Rangers a competitive advantage, particularly when the team traded for the ace pitcher Cliff Lee. In subsequent court testimony, Kellie Fischer, the Rangers� chief financial officer, said that the team�s lending relationship with baseball �works for us.� Fischer testified: �We�ve never had any issues with borrowing money as far as getting funded timely and providing information back and forth. M.L.B. has been very easy for us to work with.� But the loans and working relationship notwithstanding, the Rangers� owner, Tom Hicks, was still forced to sell. The team was sold for $593 million last August, and the loans were repaid. Richard Sandomir and Michael S. Schmidt contributed reporting. http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/02/sports/baseball/02wilpon.html