From: john@sequent.com (John Vander Borght)
Subject: Re: Collusion or Sanity?
Organization: Sequent Computer Systems, Inc.
Distribution: usa
Date: Wed, 2 Sep 92 22:55:24 GMT

luigi@bullpen.csd.sgi.com (Randy Palermo) writes:

>In this mornings paper it was reported that the San Diego Padres, in the
>midst of a pennant race, have admitted to trading Craig Lefferts purely
>for economic reasons. They would have had to go over budget to sign him 
>and didn't feel that was in their best interests.

I think that a lot of teams have done this in the past when they felt that
they couldn't win the pennant and they didn't think they resign their free
agents.  At least they got something for him, which is better than waiting
until the end of the season and getting nothing.  It seems like the
Padres have given up on any thoughts of catching the Braves.

>Some Thoughts:

>Could this be the start of a trend in baseball? Some big name players have
>changed teams recently, not an odd occurance in an of itself, and their
>teams have not received much in return. 

It has happened before.  I don't really understand trading Canseco though.
At least the Rangers had a reason to trade Russell and Sierra as they
probably would have lost them at the end of the season.  They were really
fortunate to get Canseco in return though.

>With the failures of the Dodgers and Mets, could the owners finally be 
>coming to the realization that you cannot Buy a pennant? 

I doubt it.  Every owner will be faced with the question: Gee, if we can
sign X we will have a really good chance at the pennant.  They will
probably still sign him and on occasion, it will fail as miserably as it
has for the Dodgers and Mets.

>With the uncertainties of the new TV contract looming, will the owners 
>be willing to shell out the kind of money that they have in the past?

They would probably be smart not to, but they are probably afraid of the
consequences if they get caught colluding again.

>Will the large number of quality free agents available this year dilute
>the market and actually send salaries down?

They will hurt the mid-range players more than the truely good ones.  The
players like Cone and Sierra will probably still get top dollars.

>Could all of this lead to further collusion charges or will the owners
>be viewed as adding some sanity to the process?

Could if the players can prove that the owners did it in concert.  You
would think they would be smarter than that after the last time, but
somehow I doubt it.

One other question I thought of was:

What if a team (lets say the Mets because of the recent trade) went to a
player like David Cone and said "We are going to trade you to the BlueJays for
a couple of young players.  You'll get a chance to win the World
Championship with them and we'll get a couple of players, after the season we
want to resign you and with you and the players we get, we might have a
good chance to win the pennant."

It seems that by doing this, they could get something for nothing.
Supposedly give up a good player and get something in return and then
resign him.

Of course, if it ever came it out would probably be tampering or some such,
but it would be an interesting scenario.
-- 
"Practice random kindness and senseless acts of beauty!"
John Vander Borght
john@sequent.com