Average Opening Day Salary Drops 17%

[1060Ivy]

<!--quoteo(post=86622:date=Apr 7 2010, 03:36 AM:name=mindbodyspirit)-->QUOTE (mindbodyspirit @ Apr 7 2010, 03:36 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec-->While I am not a fan of players making ridiculous money as role players or as bullpen filler, I think a quite valid argument can be made for collusion, should the Players' Association chose to go that route. I can't remember in my lifetime players like Jermaine Dye (25+ HR) or Hank Blalock (20+ HR), for 2 examples, not finding a roster spot SOMEWHERE. I can't remember an off-season where a relatively small group of players got FA pay increases, while the majority either took decreases or had to sign minor league deals. I'm not going to argue supply-side economics, just saying that I find it peculiar that 30 teams, without a notable exception, all followed this pattern. Even Boston, who did sign Lackey, Beltre, Cameron, and Scutaro, still did so below the cost of their combined 2009 salaries. If it happens again after this season, I think we'll be seeing a major suit brought up by the Players' Association, and there is clearly grounds for legal investigation (recession or no). The "market corrections" argument may be valid to a point, but if one looks at the Yankees (coming off of a profitable WS title season) replacing Damon with Winn/Gardner and Matsui with Johnson, clearly there is more going on than just market corrections there.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->

My understanding is that collusion is extremely difficult to prove. Look at the Dye example. Dye was supposedly offered a deal but turned it down so it would be difficult to argue that he was "locked out" by the league.

In addition, owners can make the case regarding the increase in value/importance of defensive skills as a counter the collision argument. Could the increase in attention on defensive skills be one rationale as why some players weren't able to get roster sports?