Step Back, Take a Deep Breath, and Look at the PA's Offer

[Run the Jewels]

You aren't very well versed on the current issues with MLB or you'd never say that. Dominance is measured by more than just World Series wins. And teams most certainly are not forced to spend revenue sharing money. In fact, the biggest gripe the deep pocket teams have right now is that many of the small teams simply maintain a low payroll and pocket huge profits from revenue sharing. I'd have to go look for it, but there a wonderful article not long ago detailing how for smaller teams increasing payroll actually decreases profits, even if you go from a crappy team to a title contender. Baseball's version of labor peace is essentially a system that no other league will ever adopt. The owners wanted (and overall still want) a salary cap but right now the system makes everyone tons of money so nobody is rocking the boat. I can promise you that MLB owners would take the last NHL CBA in a heartbeat and laugh all the way to the bank. To say that a system in which one player can earn more in a single season than an entire team (yes, that happened very recently) is a fair system for all teams is ignoring reality.

That was the gripe but now those teams are forced to spend that money on improving their club, not paying down debt or fielding crap teams. The NHL should do the same thing. Gary Bettman does not understand economics, I mean why on earth would he agree to a salary cap floor that was the same for Toronto as it was for Phoenix? Since we don't seem to have any issue with how each club reports revenue why not set a cap floor based on how much revenue that teams brings in? That way you are not ignoring economics 101 and don't force a team to spend more than they make. Add in that revenue sharing slice and you pretty much force any team that accepts revenue sharing to spend to a certain threshold based on their financials from the previous year.

So simple even a caveman could do it.

 

[Run the Jewels]

You are laying the sarcasm on pretty thick so i am having a tough time figuring out if any of that post wasnt sarcastic.

Oh it was 100% complete sarcasm. If you look at how the last two CBAs worked out all you can really assume is the owners felt like they came out on the short end and had to lock the players out for a third straight time. The players liked the last CBA so much they were willing to play this season under it until a new one was agreed upon.

The truth is that there are a few really bad franchises that are responsible for killing the league. If only Gary Bettman would serve the successful franchises as loyally as he's served franchises like Atlanta, Phoenix, Columbus and Florida.

Here's hoping he really does die on that hill.

 

[Run the Jewels]

Personally I think real issue is that the seeds are already planted for the next lockout. As long as the business of the NHL is supporting teams in stupid markets the product will suffer. 8 years, 5 years blah, blah, blah... I just don't care any more. This process has damaged any hope for labor peace or quality hockey going forward. The league has went to the well too many times. I have zero interest in hearing Bettman telling us how much better the NHL is as a result of yet another lockout. The facts just don't support the argument. Short of decertification and contraction/relocation I for one won't be back as a fan. I have exactly as much respect for the owners as they do for me. I really hope this debacle convinces many others to reconsider their support as well.

If we are not going to get significant revenue sharing the writing is on the wall for the franchises that are killing the league. Just look at Atlanta. Lost insane amounts of money. Then they get moved to a market that will actually support an NHL franchise. Guess what happened? They made money! No limit on term! With the players receiving 57% of revenue.

How on earth is that possible?

 

[chances14]

That was the gripe but now those teams are forced to spend that money on improving their club, not paying down debt or fielding crap teams.

right.

that's why the pirates are one of the most profitable teams in the league, mostly as a result of taking those revenue sharing checks, yet they have now posted 20 consecutive losing seasons. looks like they really put that money to good use.

or how about the marlins trading away every player who was scheduled to make more than $1.6 million dollars in 2013. i guess the marlins believe that making your team better is to trade away all your players who happen to make the most money in return for scraps.

 

[Run the Jewels]

right.

that's why the pirates are one of the most profitable teams in the league, mostly as a result of taking those revenue sharing checks, yet they have now posted 20 consecutive losing seasons. looks like they really put that money to good use.

or how about the marlins trading away every player who was scheduled to make more than $1.6 million dollars in 2013. i guess the marlins believe that making your team better is to trade away all your players who happen to make the most money in return for scraps.

It's incredibly easy to make sure teams spend any revenue sharing on salaries. For example:

Between 2002 and 2010, the Marlins reportedly received close to $300 million in revenue sharing. With the threat of a formal grievance, the Players Association forced an agreement from the Marlins to use all revenue-sharing proceeds on player development and salaries for three seasons. The agreement was announced in January 2010 and now, three seasons later, has expired.

The only reason the Marlins exist is because of revenue sharing. It's been proven you can force teams to use any revenue sharing they receive on improving their club. Now imagine if they didn't receive revenue sharing but were part of a group that caused 3 lockouts and tried to force the entire league to develop an economic system that probably wouldn't save them anyway and as a result threatened the viability of the sport.

That's what the NHL has been doing under Gary Bettman.

 

[RedWingsNow*]

right.

that's why the pirates are one of the most profitable teams in the league, mostly as a result of taking those revenue sharing checks, yet they have now posted 20 consecutive losing seasons. looks like they really put that money to good use.

or how about the marlins trading away every player who was scheduled to make more than $1.6 million dollars in 2013. i guess the marlins believe that making your team better is to trade away all your players who happen to make the most money in return for scraps.

Two words.
Bad. Ownership.

 

[chances14]

It's incredibly easy to make sure teams spend any revenue sharing on salaries.
It's been proven you can force teams to use any revenue sharing they receive on improving their club.

That's what the NHL has been doing under Gary Bettman.

but as proven with the pirates, some teams have clearly not been forced to spend money to improve their team

Two words.
Bad. Ownership.

agreed.

but i was just refuting the point that all mlb teams are being forced to spend money to improve their teams. that is not the case with the marlins or pirates owners who have clearly put profits over winning.

 

[Run the Jewels]

but as proven with the pirates, some teams have clearly not been forced to spend money to improve their team

agreed.

but i was just refuting the point that all mlb teams are being forced to spend money to improve their teams. that is not the case with the marlins or pirates owners who have clearly put profits over winning.

Again, that is an ownership issue, not a player's association/union issue. There are a lot of very bad owners in professional sports, unfortunately the NHL has a disproportionate amount who are going to ruin the league.

 

[TS Quint]

I guess it's about having a healthy league. If you look at Forbes it's clearly not a healthy league. You can talk about the concessions the players are making but they are important to making this league healthy. You have 2 teams making up almost all of the profit. Yes the owners need to share more and I believe they have raised the amount of revenue sharing (could be a little more yet). A 5 year CBA is just stupid from a corperate revenue point of view. Are you really wanting to team up with the NHL if there is another chance for a strike in less than 5 years (4.5 years by now)?

 

[RedWingsNow*]

I guess it's about having a healthy league. If you look at Forbes it's clearly not a healthy league. You can talk about the concessions the players are making but they are important to making this league healthy. You have 2 teams making up almost all of the profit. Yes the owners need to share more and I believe they have raised the amount of revenue sharing (could be a little more yet). A 5 year CBA is just stupid from a corperate revenue point of view. Are you really wanting to team up with the NHL if there is another chance for a strike in less than 5 years (4.5 years by now)?

So propose a CBA that systematically solves the problem.

right now, it seems like the owners like have horrid markets in the league for no other reason than to cry poor.

 

[JackieTreehorn]

but as proven with the pirates, some teams have clearly not been forced to spend money to improve their team



agreed.

but i was just refuting the point that all mlb teams are being forced to spend money to improve their teams. that is not the case with the marlins or pirates owners who have clearly put profits over winning.

No team has spent more over the past four drafts than the Pirates' $48 million. That includes franchise-record bonuses for Pedro Alvarez ($6.35 million), Jameson Taillon ($6.5 million) and, of course, Cole.

That total also includes the $5 million they spent on outfielder Josh Bell, who they chose with the top pick in the second round last season.


Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/sports/2012/...irates-grab-prize-at-mlb-draft/#ixzz2EWSE4Yqr

MLB has agreed to let teams use revenue sharing for player development as opposed to FA signings.

 

[TS Quint]

So propose a CBA that systematically solves the problem.

right now, it seems like the owners like have horrid markets in the league for no other reason than to cry poor.

I would like to think the owners have proposed a system that solves the problem. I'm not sure about why they need to "die on a hill" over 5 year contracts if they have the 5% varience. I think the players are being reasonable on that point.

I don't think St.Louis, New York, Columbus, Minnesota, Buffalo or Washington should count as horrid markets but they are loosing money.

 

[RedWingsNow*]

I would like to think the owners have proposed a system that solves the problem. I'm not sure about why they need to "die on a hill" over 5 year contracts if they have the 5% varience. I think the players are being reasonable on that point.

I don't think St.Louis, New York, Columbus, Minnesota, Buffalo or Washington should count as horrid markets but they are loosing money.

The problem is that LINKAGE will force bad markets/badly run teams to lose money.

The big markets are driving up revenue too fast for the bad markets to keep up. And as we move one horrid team to Quebec and a second team to the metro Toronto area, I think the revenue growth disparity problem will accelerate.

So the NHL has created a system that forces teams to lose money because there is a cap floor tied to revenue growth.

Why would they do this? Unless they wanted teams to lose money?

 

[Roomba With a Bauer]

The one thing re: Red Wings that amuses me about the lockout is how people were saying Holland did nothing over the summer to prepare for the fallout from the new CBA; i.e. amnesty buyouts, salary rollback, etc. etc.

The NHL has already said it will not agree to amnesty buyouts, and there will probably be a salary rollback in addition to the lowered cap. Basically, the salary structure will remain the same, and teams will not be looking to buy out players. There will be no swooping in to grab good cheap players.

So, we get a year of lockout and then a year of the Wings likely not making the playoffs to look forward to.

 

[mouser]

The one thing re: Red Wings that amuses me about the lockout is how people were saying Holland did nothing over the summer to prepare for the fallout from the new CBA; i.e. amnesty buyouts, salary rollback, etc. etc.

The NHL has already said it will not agree to amnesty buyouts, and there will probably be a salary rollback in addition to the lowered cap. Basically, the salary structure will remain the same, and teams will not be looking to buy out players. There will be no swooping in to grab good cheap players.

So, we get a year of lockout and then a year of the Wings likely not making the playoffs to look forward to.

Actually by all reports the NHL has been telling teams not to expect a salary rollback.

 

[TS Quint]

The problem is that LINKAGE will force bad markets/badly run teams to lose money.

The big markets are driving up revenue too fast for the bad markets to keep up. And as we move one horrid team to Quebec and a second team to the metro Toronto area, I think the revenue growth disparity problem will accelerate.

So the NHL has created a system that forces teams to lose money because there is a cap floor tied to revenue growth.

Why would they do this? Unless they wanted teams to lose money?

No one expected the growth in revenue. The problem was they didn't tie revenue sharing in, it was a static number. But an increase in sharing which last I believe went up by 50 million by the owners should help to off set. Players asked for another 50 million on top of that which I think would be a great idea for the overall health of the league.

Once they get this deal in place the price of a franchise will go up which will make it more profitable for the NHL to relocate teams like Pheonix and open new frachises in Quebec and Markham. Which the players won't see any of that money but they will have more jobs.

 

[Run the Jewels]

No team has spent more over the past four drafts than the Pirates' $48 million. That includes franchise-record bonuses for Pedro Alvarez ($6.35 million), Jameson Taillon ($6.5 million) and, of course, Cole.

That total also includes the $5 million they spent on outfielder Josh Bell, who they chose with the top pick in the second round last season.


Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/sports/2012/...irates-grab-prize-at-mlb-draft/#ixzz2EWSE4Yqr

MLB has agreed to let teams use revenue sharing for player development as opposed to FA signings.

Thanks for that. It is AMAZING how much NHL fans just gobble up whatever Gary Bettman spoon feeds them. The guy sure has a track record to be taken at his word, right? The most recent example was denying the LA Kings were for sale. A few months later it came out that they are in fact for sale.

MLB has had no work stoppages for close to 20 years, unlike the NHL they engage in significant revenue sharing which keeps franchises that shouldn't exist afloat, and they force those teams to spend that money on improving their ballclub.

So OF COURSE Donald Fehr is the bogeyman.

 

[TS Quint]

Thanks for that. It is AMAZING how much NHL fans just gobble up whatever Gary Bettman spoon feeds them. The guy sure has a track record to be taken at his word, right? The most recent example was denying the LA Kings were for sale. A few months later it came out that they are in fact for sale.

MLB has had no work stoppages for close to 20 years, unlike the NHL they engage in significant revenue sharing which keeps franchises that shouldn't exist afloat, and they force those teams to spend that money on improving their ballclub.

So OF COURSE Donald Fehr is the bogeyman.

The NHLPA was clearly in the wrong last lockout. They sat out for how long just to get one of the most lopsided CBA's ever. Then you add in Fehr who is known for being a hardline negotiator who was willing to loose a World Series. I see it as reason for concern.

I thought I heard somewhere that only 2 teams in baseball shared revenue last year. Not true?

I haven't followed baseball for a while now so I'm not sure. But I'll start following next year now that the Jays look like they have a shot

 

[sepster]

Right now. Agree to it. And the owners win.

The owners have won this thing. They can try to win it a little more. But that comes with an incredible amount of risk.

Honestly, I believe the owners do realize they have won. I also believe that they have a cut-off date as to when they can fit in a 45 to 48 game schedule. They'll wait until that date in an attempt to squeeze as much out of the PA as possible. If the players move in their direction from here, then the owner's victory is even greater. If the player don't move, then the owners already have won this battle, they seal the deal by the cut-off date and start the season.

Or the season is lost and there is irreparable damage done to the sport. In that case, American fans don't really care and the Canadian fans will come back regardless, so is the sport really that worse off? I doubt it.

 

[WingedWheel1987]

A sub 50 game schedule is going to be awful. 20 games of warming up and the season is already half over.

 

[Run the Jewels]

I thought I heard somewhere that only 2 teams in baseball shared revenue last year. Not true?

I haven't followed baseball for a while now so I'm not sure. But I'll start following next year now that the Jays look like they have a shot

I am not a big baseball fan myself. Most of what I've found it is doing research. It is amazing how much NHL fans just parrot what Gary Bettman says. It is truly amazing. I mean, MLB hasn't had a work stoppage in 17 years! We're on our 3rd and I have no doubt we'll have a 4th when this one gets agreed upon and then expires.

Here is a key piece from a MLB article on how revenue sharing has impacted the league:

As of Labor Day, there were 15 teams positioned within 3 1/2 games of a Wild Card spot. More significantly, seven of those teams were in the bottom half of teams ranked by payroll. These include the teams with baseball's two best records (Reds and Nationals), the two teams with the most dramatic turnarounds (Orioles and Athletics), a team that seems to defy gravity every season (Rays) and of course, the Pirates.

It's not possible to draw a straight line between revenue sharing and the ability of smaller market teams to compete, and it remains a touchy subject; a half-dozen executives from teams receiving money from the league chose not to respond to requests to comment for this story.

So at least 6 teams do, maybe more. And the great thing is when you give a team a handout you can demand they spend that money on improving their club, not to pay down debt or simply hold onto the money.

These are the sorts of moves that were envisioned when meaningful revenue sharing first became a reality in 2002. That was a step in the right direction, although revisions were made in '07 to encourage the teams receiving money to spend it on improving their teams. The new collective bargaining agreement requires teams to demonstrate specifically how they're spending their revenue-sharing money to improve the big league club.

I just laugh at people who try to suggest Donald Fehr is the problem. Like I said I have never followed baseball closely but I would gladly accept their CBA over anything Gary Bettman could come up with.

The proof is in the pudding: two decades of labor peace or a third straight lockout with two lost seasons?

 

[InjuredChoker]

A sub 50 game schedule is going to be awful. 20 games of warming up and the season is already half over.

Much better than 0 game schedule, though.

 

[sarcastro]

So propose a CBA that systematically solves the problem.

right now, it seems like the owners like have horrid markets in the league for no other reason than to cry poor.

The PA's original proposals tried to deal with the actual problems facing the NHL.

The NHL said "we're not interested in solving those problems, we just think you make too much money".

There has not been and never will be an honest effort by ownership to properly fix the league. Rich owners like having poor teams to develop their talent for them and serve as their de-facto farm teams. The Wings are not excluded from that comment either.

Much like the NFL, it's all about money. The NFL isn't suddenly acting all concerned about player safety because they're actually concerned about player safety. They're facing an enormous lawsuit from disabled ex-players and they want to try and avoid paying billions in settlements. They're going to end up ruining the sport over it, just to minimize their liability.

 

[TS Quint]

The PA's original proposals tried to deal with the actual problems facing the NHL.

The NHL said "we're not interested in solving those problems, we just think you make too much money".

There has not been and never will be an honest effort by ownership to properly fix the league. Rich owners like having poor teams to develop their talent for them and serve as their de-facto farm teams. The Wings are not excluded from that comment either.

Much like the NFL, it's all about money. The NFL isn't suddenly acting all concerned about player safety because they're actually concerned about player safety. They're facing an enormous lawsuit from disabled ex-players and they want to try and avoid paying billions in settlements. They're going to end up ruining the sport over it, just to minimize their liability.

The NHL has never been more balanced. 29 teams have made the playoffs over the last CBA (except the Leafs). The 8th place team just won the Stanley Cup. Removing the long term/front loaded contracts and allowing teams to resign their own players for longer term will further level the playing field. The NHL is as competitive of a league as there is (if not the most competitive).

 

[sarcastro]

The NHL has never been more balanced. 29 teams have made the playoffs over the last CBA (except the Leafs). The 8th place team just won the Stanley Cup. Removing the long term/front loaded contracts and allowing teams to resign their own players for longer term will further level the playing field. The NHL is as competitive of a league as there is (if not the most competitive).

But again, the issue is not on-ice competition but the fight for revenue. The Kings are not exactly the Yotes or the Preds or the Panthers we're talking about here. They're located in the 2nd most populous city in the US, so while they were 8th in the conference it wasn't because of their market. In fact, they were able to pick up the Carter and Richards megacontracts without a problem, something small market teams would not have been able to do.

Whenever they end up reaching an agreement on a new CBA, it will be the owners (with help from the player agents) who find all the loopholes that they can use to get around any rules designed to stop them from losing money on stupid contractual decisions. Just like they did last time.

That seems to be what ownership is looking for in terms of "fixes" - a system so locked-down that they can't possibly make bad decisions. It won't work, and the smart owners know it - they're just using the contractual issues as a lever to increase the owners' share of the revenue pie.