When was the last time the Yankees missed the playoffs? Is it due to there superior management, scouting and player development system?
I can make a solid argument that most of the key players from the 1996-2000 dynasty years were in fact home grown. The difference is, unlike the Marlins, they can afford to retain them. I will admit after that they lost their way and started overpaying for free agents. The farm system simultaneously went into decline until being resurrected in the last few years. For all the talk about 'buying' championships, they only have one (2009) to show for that strategy.
Originally Posted by KINGS17
Yeah, this bubble is about to burst. MLB franchise values are going to fall eventually. FOX and the other networks that carry baseball overpaid by large amounts for the broadcasting rights. Americans care a lot more about the NFL and the BCS (Notre Dame at Oklahoma this weekend) than they do about the World Series.
I think baseball fans, like their hockey brethren, are far more provincial than football fans. I know very few people around New Jersey that care about the Series now that the Yankees are out. Personally I don't love or hate either team in the Series and thus don't care much myself.
Football is more of an event - people watch 'The Game.' I know people whose Sunday is essentially dedicated to football. I happen to treat the NFL the same as the NHL and MLB - I only really care if my team is playing. But I might be the minority or a plurality on that indifference to the other matchups. With hockey and baseball, I am definitely the majority with that attitude.
Originally Posted by Fugu
I doubt we collectively can teach Donald much about sports labor economics and negotiations. There's a reason he's feared and respected by his peers and those against whom he's faced off.
Having said that, I fully endorse any systems that arrives at a figure that goes to labor without artificial/mandated shares. I don't think there's another industry in the world that guarantees employees a fixed share of revenues.
So you are against salary caps? Not being combative, but artificial/mandated shares are essentially the cap systems employed by the NHL, NFL and NBA. I guess this makes sense given you seem to be arguing in favor of baseball's system. I am a big baseball fan and can assure you that very, very, very few people think their labor system is a model for anything other than what should be avoided. The NFL system of a cap plus robust revenue sharing is the way to go.
curious - and apologies if you've stated it at some point - what do you think is his/PA's end-game here?
Two-fold perhaps. He has stated he's going to try to get a deal that the players feel they had a part in crafting, and/or are happy to sign on. That's probably why the cap is still on the table, and that the only portion not being considered for linkage is existing contracts-- not future contracts, which would be fully under the 50/50 split.
Intellectually, I don't think he believes this system is the best for the NHL and their particular situation, hence the frequent references to RS needing to be higher in order to stabilize all 30 franchises given the revenue disparity. THAT is the key problem. There are several ways to solve revenue disparity, assuming one wants to address it, but Fehr obviously doesn't think it's fair that the players take on that entire burden. Why? It leaves a massive pile of money for the richest teams. He may have a secondary goal of pointing out to the middle and small market teams that they're putzing along, just getting by while the system they endorse will make the rich even richer. Both sides are attempting to drive a wedge between the constituencies within the team and player groups. It's pretty difficult to devise something that fulfills the needs of all the groups very well.
It's hilarious to hear people say the players have no leverage.
1. What percentage of last years players are now earning wages internationally? A lot, and that number will grow drastically the longer this goes on.
2. Mutually assured destruction. If this goes on for 1 year, the players lose. If this goes on for 2+ years, everyone involved loses - the players, the owners, all league employees, the fans, the public, local municipalities, all the way down.
Players saw what Fehr did for MLB, and nobody can say the sport is worse off for it. It's no secret that he has the players fully on board for whatever his plan is, and he is absolutely crazy enough to drive both the ownership and players union off the same cliff together to get what he's asking for.
Edit: I forgot to explain that in #2 that it is the only way to combat the new method of owner negotiations across all sports - lockouts and deadline demands.
The reason there are lockouts is that owners will never let what happened with baseball, starting a season and having no finish ever happen again. Owners make most of their money during the playoffs. Fehr knew that and struck to screw MLB half way through the year. That's why there are lockouts now, no sport will ever star a season without a CBA again. I knew as soon as Fehr was hired this was going to happen.
well it's not a negotiation unless there is something you can negotiate. if you are told we will only talk to you if you accept our terms, what's their to talk about ? the weather ?
That's not what I meant.
If we have an existing CBA (the last one) and I say "okay we feel we should move this # down, move this # up, move this # up, change these amount of years" you're working within terms... the numbers are the only things changing.
If you come back and say "Hey! Why don't we change how these are defined, change how escrow actually works, change how all the revenue sharing is actually handled then those numbers will be okay!"
In the grand scheme of things I'm not a union guy.
I am pro player here because I think that the Owners need to look at themselves and adjust the revenue disparity before they look to correct that issue by continually taking from the players.
That said, Donald Fehr may be alot of things, but he is damn good at what he does and he has my respect.
I think the owners need to address the revenue disparity as well, but Fehr hasn't made that one of his big issues.
Unlike the NFL and MLB, the NHL doesn't have a large revenue stream coming in to cover the big market teams a little when it comes to revenue sharing. NHL players get a far larger share of revenue than any of their counterparts. They are going to have to give some back, or increased revenue sharing will not happen and they will lose jobs eventually.
As near as I can tell the thing that Fehr seems to care the most about is becoming the only professional sports labor leader to turn back the clock on the salary cap. It isn't going to happen.
As I said earlier the next move by the NHL should be the elimination of guaranteed contracts with a HARD salary cap, just like the NFL has. If that brought the players to their senses and got them to decrease their demands regarding their percentage of HRR in exchange for guaranteed contracts and increased revenue sharing, I would welcome it.
Both of them are afraid of coming out on the wrong side of future revenue growth, so they are trying to protect themselves even if it is at the expense of the other side. They have done this in two different ways. One continues with the linkage model and so manufactures actual dollars to be paid from revenue percentages. One does not believe in the linkage model and so manufactures revenue percentages from actual dollars to be paid.
Why do some of the people who believe in Donald Fehr not believe in enough and think he has already given up concessions.
I have a hypothesis in answer to your question with regards contracting rules being important to the NHL. That was dismissed by so many. It goes to the core of your issue of why it was important. Most of us know that the real solution to a healthy 30 lies in reduction in salaries plus a real increase in rev share. Possibly a modification of the ranging system. My hypothesis is that GB's insistence on changing the contracting rules was at the core of his consensus with owners. That consensus was his marching order going into the negotiation. They couldn't get a full commitment to rev share from the big guys and the next best alternative was to change the contracting rules such that low rev teams could compete more comfortably nearer the cap floor. In reality, very few teams played below the mid-point. In theory, the change in contracting rules would allow more teams to field a competitive team at or below the midpoint. This is a theory, feel free to poke holes.
I don't think it is 2 or 3 owners who run the show. I do think it is one owner/one vote. And I do think that deriving consensus from all 30 is like herding cats. And in this case, I don't think their consensus is arriving at solutions that are the best option for all 30. I think better options are out there that are discarded because of one group or another within the collective ownership.
I think you're on to something here, which isn't surprising since you're one of the most insightful posters here, imo
It really shouldn't matter to the league how players split the money, but clearly plugging the cap circumvention and other restrictions on RFA and rookies would mostly benefit the smaller teams. After the last lockout, I felt moving the UFA age to 27 from 31 was going to be very harmful to smaller teams.