brucewaynegretzky
Member
I just wanna repost this since it seems relevant again now that we're talking about cap circumvention and "competitiveness" again. Gonna just repost:
We don't know anything about how the new CBA will approach this. You can be certain that big market teams near the cap (read: Philly) will make SURE that they are protected in the new agreement. One thing that I think often gets lost in the "Union vs. Management" storyline in these negotiations is that the different teams have VERY different motivations depending on their market strength. This is why more comprehensive profit sharing would likely create a an environment where a CBA could be reached easily. The problem is the most IMPORTANT teams don't want that.
We can sit here and talk about how important a "competitive" league is, but here's the dirty little truth that no one really admits to: At the end of the day it really is just BETTER if the big market teams have ways to exploit their position to a competitive advantage. The question is to what degree do we want to allow that to happen while still growing the sport outside those few small markets. It's a delicate balancing act.
Marvie in particular likes to talk about how small market teams need to be competitive and at equal footing. Then talk about how the union is evil because owners are somehow ENTITLED to profitable business. The funny thing is those two things don't play out AT ALL in collective bargaining. A market acting under NORMAL economic forces would have the big market teams CRUSHING the small market ones because the economic support of their fanbases (aka demand) would give them the ability to crush smaller teams. T
The bottom line of all of this is it actually is a really interesting look into a unique way to handle what would normally be an illegal monopoly through collaboration between labor (which in another weird turn is also the product) and management.
I really do think this CBA will come out without any real major changes to how the league runs. The players are happy to see revenues growing, and they can see the effects in FA every year when the market jumps drastically. (See e.g., Ville Leino) The owners are for the most part happy, and REALLY should be focusing their energies towards better LEAGUE management to improve their bottom lines. Situations like the one in Glendale hurt EVERYONE.
Ok, rant over. I think I've mentioned a few times I'm a bit of a labor law geek so this really interests me. Sorry to anyone (Marvie) if this comes off as an attack. I'm not arguing in any way that measures to increase parity are a BAD thing because there's certainly a legitimate point to be made that parity also increases revenue as well. I'm more pointing out that it requires something OTHER than a typical market analysis because it really is a unique situation.
Rant really over: Bottom line to Tabris' initial point that I completely ignored is, "Big market teams will make sure functioning under a 70.2m cap won't be a detriment to them in the future and will put in mechanisms that give them flexibility because they have the most bargaining leverage out of all the teams at the table."
Seriously, apologies for the wall-o-text.