A Larry Brooks Source Outed!

[GSC2k2*]

Per a recent Brooks article in his rag:

We've learned that the PA was urged to push the cap as high as possible by, among others, Major League Baseball PA executive director Don Fehr and former NBA union head Charles Grantham during a meeting in Toronto last Monday with members of the NHLPA's current leadership group.

http://www.nypost.com/seven/06032007/sports/rangers/fire_and_ice_rangers_larry_brooks.htm?page=0

And an article of Robert MacLeod of the Globe quoting from the apparent source himself:

"I met with [Fehr, Weiner and Grantham] and we'd be crazy not to listen to these guys," said Detroit Red Wings defenceman Chris Chelios, whose dogged questioning of Saskin's hiring and in-office tactics led to his ouster. "Major League Baseball has the best union in sports and they're willing to help us."

http://www.globesports.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20070604.wsptnhlpa4/GSStory/GlobeSportsHockey/home

Click to read more...

 

[jsginsocal]

MLB's union is the best for the players Chelios - not for the owners and fans. But oh yeah thats right - you only care about getting yours....

 

[Wetcoaster]

Per a recent Brooks article in his rag:



http://www.nypost.com/seven/06032007/sports/rangers/fire_and_ice_rangers_larry_brooks.htm?page=0

And an article of Robert MacLeod of the Globe quoting from the apparent source himself:



http://www.globesports.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20070604.wsptnhlpa4/GSStory/GlobeSportsHockey/home

Brooks source could have been anyone who was at the meeting or who learned what was discussed. It may or may not have been Chelios.

 

[hillbillypriest]

So do people generally agree or disagree with this part of the Brooks article?

"With revenues growing by between 7-and-10 percent - Thank You Fans for Paying Higher Ticket Prices, will be the message inscribed into the ice next year - there is no reason whatsoever for the players not to insist the cap be raised to its legal limit; not one."

It seems to me that for all of Saskin's faults, his decision to waive the right to a 5% escalation for cap purposes did benefit the majority of players, since it seems to me that the majority of NHL players benefit from a lower cap because the majority of any "found" caproom benefits the superstars and stars (and in particular UFA superstars and stars while the general GM consensus to avoid offer sheets is in effect) while increasing the potential for escrow clawbacks for everybody. I would also suggest that the only way the higher permissible cap wouldn't hurt the rank and file is if you actually could count on revenues growing by 7-10% per year, not just this year, but consistently over the next few years.

Personally, I'm have a hard time believing that that rate of revenue increase is sustainable over time, since it's way above inflation, since the income of most fans is presumably linked to inflation and since, as Brooks himself observes, the revenue growth seen in the first two years has been thanks to the willingness so far of fans in some markets absorbing big ticket price increases. Add to this the potential that the Canadian dollar will goes back down to its traditional level relation to the US dollar and the fact that the players share will eventually top out at 57% (If I recall correctly), I think Saskin was onto something here. (It also seems to me that the last time the 5% escalator was discussed on this board: http://hfboards.com/showthread.php?t=357959, it was Daly that observed that the option of using the 5% escalator was out there. Hmm says I...perhaps the owners want to pay the stars the big bucks and peanut to the plodders as long as they have their cost certainty through the escrow system).

Anyway, it may well be that NHLPA dissidents like Chelios have enlisted Don Fehr and Charles Grantham in the battle for the hearts and minds of the members. It would be interesting to hear what the agents think (presuming of course they dare speak up).

 

[bleed_oil]

hmm.. that is quite interesting.
Anyone know where Al Strachan is these days. He also seemed to virtually be in the employ of the NHLPA during the lockout

 

[guyincognito]

So do people generally agree or disagree with this part of the Brooks article?

"With revenues growing by between 7-and-10 percent - Thank You Fans for Paying Higher Ticket Prices, will be the message inscribed into the ice next year - there is no reason whatsoever for the players not to insist the cap be raised to its legal limit; not one."

It seems to me that for all of Saskin's faults, his decision to waive the right to a 5% escalation for cap purposes did benefit the majority of players, since it seems to me that the majority of NHL players benefit from a lower cap because the majority of any "found" caproom benefits the superstars and stars (and in particular UFA superstars and stars while the general GM consensus to avoid offer sheets is in effect) while increasing the potential for escrow clawbacks for everybody. I would also suggest that the only way the higher permissible cap wouldn't hurt the rank and file is if you actually could count on revenues growing by 7-10% per year, not just this year, but consistently over the next few years.

Personally, I'm have a hard time believing that that rate of revenue increase is sustainable over time, since it's way above inflation, since the income of most fans is presumably linked to inflation and since, as Brooks himself observes, the revenue growth seen in the first two years has been thanks to the willingness so far of fans in some markets absorbing big ticket price increases. Add to this the potential that the Canadian dollar will goes back down to its traditional level relation to the US dollar and the fact that the players share will eventually top out at 57% (If I recall correctly), I think Saskin was onto something here. (It also seems to me that the last time the 5% escalator was discussed on this board: http://hfboards.com/showthread.php?t=357959, it was Daly that observed that the option of using the 5% escalator was out there. Hmm says I...perhaps the owners want to pay the stars the big bucks and peanut to the plodders as long as they have their cost certainty through the escrow system).

Anyway, it may well be that NHLPA dissidents like Chelios have enlisted Don Fehr and Charles Grantham in the battle for the hearts and minds of the members. It would be interesting to hear what the agents think (presuming of course they dare speak up).

It may well be that this is pretty much a job interview, and the *******-ist person
in this panel will be pumped up by Cheli for the job. Tselios is going to push this thing right on off the cliff and he has nothing to lose. He's already been paid. If I were in the PA I'd want him bounced out on his ass too.

They should try to grab everything they can, right. Yeah. Like you said, it benefits
the star players and does nothing for the rank and file. I'd also start being concerned about the economic stability of the league if the cap keeps going up. Of course, unless they were totally full of **** during the lockout. If we really get a $52
million cap, a $10 million increase in 2 full seasons... it's mindboggling. Especially since there's not much national US TV money now, gate is only up because of increased ticket prices... if they're not fudging that (yes I have no proof), and the exchange rate change that benefits the Canadian teams and allows them to fill the coffers with more American currency through revenue sharing, and also vastly increases merchandise numbers off, say, what they would be seven years ago.

If I lived in Ontario and bought a Leafs hat in 2000, what would that be worth in US$-based NHL Revenue as opposed to what the same hat is worth *today* in US NHL Revenue?

If $1 CDN used to equal, say 70 cents US, and now it's getting closer to par every day....

 

[colonel_korn]

hmm.. that is quite interesting.
Anyone know where Al Strachan is these days. He also seemed to virtually be in the employ of the NHLPA during the lockout

He's on The Score pretty frequently, he does a short PTI-style segment called "10-minute misconduct" with Steve Kouleas and Steve Ludzik/Mark Osborne.

You can make a good drinking game out of how many irrelevant digs at Gary Bettman Al can fit into the 10 minutes.

 

[Hockeyfan02]

MLB's union is the best for the players .

Which is why it's the best union. The point of a union is to get the best wages/benefits/whatever for their employees (in this case players). Sure, not the best for the owners and fans but that's not their job.

 

[Weary]

MLB's union is the best for the players Chelios - not for the owners and fans. But oh yeah thats right - you only care about getting yours....

And you only care about getting yours....that's the way the world mostly works.

 

[Wetcoaster]

hmm.. that is quite interesting.
Anyone know where Al Strachan is these days. He also seemed to virtually be in the employ of the NHLPA during the lockout

As opposed to those writers who were in the employ of the owners?

Actually Strachan is often on The Score on Steve Kouleas' show "The Spin".
http://www.thescore.ca/programs/thespin/

He also writes a column for Fox Sports:
http://msn.foxsports.com/writer/archive?authorId=303

 

[GSC2k2*]

Brooks source could have been anyone who was at the meeting or who learned what was discussed. It may or may not have been Chelios.

Wettie, your comprehension skills are gone to s**t these days.

And I quote:

"I met with [Fehr, Weiner and Grantham] and we'd be crazy not to listen to these guys,"

I met. Not "We met". Not "I was part of a meeting with...".

Thanks anyway.

 

[Fugu]

Brooks wrote:

We've learned that the PA was urged to push the cap as high as possible by, among others, Major League Baseball PA executive director Don Fehr and former NBA union head Charles Grantham during a meeting in Toronto last Monday with members of the NHLPA's current leadership group.

Are you arguing that the meeting only took place with Chelios, because that isn't what Brooks said. Schneider is on the exec committee, if I recall, so he may be the one who told Chelios?

 

[GSC2k2*]

Which is why it's the best union. The point of a union is to get the best wages/benefits/whatever for their employees (in this case players). Sure, not the best for the owners and fans but that's not their job.

Actually, that form of unionism is pretty passe.

 

[GSC2k2*]

Brooks wrote:





Are you arguing that the meeting only took place with Chelios, because that isn't what Brooks said. Schneider is on the exec committee, if I recall, so he may be the one who told Chelios?

You're right, that part does not fit. However, Chelios did say that HE met with those guys.

It's just a fun theory, anyway.

 

[saskganesh]

what is the "traditional level of the Canadian dollar"?

in the 70's, when I was a kid, (and we had the WHA, and several Canadian teams paying big bucks) it was often higher.

this page http://www.justiceplus.org/thedollar.htm shows the ranges we have gone through. the 0.65 cent loonie was very anomalous when you consider the last half century. a dollar valued around 0.90 USD appears to be normal.

 

[hillbillypriest]

what is the "traditional level of the Canadian dollar"?

in the 70's, when I was a kid, (and we had the WHA, and several Canadian teams paying big bucks) it was often higher.

this page http://www.justiceplus.org/thedollar.htm shows the ranges we have gone through. the 0.65 cent loonie was very anomalous when you consider the last half century. a dollar valued around 0.90 USD appears to be normal.

Point taken, but for most of my adult life it has been in the 75-77 cent range. Although I've heard Jeff Rubin's prediction this week of parity by year's end, I'll have a hard time believing partity or better will be the new norm. The current Canadian resource investment boom won't last forever and (I would hope) the US will eventually disentangle itself from Iraq. In my frame of reference, I'd have a hard time believing that the Loonie will be at parity or better for long. In any event, if any GM's of the league are betting on a high and rising loonie keeping revenues on a continuous uptick, I think that's a pretty big bet.

 

[GSC2k2*]

what is the "traditional level of the Canadian dollar"?

in the 70's, when I was a kid, (and we had the WHA, and several Canadian teams paying big bucks) it was often higher.

this page http://www.justiceplus.org/thedollar.htm shows the ranges we have gone through. the 0.65 cent loonie was very anomalous when you consider the last half century. a dollar valued around 0.90 USD appears to be normal.

Actually, my conclusion would be that the "norm" is dramatic fluctuations over cycles of varying durations.

 

[Ducksforcup]

MLB's salary situation right now is an absolute joke. No parity whatsoever and salaries all out of whack.

Thankfully, we have our hard cap. Very important.

 

[hockeydadx2*]

The MLBPA has only one interest in all of this: they do NOT want to see the NHL's salary cap idea function well. If it does, and it can't be gotten rid of, they know that eventually someday MLB will force a cap on the players. Not anytime soon, but eventually.

I'm sure that the "help" that Fehr wants to give to Chelios et al is to figure out a way to get rid of the cap during the next CBA negotiations.

 

[bleed_oil]

As opposed to those writers who were in the employ of the owners?

Actually Strachan is often on The Score on Steve Kouleas' show "The Spin".
http://www.thescore.ca/programs/thespin/

He also writes a column for Fox Sports:
http://msn.foxsports.com/writer/archive?authorId=303

- so the Toronto Star had enough of his publishing the NHLPA's memos.... uh I mean his articles

 

[Fish on The Sand]

MLB's salary situation right now is an absolute joke. No parity whatsoever and salaries all out of whack.

Thankfully, we have our hard cap. Very important.

oddly enough, mlb enjoys more parity than any other sport among the big 4.

Since 2000, the world series has been won by 7 different teams, but even more remarkable, it has been contested by 11 different teams. In a 30 team league, the fastest every team could be represented in the final is 15 years, after 7 years Baseball is nearly halfway there. Hypothetically, Cleveland could play LA in the world series bringing 8 different teams and 13 different combatants.

 

[GSC2k2*]

oddly enough, mlb enjoys more parity than any other sport among the big 4.

Since 2000, the world series has been won by 7 different teams, but even more remarkable, it has been contested by 11 different teams. In a 30 team league, the fastest every team could be represented in the final is 15 years, after 7 years Baseball is nearly halfway there. Hypothetically, Cleveland could play LA in the world series bringing 8 different teams and 13 different combatants.

"Since 2000" is a carefully selected time frame, since the Yanks won a bunch just before that.

Incidentally, 11 out of 30 is not exactly half. It is a hair over a third. 7 years, however, is nearly a half.

All that is if you accept the old hoary assumption that parity of a sport is measured by appearances in championship finals. Which it isn't.

 

[Wetcoaster]

Wettie, your comprehension skills are gone to s**t these days.

And I quote:



I met. Not "We met". Not "I was part of a meeting with...".

Thanks anyway.

I read perfectly fine.

It does not preclude the fact that others were at the meeting.

 

[Fugu]

"Since 2000" is a carefully selected time frame, since the Yanks won a bunch just before that.

Incidentally, 11 out of 30 is not exactly half. It is a hair over a third. 7 years, however, is nearly a half.

All that is if you accept the old hoary assumption that parity of a sport is measured by appearances in championship finals. Which it isn't.

I doubt any NHL commissioner has ever used this metric for justifying the need for a cap, which of course would lead to parity [and lower ticket prices too].

 

[FissionFire]

MLB parity is a farce. Instead of focusing on who is winning, focus on the number of playoff appearance by franchise. Suddenly the HAVE vs. HAVE NOT gap looms rather large. Teams like the White Sox can put it all together for a magical season, but they don't have the consistent staying power of the huge-payroll behemoths like the Yankees, Mets, Red Sox, etc.

EDIT: I put the list together starting in 1995 (the first year under with the "wildcard" team). The most appearances a single team can have is 12. Each league had 48 teams in the playoffs during this stretch.

America League
Anaheim Angels: 3
Baltimore Orioles: 2
Boston Red Sox: 6
Chicago White Sox: 2
Cleveland Indians: 6
Detroit Tigers: 1
Kansas City Royals: 0
Minnesota Twins: 4
New York Yankees: 12
Oakland Athletics: 5
Seattle Mariners: 4
Tampa Bay Devil Rays: 0
Texas Rangers: 3
Toronto Blue Jays: 0

The American League had 3 teams who were in the playoffs at least 50% of the time (Yankees, Red Sox, Indians), 5 teams in the playoffs between 25% and 50% of the time (Angels, Twins, Athletics, Mariners, Rangers), 3 teams under 25% (Orioles, White Sox, Tigers), and 3 teams fail to make the playoffs (Royals, Devil Rays, Blue Jays). Of the 48 total slots available, the top 4 teams (Yankees, Red Sox, Indians, Athletics) accounted for 29 of them (60.4%). Four teams accounting for over half the playoff appearances doesn't sound like parity to me.

National League
Arizona Diamondbacks: 3
Atlanta Braves: 11
Chicago Cubs: 2
Cincinnati Reds: 1
Colorado Rockies: 1
Florida Marlins: 2
Houston Astros: 6
Los Angeles Dodgers: 4
Milwaukee Brewers: 0
New York Mets: 3
Philadelphia Phillies: 0
Pittsburgh Pirates: 0
San Diego Padres: 4
San Francisco Giants: 4
St. Louis Cardinals: 7
Washington Nationals: 0

The National League had 3 teams who were in the playoffs at least 50% of the time (Braves, Astros, Cardinals), 5 teams in the playoffs between 25% and 50% of the time (Diamondbacks, Dodgers, Mets, Padres, Giants), 4 teams under 25% (Cubs, Reds, Rockies, Marlins), and 3 teams fail to make the playoffs (Brewers, Phillies, Pirates, Nationals). Of the 48 total slots available, the top 4 teams (Braves, Astros, Cardinals, Dodgers/Padres/Giants) accounted for 28 of them (58.3%). Four teams accounting for over half the playoff appearances doesn't sound like parity to me yet again.

Overall, out of the 96 teams to appear in the MLB playoffs since the advent of the wildcard, 8 teams comprise 57 of those appearance (59.4%). Just because MLB has been fortunate that some of the teams with minimal postseason trips had great seasons and played/won the World Series doesn't mean the sport has parity. 8 of 30 teams account for almost 60% of the playoff berths. That's about as far from parity IMO as it gets.