yes, the MLSPU asking for and getting more "guaranteed" annual contracts in MLS likely means that some players could become casualties of the teams' need to trim/alter rosters earlier in the year. but, there are clearly ways for Busch to not wind up "out of MLS" it would seem. if Chicago's two options (apparently, since they no longer want Busch) are to waive him or to trade him, that second option means he remains in MLS (on that same contract, I'd assume). if he's waived, he'd be free to sign with the league again (but with a new team), correct? all of this (the executing of the new realities of a 5 year CBA within the first weeks/months of that first new season) is going to look strange and be messy (even by MLS player and roster management standards). everyone is just learning all these new rules/guidelines and what this really means in their implementation. but to me, it looks like the "gains" the MLSPU did achieve in the collective bargaining actually will be gains for their players in the long run (even if situations like Busch's pop up in the near term). and I disagree with your assessment that Busch will be "The first of many such veterans I suspect." if he's the first of many, where is MLS going to get all of these other (and supposedly less-expensive) options to fill those roster spots? at some point the league is actually going to have to acquire/develop/retain its players (or some of them). The Busch example (of teams making whatever roster decisions based on a new guaranteed contract date in the season) will be no more common than were the handful of Hartman/DvdB/Serioux type examples that occurred in MLS previously. Players get waived. Players get traded. players get offered new contracts that they don't want to sign. it's all going to continue to happen. but, to me, in the big picture, MLSPU actually is working to improve the overall picture for MLS players. edit, I now note that you have since edited your initial post to include the phrase "unless traded."
How quickly people forget: Erik Stover, managing director, RBNY in January 2009: “I think our world changes a lot with this collective bargaining agreement. I don’t think we jump to a $10 million salary cap, but I think it goes up pretty significantly. I think it’s unfair that developmental players make less than our part time ticket sales people. It’s ridicules. We’re on the side of pushing the league in that direction. I don’t know where we’re going to end up. I think it’s silly to be overly aggressive. I’d like to see something closer to $5 million. That would give us a little more flexibility and some room to grow.” [ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AALszUKCvy4"]YouTube- Erik Stover Q&A Part 2[/ame] at the 7 minute mark Now, maybe the Owners, having apparently agreed to reset the cap (or perhaps the floor) at $2.5 million are really intending to now turn around and double it -- having preserved the notion they don't really have to double it -- but that seems rather unlikely to me. We'll see.
I knew a guy in college who had an epiphany and decided that all types of pleasure were some form of release. And he had a ready answer for why anything pleasurable you could name was a form of release. He was wrong too.
the "I" and the "we" that Stover keeps mentioning there are consistently "RBNY" and clearly do not represent the full, single-entity business thoughts of MLS (yet). the side with RBNY (and their MLS spending ambitions) doesn't appear to be holding a majority voting block on the MLS BoG (yet). is their time coming?
Agreed. It is interesting that new, if lower, contracts were offered to VDB by both FCD and the Galaxy but he refused them. Hey, beggars can't always be choosers is one of my mottos. But what does FCD gain by not waiving him? The possibility of being able to trade him later on down the line I guess and still getting something in return?
I would think there are two benefits: 1. They can potentially trade the rights to another team. While they may only get a 3rd round draft pick or such, it's better than getting nothing. 2. They could still negotiate with and sign VDB down the line. He may decide that he'd prefer to stay with FCD at their price rather than just being in contract limbo. Anyhow, perhaps a better question is why would Dallas waive him? What would be the benefit? The way things now are set up, they retain the rights to him and don't have to pay anything for that. Waiving him gets them nothing in return and doesn't free up a spot or money or anything. So, why bother? It's my understanding that players are waived for the purposes of taking their (non-guaranteed) salaries off the books, which isn't relevent in this situation since VDB isn't under contract currently. Of course, this situation will be resolved next year with this new CBA.
Note the re-entry draft applies also to players whose team doesn't pick up their option. They can't just let players fester like VDB as per the previous CBA. Either pick up their option or they are deemed waived.
Not to get bogged down in semantics, but I don't think those players would be "waived". A player in VDB's situation would go to the re-entry draft, but wouldn't be considered "waived" -- which would send a player to the waiver draft. They are different situations. A player in VDB's situation would be considered out of contract and unable to come to a new agreement with their current team.
Fair enough. Either way, he's eligible for the re-entry draft? Assuming he doesn't get traded by FCD in the interim between now and the draft.
Perhaps. Owner groups on their way in and possibly on thier way in like Vancouver and Montreal certainly seem the types to side with Red Bull. Portland and Phili are much harder to read. Early success at the ticket booths may influence them, but that's no guarantee. I am encouraged, however, by Garber's insistence on courting foriegn clubs to buy into the league. Despite his "preserve the SE" stance as commissioner, he clearly is aware of what side such an entity will fall on in this issue. AEG is always hard to read on this issue. On one hand they repeatedly bitch and moan about the money that they're not allowed to spend and wanting to bring stars into the league and so on, but then Lieweke comes out during the CBA discussions and says that LA is making no money and cannot pay for anything. What are they truly after? So alot more will be clear once expansion reaches 20 teams and we see what effects that Vancouvers' posteuring for greater control over their Residency Program among other things has on the rest of the owners in the league and whether the balance is tipped with the new groups.
You're correct on this point of course. Once you have a category so bland that it encompasses everything, it reveals nothing. If job security and wages are just different names for 'money', then you now have no idea why anyone would trade the latter for the former--and yet the players have apparently done just that. (And possibly not just implicitly, either--one source claims that higher wages were actually out there on the table, and the players turned them down, and follows that up with the suggestion that the priorities might have been different had the foreign players really been represented in the union).
Free agency Aparentley the league is not done talking free agency acording to this article:http://www.philly.com/philly/hp/sports/20100322_Players_strike_averted_for_Major_League_Soccer.html
Re: Free agency It wouldn't surprise me if one of the conditions for gaining union support was the continued discussion over free agency. It will happen eventually, I just think the league wanted a bit more time to make sure the teams could be profitable across the board (or close to it) before they risked losing their single-entity status.
Re: Free agency wouldn't be suprised if they change free agency after this year got a feeling a lot of the teams will be profitable this year.
Re: Free agency Yeah with the union in the league and the world cup this year more people will want to go see mls. I would say around 8 will be profitable this year with all these new stadiums. Plus next year there will be 2 new teams with soccer stadiums
Re: Free agency "All these new stadiums" plus the Union? Other than the Union, there's only one new stadium opening this year that I know of. Other teams are at various points in the construction process, but last I heard that costs money, it doesn't make money. Seattle will make money this year, and Toronto more than likely will too--although if they stay as terrible as they have been it'll catch up with them eventually. LA will probably not be profitable this year, even if ticket sales rebound from last year's dismal numbers, because they will be paying Beckham but he won't be playing until the autumn if at all. DC is still in RFK, Kansas City is still in a minor league baseball park, the Revs are still in Gillette. Like it or not, not enough has changed around the league to expect anything dramatic. A few more teams might poke their heads above water if the economy continues rebounding, but eight? I wouldn't bet on it.
You are missing the point. Garber has been saying the same thing for as long as he has been in charge. And the league has been saying the same thing since its inception. The league is one single entity company with "teams" or divisions if you will. Just like my company doesn't engage in bidding wars with personnel between divisions neither will MLS.
Far enough. For starters, with the season about to start, I think the cap is likely to be just what is being reported -- $2.55 million. They aren't going to bump above that, not this year. I was curious why they reportedly jumped it $230,000 per team this year, only to revert to about $125,000 after that for the balance of the deal. The reason, I suspect, is to boost everyone to the new minimum of $40,000, and resume a 5% growth rate after that. [For those curious as to the math of it, by my count, from the union website 41 players made the developmental wage last year ($20,100, or some proration of that). They'll need about $800,000 league wide to get those players, or rather players occupying those slots, to $40,000 this season. In addition, aside from the four pool players, 72 players were making at or near the vet minimum ($34,0000, although a number made around $36,000). They'll need at around $350,000 to boost them to $40k, assuming they don't need some separation from the guys who were making 20k, and they might. So, for the 15 teams playing last year, MLS will boost their budgets by as much as $3.45 million, but at least $1.15 million of that -- a third of the new dollars -- are going to the guys at the bottom of the pay scale. My guess is that's why the extra dollars are included in year one.] So before anyone gets too excited, there isn't any big change here IMO. People will be quick to point out that nothing prevents MLS from increasing the cap more than 5% per year, but if this CBA already contemplates escalators in payroll set to the historical cap increase, that is, 5%, why would anyone assume more is coming? After 14 years, why are they are going to jump payrolls now? Or 2011? Or 2012? Yes, I know, they teased us. They talked about more quality and more spending and more DPs with smaller cap charges when the CBA was done. (Stover on the cap, Garber on the quality and spending, Leiweke on the DPs). Hey, I believed 'em. I'd like to think they believed it too. But there's nothing here to suggest any of that is true, and unless they jump the cap mid-season, which they haven't ever done, it certainly won't be true for 2010. Now, perhaps they will yet expand the DP rule this year, which would increase spending, albeit on very few players -- I think that may yet happen, but hey, I've already proven to be gullible. Beyond that, I think it's five more years of the status quo. It's not so bad really. A couple of beautiful new stadiums are opening this year. We'll probably see a couple more over the course of this CBA, and perhaps another team or two. But no revolutionary changes. No big leap forward in quality. Clip and save.
If as has been rumored RBNY is wanting to add Henry following the WC, would they be using their Reina DP slot as some have speculated? If not I'd be imagining the Red Bull owners would be spending a little time in the league office to ensure that a second DP slot gets added between now and the summer transfer window, just as did AEG (we presume) in order to get Becks for the '07 season...would you concur?
Told ya. Anyhow, this was the dumbest negotiating position by a union in like ... ever. They should have asked for a 15% annual cap increase, settled for 10% and declared victory. Morons. The current agreement basically means - to quote George Costanza - nothing.
So when will the DP extension be announced? I haven't heard anything. But they have to at least extend the program, even if they keep status quo with the rule.
I wouldn't say it means nothing. It means nothing from the time one season ends and until another begins. Once the rosters are set, so are a lot of players and teams have to keep that in mind when they make decisions. The day of reckoning has just changed. Before the roster is set, there's probably even more power in the team's hands. Once First Kick happens, a lot of guys can rest alot easier and know they will get paid.