The Bayhawks are (maybe) going to steal Tucker Durkin from Florida in 2018, but hotbeds have been dominating small markets since long before player movement. (Photo from floridalacrossenews.com)

On Tuesday afternoon Major League Lacrosse announced a new policy regarding player movement. The rule allows certain players to entertain contract offers from multiple teams after their contract expires. It also introduces multi-year contracts. Two brand new concepts for MLL, yet two staples to other professional sports leagues.

Well, the MLL is not like any other sports league. Many players live and play in two different markets. While many supplement league salaries with endorsement deals and coaching gigs, some have day jobs entirely unrelated to lacrosse. The intentions of this rule are positive, but there are many skeptics — and rightfully so.

Conversations and passion are vitamins the sport must take to grow. Before our passion steers conversations about this rule into uninformed directions, here are some key factors about the league’s infrastructure, history and vision to keep in mind.

Single Entity Structure

Fans and media often refer to Major League Lacrosse teams as “franchises.” That is incorrect, but use of that term is usually a harmless mistake. When evaluating decisions passed by an owners-only vote, however, it is a huge mistake. The decision-makers in MLL are not franchisees. Instead, when an owner buys a team (s)he is buying a share of the league itself.

That structure is much different than that of the NFL, NBA or MLB. It is not unheard of in American professional sports, though — Major League Soccer operates as a single limited liability company. Operating as a single entity has presented MLS with pros (i.e. reduced costs and increased sponsorship revenue) and cons (i.e. a lawsuit for antitrust violations).

Supporters of MLL often point toward MLS as a model for growth; one aspect of MLS that MLL should attempt to avoid, though, is the 1997 Fraser v. Major League Soccer action. Without a free market allowing teams to drive up a particular player’s price to equilibrium, there are serious business ethics concerns.

The MLS players argued in Fraser that the owners had artificially suppressed their salaries — that type of friction is the last thing a 16-year-old league needs. Consider this rule part of the league’s puberty and a necessity given the league’s infrastructure. It’s undoubtedly a step, but it might not be a step toward eradicating issues that people outside legal circles are concerned with. Small markets are (still) climbing uphill battles.

#SmallMarketProblems

This rule was not designed to allow Chesapeake and New York to look at other teams’ rosters and take what they please, like they are Kramer in Jerry Seinfeld’s kitchen. Hotbed cities stockpiling stars will continue — yes, continue. This is certainly not a new concept or a practice prevented by the previous system. Several veteran Lizards took pay cuts in hopes of one day ending every tweet and Instagram post with #stillchamps. Both the Machine and the Launch scooped Nicky Polanco off waivers this summer, but he would not suit up for anybody besides the Bayhawks and Lizards. Kevin Unterstein was sent to the Lizards for Peter Mezzanotte and the 44th overall NCAA draft pick; Kyle Hartzell cost merely two supplemental draft picks and a second round NCAA draft pick.

New York and Chesapeake have been acquiring talent for pennies on the dollar for years. This rule is not introducing that idea — but it is not reducing traffic on the road to hotbeds, either.

Keeping players in Ohio, Florida and Charlotte is difficult; flushing them out of hotbeds is even more so. On the surface, this rule attempts to accomplish these missions in two ways: resetting a player’s five-year clock if a trade is requested before it expires and empowering non-traditional markets to outbid other teams.

The threat of a reset of the five-year clock should a player request a trade in his career’s infancy is weak. That would not have prevented Scott Ratliff’s situation from occurring if this rule had been implemented a year earlier. I think Ratliff, and other players playing outside their market, still should (and will) request relocations at the cost of being locked in for five years. Ratliff lives and coaches in Georgia; sticking out a five-year term in Boston makes little sense for him and the growth of the sport in Atlanta.

Bidding wars will keep MLL in the news cycle year-round, but it’s tough to imagine a small market winning one — unless it never begins. New York and Chesapeake are each pressed against the cap; before fidgeting with current players’ salaries, they might not be able to offer the minimum salary for a movement-eligible player. However, if they find a way to free up that amount of salary, it’s difficult to imagine that a “pricy” offer from a small market is significant enough to dwarf a hotbed’s minimum offer. It’s one of many aspects of the rule to keep an eye on, along with…

(Currently) Unmeasured Variables

In the NBA maximum salary is a function of years of service, All-NBA Team nods, All-Star starting appearances, and MVP awards. Your maximum is also different if you resign with your current team than it is if you leave for a new franchise (hence, the frequency of sign-and-trade deals). Currently, the MLL has no definitions for its minimum salary. That is scary.

If a formula is not installed before the fall, then the league will be handling each player as a subjective, one-off scenario. As one former team front office employee said to me, this reeks of the Chris Paul-to-the-Lakers trade that never was.

Here’s an example: Let’s say Florida Launch defenseman Tucker Durkin wants to explore other options after the 2017 season. He coaches at Bryn Athyn College outside of Philadelphia, so the Chesapeake Bayhawks are a perfect geographical match. Looks like the Launch will lose the best defender in the world, right?

Maybe not. It’s up to the league to determine the minimum salary the Bayhawks must pay him, which he could settle for because of location and, as Paul Rabil elegantly worded it on twitter, the Bayhawks ability to get “creative” in offering Durkin external earning opportunities. It’s also up to the league to approve pay cuts players like Drew Westervelt or Joe Walters would hypothetically take.

Noticing a theme? As a single-entity, the league has a lot of pull in the movement of players. Players sign contracts with the league rather than with teams. Before you run wild with conspiracy theories (“If the league wants Durkin on the Bayhawks, it could rearrange some commas to make it happen!”), take a deep breath.

Exhale.

The league has time to install objective measures between now and the fall. Like in the NBA, All-MLL Team appearances should boost a player’s minimum. Maybe now we can finally have an All-MLL 2nd Team for deeper rating measures. All-Star Games and seasons or games played should carry weight as well. In the Durkin example Florida should have some sort of Bird Rights on the player, where the cap can bend for re-signings differently than it would for signings.

Earning potential for MLL players might not be on David Price’s level, but it is increased by player movement. This rule is not the end of the relationship between the Players’ Council and the league. Conversations will continue. Both sides have a common goal: to grow the league and to grow the sport.