View Single Post
Old
09-17-2012, 03:31 PM
  #50
brs03
Coo coo ca cha!
 
brs03's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Maryland
Country: United States
Posts: 12,216
vCash: 500
Cap circumvention issues and such are minor points, though. The reason the owners want player costs to come down further is because the cap floor is too high for the stragglers. There's nothing any owner could do about that under the old CBA.

Now, you can say they should just up revenue sharing and be done with it. That would certainly work, but in no way should the owners want that to be the primary solution because it doesn't benefit them as much as cutting player costs does. There's a deal to be made in the middle, obviously.

And, as I said before, it's hard to condemn anyone for giving out crazy contracts when there's really no other way to do it, at this point. That's the double-edged side of a capped environment. If you're not spending to the cap, you're not trying to compete barring unusual luck with ELC timing or coaching etc. If you're not beating another team's offer for the best UFA (and assuming you want the player, obviously) you're not doing enough. That these types of deals weren't anticipated the last time around doesn't mean they were wanted. But if you're going to lose money either way, you might as well be as competitive as possible while doing so (as wins = bigger popularity = increased franchise value, I suppose?) Once pandora's box was opened and the loopholes were discovered there was no going back no matter how financially responsible you want to be.

Also, wrt to the "commitments already made" part of it for the "no rollbacks" PA talking point, I have trouble drawing a hard line there when the proposal is to increase escrow withholding to get around it. It's a rollback, but escrow is already there so it's not like a player is ever guaranteed his full contract. I have no problem with it if it means the cap ceiling and floor are just effectively moved further apart. The players would still have a chance to get their full values if growth were good (and if the stragglers weren't forced to spend as much as they currently are). But then I've long thought that the floor and ceiling were too close together so I'm probably just predisposed to liking that solution.

brs03 is offline