2012-13 Lockout Discussion Part V: The "Back to square one" Edition
View Single Post
10-23-2012, 11:09 PM
Join Date: Jul 2005
Originally Posted by
Uh-huh, and every single agent going into those negotiations - especially the flurry of down to the wire deals this summer - didn't know that the owners on the other side were counting on some relief from the forthcoming CBA negotiations and didn't then leverage that assumption to score their clients deals that otherwise wouldn't have been on the table (either in terms of dollars or years)? They didn't have very frank conversations with their clients explaining this fact?
I know if I were a player's agent I would've been saying something like: "listen Tyler, this is a deal that's only on the table because the CBA is expiring. Under a new CBA, this wouldn't be nearly this easy. You wouldn't be looking at $35MM and a NTC; heck, you might not even be able to score your big money long term deal until your third contract. The reason Jacobs is willing to give you this deal is that he'll be able to get some of it back in the new CBA. And you know what? That's fine. You may lose 3-5% of the first couple of years. Who cares? You're still locking in something like $33MM guaranteed. Under the new CBA, everyone may do business like the Rangers when it comes to second contracts. Take the deal and run."
I am so tired of the "moral" argument about the "sanctity" of the players' contracts. 1) Legally they are all subsidiary to the CBA, 2) everyone involved in negotiating them knows this and 3) everyone who negotiated a deal in the last two years - on both sides - was factoring the pending CBA battle into their thinking.
If I was a person signing a contract, and I had an attorney representing me, and he failed to tell me that this contract I signed could be cut by 25% pending a different contract by two other parties within the next year.... uh, I'd sue him for malpractice.
It'd be ridiculously negligent not to tell a client that.
As such, I cannot possibly believe that the players didn't know about this. Not only that, but any contract they negotiated, the impending CBA reduction would have been part of the understanding of the deal.
As you astutely and correctly point out, getting those megadeals in under the wire is actually a benefit to the players because of the uncertainty of the upcoming CBA. There is no legitimate claim to be made that it's immoral to reduce those contracts when they PLAYERS were the ones who had the incentive to sign off before the old CBA expired.
It's only immoral if this was somehow a surprise to everyone. It's not -- it was expected and all those recent contracts were negotiated with the foreknowledge of it.
In fact, it's bordering on dishonesty to claim that those contracts SHOULD be honored, IMO (dishonesty or ignorance, anyway).
View Public Profile
Find More Posts by mschmidt64