View Single Post
10-29-2012, 09:25 PM
Embrace The Suck
SackTastic's Avatar
Join Date: Mar 2011
Country: United States
Posts: 5,215
vCash: 500
Originally Posted by haseoke39 View Post
"Right on the money"? How about Johnson signed a contract that was governed by the CBA, included no guarantees to a fixed dollar amount, regularly contracted to meet the amount stipulated in the active CBA, and he wanted to pretend forever that 57% was going to be the agreed amount? If the owners were trying to rip up a CBA in the middle of it, I could see him having a point. But the CBA that governed his contract EXPIRED. His contract has to be subject to new terms. There's nothing illegal, shady or under-the-table about what the owners are doing here. If JJ didn't know this was going to happen, he should've paid an agent to explain it to him.
The only part of the 57% number that affects individual players relates to their escrow. I'm not sure what point you're trying to make here.

Frankly, they should stop calling them contracts, since most of you folks seem to like the idea that owners can just break them whenever they want.

Yes, the expiration of the CBA governs this, I understand. But I completely understand the players' frustration here. If an owner offers you a 7 year deal with 2 years left on the CBA, you're not thinking that they could pull the rug out from under you at CBA expiration. Yes, he should have an agent to warn him that COULD happen, but lets face it. Even with an agent you won't assume that would happen.

SackTastic is offline   Reply With Quote