View Single Post
10-30-2012, 02:22 PM
joshjull's Avatar
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Hamburg,NY
Country: United States
Posts: 32,713
vCash: 500
Originally Posted by Beechsack View Post
I understand that it is. Not saying that I believe that to be true, but I repeatedly see that argument being made.

I'm aware that the contract signed is governed by the CBA. I agree that Jack Johnson should have had an agent explain everything to him. However, consider this.

Both sides had the right to terminate the CBA and renegotiate it. If the players opted out in order to get more money in a new deal, they'd universally be called greedy. However, they didn't. The owners opted out of a deal that they basically wrote and got most of what they wanted. Why are the players still being called greedy?

I just can't reconcile the fact that no matter what happened with the CBA, people are so quick to hate on the players in all this.
I don't think they are greedy nor do I think the owners are greedy. I also don't hate the players.

What I do hate is uniformed rants (Jack Johnson) or disingenuous shock (Suter) from players over potential hits to their contracts. Something they should have known was likely to happen.

joshjull is offline   Reply With Quote