View Single Post
Old
11-04-2012, 01:59 PM
  #947
mossey3535
Registered User
 
mossey3535's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 3,205
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by MNNumbers View Post
Sorry, Canadian Guy. You and I have a miscommunication here. I understand everything you wrote. But, in my post earlier, I was quoting another poster who said that the HRR% was not the sticking point. That poster said the real argument between the players and owners was the contract length and player movement rights. I was trying to understand why that would be. And, I still am.

I understand the HRR% and the Make Whole stuff. Not sure who is right, because I can't see the books. I am really trying to understand the financial advantages to owners between these 2 situations:

1) HRR% = 50%. Make whole - owners cover 90%. UFA rights begin at age 29. Contracts are limited to 5 years....

or

2) HRR% = 50%. Make whole - owners cover 90%. UFA rights begin at age 27. Contracts limited to 8 years (or 10 yrs).

Compare those 2. I can see individual players wanting #2. If I think I am better than I really am, I want a chance at that windfall. That's the players' side.

But, again, where is the edge for the owners? The only one I can see is for middle and low revenue teams being able to hold onto good and star players.

Is there any other?
The edge is that the owners covering a good portion of make whole would translate to the soft landing everyone around here has been proposing.

They get their 50/50 split, as desired, and instant relief for the first two years. Those two years also happen to have 431 (not counting the 79 currently without contracts) UFA's. Those guys will all be signed to lower deals.

The highest paid players can still get 20% of the cap. Like I always say, stars get overpaid. That's just the way it is.

If I was the owners I would tweak the cap range though.

mossey3535 is offline