View Single Post
11-11-2012, 10:46 AM
Veni Vidi Toga
thinkwild's Avatar
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Ottawa
Country: Canada
Posts: 8,546
vCash: 500
Originally Posted by ThirdManIn View Post
Contracts can be terminated, but not just on a whim. Why shouldn't both employers and employees be protected by contracts? I mean, they both agreed to the contract, right? They should both be bound by it.
Well that's what the players are arguing, that they should both be bound to it. And in this case, "it" is escrow clawbacks based on 57%.

Of course, if a new cba is agreed to where they their escrow is based on less, then that is what the cba says they have to live with. But the players arent agreeing to that.

What if: a new cba came in with 5 year contract limits and a max variance of 5%. If they grandfathered all the existing contracts like Ovechkin and Kovalchuks, would that give low revenue teams like Washington and NJ who are clamouring for radical cba changes an unfair competitive advantage because they still get to benefit from the long contracts while other teams dont have that luxury?

Maybe they should agree to no grandfathering as well. All contracts that violate the new rules are voided and those players become ufa's. At least it would generate some buzz to start a new season with.

thinkwild is offline   Reply With Quote