View Single Post
11-12-2012, 07:21 AM
Registered User
Ola's Avatar
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Sweden
Country: Sweden
Posts: 22,853
vCash: 500
Bettman don't like to be pragmatic and to make comprimises. I kind of like that about him from a technical point of view. A bunch of exemptions left and right, and what not, is just messy and hard to overview what you actually achive with them.

But it does kind of seem like a typical comprimize could solve the deadlock on contractual issues. The parties are within spitting distance on core economics, but my best guess is that a few owners deem the contractual issues to be very important for them (IE the teams that believes that they need to go the EDM route and rebuild through drafting. For these teams its a big diffrence if they can keep their RFA's a bit longer and cheeper. They always face the risk of rebuilding for 5 years, then facing some adversity when they are expected to take that final step, and if they start loosing players at that time things could become really messy for them...)

For example:

-give a team a chance to protect 2-3 players and have them hit UFA at 28/8 if they are paid like atleast twice the league avg (or whatever suitable level) or whatever. Call it the RNH-rule or whatever.

-let a RFA go to arbitration as under the old CBA, unless the said player is paid twice the league avg. Or whatever... Call it the RNH-rule II.

Ola is offline   Reply With Quote