So who is bummed about the lockout? II
View Single Post
11-12-2012, 06:30 PM
Join Date: May 2010
I understand that players would never do this, but under these rules, the owners pretty much have them over the barrel. The players options would be to either agree to the negotiated contract with their owning club, accept an offer sheet, or hold out.
The teams could also, with the expanded arbitration rights, just keep up the arbitration cycle until the player is 28.
My WTF thought bubble is that for this to be a sticking point where the league (according to some) is saying "take it or leave it"... That just confounds me.
I mean, we are talking about owners that found loopholes in the last CBA to sign these massive, back diving deals.
It also confuses the hell out of me from a business perspective. What if I wanted to sign a player to a 10 year contract? Why not? 10 years at $6 million every year, no variance. That should be allowed.
If I were on the ownership committee, I'd just be pushing for all deals have to have a 5% variance from year to year. Screw term limits. Screw the arbitration demand. Screw the change in ELC/FA.
Just stop the back diving contracts...
To me, this reeks of a Wilson/Burke demand, since that is basically what their rule is anyway... To allow this to put a stop to the process... is just dumb.
View Public Profile
Find More Posts by bozak911