View Single Post
Old
11-16-2012, 03:41 PM
  #51
Brian Boyle
portnor, pls
 
Brian Boyle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Country: Canada
Posts: 14,815
vCash: 659
Quote:
Originally Posted by DutchShamrock View Post
If the cut was any lower, teams would have bought out their stars and drowned in amnesty buyouts just to get under a $33-35m cap. It was the most favorable % for owners considering buyouts.
It seems to me there wasn`t that much salary commitment. But anyways, if the league was dictating the terms, why didn`t they gradually decrease the % over time?

Quote:
Originally Posted by DutchShamrock View Post
If the league didn't want 57%, why buckle in Feb/Mar? Still 3-5 months from the draft.
The CBA was agreed upon in July.

Quote:
Originally Posted by DutchShamrock View Post
The 27/7 was a disaster. Opposite impact. No one hit UFA, teams held onto players tighter because of the invest vs return.
But they players still got paid like UFAs 4 years earlier.

Quote:
Originally Posted by DutchShamrock View Post
It's splitting hairs, but arbitration and rfa rules were established years before. Are we still treating carry over rights as a concession? It certainly wasn't a gain. Maybe a year here and there for the player, but seriously?
RFA used to be 5 firsts for a set $ amount (I think 3.5 - 4 million). In 2005 the draft pick compensation was greatly loosened, and they tied the boundaries to the cap number, so it increased over time.

Arbitration eligibility was made to happen one year earlier. Teams matching rights when they walk away from an award were taken away, and they were limited in the awards they could walk away.

Why would the owners want to do that?

Brian Boyle is offline