View Single Post
11-23-2012, 01:11 PM
Fugu's Avatar
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: ϶(°o°)ϵ
Posts: 36,783
vCash: 500
Originally Posted by ottawah View Post
Closest comparable, nothing is exactly the same.

MLB also gets less than 50% of revenues (although not guaranteed one way or the other).

What I am saying, effectively, if given the closest comparables, why, as a player, would you want to risk it ......

Because you're only comparing one element, the player share, and assuming that a cap is already agreed to as a basis for compensation.

However, like I said above, the complexity alone makes 'binding arbitration' something neither side would or should agree to do.

Originally Posted by ottawah View Post
As for whether contracts are valid after, I would think they are still valid, but if the guarantees part is in the CBA as opposed to individual contracts, it may even be more worse for the players. The owners may be able to pick and choose what contracts they wish to keep.

Exactly how do they decide which 'guaranteed' contracts they wish to keep? It's an unilateral action on something that binds two parties, and if the lack of a CBA were to negate all contracts, then ALL contracts would be negated. You keep thinking that the players have no legal rights or leverage or that anyone would actually need to fill a 22 man roster with the best players they could find.

Fugu is offline   Reply With Quote