Lockout Discussion Thread 3.0
View Single Post
11-23-2012, 02:29 PM
Talks to Goalposts
Join Date: Apr 2011
Originally Posted by
I have to doubt of your whereabouts if you think Gainey was applauded here or in the media. He was criticized for being too laid back, lacking aggressivity, and unable to attrack the big free agents, or make significant trades around the deadline.
Yes, when he had to re-sign some of our players, he got decent-good deals, but that has nothing to do with his work on trades/UFA. He was highly criticized.
After he made all those signings, people thought he lost it completely, others were willing to wait to see what comes of it.
Not sure who applauded Skinner at 5M..
In any event, again, like this lockout, it's not just one sided. The owners are dumb for dishing out that cash, but the agents play their part. If a player demands 7M, and that's the minimum or he walks, well, the GM/Owner are faced with an ultimatum. Either re-sign at an overpaying price, or lose a valuable asset. Sometimes, they'll let that player go, sometimes they'll sign.
But let's not pretend both sides don't play their part. It's not like the players come in asking for petty change and the owners just decide to give three times the amount, just for kicks.
The agents are there for a reason, they try to get the best deals possible to their clients. There's also the bidding wars on the open market.
There's so many reasons as to why players end up getting so much cash. Yes, in the end, owners are the ones paying it out, but the players are also playing their part, big time.
You're fixated on a red herring. The supposed giant contracts that are ruining things for the owners. This is a total irrelevancy. The players get the same amount of money in total regardless any contract signed. All a big contract does is take money away from other players to give it to that player, it has no net effect on ownership.
Talks to Goalposts
View Public Profile
Talks to Goalposts's albums
Find More Posts by Talks to Goalposts