View Single Post
12-13-2012, 11:43 AM
Registered User
onlyalad's Avatar
Join Date: Jan 2008
Country: United States
Posts: 4,952
vCash: 500
Originally Posted by bp13 View Post
You know that's not a fair response. The Average Joe's income has zero bearing here.

By limiting contract length you're taking an arrow from the GM's quiver, you're limiting the amount of security a player can secure, and you're doing it all because you don't/can't trust your fellow owners or craft free-market language to solve the problem. It's lazy and punitive. I honestly can't see why anyone, pro-owner or not, isn't against this. Why can't the owners find another way to solve this problem - it's their problem!
The 5 years is about limiting risk. Injury or a fluke year wont kill a team in the long run. There will always be one owner that will find a way to tweek the rules to his advantage. The other owners will have to follow suit or lose the ability to compete. The second reason is to hold young players longer. By only giving 5 year deals owners get more chances to sign players as RFA vs UFA. The third reason is more UFAs on the market. This means pkayer X wont be the only UFA and demand as crazy money.
Now these are just my ideas so no links, no quotes, and no logic

onlyalad is offline