View Single Post
12-14-2012, 01:48 PM
Cocoa Crisp
Registered User
Cocoa Crisp's Avatar
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: NYC
Country: Hong Kong
Posts: 2,786
vCash: 500
Originally Posted by Bleach Clean View Post
That's a great idea, but the owners would never agree to it. Why would they? Right now, with every successive CBA "negotiation" they've taken more and more away from the players. They are already recognized to be winners here. Why would they risk losing that leverage? When they can again pound the players for more concessions under the current standard?

I think it's a solid idea, but idealistic. The only way to ensure that the owners don't continually use their considerable leverage is to decertify early as a matter of course. Have all your ducks in order. Understand the process in the courts intimately, and be prepared to operate under that context. That's the only way IMO.
I'm not sure that they would reject it outright. It would really depend on what the metrics are and how they would be evaluated because at the end of the day they really do want to see their business model succeed and it's evidenced by their desire to make the next CBA last as long as possible.

Of course what I'm proposing would take literally the entire offseason to sort out, so there goes the season. Although given the call to vote for decertification, it's tough to see how the season could be salvaged at this late stage.

As to your idea of immediate decertification upon lockout, it's a risky strategy because the courts could easily reject it outright. If Fehr were really intent on playing hardball, he should have floated the idea of a strike at the beginning of last season and ratcheted up the rhetoric as the playoffs approached in order to precipitate a serious offer from Bettman. That would have short circuited the lockout option altogether.

Cocoa Crisp is offline