Re: Have the players been flexible?

["Jim Meninno" <jim_meninno@hotmail.com>]

Alright, who kidnapped Paul and what have you done with him?  Whoever 
posted this sounds far too serious and equivocal to be him.

Actually, Paul, you posted something earlier today which answers a lot 
of this.  I was surprised by how much the players claim to have 
conceded.  I can only guess that each of these concessions was made as 
part of a seperate offer and no single offer comprises all the 
concessions.  According to this, I think it was from Tellem, about all 
they haven't conceded is the hard cap.  I think the right of first 
refusal following the rookie deal could be the most effective thing 
offered so far in containing salaries.  At least owners wouldn't have to 
sign players with a year left on their contracts or pay extra to keep 
them in undesirable markets.  

To me, though, it's just more of the stars taking advantage of players 
with no power (ie. rookies).  What is really needed is a cap on the 
highest salaries and the stars that control the union are sacrificing 
the rights of rookies to avoid it.  

Why not forget this cap business and say that X% MUST go to the players.  
Not a maximum limit on salaries, but an agreed amount up front.  If 
revenues get so high that players are making a lower percent, then that 
money gets shared out among the players.  Likewise, if revenues start to 
level out, salaries will have to level out with them.  I can't think of 
anything fairer than that.

Jim