Re: Owners now the problem?

[Douglas342@aol.com]

In a message dated 11/17/98 9:31:36 AM Central Standard Time,
jim_meninno@hotmail.com writes:

> The big thing is that the Bird Exception must go.  If that means teams 
>  can't keep franchise players, then tough.
----- You may be right.  When I think about the Bird rule, I think of two
players:  Bird and Jordan.  Most teams would come close to the fiscal brink to
re-sign such talent.  They are both mega-stars, part of Dream Team I.  I can
stomach the rule for such players, but then come the Garnetts and Walkers -
the risky signings.  Chicago isn't gambling with Jordan.  Boston didn't gamble
with Bird.  Maybe the link here is to longer rookie contracts?  Some sort of
second contract with limits on it, so a player can be signed for high, but not
unlimited, bucks for years four and five?  Something that makes it easier to
stomach paying Jordan bucks for a player.  
    Speaking of Walker, under the present/old system, why is it imperative to
resign him now, after two years?  If we whine about signing "kids" to
Jordanesque contracts, why are we doing it when his contract still has a full
year to run?  (I know there's an answer to this, I just forget what it is.)
     And I'm getting real pessimistic here.  Sounds like the two sides have
drifted further apart than ever.  Guess that's what happens when you try to
reinvent the wheel.  The odds of no season are certainly growing quickly, I
fear.