Re: Damn it...she's right again. What's happening?

[Douglas342@aol.com]

In a message dated 11/17/98 6:38:07 PM Central Standard Time,
damekmo@teleport.com writes:

> And if the team could've kept him under a rookie contract
>  for longer than two ("Sign him now, because he might get pissed off and
>  leave next year," is what I think I argued.) years....then the early entry
>  would be acceptable
   But Paul, given your other post about "It's all about the money, right?"
how does this fit?  If it's all about the money, then rookies would demand
that the rookie deal be torn up after the first year!  They oughta know that
the feeding trough comes out after three years.  If Boston is ready to pay
Walker 80 mil after two years, you'd think he'd want to wait until three have
passed and then ask for 100!  If Walker is pissed, but the Celtics make the
best offer after his third year, which wins?  Being pissed or getting the big
bucks?
     Kim:  outstanding post.   I keep going back to someone's plan about nine
months ago of all kids having seven "developmental years" starting with
freshman year in college.  Rookie contracts take them through the seventh
year.  Garnett's rookie deal lasts seven years.  Walker came out after his
second season, so his rookie deal is five years.  A senior's lasts three.  It
sure does make sense...