Re: Another cap suggestion

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

This is certainly the downside to my scheme.  Ideally the current team 
should be able to make a fair first offer, but this system doesn't allow 
that.  But I haven't been able to think of a simple solution that 
wouldn't revert to players holding owners hostage.  I don't think it 
would cause players to sit out, though, because negotiation would start 
immediately after the season.

Maybe there has to be some limited raise a team can offer it's player.  
Eg. if the salary cap has increaed buy 25% since he signed his last 
contract, he could be offered a 25% raise.  If he wants more, he'll have 
to go find a better offer, which his team could match.  I don't like it 
because it ruins the simplicity of the original idea, but I can't think 
of much else.

Jim

>From: j.hironaka@unesco.org
>Date: Thu, 19 Nov 1998 18:31:46 +0100
>To: Adam Suchocki <asuchocki@wireless.tellabs.com>, celtics 
<celtics@igtc.com>
>Subject: Re: Another cap suggestion
>
>If there are flaws in the argument, one may be that teams can't even
>really begin the process of negotiating with their own top free >agents 
until the moment a second team intercedes with a competing >offer.  This 
could lead to a lot of free agents sitting out long >periods waiting for 
the "right" rival offer sheet to finally appear >in their mailbox. It's 
not as if a Karl Malone-type guy would >happily accept the only other 
alternative of signing for whatever 
>little room may be left under his present team's cap.
>
>****
>
>
>


______________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com