[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Leo Papile's math?
At 06:53 PM 7/31/02 +0200, hironaka@nomade.fr wrote:
You can say the NFL is lucky to have such a system and
that it works extraordinarily well for fans. But I can't
see how any NBA or baseball owners could realistically
bargain on non-guaranteed contracts, now that they are
already the norm. If it could have been tabled previously
as an issue, it probably would have been.
From your wording I think this is a response to Jim rather than me, but
FWIW, this was part of why my proposal was to eliminate only SOME of the
guaranteed contracts and set the same quota on how many of them each team
can still have. I agree that wiping them out entirely is unlikely.
Eliminating some of them I think could be pitched to pass because a lot of
players egos will drive them to be sure that THEY will be the ones with the
guarantee and so they'll listen to some of the plusses. IIt's supposed to
be a negotiation anyway and this is a compromise solution. Just find
something to 'give in' to the players on in return to make it happen.
If guaranteed contracts are an irrevocable part of the
NBA and other major leagues, I would greatly prefer that
players can be "cut" with pay (without counting against
the team cap).
Maybe. I still doubt if this would help our situation with our 'fiscally
responsible' owner, but it would probably have some of the desired results
in some places. It makes the league even more unevenly competative though,
eliminating part of what the whole cap etc is supposed to do. The few big
pocket owners can afford to do a cut and sign, release and sign someone
else, re-sign and cut shuffle of personnel as often and as much as they
please to get what they want.
But here is why I think the owners might do this (pay a
guy to do nothing).
Say Boston "cuts" Baker after two seasons. Then Vinny has
the option of signing for much less to play the game he
loves while he still is able, or kicking back in style at
owner's expense while letting the team to replace his
roster spot should they wish. As long as his millions are
still guaranteed, I doubt he can sue the organization for
not letting him play or even enter the locker room.
Getting to my point, this seems like a stealthy way to
transform guaranteed contracts into anything but.
Yeah, but honestly I can't agree that it does any such thing (make them any
less guaranteed). They're still guaranteed, it's just that there's a new
way to 'renounce' them.
In the
end, some affected players (perhaps many) might choose to
re-sign/renegotiate for less in exchange for the chance
to compete again, rather than suffer the boredom and peer
humiliation of being excluded from the locker room and
put out too early to pasture. Preposterous? Maybe.
Some will. What you're proposing is similar to what happens with released
coaches in many sports. The problem is that the ones who care enough to do
that are the ones least likely to be a problem you need to cut, except in
cases where age or injury catch up with them.
What would you do if you were in that situation? If you
were receiving a huge alimony and child support, would
you refuse to remarry or date for the rest of your life?
To me, that would be a fair analogy.
Sorry, but no IMO. Not even close. Totally different situations and
mindsets and motivations.
Kim