Players aren't necessarily drafted in talent order. There's absolutely no reason that someone "deserves" more just because they got drafted higher. It is not fair for the players to remove their leverage and ability to get their fair market value.Originally Posted by Jeffy25
That's the EFFECT. All it will do is result in more money for the owners' pockets and less rights and money for the players.
That's the point. This is the only period they're likely to have in their career with ANY leverage in negotiations. A cap would DENY them of that. Players deserve to get the most that they can get, whether they're amateur players or players with 6 years of service time.
It would deprive them of leverage and potentially making as much as they COULD make.
I suggest reading the partial quotes from the article I linked to earlier. Which, you apparently did, but I guess still don't get. Those are huge IFS. This is likely the only time the player has ANY leverage. A cap denies that.
Referring to the healthcare debate. Greed is apparently good for giant insurance companies whose interests are directly opposed to the interests of the people they serve, but bad for people who have only one real shot at having any negotiating leverage.
An amateur draft, itself, is anti-free market. Further restrictions on that is even MORE anti-free market.
Again, that article. There are many things out of the players control that can prevent them from ever reaching that gigantic IF. For most players, this IS their only shot at leverage in negotiations.
So, uh, how exactly would that work? Wells/Silva got paid "for their performance." It's just that teams failed to correctly evaluate their FUTURE performance and thus they are now being overpaid. No idea what this has to do with amateur salary caps.
Absolutely not true. Future value is value.
That's his choice.
Don't be so quick to judge. The paperwork could very easily have gotten in just before midnight and just not be reported yet. It happens every year.
Reply With Quote
