Quote:
Originally Posted by GeoPoto
I don't understand how using "rules" that were collectively bargained is "abuse". In the negotiations both parties had things they wanted and things they were willing to give up. If the players "traded" the rules on arbitration, (which give clubs the option of bringing top players up quickly thereby getting the players production and starting arbitration early or delaying both) in order to obtain concessions (that the players placed greater value on) from the owners, why shouldn't teams use them however they see fit.
It seems completely rational for the players to restrict the compensation somewhat of the best (soon to be highest paid) players in exchange for benefits such as salary minimums, pension rules, etc. that benefit all players, including ones who will never approach the compensation levels achieved by the elite players.
Looking at the effect on elite prospects in isolation may make it appear that they are being "screwed" (paid less than they could have commanded without the arbitration eligibility "rules"), but if those rules were traded during negotiations for things that benefit all players, it may be a completely sensible trade-off that the negotiators of the CBA wanted and agreed to.
|
You really don't think not using any prospects for a whole season because it was a shortened season isnt an abuse? Sure it is within the rules, but certainly not in the spirit of what was bargained. He admitted that they were deliberately holding back players so they wouldn't get fair market value. The players suspected this was going on and now have confirmation. It's not really any different than collusion in the 80s. I think the prospects of a strike just went way up. The only ones really losing are the fans.