Quote:
Originally Posted by molson
I just skimmed a law review article about whether the more blatant examples of service time manipulation violates the CBA, but as always with this debate, it evolved into a conclusion that it was simply unfair because the players didn't think of this when they negotiated, and that everybody should agree to rectify the problem next time. When looking at it from players perspective, we all suddenly pretend that CBA is constructed by a third-party whose goal is objective fairness. And that one side, but not the other, should make concessions in the name of general objective fairness.
|
The problem is that the players whose earning potential is being severely limited never had a chance to vote on the current CBA. And it'll always be easier for current players to vote to give themselves more money & curtail future players earnings.
Then you factor in how many teams just aren't trying to win, and don't want to pay anything above the minimum for above replacement level depth guys, and you get the current climate.