Quote:
Originally Posted by BishopMVP
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.
.
|
What is the practical relevance of this? How this "problem" fixed? Should teams unilaterally not hold new players to the terms of the CBA, and protect those players since the union refuses to? Why are the GMs and owners more responsible for the well-being of these players than the union? Should players extend the same courtesy to new GMs and owners?
The union makes a bad deal, protects certain players at the expense of others, but they're not the bad guys somehow. They want to have their cake and eat it too. Make concessions for what they really want, but then cry about making those concessions. And then talk about the agreement from a 3rd-party perspective of objective fairness, even though that's not how CBAs are created. We rightfully mock teams when they do the same thing.