Moderators: Three Stars, dagny, pfim, netwolf


joopen wrote:Ok so the players want their contracts fulfilled. Owners say OK but we want long term labor peace. Players respond with LULZ


MRandall25 wrote:joopen wrote:Ok so the players want their contracts fulfilled. Owners say OK but we want long term labor peace. Players respond with LULZ
It's not that. It's the fact they can't sign a deal for longer than 7 years during the entire CBA. Some players want the assurance that they'll be set contract-wise.



nocera wrote:llipgh2 wrote:It's negotiations. It's going to ebb and flow.
We've been saying this since July. Too much ebb and flow.

Gaucho wrote:Guess you didn't read the fine print.

llipgh2 wrote:nocera wrote:llipgh2 wrote:It's negotiations. It's going to ebb and flow.
We've been saying this since July. Too much ebb and flow.
No, it's been posturing by both sides since July. The first real negotiating started this week.


Gaucho wrote:Bob McKenzie @TSNBobMcKenzie
I can tell you there's a hugely negative vibe emanating from both sides right now. Keeping this process on rails today will be challenging.


Gaucho wrote:Bob McKenzie @TSNBobMcKenzie
I can tell you there's a hugely negative vibe emanating from both sides right now. Keeping this process on rails today will be challenging.

...instead of adopting a union proposal that would recapture a team's salary cap advantage if a player retired before his contract ran out. The league continued to insist on a five-year contract limit, while allowing teams to re-sign their own players for seven years.


Nick Cotsonika
No live tweeting today. The sides are meeting on a private floor, and the hotel is kicking the media out of the building.

MRandall25 wrote:...instead of adopting a union proposal that would recapture a team's salary cap advantage if a player retired before his contract ran out. The league continued to insist on a five-year contract limit, while allowing teams to re-sign their own players for seven years.
So the way I read this, the owners are firm on the 5 year limit thing, but wouldn't take the players' offer of wiping out the cap hit for retiring players. Notice how it says NOTHING about how long the players want the contracts to be, just that they don't want a 5 year limit.



pens_srq wrote:Can the players not see that the cap can't have loopholes? There is no point to the cap if there are holes that allow people to circumvent it. I like the loyalty thing of resigning own free-agents to for 7 years. But I think it will / should end up more like: Max of 8 years on a contract with exception of 10 for own free agents.
The variance is not negotiable.

Gaucho wrote:Blackjack and hookers?





Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests