The players won out in a large way with the last CBA and I think it has swumg too far in their favour. I will state that the players cannot be blamed for what GMs do with contracts and such, but to save them from themselves...
1. Why not 50%? Does logic count?
2. The idea of UFA is reward a player with opportunity earned over a career for a chance to pick a spot. I'd be fine with 10 years.
4. I don't see the value in targeting arbitration. There has to be a process when sides disagree, espeically if they want to make it harder for players to move.
5. 5 year entry I am not so sure of. Players often break out in year 3 or 4 so the current 3 years gives them time to do it. I'd keep this as is.
Anyways, if this is true to the letter then indeed just on point one there is the full intention of acrimonious negotiations. They would be absolute idiots on each side if they advocated missing time.
Posted on Jul 16, 2012, 2:31 PM from IP address 22.214.171.124