Quote
RockRam
So. You buy a house for $200K in 2000. It's 2017 and it's worth $300,000.
I think you should give that extra $100K to the guy who you bought the house from. Yeah, sure, he signed a contract. Nobody made him. But hey: you're richer than he is. And if you don't that, you are just cheap and selfish and taking advantage by sticking it to the little guy.
And since that's true, then certainly when you buy a house for $300K in 2000, but in 2017 it's only worth $200K, then the guy who sold you the house should be punished by giving you back the $100K since its gone down in value. It's only fair.
On what planet does any of this make any sense?
You draft a player......pay him millions.....and take a risk that he'll be worth it. Many of them won't be. A few will. And an occasional one will be very valuable. So you should then turn around and tear up the contract and give the valuable one a whole new deal right away (because the player wants one).....that he's going to get in a couple of years anyway when his contract expires?
Then fairness dictates that there should be no guaranteed money, either. Because nobody can foresee the future. Who knows if that guy you spent all that money on is going to perform? And if he doesn't should he have to give that money back? No? Because the owners are richer than the players? Sheesh.
Where I work, if you're good, you can get away with almost anything. Our ownership finds ways to reward its good staff. Everybody is NOT equal.
