Yep. I believe we had a big influence around the league in terms of getting this language inserted into rookie contracts...
Yeah, the issue with this language is that we've done it with the #8 pick and the #3 pick in the respective drafts. Although a guy busting down to nothing can happen no matter where he's drafted, to me, it's the guys in the 15-30 range that have the bigger chance of becoming busts... I think the teams feel since this is just about the only 'negotiation' parts of rookie contracts, they have to get that edge, no matter whether or not it means anything in the end (year 4 or 5 of the contract)... As CK has said, the way we've done things (yeah, I guess we started the trend) is to move more money into the first three years of the contract and there is really some question as to whether it makes a real difference in the overall scheme of things anyway...
It's the principle of it. The owners don't like the concept of players double dipping on them. They wanted to get this done... and we spearheaded it quite successfully.
I agree Nasty, but does it really make a difference in about 99 and 44/100 percent of the time ?? That's the simple point that was originally made by CK that I was trying to convey... I applaud them for being the spearhead of this, but is it really something to worry about in relationship to getting a guy on the field and in practice, particularly a rookie...
