Tweet
Someone correct me if I'm wrong, I honestly dont know. But, I think what we just did with Merriman wasn't possible prior to this year. Is that correct?
For some reason I thought that being placed on waivers was based on years of service and that this year the rule changed, as part of the opt out of the current CBA and no cap year, so that if any player is cut regardless or years of service, they must pass through waivers.
Merriman is probably on his rookie contract and may have had to pass through waivers by the original rule. But Moss would not have had to... is that correct?
If I am right, I like the new rule better and I think they should put it in the new CBA. If top players are released, bad teams should get the first crack at them under their existing contracts. The player signed the contract and assumed responsibility for living up to the level of the contract. There is a whole host of reasons why that may not happen and a team ends up releasing them. But when released, the worst teams in the league get a shot at getting better based on how bad they stink. The team gets a chance to get a player they would likely have no shot at in FA, the player gets new motivation to play up to their contract for fears of being released and claimed by a bad team, and the league benefits from the increased parity. It's better for the game. The loser is the player who wants the big contract but doesn't play up to it... shouldn't they lose?
For some reason I thought that being placed on waivers was based on years of service and that this year the rule changed, as part of the opt out of the current CBA and no cap year, so that if any player is cut regardless or years of service, they must pass through waivers.
Merriman is probably on his rookie contract and may have had to pass through waivers by the original rule. But Moss would not have had to... is that correct?
If I am right, I like the new rule better and I think they should put it in the new CBA. If top players are released, bad teams should get the first crack at them under their existing contracts. The player signed the contract and assumed responsibility for living up to the level of the contract. There is a whole host of reasons why that may not happen and a team ends up releasing them. But when released, the worst teams in the league get a shot at getting better based on how bad they stink. The team gets a chance to get a player they would likely have no shot at in FA, the player gets new motivation to play up to their contract for fears of being released and claimed by a bad team, and the league benefits from the increased parity. It's better for the game. The loser is the player who wants the big contract but doesn't play up to it... shouldn't they lose?
Comment