miksteri 55 Report post Posted August 5, 2009 Lets say that arbitrator awards a certain player 3.9mill and the team refuses to pay that, then this player is a free agent. So some other team can sign him for 2mill, i might be the only one but i think that is fkd up. If a players 'worth' is 3.9mill and he signs somewhere else for a lot less, isnt that wrong against that team that he went to arbitration with? Just askin... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
RusDRW 155 Report post Posted August 5, 2009 Lets say that arbitrator awards a certain player 3.9mill and the team refuses to pay that, then this player is a free agent. So some other team can sign him for 2mill, i might be the only one but i think that is fkd up. If a players 'worth' is 3.9mill and he signs somewhere else for a lot less, isnt that wrong against that team that he went to arbitration with? Just askin... I do not think this is unfair. Usually, there is a lot of time to come up with agreement before all the stuff is taken to arbitration. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
egroen 384 Report post Posted August 5, 2009 A team should never be 'forced' to sign someone - honor a contract, yes, but not sign any player. Restricted free agency exists to ensure those teams that spent the money and time in developing their drafted players have first crack at signing him, while arbitration helps ensure they are not 'taking advantage' of him. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
