Miss Lonelyhearts Posted April 9, 2014 Share Posted April 9, 2014 Oh, how much easier things could be if people would act like our textbooks say and play within the rules of the game. Can you imagine if stuff actually worked that way? Like you go to a commodities brokerage to settle a contract and wind up having your honor insulted by an angry man in a pointy hat for not showing up with the actual metric ton of frozen orange juice concentrate or whatever. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RutgersJetFan Posted April 9, 2014 Share Posted April 9, 2014 I said no such thing, but while we're turning our attention to the system, I'm wondering why it's considered dishonorable for Revis to hold out but not equally or even more so for the Jets to pay him off. The reason teams keep rewarding holdouts is that it's cheaper than collectively bargaining for protection. The idea that teams would be better off if players couldn't hold out ignores the reality of what it would take to bring about. See, this is a good argument. That players have no other means of achieving their ends because of institutional constraints is fine, but defending a concept like efficient breach makes you sound like someone writing a defense for a partner in Lehman Bros. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RutgersJetFan Posted April 9, 2014 Share Posted April 9, 2014 Can you imagine if stuff actually worked that way? Like you go to a commodities brokerage to settle a contract and wind up having your honor insulted by an angry man in a pointy hat for not showing up with the actual metric ton of frozen orange juice concentrate or whatever. Pretty much. I like to think that this is a good gage for telling the difference between someone with experience and formal education and someone who simply reads a lot of Wikipedia. EDIT: FYI Sperm that's not a dig at you. Just speaking in general terms. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Miss Lonelyhearts Posted April 9, 2014 Share Posted April 9, 2014 See, this is a good argument. That players have no other means of achieving their ends because of institutional constraints is fine, but defending a concept like efficient breach makes you sound like someone writing a defense for a partner in Lehman Bros. Efficient breach is it's own defense. Particularly since we're talking about personal services contracts so the alternative is involuntary servitude. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Miss Lonelyhearts Posted April 9, 2014 Share Posted April 9, 2014 And just for the record autocorrect put that apostrophe there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RutgersJetFan Posted April 9, 2014 Share Posted April 9, 2014 Efficient breach is it's own defense. Particularly since we're talking about personal services contracts so the alternative is involuntary servitude. The moral critique is also its own defense. We're not exactly talking about an equilibrium here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dbatesman Posted April 10, 2014 Share Posted April 10, 2014 And just for the record autocorrect put that apostrophe there. This close. This. Close. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.