http://nymag.com/daily/sports/2012/07/qa-with-larry-coon-about-jeremy-lin.html 居然連這種 Q&A 都有了。 大多數都是 CBA FAQ 寫過（版上也提及很多次）的東西，不過只有這點可以 貼出來參考： Q: Doesn't allowing a "poison pill" scenario dissuade teams from retaining their own players? What is the rationale behind this rule? A: Yes. Without the Arenas provision, teams with sufficient cap room could sign players to offer sheets their prior teams can't match. The Arenas provision restricts the first year of the offer to the mid-level amount, to guarantee the team can match with Early Bird rights or their Mid-Level exception. So from that perspective, it promotes teams' ability to retain their players. But the players obviously didn't want their salaries restricted like that, so they added the big raise starting in the third year. This way, the players could still get a big contract like they would have gotten if the Arenas provision didn't exist, and these players will get a big payday about the same time that a first-round pick would be able to get one. The unintended consequence was to create the poison pill offer that the Rockets & Raptors have taken advantage of. -- 不翻了:p 這段不難。 --

※ 發信站: 批踢踢實業坊(ptt.cc) ◆ From: 114.34.108.34