http://nymag.com/daily/sports/2012/07/qa-with-larry-coon-about-jeremy-lin.html 居然连这种 Q&A 都有了。 大多数都是 CBA FAQ 写过（版上也提及很多次）的东西，不过只有这点可以 贴出来参考： 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 这段不难。 --

※ 发信站: 批踢踢实业坊(ptt.cc) ◆ From: 114.34.108.34