Hypothetical question: who would benefit more from a conditional long-term deal that voids if there is a work stoppage? Suppose a team signs Bichette to, let’s say, 5/150. Could there/would there be any condition within which stipulates that in the event of a stoppage, the deal is void? I could see either side benefitting from that depending on what first year comp would be. If it’s front-loaded in Year One, that benefits Bichette by giving him more money and setting a higher market for him next time; if it’s flat or back-loaded, that helps the team more by preserving assets for a long “winter”.
Flip side, if Bichette were to agree to a front-loaded contract—say, 40/30/30/25/25—that would peg his final market at age 34 to the lower number than to the average or higher number.
Would the parties agree to a one-time payout if there is a work stoppage? Say, if the team insists on a flat 30 every year, would Bichette demand, say, a $5 or $10 million payout if there’s a stoppage to satisfy his desire for a higher value in year one in case of stoppage and sweeten the pot at the end to sign? Would a team agree to that? Would it even be legal to arrange for such a payout during a work stoppage?
Of course, if there is no work stoppage at all, none of this would matter, but I think everyone in the business is planning for the stoppage.
This idea has just flown into my head so I haven’t been baking it for long, and I’m just throwing it out there if anyone’s interested in picking up this ball. You might not even agree with any of my assumptions.