"We worked hard to get a fair deal done. We didn't get everything that either side wanted. There's a lot of things I'm sure that the players wanted and owners wanted that we didn't get. But we did arrive at a deal that we think is fair and balanced.''
After getting fleeced by the union in the last labor negotiation in 2006, the owners came into this one looking for payback. Unbalanced and one-sided were the two words they most often used to describe the '06 deal that 30 of the league's 32 owners saw fit to put their John Hancock on.
They did get some concessions in the new deal, most notably a reduction in the players' share of league revenue from 50 percent to around 48 percent, and a restructured rookie compensation system that makes a little more sense than the old one.
But neither the revenue concession nor the rookie salary concession was nearly as significant as the owners had wanted. And Smith and the players scored significant victories in health and safety issues, including a reduction in offseason workouts and less hitting in training camp and regular-season practices. The owners also didn't get the 18-game regular season they were pushing for, though that subject still will be open for discussion down the road.
"I think there were victories on both sides in this deal," agent Jerrold Colton said. "Certainly, lowering the players' [revenue] percentage is a victory for the owners. But the reduction isn't a huge reduction.
"The reductions of offseason workouts and in-season workouts is a victory for the players. So is preserving free agency at 4 years. And I don't think the owners got the rookie wage scale placed at the level they had hoped for.
"Compared to what the owners were looking for at the start, the players came out of this pretty well.''
A quick look at some of the key aspects of the new deal:
