gscottar, we are just going to have to disagree.
With no structure to define which situations teams are supposed to give in to the player’s salary request, there will be no rules at all. It will just lead to even more disagreements of opinion. That won’t fly unless you want owners to always give in to the players. It seems in that world, there will never be a hearing. So nobody’s feelings will be hurt.
Or if you are going to be selective, how do you decide who?
Is it based on how good the player is? How good is good enough to qualify?
Is it based on a dollar difference or percentage difference between the two offers? How much is enough to matter? How much is too much?
Is it based on the amount of time they have been negotiating?
It is based on the service time of the player?
Is it based on the market of the team or its payroll?
etc. etc. etc.
The whole purpose of the hearing is for both sides to prepare an assessment of the player’s value compared to other players. If there is no threat of a hearing, what will keep either side from making their offer too high (player) or too low (owner)?
My opinion is that the system in place today (agreed to by players and owners through multiple CBAs) works pretty well. There are good checks and balances built in to be fair.
But when you want exceptions to the rules, then what you really need is to change the rules, because the current system is not working the way you want it to.