Did you learn a new word today?
I'll repeat it and bold it this time. I don't really know what NP's demands were, if he won or lost, or what his actual ratings were when the arb was done. For all we know, he was 100 and demanded 15.3m in arb and lost. If you know more than that, please explain how. As for the rest of that nonsense, one example isn't a "compelling" argument anywhere but in your head. Now, with all that aside, is this correct?
So, basically, unless I provide an example of a 85 OVR position player who got 3.4m in arb1 and demands 10.2m in arb2, there's really nothing I can do to "prove" my point?
Regardless of your answer, I'll repeat that I'm not out to change your mind. You believe what you want to believe, I'll believe what I want to believe and anyone who reads this can decide who has the most "compelling" argument. You may have the last word.