View Single Post
  #121  
Old 06-30-2014, 12:22 PM
Martin Hyde is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 14,234
I'm not sure I buy into the popular wisdom that we're just feeding Cena to Lesnar at Summerslam. It makes about as much sense to give Lesnar the belt as it would the Undertaker or The Rock. The guys who are only putting in a small amount of time per year and have agreements to that effect don't make sense as being in the title picture.

I think the original plan would have been to feed Lesnar to Daniel Bryan, which would have massively pumped up DB's legitimacy. But since they had to strip Bryan of the belt, I think they may have to retool the entirety of their plan for Lesnar at Summerslam. Since Lesnar is never going back to even close to full time (or even part time) WWE roster because he hates the life and the travel, you'll never see him doing more than a few Raw appearances and a few PPVs per year. So from a booking perspective you can only have him win in a non-title match as it makes little sense to make the somewhat irrelevant WWE titles even more irrelevant by putting them on a guy who will only be seen on TV maybe 3 times a year and on PPVs 4-5 times.

If you book Cena to defend the title against Lesnar just so Lesnar loses to Cena, that's a waste of a Lesnar appearance. If his deal is anything like the Undertakers (which I've heard is a strict per-appearance fee) then it's a waste of a decent chunk of change for something that will advance no storyline and do nothing to hep bring up new wrestlers. Cena is already established. The only way Lesnar winning would make sense is if you're able to bring someone in to take it from him immediately in like a Raw appearance or the next PPV, because you definitely can't have an absentee champion for more than an entire PPV cycle or you might as well just get rid of the belts and the championship.