your analogy is flawed. Employees got these options in exchange for something -- less salary, or risk. Your hypothetical didn't give up anything for that sala

your analogy is flawed. Employees got these options in exchange for something -- less salary, or risk. Your hypothetical didn't give up anything for that salary -- it's not like the employee turned down $1.1M for $1.0M. I refer you to the symmetric situation in my previous comment: if Zynga hadn't worked out, would Pinkus be giving long term employees the cash they gave up for their options?