Reply With Quote
I'm not sure why any player would agree to a reduction in salary at the whim of the team.
Is a negative trade kicker possible?
Some players have trade kickers that give them a raise if traded, for example, James Posey had a 10% trade kicker that triggered when he was sent to IND... Making his salary go to 7.1 $M this year. Could you write a contract with a negative trade kicker (say -10%)? This would be useful in executing sign and trade contracts, allowing a team to acquire a player who has been S&T'ed, while sending back substantially more salary.
Consider a hypothetical. Player X S&T'ed for Player Y. Y is making $14,718,250. Y's team wants to cut salary. The minimum that X could be signed for is $11,694,600; therefore Y's team would normally still have that much salary commitment. With a -10% trade kicker, X's effective salary, post trade would become $10,525,140. Assuming this is still an acceptable salary to X and to team Y, this would allow X's former team to move X for Y, while saving Y's former team an extra 1$M per year, without additional pieces.
I'm not sure why any player would agree to a reduction in salary at the whim of the team.
Read the hypothetical; reading comprehension is your friend...
The player gets a post-trade salary that he is happy with; he knows about the kicker and the S&T when he signs the contract. The effect is that the team who is doing the signing can take more salary back than would normally be allowable...
Negative trade kicker doesn't exist and a trade kicker doesn't trigger in a S&T.
The question still is why would any player be happy with a 10% reduction in salary, especially since that reduction is solely to help management get rid of him.
Thank you Bruno...
It obviously would reduce his tax liability. Assuming that he is traded to a state with same tax status.
I understood your hypothetical; I just posited that such a player is extremely unlikely to exist.
By the way, even if the negative trade kicker weren't prohibited by the CBA, I suspect the Players Association would throw a fit if a player attempted to agree to such a deal and would likely quash it before the ink was dry on the paper.
The player is still worse off. As you said, assuming same tax status, let's say tax rate of 50%. You're going from after tax income of 50% to after tax income of 45%.
So why would a player be happy with this?
Even though Bruno has alrady answered the question, hypothetically speaking, I would think that a negative trade kicker and a no-trade clause would have to come together like a packaged deal in that player's contract.
Hedo waived $5M of his 15% trade kicker to get out of Toronto.
That's still not reduction in salary if he waived a portion of the trade kicker...if he hadn't waived the trade kicker, he would have gotten paid an additional $6.5 MM or so...so by waiving $5MM, he still increased his salary by $1.5 MM...that's very different than a player agreeing to take a 10% cut in order to accommodate a trade...
Also, it's one thing to restructure a contract later because the player is miserable with the team, but why would a player sign a new contract that has a built in clause that would make it easier for the management to trade him--at the player's expense?
Last edited by toki9; 08-13-2010 at 07:08 PM.
Thread le was pretty spot on.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
