Reply With Quote
There are…contracts can be declining, but just like raises year to year there’s a scale so you can’t do what you just mentioned IIRC
Are there any kind of restrictions that govern much a contract can be front loaded? It should be in a player best interest to front load their deals as much as possible - and if there are no limitations it would allow teams in a position like the Spurs to really take advantage of the situation. Say we gave Devin the same 4/80 that Keldon got, but it was structured 35/25/15/5. This could help the Spurs meet the floor but also make Devin a HUGE trade asset in years 3 and 4 (or a huge boon to the Spurs cap if the Spurs were contenders by then). I don't know if there are restrictions on this or if this messes up the extension scale, etc.
There are…contracts can be declining, but just like raises year to year there’s a scale so you can’t do what you just mentioned IIRC
Looks like it's the same 8%/5% (Bird/non-Bird) rules as increases.
Yup! And point remains - Devins first 2 years are basically “free” for Spurs. They have a floor to meet and so all that money going to DEV would be paid whether he is or not. It’s a great spot to be in IMO, since you lock him up and it doesn’t cost you any money you weren’t already accounting for.
Oh look, the league making up a rule specifically to penalize the spurs, again.
They were mad that we held out strong against free cap space rental for the LAL. Kept them in the ter most of the year until Utah foolishly took Westchuck off their hands.
Will this new rule prevent teams from holding huge cap space through the season like that? Or will teams find a way to get their team salary up to the minimum just before the deadline if they can't get a good deal? Something like signing a no-name player to a deal big enough to reach the floor? That would piss off the rest of the roster, though, cause it would deny them the extra money they could have gotten if the team had stayed below the floor.
At least per the tweet, it's based on the first day of the regular season. However, I wonder if there are some tricks that could be played to hit the floor to start the season, then dip below it in order to be a cap space rental facility.
How does this benefit the league though?.thw problem is over leveraging by teams for marginal playoff hopes. This Won't stop tanking
At the very least, it puts some teeth behind the idea of a salary floor. Right now, the floor is kind of meaningless - you go under it and all your players get a bonus, while you can still collect tax distributions, which really provides teams no incentive to even to try and reach the floor. Certainly the argument can be had of whether there should even be a floor, but if you agree on the general concept of the floor then I think this does put some accountability to it. Just my $0.02
The obvious thought would be an unguaranteed contract for a high salary (or a contract with a guarantee date a couple of weeks after the start of the season), that you could cut after the start of the season...
You can hold cap space, just not to the point where you stay below the salary floor when the season starts.
Ok, that kills the plan of trying to hoard too much cap space (enough to go below the floor) through the trade deadline.
Yup. but you can hold some.
I think they thought they would strong arm teams like SA and Utah into doing bad deals early to help the LAs of the world, but all this will do is shut off those trades after the beginning of the season. We really didn't even use much of our cap room, and LA got one shot at a lightly protected FRP, not that great of a deal. The LAs of the world will just be SOL after the season starts.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
