Quote:
Originally Posted by Shady Machine
Is that really how the variance was calculated? I took it to mean that the salary in ANY one year in the contract couldn't vary more than x% from the highest year. Not every deal will have the max salary in year 1, so you're example wouldn't really work. Say the deal in the old world looked like:
5, 7.5, 10, 7.5, 5 That's a 7 million cap hit on a 5 year deal. However, the variance from the max in year 1 is 50%, not 25% like in your step down approach. By the logic you used above, this would still be an acceptable deal in the new proposal (assuming the players got the 25% variance). That wouldn't really make any sense. I could be wrong of course.
Based on my assumptions, you're first example would really have to be:
10,7.5, 7.5, 7.5, 7.5
Since the salary in ANY one year can't vary from the max more than 25%. Which to me is a reasonable thing to settle on. I would be fine with that deal any day.

The max number was 10.0 and 25% is 2.5 in the first one that any number in the deal can move from it.
Your>>>10,7.5, 7.5, 7.5, 7.5 = 31 and it's still short a year, all the figures are for 6 year contracts.
I could be wrong also, but I was under the assumption no year can move more than 25% of the largest contract year which is 10.0 and each year couldn't move more than that which is 2.5(= 25% of 10.0) from year to year.