View Single Post
Old
01-06-2013, 04:36 PM
  #37
LeftCoast
Registered User
 
LeftCoast's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Vancouver
Country: Canada
Posts: 7,030
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by Evileye View Post
IMO, it shouldn't matter if it was injury induced retirement, or the player doesn't want to get out of bed for a 'paltry' $1M.
If a team received an advantage of enticing a player with more $$ than other teams while not incurring the full corresponding cap hit, then they should incur the penalty if the playing career ends and the full cap hit wasn't paid, regardless of circumstance.
If multiple teams are involved, then the math you suggest makes sense - each team must pay back the cap advantage they received while the player played for them.
No one should whine about this, it is rather simple - money paid to player should = cap hit paid when all is said and done.
There is no way they retroactively go after contracts that were legal under the old CBA. All new contracts will have to abide by the new variance rules, but just as the existing long term contracts that exceed the new length limit will be grandfathered, so will the existing front loaded contracts.

The new CBA does allow front loading of contracts, but has much tighter limits on overall term and variance from year to year. I think this is a reasonable compromise as it allows teams some leeway in how they structure their contracts.

LeftCoast is offline   Reply With Quote