EB

[ryjam282]

Eb, going off one of the other threads, brings me to another question.....


So say somebody was signed for saleries of 7m, 8m, and 10 million starting in this season.

You will have a 3.5 million cap hit for the 2006 cap correct? And then you will have 6 million the next season correct?

If this is the case that isn't too bad. This is correct right?


for next season you are correct...for this season you would have to divide $7mil by the number of games remaining and then divide by 2.


for next season you are correct...for this season you would have to divide $7mil by the number of games remaining and then divide by 2.

Eb, going by that same example....Since 6 million is being assumed by the previous owner for the remainder of the contract does the new owner get 6 million removed from the players contract over the life of it? Using the same example the player is paid 7 mil this year and 8 and 10 mil the next 2 years. So, the new owner would assume 3,277,500 for the remaining 15 games of this year and the old owner would take the remainder of the 7 mil for this year. Now, for the rest of the money, the player is owed 18 million (8 and 10 mil for the next 2 years) since the old owner is taking 33% of the remainder of the contract (5.94 million) does that get removed from the the new owners salary?

I think something needs to be addressed there as well cause then the player would be making more then his contract says he should be....Maybe it could be set up to what the old owner is assuming can be removed in equal increments for the remainder of the contract length. For example, in this case the old owner is assuming 5.94 million of the 18 mil still owed to the player. Now, since there is 2 years remaining on the contract you can divide that 5.94 by 2 and get 2.94 million and just remove that 2.94 from each of the 2 years remaining on the contract. So now the new owner's cap hit for next year would be 5.03 million for next year and 7.94 for the year after that.

What do you think Eb? I think this is the only logical way to do things regarding trades but you are the final say, what do YOU say???

[L.A. Playa]

Im totally confused, is tehre still no cap penalty in trading in the offseason that way I will just make trades then

[ryjam282]

Good question, I thought no but maybe he can clarify this as well....

[SABURZFAN]

Im totally confused, is tehre still no cap penalty in trading in the offseason that way I will just make trades then


as far as i'm concerned,it was the offseason in our trade.our trade was August 14.the season started the 19th,didn't it?

[SABURZFAN]

sorry...our trade was made on the 17th,not the 14th.

[L.A. Playa]

good point Sab

[BillsFever21]

There are still cap hits if you make trades in the offseason.

[BillsFever21]

And I agree with ryjam. If the previous owner is already taking the cap hit then some should be knocked off the players salary for the rest of the term. That's how it works in the NFL.

When a player gets traded in the NFL and the team pays the accelerated bonus money up front in that years cap then the other team is only on the hook for the salary left over. They don't owe the same amount of money that the other team had to pay unless he didn't get a signing bonus.

[L.A. Playa]

so in essence you are saying if you tarde a player for a player with the same contract amount and length there should in essence be no cap hit for either team since the hit for trading one player will be offset with the savings of not paying as much for the player acquired

[ryjam282]

Pretty much yeah, but how often will that happen?

[L.A. Playa]

the trad Sab and I had the main guys we traded bot had 3 year contracts starting at $3mil a year, the other contract was 5 years starting at $100k but that hit is nothing

[ryjam282]

Yeah, I think that is really the only way to go. I mean, we can't have guys earning more then there contract states they should. Right now, if a trade takes place the oringinal owner has to only pay 1/2 the salary of the current year and the new owner takes the rest. Why not do the same thing with the remaining years? To me, that is the only thing that makes sense. Why pay a player more then his contract states he should get?

[Ebenezer]

I an see if it is an even money trade (total contract) that there would be no penalty...

if you trade during the offseason there would still be a penalty...you would have to give up half of the next's years salary and then get assessed as I described...

let me think about what happens once a contract transfers...

I'll have some major editing to do to the constitution...

[L.A. Playa]

Eb could you break down the cap ramifications of the trade between Sab and I so I can decide whether I can afford the hit ??

[L.A. Playa]

here are the salaries eb

Playas acquire
Tommie Harris 3 years starting at $3 mil

Sabres Acquire
DeWayne Robertson 3 years Starting at $3 mil
Nick Collins 5 years starting at $100 k

[Ebenezer]

here are the salaries eb

Playas acquire
Tommie Harris 3 years starting at $3 mil

Sabres Acquire
DeWayne Robertson 3 years Starting at $3 mil
Nick Collins 5 years starting at $100 k
ok....I have finalized my ruling. The thing I am trying to avoid is an obvious fire sale or salary dump. A trade of this nature doesn't fit into either of those catagories. Here are the new trade rules.

A. A trade made between two owners involving players making the same money will be allowed with no financial penalty. The owner assumes the contract AS IS.

B. A trade made in the case of either a fire sale or a salary dump will result in the the following: 1) A cap penalty to the owner in the amount of one-half that season's remaining salary applied to that year's cap. Trades made during the off-season will be assessed a penalty of one-half the salary for that upcoming season. 2) A cap penalty to the owner in the amount of one-third the total remaining contract applied to the following years cap.

C. The owner who receives a player under scenario B will assume the contract AS IS with a 33% reduction in all remaining years of the contract. The player will play out the current season under the original contract for that year.


How does that sound??

[BillsFever21]

ok....I have finalized my ruling. The thing I am trying to avoid is an obvious fire sale or salary dump. A trade of this nature doesn't fit into either of those catagories. Here are the new trade rules.

A. A trade made between two owners involving players making the same money will be allowed with no financial penalty. The owner assumes the contract AS IS.

B. A trade made in the case of either a fire sale or a salary dump will result in the the following: 1) A cap penalty to the owner in the amount of one-half that season's remaining salary applied to that year's cap. Trades made during the off-season will be assessed a penalty of one-half the salary for that upcoming season. 2) A cap penalty to the owner in the amount of one-third the total remaining contract applied to the following years cap.

C. The owner who receives a player under scenario B will assume the contract AS IS with a 33% reduction in all remaining years of the contract. The player will play out the current season under the original contract for that year.


How does that sound??

When you say "making the same amount of money" do you mean through the entire contract(salary and numbers of years all the same)?

I think the total contract should have to be the same without any cap hits. Just because one player is making the same amount for a season or two the other guy might be signed for 5 years and you could still be dumping cap in future years that you don't wanna pay.

If both players are making the same amount of money for the same amount of years then I think that's cool. If one is under contract for a year or two and the other for 4 years or so I don't think it should follow the same rules.

[BillsFever21]

There is more then just dumping cap for one season. People who look ahead who's cap might be in terrible shape in a couple years could trade a player who has the same cap for a year or two and rid themselves of any penalties they would be responsible for in future years by getting rid of them early.

If I knew I had a player who was signed to a 5 year contract that I knew I wouldn't be able to afford in 3 years and was gonna release/trade then I would gladly dump him on somebody else early with the same pay rate for only a couple years.

I could still have a player for them couple years and then when them are up I'm not obligated for anything else. With the other player I would be responsible for the 10 million they were due ect.. and would be forced to release/trade and take a cap hit for it.

Personally I think every player should have to follow the same rules but I would still be fine without any players IF both players were to be paid the same amount for the same number of years.

[BillsFever21]

BTW, I like rules B and C.

[L.A. Playa]

I guess that sounds fine to me and sounds like ther is no penalty in the Playas & Sabres trade so can we make that trade official and in effect for week 2

[SABURZFAN]

I guess that sounds fine to me and sounds like ther is no penalty in the Playas & Sabres trade so can we make that trade official and in effect for week 2


let me know what you want to do.i have no problem if the trade is back on the table.go ahead and announce it and i'll confirm it.

[L.A. Playa]

let me know what you want to do.i have no problem if the trade is back on the table.go ahead and announce it and i'll confirm it.

I just want to make sure the ruling here is correct and there is basically nocaphit for either of us then I would say the trade is complete

[Ebenezer]

I just want to make sure the ruling here is correct and there is basically nocaphit for either of us then I would say the trade is complete
no cap problems here. even trade

[BillsFever21]

So I wanna make sure I understand this correct.

As long as the first year salary is the same there isn't any cap hit? Correct?

So if I wanna trade a player who I have signed for 5 years that maxes out to 10 million in a couple years to somebody else who has a player signed for the same salary that season on a one or two year contract we can trade without any cap penalty?

That would sound like an easy way out if I planned on cutting him because I couldn't afford him.

If I had a guy making 10 million for the next 4 years and I knew after this season I would have to release him I can just trade him for somebody else who is only signed for a year or two and 10 million and I can avoid taking a cap hit in excess of 15+ million dollars.

Oh well. I'm not the commish. I don't agree with it though. If every other trade has a cap hit then every trade should unless the contract is exactly the same in money and years.

[Ebenezer]

So I wanna make sure I understand this correct.

As long as the first year salary is the same there isn't any cap hit? Correct?

So if I wanna trade a player who I have signed for 5 years that maxes out to 10 million in a couple years to somebody else who has a player signed for the same salary that season on a one or two year contract we can trade without any cap penalty?

That would sound like an easy way out if I planned on cutting him because I couldn't afford him.

If I had a guy making 10 million for the next 4 years and I knew after this season I would have to release him I can just trade him for somebody else who is only signed for a year or two and 10 million and I can avoid taking a cap hit in excess of 15+ million dollars.

Oh well. I'm not the commish. I don't agree with it though. If every other trade has a cap hit then every trade should unless the contract is exactly the same in money and years.
the contracts have to be pretty even...and i have veto power on all trades :D

[ryjam282]

So Eb, back to my original post then....Am I correct in saying that since the original owner is taking 33% of the contract for the remaining years that the new owner can take off the 33% that the original owner assuming? For example, year 2 and 3 of the contract are 7 and 8 million....The original owner is assuming 33% of the 15 million thus 4.95 million....Now, in your scenario C C. The owner who receives a player under scenario B will assume the contract AS IS with a 33% reduction in all remaining years of the contract. The player will play out the current season under the original contract for that year.) you say the new owner gets a 33% reduction in all remaining years...So, the new owner now has a cap hit in year 2 of 4.69 million and in year 3 of 5.36 million? Is that correct?? Based on what you say in scenario C that sounds like it...

[Ebenezer]

without pulling out a calculator - those numbers look correct.

[ryjam282]

OK, thanks a lot...Just making sure...Again, those numbers were just hypothetical but I wanted to make sure we were on the same page with the 33% being taken off for the new owner for each of the remaining years.