avsfolife said:
Yes, it makes sense and I get what you're saying.
However, you have failed to explain to me why the league would be so concerned with this "cap debt", since the most important cap is the 54% linked to revenue and that number cannot be exceeded ...
Because the salary cap is "suppose" to level the playing field for all teams. Front-loading contracts would be a tactic used mainly by large market teams as a way to try and circumvent the cap. At least in the short-term. Perhaps in the long-term if they "partnered" with another large market GM.
If the "cap debt" that became linked to a players contract is removed when traded then the large market teams would have a good strategy in place to be able to go over the cap by a considerable amount. Look at this scenario.....
The Detroit Red Wings sign Pavel Datsyuk to this contract.......
Year 1: $7 million
Year 2: $6 million
Year 3: $5 million
Year 4: $4 million
Year 5: $3 million
Total contract = $25 million or a $5 million/year cap hit. In the first year Detroit would have the potential to go over the cap by $2 million. They could go over by $1 million in year 2 and by year 3 it is even money. Once they got to year 4 they would lose cap space by keeping Datsyuk on their roster.
So lets say they trade him at the start of year 4. Now by front loading the contract the Red Wings have "artificially" inflated their cap $3 million (over a 3 year period). Now Datsyuk is worth more in a trade than on your roster (at least under your scenario).
Detroit could trade Datsyuk to let's say Ottawa. Now Ottawa has obtained a player who should be a $5 million/year cap hit for only $3.5 million/year. In the first year with his new team Datsyuk has allowed Ottawa to "artificially" go over the cap by $500k. Then in the last year of his contract Ottawa could lose $500k by keeping him on the roster or trade him again (perhaps even back to Detroit). Now Datsyuk is a player who should be a $3.5 million/year cap hit that can be had for only $3 million.
Now to make the situation even more outrageous let's say that the player that Detroit got in return for Datsyuk was Heatley. Who has the exact same type of contract. So now the large-market teams can start a (You scratch my back and I will scratch yours) situation where they can constantly front-load contracts with out the fear of ever losing cap space in the latter years of the contract.
Then imagine that the large-market teams signed all of their players to contracts that are constructed in a similar fashion. Then as long as the large-market teams were in good standing with their brethren they could easily get around the cap and could potentially go over the salary cap by $10 million or more almost every season.
Does that sound fair to you?
avsfolife said:
If team A is allowed a "loan" (ie. real salary paid > average cap value for the year), when should it make sense for the acquiring team to repay that loan?
That would be the punishment that the team that initially signed the contract would have to accept. Because it would lower the trade value of the player who had the "cap debt" attached to his contract. When a team wanted to acquire the player (Datsyuk for example) they would see that his cap hit was greater than his actual salary and would give less in a trade or want draft picks in addition to Datsyuk for agreeing to take on "dead cap space".
It is somewhat similar to the payroll dumping trades that you have seen this season. In order for Detroit to convince a team to inherit a contract with "dead cap space" they may have to trade Datsyuk for "future considerations" or for nothing more than a mid-round pick. Cap space will have a value unto itself in the new capped league.