Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Pat Traina with her thoughts after studying cap situation - she knows her stuff

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #76
    Originally posted by pathas View Post
    so what you are saying is that a player has NEVER deferred a part of his base salary??? I don't believe it. But maybe that's true.
    Why would a player defer part of his base salary? Have you ever gone up to your boss and said, "Hey, business sucked this week, so you can give me 25% this week's pay this week two weeks from now."

    Comment


    • #77
      Originally posted by pathas View Post
      that's what I said - the base is not guaranteed and it can be deferred. So you're right - that would make them a far more likely release candidate in the future. Thus - that would be a restructure not in favor of the player. Flip Empty said restructures are ALWAYS in the favor of the player and I don't think I agree with that - but then I can't site any specific examples. So again - maybe I am wrong - but I think I'm right - and that's what matters.
      Thats not a restructure then. Thats agreeing to a new contract. Restructure is only moving base salary to signing bonus.

      I have never heard of any player pushing his base salary back a season. Why would a player ever agree to that unless they changed a portion of it to guaranteed money.

      Comment


      • #78
        Originally posted by slipknottin View Post
        Thats not a restructure then. Thats agreeing to a new contract. Restructure is only moving base salary to signing bonus.

        I have never heard of any player pushing his base salary back a season. Why would a player ever agree to that unless they changed a portion of it to guaranteed money.
        Exactly. It just doesn't make sense for the player to do it.

        Comment

        Working...
        X