There is a huge difference between what I did and what you did.
Taking cap hits earlier as one method happens. Likewise, structuring so the hits are taken later with void years to pay even later is another method. Teams really do use both methods.
Using simple contracts help illustrate a point. That’s not the issue I have. You used your example to surmise that paying later means you can’t get out of a contract as easy. I think we can both easily agree that what you actually showed was that guaranteeing less money makes it easier to get out of a contract sooner. So the actual difference is when you get a player to sign a horrible contract for himself, the team wins. And yes, I do agree to that. But it really has nothing to do with what we’re talking about here. This is about the cap hits, not about suckering players into horrible deals. We need a new thread for that.
Formerly known as JustinHarrell.
Come back with similar guarantees and show the same money distributed the two different ways and then we can see if it’s easier to get out of in the second year. Hint, hint, it’s not. So you don’t need to waste your time.
Formerly known as JustinHarrell.
If you pay 50 million in the first year and cut them, but you already took the full 50M hit… yes, you’re not paying for it anymore. But if you already paid the 50million for one year and took the hit, are you really gaining anything? No. It’s a ridiculous argument.
Formerly known as JustinHarrell.
You don’t want a hit in your cap.
When you make a guaranteed portion of a contract, you’re guaranteed to do something you don’t want to do.
Whether you do it now or later it’s still the exact same thing. You took a hit on your cap. And it was guaranteed.
If you substitute taking a cap hit (something you don’t want) with cutting your arm off (also something you don’t want)
I think we can clearly see that if we cut our arm off now or later, it’s still the same result.
Formerly known as JustinHarrell.