Re: guaranteed contracts

[lamphier@m.u-tokyo.ac.jp (Marc Lamphier)]

At  0:25 PM 97.3.5 -0700, Jim McMaster wrote:

>> The stipulation that the salary of a player cut from the roster still
>> counts against the salary cap -- why does this stipulation exist? It
>> doesn't seem to make much sense to me.. 
>> 
>In the NBA contracts are guaranteed.  You can often get a player for less 
>money by offering the security of a long-term contract.  If rich teams were 
>able to cut players later with no penalty, they would get players cheaper and 
>have an advantage over teams that could not afford to play players no longer 
>with the team.


OK, this makes sense. It is a way to try to equalize the purchasing power
of rich v.s. poor clubs. So why doesn't this philosophy apply to re-signing
your own free agents. Isn't this how the Bulls were able to re-sign MJ to
$25m? This clearly gives richer clubs an advantage. 


>> Is there no way to cut a player and not have it count against the salary cap?
>> 
>The only way I know of is if he retires, or if the team has an option to 
>terminate the contract for cause, or through a buyout.
> 

OK, I get it. So instead of outright shooting the player you simply graze
him, and then hint that he should retire. (this is just a theoretical
scenario)

- -Marc