Thudd Kassel Contract Issue

[Raven]

DD: Hey I`m going to opt out of my rookie deal so I can, resign and add another year of cheap cap hit for my team.

'You cant do that, that's illegal'

DD:

[iamslm22]

DD: Hey I`m going to opt out of my rookie deal so I can, resign and add another year of cheap cap hit for my team.

'You cant do that, that's illegal'

DD:

More like

HO: We're going to change a rule and apply it retroactively to Philadelphia

Philadelphia: That's not fair - change it for the future.

HO:

[Raven]

More like

HO: We're going to change a rule and apply it retroactively to Philadelphia

Philadelphia: That's not fair - change it for the future.

HO:

Damned if you dont enforce rule changes, damned if you do. There was clearly a rule in place to prevent cap circumvention like this. People tried to find the grey area and it got shot down. Tough shit.

[iamslm22]

Damned if you dont enforce rule changes, damned if you do. There was clearly a rule in place to prevent cap circumvention like this. People tried to find the grey area and it got shot down. Tough shit.

It really wasn't in place for situations like this. It was to prevent people from signing 4 year contracts right away. That's why it was worded as extensions and not all contracts. Two totally different situations.

[br0_0ker]

It really wasn't in place for situations like this. It was to prevent people from signing 4 year contracts right away. That's why it was worded as extensions and not all contracts. Two totally different situations.

Isn't the spirit of the rule wasn't to prevent a $1M cap hit for players over 399 TPE at that time?

[iamslm22]

Isn't the spirit of the rule wasn't to prevent a $1M cap hit for players over 399 TPE at that time?

No because then we would have scaling contracts. More than half the players in the league at the minimum are over their contract tier bc of long term contracts

[timeconsumer]

oles would have punished that fucker

[br0_0ker]

No because then we would have scaling contracts. More than half the players in the league at the minimum are over their contract tier bc of long term contracts

OK, so what is the point of Rule D. 14. making it so rookies can't have 4 year contracts? Because it was explained to me to be about the 399 TPE thing in year 4, and you're saying it's not.

[37thchamber]

there is also the interpretation of the spirit of the rule, and maybe that's where my confusion is stemming from.

that does appear to be the source of your confusion, yes.

i can make a solid argument that this is not actually in the spirit of the rule (especially given that it was explicitly stated that had he signed with another team, it would have been allowed) since the spirit of the rule is not really clear here -- and this is why the golden rule should not be used in interpretation of this rule, fwiw -- but i think the decision was indeed made with consideration made over the potential for cap circumvention due to lower TPE values... and that makes sense.

but like i said before, the issue of whether or not this helps with the cap is irrelevant when you consider the fallout of this decision.

As to HO's side of it, the decision seems to have been:
1) Allow the loophole to exist, and allow an immaterial transaction exist while they closed the loophole for the sake of appearances
or
2) Close the loophole and amend the contract to show that the spirit of the rules is the ultimate arbiter of the decision-making process.

not exactly.

the potential illegality of the contract was brought up at the time. but it was not (openly) addressed. if there was a problem, or it was unclear whether it should be allowed, they could have veto'd it *then* and we'd have no problem.

the decision was something to be made at the time of the contract being posted. at which time it was "allow this because it's not against the rules", "veto this because it's against the rules" (that would have been a hard sell, tbf) or "veto this because it exists in a grey area we need to clarify, and the potential implications of allowing this transaction could be problematic for the league as a whole" (because other GMs would have exploited the same loophole; one stated as much in the same thread)

however, once the transaction was processed, that window was shut, because the transaction had been implicitly permitted. if the rule was clarified after the fact, it should apply to all future transactions, and not any that were approved before it.

i understand HO's decision, and i agree that this judgment is probably in line with the intent of the rule... that doesn't mean you can retroactively apply an amended rule to past transactions though.

(as an aside, if there is no HO approval or review of transactions, then that's a whole other problem to consider, as it leaves the league open to all kinds of shady shit)

[br0_0ker]

(especially given that it was explicitly stated that had he signed with another team, it would have been allowed)

And this is where I'm trying to figure out what the point of rule D. 14. is then. If it's not to prevent a lower cap hit in year 4 and is meant to only restrict rookies to signing 4 year deals, what is the point of that restriction?

but i think the decision was indeed made with consideration made over the potential for cap circumvention due to lower TPE values... and that makes sense.

Which I agree, and why if he was allowed this contract with another team, it... doesn't make sense?

but like i said before, the issue of whether or not this helps with the cap is irrelevant when you consider the fallout of this decision.

I think part of the problem was the response was entirely an overreaction on DD's part. I don't think the potential for him to quit everything was considered as a genuine possibility, and it shouldn't have been. HO decisions should not be made based on the potential action a player could take, or the status of that player (a fair rub for all, and an equal one at that).

the decision was something to be made at the time of the contract being posted. at which time it was "allow this because it's not against the rules", "veto this because it's against the rules" (that would have been a hard sell, tbf) or "veto this because it exists in a grey area we need to clarify, and the potential implications of allowing this transaction could be problematic for the league as a whole" (because other GMs would have exploited the same loophole; one stated as much in the same thread)

Agreed.

however, once the transaction was processed, that window was shut, because the transaction had been implicitly permitted. if the rule was clarified after the fact, it should apply to all future transactions, and not any that were approved before it.

Hard disagree here. If I somehow managed to slip in under the rules an advantage that was not caught in review, I would fully expect it to be changed retroactively since it was against the rules at the time. Again, this boils down to the purpose of Rule D. 14. which slm said was not for the purpose of restricting $1M cap hits for 399 TPE players.

as an aside, if there is no HO approval or review of transactions, then that's a whole other problem to consider, as it leaves the league open to all kinds of shady shit)

Agree here. But that may also be part of the problem above. You said that since it was allowed, it shouldn't be changed retroactively. But if different people are conducting reviews other than HO (reviewers) and HO discovers a transaction was posted and processed that was against the spirit of the rules, I would not expect that transaction to stand. The fact it was only for $1M seems to muddle the waters a bit, but imagine if we were talking about $1B with a $1M cap hit instead (I know, not possible but use the extreme case here for argument). Should the player get to keep the $1B and the team only have a $1M cap hit because a reviewer made a mistake, or should that mistake be fixed retroactively?