Thudd Kassel Contract Issue

[37thchamber]

Ok, so swith NOLA with Philly everywhere in that last post, my questions remain. Seems odd to decline an option only to sign with the same team immediately after? Was it only so that player could get more $$$ than the $2M left on the 3 year deal he declined to continue?
And what would prevent a 3rd contract between that player and the team, equalling the difference between the 2 year "extension" and 3 year "extension"?

Could be to restructure the contract for more $ for the player, or to help team cap management.

Not sure that really matters in this case, tbh. My only problem with this ruling is that the rule, as written, was not broken. So there should be no action taken, just alter the wording and enforce it going forward, as has been the case with any other "loophole".

If a problem was identified immediately, and/or veto'd within reasonable time, there could be no complaint. As it stands, this could potentially affect cap management moving forward, due to existing rules on minimum salaries etc.

...as an aside, amended minimum salary rules (some form of enforced, graduated contract minimums over a contract length for example), might have mitigated that problem and potentially removed the need for this limited rookie contract extension rule, thinking about it.

Really, this is one of those things where something could probably just have been handled better. I don't necessarily think HO are *wrong* ... but I do feel like the fallout might not have been fully considered on this one. The Dylan specific parts are a different issue and I don't mean that... I mean the impact of the decision on parties concerned (cap management issues etc) and how the unilateral decision to amend a rule and enforce the amendment retroactively sets a questionable precedent.

It's done now so there's nothing to be done, but... there you have it. I know HO are doing what they think is best, but I'd urge a rethink here. Unfortunately, it doesn't look like we'll get an appeal.



Oh, I should probably also point out I (long ago) studied law, and specialised in statutory interpretation, so ... yeah. This is kinda my thing. I (weirdly) find it interesting as a purely observational exercise.