With the Asik trade talk and his loaded 3rd year of his contract, is there anything to stop a team creating "artificial" cap space by underpaying a player in year one of his deal to retain him or get him on the books and then overpaying him for the rest of his contract. This would not really happen with a franchise player as they would expect full money each year.
Also a team would be liable to a luxury tax hit when the overpaying years kicked in.
Lets take Dallas as an example:-
Dirk Nowitzki is being paid $22.7 million this season and say that Dallas and his representatives agreed on a 3 year extension worth $48 million in total. But instead of paying him $16 million each year or a slight variation front of back loaded, Dallas offered him say $6 million in 2014-15 then $21 million for the next two years.
Dirk still gets the same money and Dallas may have to take a tax him but if they only pay Dirk $6 million next year they have freed up $10 million aprox extra cap space to try and land a top FA.
In my mind this would be totally legal, it would get very dodgy if the contract was stretched over an extra year with the star likely retired in the last year or promised to be paid as a "Global Ambassador" after they retire etc.
Any thoughts on if this is within the rules or not?
I see your point, but poison pill contracts have the same amount going against the cap and tax each season.
I think the Lin and Asik contracts were loopholes in the new CBA. It's not something that is common or adjustable. Someone just did their homework and found a tight loophole in the system and used it.
I don't know how much movement you can have with it or how much can be changed since it is such a tight loophole.
So is every contract averaged out across the length of it and what if a player like Kobe has signed a new extension, is the $30 million this year counted seperately to the $23 million next season and $25 million the season after for example.
I'm always trying to get my head around the cap.