And if league revenues get significantly reduced by covid next season, player salaries will be reduced to reflect that, limiting the potential damage to holding Paul's contract.
Is that really true? As a max player CP3 takes up percentage of a team's cap. So it should be an equal hit under any cap#, right?
If the cap is 120 and CP3 is scheduled to earn 35% that's 42mil , leaving the team another 78mil or 65%.
If the cap is 100 and CP3 is scheduled to earn 35% that's 35mil, leaving the team another 65mil or, again, 65%.
So it's an equal hit
UNLESS all other non-MAX players made a fixed salary and not one determined by a percentage.
BUT if that were the case then non-MAX players cap hits would be more than normal in a shrinking cap which then makes every % more precious and actually CP3 would be MORE COSTLY in that scenario... as fewer teams would be able to to take on a 35% hit in a shrinking cap that has to account for fixed salaries of non-MAX players.
So taking on CP3's remaining money will constitute either an equal or greater cost to a team's cap. Not a lesser one. Meaning CP3's contract is either the same or an even bigger albatross than it would've been if the cap didn't shrink.
I think your theory doesn't hold water.
Poll
