[Daradon]

I don't dislike him as much as I did before, in fact I kinda like him. But the term definitely seems long.

Also, I'm really beginning to hate this use of 'well remember, this contract will be in dollars in expanding cap years, so it's not as much as it was before in relation to the cap' reasoning that has recently become so popular in defending contracts that are bigger than they should be. It's a decent secondary reason in a borderline decision, but should never be used to defend a bad contract. It's flawed. Not picking on anyone here if they've used it, but the heads on TV and radio who seem to use it more and more recently.

Here's why. 1. There's almost never any guarantee the cap will be going up. We know it's going up next year because of the TV contracts, but the years after? I guess it's reasonable to assume it's going to go up a little each year, but to bet on it? Yikes.

2. It's still the same amount of money. Yes it becomes proportionally less as the cap goes up, but it's still useful money. If you have a great contract, you free up money to get other better players. The cap goes up, guess what, maybe you've saved up enough to get a bonafide star, or a rent-a-player for a run. Just because it becomes proportionally less (by small amounts may I add) doesn't make a bad contract good.

3. The savings are less than the people using the argument seem to think they are. A few percentages a year aren't going to make that much of a difference, especially in the beginning of a contract. Sure it snowballs a little at the end of longer contracts, but even then you might have a total 15-20% proportional savings on the final year. Hardly the reason to justify a contract that might be a 25% overpay. (Numbers are obviously speculative, but you see what I'm getting at)