Quote:
Originally Posted by mrkajz44
I'd have to think the CBA will be changed based on the Ohtani contract. That level of deferral was definitely not contemplated in the spirit of the rules, even if it follows the letter of the rules.
|
I’ve yet to hear anyone explain the problem with how it’s treated. It’s a 47 million dollar per year contract and that’s how it’s treated by the CBA. I don’t see it as being any concern for cap circumvention. It may be more controversial if it get evade California taxes. It’s just wrong to call it a 700 million contract when it isn’t really.