Wait a minute. They get caught paying to much, now they try to cut payment to go under the cap? And think it is all good? This is not how those things work.
If you sign a deal for 100k but are only ever paid 80k of that, what should count against the cap - the amount signed for of the amount paid? In reverse of that we have Keogh at $150k and rumoured to have been paid $300k so they are counting what he has been paid, and not what he is on the books for.
If a player is on the books for $500k over 2 years and rather than have it as 2 equal amounts of $250k, why can't the player take 50k less this year and $50k more next year to make it as $200k and $300k? If they don't pay more than the 2.25m or whatever it is, thats cool.
The problem is the potential for marquee exploitation. You give someone a 3 year deal and pay them $2 million in one year and nothing in the other two years. You could essentially have 6 marquees at once if you could work it correctly.
