<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:georss="http://www.georss.org/georss" xmlns:geo="http://www.w3.org/2003/01/geo/wgs84_pos#" xmlns:media="http://search.yahoo.com/mrss/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: NBA “stretch provision” may mean more bad contracts</title>
	<atom:link href="http://probasketballtalk.nbcsports.com/2011/11/28/nba-stretch-provision-may-mean-more-bad-contracts/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://probasketballtalk.nbcsports.com/2011/11/28/nba-stretch-provision-may-mean-more-bad-contracts/</link>
	<description>Basketball - NBC Sports</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Sat, 18 May 2013 15:43:25 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.com/</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: Chris Fiorentino</title>
		<link>http://probasketballtalk.nbcsports.com/2011/11/28/nba-stretch-provision-may-mean-more-bad-contracts/comment-page-1/#comment-59037</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Chris Fiorentino]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 28 Nov 2011 19:41:47 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://probasketballtalk.nbcsports.com/?p=35294#comment-59037</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Agree completely with you here, Kurt.  And as I said when the first posting of this rule came out, this is going to be a benefit to the players way more than the owners.  because there is more DEAD MONEY on the cap, spread out over more years, this is more money to be spent on the team payroll.

For example, if a team has $10 million in dead money because of this rule, they would have had $25 million if not for this rule...meaning they can sign $15 million more in long-term contracts that season.  more money for players.  More dead money from the cap.  A team could literally have a cap figure of $80 million, with monies attributable to 20 or more players over years of bad contracts, and this would be a huge benefit to the players.  Eventually, it is going to hurt the team...but for a big-market team, it won&#039;t be much of a bother because, as Kurt writes above, those teams can afford the luxury tax.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Agree completely with you here, Kurt.  And as I said when the first posting of this rule came out, this is going to be a benefit to the players way more than the owners.  because there is more DEAD MONEY on the cap, spread out over more years, this is more money to be spent on the team payroll.</p>
<p>For example, if a team has $10 million in dead money because of this rule, they would have had $25 million if not for this rule&#8230;meaning they can sign $15 million more in long-term contracts that season.  more money for players.  More dead money from the cap.  A team could literally have a cap figure of $80 million, with monies attributable to 20 or more players over years of bad contracts, and this would be a huge benefit to the players.  Eventually, it is going to hurt the team&#8230;but for a big-market team, it won&#8217;t be much of a bother because, as Kurt writes above, those teams can afford the luxury tax.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
