Salary Travel

[chrisetc21]

Looking at some past trades, it looks like this has already happened... where money did not travel. 

Chase Headley traded from to
http://www.profsl.com/smf/index.php?topic=221586.msg1008426#msg1008426

Chase Headley traded from to
http://www.profsl.com/smf/index.php?topic=287106.msg1223810#msg1223810

Headley had $2m paid by Tigers for 2017 and 2018 and the money did not travel to Washington. 

So I'm good with applying the rule going forward and already updated the rules section but I don't think it's fair to retroactively apply the rule.

[indiansnation]

I think any  player involved in a trade money being spent then traded again I think that money should go  the newest team involved in it

[Mets Donations Accepted]

I think what we're getting confused by is the difference between money being sent to a team and a team paying part of a player's deal. There is a difference between saying the Dodgers sent the Padres $5 million dollars toward Kemp's contract and the Dodgers are paying $5 million of Kemp's contract. If you're sending money then yes, the team gets the money and not the player so therefore it doesn't necessarily go to the players contract. But, if it states that x team is paying x amount towards a salary than the new team doesn't get any money and the player's salary is already altered

[Maydab23]

As long as the amount paid between teams adds up to the amount originally guaranteed to the player then I'm good. Traveling salary ensures that happens.

It helps ensure the integrity of the salary cap structure in the league. Otherwise you could get into situations where multiple teams are paying a players salary and that player is eating up more league cap space than he should be.