[arizonabay]

My confusion with the article comes from the talk of eating salary in a trade being in the same vein as hiding a contract in the AHL (which I know is legal and happened/happens, I don't have a problem with that). And if it counted against the cap, I don't see why there'd have to be a cap on how much dead money you can have because obviously GM's wouldn't want to have too much of their salary cap taken up by this dead money. It'd have to be a GM's job to manage that money, like with buyouts. A cap on dead money would seem to indicate, to me, then money outside of the salary cap. Do you get what I am saying and getting from the article?