Well, LTIR is the cap concession for injured players. The issue is more financial; players don't want to lose 33% of their salary because of an injury, which is fair imo. Insurance covers the team side on that front. But, if that injury isn't expected to prevent them from suiting up to start the season, why should it prevent a buyout? Everything works fine for guys who are forced to retire due to injury in the current system (well for the most part anyways), but for the minor stuff that's conveniently timed, not so much.
I thought insurance only covered 80% of a player's salary and you had to designate a certain amount of players from your roster before the season starts as insured? Obviously, the next year you can designate a guy on LTIR into that insurance slot but it still costs you 20% of their salary.
I totally get it from the player's perspective re: losing at least 1/3 of their salary to buyout, but 66% of your contract to never play again is a pretty good deal for the players, setting aside their competitive nature. Also, opening up flexibility for teams to move on from dead weight contracts might create more competitive contract structures for future players. Adding an MLE or something like that also introduces additional spending into the league which ultimately benefits the players. If they held a vote on this I could see 75%+ of players voting for it, especially since LTIR affects so few, relatively speaking.
To me, a guy like Colin White losing 2/3 of his contract because of age is much more egregious than some guy who played a full career and will never suit up again being out 1/3 of his pay.
Anyway, probably won't happen but feels like the buyout and LTIR system are not really creating optimized value for either side.
