- Joined
- Dec 22, 2005
- Messages
- 16,343
- Reaction score
- 7,623
Could someone explain to me how a "tagged" year is different from the last year of a contract in regards to a career ending injury for a player? This has often puzzled me. Say if Player A is on the last year of his 4yr contract, how is he any less vulnerable than Player B, who's got a one year tag, to a career ending injury. Just wondering. Also, aren't all NFL players insured?
Here to learn(shamlessly stolen from Mike )
your "question" makes a great point. the way i see it, the tag extends samuel's risk to the extent that there was an expectation, in this case very reasonable, that he could have signed a deal with big guaranteed money this year rather than next year. however, from an economic point of view, he isn't being compensated for taking that one year risk since the mandated franchise salary isn't enough to do so (even though eight mil ain't bad). so, from that perspective, the impact of the tag is to increase his short term risk. on the other hand, if he has another great season and emerges as the pre-eminent guy in next year's draft, he would end up getting compensated for the risk via an even bigger payout. if i were his agent, that's how i wouild be trying to get him to think.
as for insurance, the answer is "i don't know" from a player's perspective. i think, but don't know, that teams can buy injury insurance as part of a team package at an economic rate against guaranteed contracts. i don't know if the economics of buying that insurance by an individual player would work out. think about it. let's say samuel takes the view that he has $30 mil at risk next season. would he be willing to pay, say, a ten percent premium (i'm making the percentage up since i don't know what it would be but there would be injury statistics by position that would provide the number) for protection against that risk next season? on that scenario, if he thinks he has a greater than 10 percent chance of suffering a career-ending injury, the purchase would be economically, if not emotionally, rational.
Last edited: