I've been thinking about the NFL salary structure with non-guaranteed contracts, etc. The player doesn't seem to have much leverage as the NFL clubs can just cut them and not pay out the rest of the contract. But usually cutting them leaves teams with dead money against the cap. If you put your heart and soul into performing for your team, but suffer an injury, then the team can just cut you. Doesn't seem quite fair. Of course, this is how the CBA works, and the players agreed to it. I just think there's a better way. Here's my proposal.
Make contracts guaranteed, so if you cut a player, you still owe him the money. However, if you cut the player, the remainder of that contract does NOT count against the salary cap. This way, the players get some protection against being cut, but the teams still have the flexibility to pursue other players. I realize this will cost the owners some money. But it has the advantage of not crippling a team's salary cap so they can pursue other players still.
Now, what happens if a player gets cut and then gets picked up by another team? That team assumes his contract, OR they can negotiate a new one. But if they can't negotiate a new one, the old team still is on the hook to pay him the contract.
So for example...
Pats sign Hicks to a 4 year, $24 million deal, structured however they work out - any $ amount in any year, as long as it's at least at the league minimum. Actual $$ count against the cap. So let's say it's structured this way:
2016 - $7 m
2017 - $6 m
2018 - $5 m
2019 - $4 m
Let's say for whatever reason they cut him after 2017. He's still owed $5 million for 2018 and $4 million for 2019. But those figures don't count against the Pats' cap, so they can use that $9 million combined to pursue someone else they like. If Hicks goes unsigned, then the Pats still pay him the $9 million in actual dollars, so he has some security. If Hicks gets picked up by Philly, they can either stick with this current deal or they can negotiate something else. Let's say Hicks has fewer options and has to negotiate down to $4 million in 2018 and $3 million in 2019. So be it. But at least he gets $$. Why would he sign to play for less than he'd get sitting there? He probably wouldn't. The draw would be that he'd probably have to get signed for a third year to make it worth it. So I don't know how often teams would negotiate new deals versus just picking up the rest of the player's contract.
Obviously if Philly signs him at all, the Pats are freed up from paying him anything those remaining years, so they're off the hook financially.
This gives the player greater security but it gives teams flexibility vis-a-vis the cap.
Make contracts guaranteed, so if you cut a player, you still owe him the money. However, if you cut the player, the remainder of that contract does NOT count against the salary cap. This way, the players get some protection against being cut, but the teams still have the flexibility to pursue other players. I realize this will cost the owners some money. But it has the advantage of not crippling a team's salary cap so they can pursue other players still.
Now, what happens if a player gets cut and then gets picked up by another team? That team assumes his contract, OR they can negotiate a new one. But if they can't negotiate a new one, the old team still is on the hook to pay him the contract.
So for example...
Pats sign Hicks to a 4 year, $24 million deal, structured however they work out - any $ amount in any year, as long as it's at least at the league minimum. Actual $$ count against the cap. So let's say it's structured this way:
2016 - $7 m
2017 - $6 m
2018 - $5 m
2019 - $4 m
Let's say for whatever reason they cut him after 2017. He's still owed $5 million for 2018 and $4 million for 2019. But those figures don't count against the Pats' cap, so they can use that $9 million combined to pursue someone else they like. If Hicks goes unsigned, then the Pats still pay him the $9 million in actual dollars, so he has some security. If Hicks gets picked up by Philly, they can either stick with this current deal or they can negotiate something else. Let's say Hicks has fewer options and has to negotiate down to $4 million in 2018 and $3 million in 2019. So be it. But at least he gets $$. Why would he sign to play for less than he'd get sitting there? He probably wouldn't. The draw would be that he'd probably have to get signed for a third year to make it worth it. So I don't know how often teams would negotiate new deals versus just picking up the rest of the player's contract.
Obviously if Philly signs him at all, the Pats are freed up from paying him anything those remaining years, so they're off the hook financially.
This gives the player greater security but it gives teams flexibility vis-a-vis the cap.
