pats_ftw!!1!
Rookie
- Joined
- Sep 16, 2007
- Messages
- 40
- Reaction score
- 0
Registered Members experience this forum ad and noise-free.
CLICK HERE to Register for a free account and login for a smoother ad-free experience. It's easy, and only takes a few moments.^^^^ i dont understand how they aren't 'guaranteed' as they are in baseball. what does that mean?
^^^^ i dont understand how they aren't 'guaranteed' as they are in baseball. what does that mean?
It's a ridiculous system, making a mockery of the idea of a contract, and it's the one thing that players who hold out have in their column on the righteousness scale. We get pissed they don't honor their contracts, but management doesn't have to. It's lame and should be changed--the Pats are smart enough to not have a problem with it, while other, stupider franchises will be further destroyed.
I think that's a stupid way to look at it. The "contracts" are structured so that management always has the option of cutting a player. Whether that's good or bad...it's NEITHER. The players KNOW this and for that reason, get as much signing bonus as they can. It's their choice.
Really the contract is that management has to pay them the stated amount to keep them off of the FA market. Management always has the option of cutting them and putting them on the FA market. That's the nature of the beast...as long as players know this going into a contract, there's nothing wrong with it.
It shouldn't "be changed". If it was all guaranteed teams wouldn't sign more than 1 year contracts with players. They couldn't afford to take the injury/talent risk. Ever think of that? Then there'd be no team cohesion whatsoever. Brilliant. Such is the price of "doing the right thing".
That's why signing bonuses, which are guaranteed, are a significant part of almost every deal. It makes sense for competitive reasons to allow a team to cut a player at any time.Don't get so hysterical. Several plans have been discussed in the past that would largely mitigate many of these issues, such as injury early in a contract. And like I said, smart franchises wouldn't be signing lots of mediocre guys to lengthy contracts.
What's more, even if one decided that non-guaranteed contracts were to the benefit of the league, it's certainly not true that it's equally good for the players--they are perpetually one play away from being SOL.
That's why signing bonuses, which are guaranteed, are a significant part of almost every deal. It makes sense for competitive reasons to allow a team to cut a player at any time.
It's a ridiculous system, making a mockery of the idea of a contract, and it's the one thing that players who hold out have in their column on the righteousness scale. We get pissed they don't honor their contracts, but management doesn't have to. It's lame and should be changed--the Pats are smart enough to not have a problem with it, while other, stupider franchises will be further destroyed.
I think that's a stupid way to look at it. The "contracts" are structured so that management always has the option of cutting a player. Whether that's good or bad...it's NEITHER. The players KNOW this and for that reason, get as much signing bonus as they can. It's their choice.
Really the contract is that management has to pay them the stated amount to keep them off of the FA market. Management always has the option of cutting them and putting them on the FA market. That's the nature of the beast...as long as players know this going into a contract, there's nothing wrong with it.
It shouldn't "be changed". If it was all guaranteed teams wouldn't sign more than 1 year contracts with players. They couldn't afford to take the injury/talent risk. Ever think of that? Then there'd be no team cohesion whatsoever. Brilliant. Such is the price of "doing the right thing".
The NFL players union (the collective bargaining agreement) is a sham of a union run by an owners puppet named Gene Upshaw, who gets paid roughly 6.5$ mill a year v. the 1-2$ mill a year the other union heads get, basically so that he will do whatever owners want and continually screw over NFL players.
Changed?? why?? I hate baseball and what they do..football is different..you also forget the bonus money given up front..which is ONE reason of the not guaranteed contracts..also..if someone gets cut..while the player will not get paid..there are salary cap implications..NO baseball analogies..baseball has gone down the tubes..and large guaranteed contracts are part of the reason why.It's lame and should be changed--the Pats are smart enough to not have a problem with it, while other, stupider franchises will be further destroyed.
I agree the system is fine...I once believed that the one-sided football contracts were a bad thing, but given the combined efect of the salary cap and bonuses offering non-refundable, up front money, I think the system works fine. Players know what to expect with the contracts, so it should come as no surprise. While some teams are rich, most are not, and 4-year deals to pay underperforming player salaries would kill many teams. Look at what San Francisco managed to do to itself for years by overpaying bonuses
it's also structured so that if a player gets injured, he gets the shaft, no money, in the riskiest professional sports league in America, where the average career is about 3 years. And the salary cap means that these teams are paying their players a fraction of what they can afford to, so they should honor the contract if a player gets injured (i.e. gives their health for the team). The PATs are apparently fairly good about this (ala Robert Edwards) but other franchises? not so much.