Player Contracts: They can't have it both ways.

[Buffalonian-at-Heart]

Contracts will be "fair", and operate like "real contracts" when/if the NFL teams have to operate like other businesses. That is,

 

1. a.No draft. Players are free to negotiate with any team they like.

 

b. Also, no salary cap, no minimum or maximum salary rules (other than the minimum wage laws).

 

c. Players could be signed directly from High School, or junior high, or jail. Can't Dell hire anyone over the legal age to work? Well, why can't the Bills?

 

2. If player X signs a 3-year contract you have to pay him for those 3 years. You can cut him, but you still have to pay him. (Of course there are some situations that would void the contract, but you couldn't simply cut him because his play isn't as good as it was previously.)

 

3. At the end of the contract a player is free to negotiate with any team. Just like you can go to any job after your contract with one company expires. There could be a non-compete clause, I suppose, that could keep you out of the division or conference. But that would be part of the initial negotiation.

 

In other words, the NFL will never have "fair" or "real" contracts. And if they did, it would likely mean the end of the NFL in Buffalo and many other cities. The contract rules you see today are totally biased toward the owners, and many of the rules that are in place (salary cap, restricted free agency, etc) were put there by the owners to protect themselves from themselves.

 

Do NFL players make too much money? Probably. Do the owners make too much money? You be the judge. But don't cry for the NFL owners, or blame the players for the current system. If an owner doesn't like the contract he just cuts the player. What is the player to do if HE doesn't like the contract? The only option he has is to sit out, and you want to take that away too?

 

This nails it on the head. Dead on Dean.

[KD in CA]

In other sports, the injured player would still collect ALL the money on his contract, even if he were to never play again. In the NFL, Johnson could be cut and be owed NO MORE MONEY.

 

To me, that's a huge flaw in the other leagues, not a flaw in the NFL. The NFL is the league that got it right. If guys are paid millions of dollars it's not too much to ask that they continue to perform at a high level year to year to actually earn it.

 

It's absurd and well deserving of scorn to see guys getting paid millions of dollars for year after they set foot on a field (i.e., Mo Vaughn).

[Thurman#1]

I believe that you should honor your contract. I am not saying that he shouldn't be able to re-negotiate his contract, but if he is under contract he should show up to all mandatory activities.

I think the NFL should have a league wide rule that nobody can renegotiate a contract if they are not at mandatory activities. All that does is hurt the team and their fans.

Prime example was Jason Peters' last year in Buffalo. He misses all of training camp and the pre season. He never recovered from that and he hurt his team.

If you are under contract show up and try to negotiate. You owe that to the team and yourself.

 

 

 

Realistically, once you show up, the team knows they don't have to renegotiate.

[Thurman#1]

Contracts will be "fair", and operate like "real contracts" when/if the NFL teams have to operate like other businesses. That is,

 

1. a.No draft. Players are free to negotiate with any team they like.

 

b. Also, no salary cap, no minimum or maximum salary rules (other than the minimum wage laws).

 

c. Players could be signed directly from High School, or junior high, or jail. Can't Dell hire anyone over the legal age to work? Well, why can't the Bills?

 

2. If player X signs a 3-year contract you have to pay him for those 3 years. You can cut him, but you still have to pay him. (Of course there are some situations that would void the contract, but you couldn't simply cut him because his play isn't as good as it was previously.)

 

3. At the end of the contract a player is free to negotiate with any team. Just like you can go to any job after your contract with one company expires. There could be a non-compete clause, I suppose, that could keep you out of the division or conference. But that would be part of the initial negotiation.

 

In other words, the NFL will never have "fair" or "real" contracts. And if they did, it would likely mean the end of the NFL in Buffalo and many other cities. The contract rules you see today are totally biased toward the owners, and many of the rules that are in place (salary cap, restricted free agency, etc) were put there by the owners to protect themselves from themselves.

 

Do NFL players make too much money? Probably. Do the owners make too much money? You be the judge. But don't cry for the NFL owners, or blame the players for the current system. If an owner doesn't like the contract he just cuts the player. What is the player to do if HE doesn't like the contract? The only option he has is to sit out, and you want to take that away too?

 

 

 

Exactly. Nice post.

[KD in CA]

Contracts will be "fair", and operate like "real contracts" when/if the NFL teams have to operate like other businesses. That is,

 

You're comparing apples to oranges with this argument. The "business" is the NFL, not the Buffalo Bills or Cleveland Browns. One entity, not 32. The competition is merely the form of entertainment on the field. The business is the whole group.

 

The idea of a successful NFL franchise is not to drive the other franchises out of business. Just like McDonald's on Main Street is competing against Burger King, not the McDonald's on Elm Street.

[The Dean]

You're comparing apples to oranges with this argument. The "business" is the NFL, not the Buffalo Bills or Cleveland Browns. One entity, not 32. The competition is merely the form of entertainment on the field. The business is the whole group.

 

The idea of a successful NFL franchise is not to drive the other franchises out of business. Just like McDonald's on Main Street is competing against Burger King, not the McDonald's on Elm Street.

 

Well, you are right, the business is the NFL, but the teams are supposed to compete with each other much in the way businesses compete with each other. (The goal of a business is to thrive and make a profit, not to drive a competitor out of business. Is the goal of the NFL to drive the NBA out of business?) But your point makes the situation even more dire for the players. Many only have ONE real possible employer for their skills, the NFL. It's a freakin' monopoly and that screws both labor and the consumer (fans). The rules they set for their dealings with labor are tainted by that monopolistic approach.

 

The argument that the NFL isn't a monopoly because it competes against other forms of entertainment is fairly obviously spurious. That's the argument they make, but it is completely transparent. We fans are lucky our courts have looked the other way on this for so long.

 

 

EDIT: We are getting away from the point of the thread, of course. Irrespective of whether the NFL or the team is the real employer, any contract that can simply be broken by one side, and has all the limitations of the NFL contracts, isn't exactly an unfair deal in the players' favor.

[Dan]

You're comparing apples to oranges with this argument. The "business" is the NFL, not the Buffalo Bills or Cleveland Browns. One entity, not 32. The competition is merely the form of entertainment on the field. The business is the whole group.

 

The idea of a successful NFL franchise is not to drive the other franchises out of business. Just like McDonald's on Main Street is competing against Burger King, not the McDonald's on Elm Street.

Good point. Wrapped up and amongst the solution should be an avenue for maintaining th NFL as the premeir sport. However, Dean makes some great points. Owners can cut a player whenever they want and void the remaining contract; players cannot quit and void their contract.

 

I think at the core are the rookie salaries. Rookies are the ones that truly get a chance to negotiate, other than a handful of FAs. Hence, players try to get all their money up front; which lessens the pot for proven vets and puts guys like Marshall in the postion to be underpaid.

 

So... why not a slotted, rookie contract structures. Based on the position played and the postion drafted (as suggested by Rfeynman). All rookie contracts are for 3 years.

 

Then, players can negotiate their second contract on the open market. All second contracts are 5 years.

Repeat for a 3rd contract. Finally, repeat for 4th and 5th, etc. contracts, but shorten those to 3 year contracts.

 

All contracts are guaranteed. So, if a player is cut, he still gets payed. Incentives are added to ensure a player doesn't just coast.

 

If the team currently holding the contract offers a contract that's equivalent to an average of the top payers at the postion (essentially, follow the same guidelines for Franchise Players); then the player cannot negotiate on the open market. A team can do this with every player - provided they don't go over the salary cap. The point being, you want to encourage or allow teams to hold on to their top notch stars and potentially decrease the amount of player turnover.

 

This would give rookies 3 years to prove they belong. Then they're signed to big contracts. If they're truly great they get a second big contract. The vast majority of players are on the downside 13 years into their career. But, for those that aren't they can still get big money.

 

Teams can keep the stars, provided they pay for them. Players have the security of guaranteed contracts. Fans know that a player is there for a certain number of years; therefore buying a friggin jersey doesn't mean the guy is cut the next offseason.

 

All contracts are still guaranteed on trades.

[JohnC]

it's not a matter of favoring the owners, it's a matter of legalities. again, the whole issue of "fairness" is irrelevant, and pretty obviously most in the system see it that way. the players union is doing nothing to curb rookie salaries in favor of the older, established players.

 

in the end, i see a guy like andre johnson earning $30 mill in guaranteed numbers, and the argument that Ralph Wilson has benefited too richly is lost. Without guys like Ralph Wilson risking his money---regardless of the results of his particular franchise---Andre Johnson takes what he can get out of college, and I bet it's less than $30 mill. Good for him---it's $30 mill, but he ain't the game, and when he's done, or injured, it's like waiting in line for cheese at the deli---NEXT?

 

There is no doubt that the rookie salary structure has to be changed. Teams are fighting to move down instead of up on the draft board because of the necessity to pay for mega-contracts for the top picks. A primary motivation for the owners opting out of the CBA is the onerous amount of money for top picks who haven't proven that they can play in the league. I'm confident that will change with the next CBA. There are many players who are union members who believe that the rookie salary structure is out of balance with respect to how much veteran players make. This isn't an issue where both sides totally disagree. In my view this is one of the central issues that can be worked out with good faith negotiations.

 

Your position on Ralph Wilson is off-base. He is not putting up any of his money. Jerry Jones and Dan Snyder are using a good chunk of their cash flow to pay off stadium bonds. Ralph is not. The stadium the owner is playing in was payed for him and the rent is very low. One of the reasons the newer and more entrepreneurial owners want to reopen the CBA is they resent owners like Ralph Wilson who are subsidized by the wealthier teams and pocket a good chunk of that money instead of investing in their team as it was intended.

 

You made the point that the players are not the game. That is where I disagree with you. They are central to the game as are the owners. It is a partnership that has worked well for all sides. If Andre Johnson can negotiate a $30 millilon contract that is because the owners can afford to pay it. The owners are paying a set percentage to the players. If the revenues go up then the salaries of the players correspondingly go up. If revenues shrink then salaries will also come down.

 

As it stands I'm not aware of any owner is losing money. If there needs to be adjustments to the salary structure then it will be negotiated like any other industry.

[K Gun Special]

a few points ... if a player is cut the contract isn't broken in the way its being said on this board. The contract allows for a player to be cut... which is why guaranteed money is a big deal, you get this even if you get cut.

 

its easy for us to say these people are acting absurd and just being greedy but when you have that much money in front of you things change.

Why do holdouts work? Bc owners just as well as players know the system sucks-- you see more holdouts in the NFL than other sports. Guaranteed $ is minimal, and when players sign entry contracts and breakout, they want to get paid..... it goes the other way... if a player signs a 3 year deal but sucks bam hes cut after one year.

[PDaDdy]

So, recently there has been a trend of players holding out for more money while still under contract with their team (Jason Peters is a prime example of this). And now I see Andre Johnson is unhappy with his $60 million deal and still has 5 years left on his contract. It's becoming an epidemic in the NFL full of players that "need to feed their families." While I believe certain players deserve to be paid top dollar, there is a problem with their negotiating tactics.

 

You can't ask for a big signing bonus and a nice multi-year contract for stability, and then come back 2 years later after playing pro bowl level football and ask for more money. I'm sorry, it doesn't work like that. If you want to be paid more as a player for better performance on the field, then you need to sign an INCENTIVE BASED CONTRACT. But players aren't willing to do that. They're getting the best of both worlds. They're signing contracts with HUGE guaranteed signing bonuses. And if their play on the field fails or they get injured, they still have their money. It's a win-win for the player. All the while, teams are being held hostage by star players with no choice but to pay the guy or lose him to some moronic team willing to pay a fortune for a diva and some marketing appeal.

 

When does the bubble burst?

 

What are you talking about? The owners ALREADY HAVE IT BOTH WAYS!!!! If a player under performs their contract do you think an owner will keep them on the books for the remaining "5 years" if they aren't performing up to their previous level by a significant margin? NO, they release them and void the contract. Why wouldn't players expect the same to work for them? If they out perform their contract why shouldn't they get paid for it?

 

The problem is not the players it is the system. Make contracts guaranteed whether a player out performs or under performs and then you've got something to talk about.

[stuckincincy]

There is no doubt that the rookie salary structure has to be changed. Teams are fighting to move down instead of up on the draft board because of the necessity to pay for mega-contracts for the top picks.

 

A team can pass, and then pick when they want to. Unlikely, but it's there.

 

I recall OL McKinnie being angry when MIN delayed their pick in 2002, claiming that it was intentional.

[peteski]

And what if the player shows up in good faith, is undisputedly underpaid, and the team still refuses to re-negotiate?

Fire your agent.

[DarthICE]

I understand your point and many casual sports fans are frustrated by the idea of players not honoring their contracts, especially when there are many years left on the contract or in cases where the "ink is barely dry" on the contract.

 

But there are huge differences between the NFL and the other major professional sports:

 

Contracts in the NFL are not guaranteed (only the signing bonus portion is guaranteed).

 

NFL players have shorter careers than athletes in the other sports and more often, risk catastrophic and career-ending injury.

 

There is nothing preventing a team from terminating a player's contract who in the team's estimation, is no longer worth the money which his contract stipulates that he be paid. If he becomes less-productive and/or gets injured, they can cut him.

 

So, you're asking a player to honor a contract in a league where the team often doesn't honor that same contract.

 

With regard to your example of Andre Johnson, who is making $5.8 million per year, there are wide receivers in the NFL (Lee Evans among them) making $9 million per year. Now what if Johnson (who is now underpaid and will continue to be under the terms of his present contract) has a career debilitating injury from which he never truly recovers, or even worse, a career-ending injury?

 

In other sports, the injured player would still collect ALL the money on his contract, even if he were to never play again. In the NFL, Johnson could be cut and be owed NO MORE MONEY.

 

NFL players have very short careers. They play probably the most violent sport and they risk career-ending and catastrophic injuries more than players in other sports.

 

These are the compelling reasons that NFL players feel strongly that they must maximize their earnings, regardless of how the public feels about it.

 

IMO, no discussion of this issue is complete without considering the facts that:

 

A) NFL contracts are not guaranteed (even though they are in the NBA, NHL, and MLB)

B) NFL careers are much shorter than careers in the other major professional sports

 

If I were an NFL football player, I don't think I'd particularly care how the public reacted to my desire for more money…regardless of how many years remained on my contract (if I knew I was woefully underpaid).

 

Now Albert Haynesworth wanting to be traded out of Washington? I have a whole different take on that. He's getting ridiculous money. He needs to shut his mouth and do what the coaches tell him to do.

 

JaMarcus Russell? He needed to get off his lazy ass and lose some weight and study the playbook and act like what he was…the highest paid player on his team.

 

But Andre Johnson? The guy who works his ass off, plays through injuries, is a great teammate, leader, and one of the best players at his position? Andre Johnson who is one of the top two receivers in the game but who makes about half of what Larry Fitzgerald makes?

 

Sounds to me like he deserves a raise.

 

No. He signed a deal, got guaranteed money, tough ****. if he doesn't like it, sit out and don't get paid and LOSE money from being fined.

 

I am with the owners, the salaries are out of hand. If NFL players dont' like it then go do something else.

[KD in CA]

Well, you are right, the business is the NFL, but the teams are supposed to compete with each other much in the way businesses compete with each other. (The goal of a business is to thrive and make a profit, not to drive a competitor out of business. Is the goal of the NFL to drive the NBA out of business?)

Not per se, but the goal is to win NBA fan dollars over to the NFL. The extreme result of a successful program to do that would theoretically be winning all those dollars, and hence the elimination of the NBA.

 

Many only have ONE real possible employer for their skills, the NFL. It's a freakin' monopoly and that screws both labor and the consumer (fans). The rules they set for their dealings with labor are tainted by that monopolistic approach.

 

The argument that the NFL isn't a monopoly because it competes against other forms of entertainment is fairly obviously spurious. That's the argument they make, but it is completely transparent. We fans are lucky our courts have looked the other way on this for so long.

 

No question its a monopoly from the standpoint of the players, but kind of a special one that doesn't really relate to other industries. Their skill (throwing or catching a football) only exists at a million dollar level because the NFL exists in its current form. Otherwise, the players are just cashiers or lawyers or foremen on the loading dock like the rest of the world. By contrast, if Microsoft goes under, there are a thousand other places I can program software for the same pay.

 

If there was going to be a true free enterprise system than there shouldn't be any limit on new employers (teams), no restrictions on who can negotiate their on TV deals, and each team sets it's own market, pay scale based on economic region, etc. All of which I think would be very bad for the sport. The NFL has a legitimate need to foster a competitive system for its teams -- that is the product it is selling -- otherwise the product goes bad and the whole business goes down.

 

As for labor rights, it's disingenuous to suggest the players should be protected with guarenteed pay while also allowing them a union system that can prop up salaries by claiming the factory in Baltimore is colluding with the factory in Seattle on wages.

 

Sports leagues are a special case. I don't think the normal 'real world' rules can apply.

[Gabe Northern]

As has been written already, the fact that owners can renege on their end of the "long-term contracts" by cutting the player means there is a moral equivalence here. There aren't holdouts in basketball and baseball because their contracts are guaranteed.

 

The whole issue is whether the player is worth more than the remaining guaranteed money on the contract. When he is, he often decides to hold out.

 

I feel like 95% of the animosity towards Peters on this board was based on moralizing about the supposed sanctity of the crappy, below-market contract he signed.

[abqmarko]

I understand your point and many casual sports fans are frustrated by the idea of players not honoring their contracts, especially when there are many years left on the contract or in cases where the "ink is barely dry" on the contract.

 

But there are huge differences between the NFL and the other major professional sports:

 

Contracts in the NFL are not guaranteed (only the signing bonus portion is guaranteed).

 

NFL players have shorter careers than athletes in the other sports and more often, risk catastrophic and career-ending injury.

 

There is nothing preventing a team from terminating a player's contract who in the team's estimation, is no longer worth the money which his contract stipulates that he be paid. If he becomes less-productive and/or gets injured, they can cut him.

 

So, you're asking a player to honor a contract in a league where the team often doesn't honor that same contract.

 

With regard to your example of Andre Johnson, who is making $5.8 million per year, there are wide receivers in the NFL (Lee Evans among them) making $9 million per year. Now what if Johnson (who is now underpaid and will continue to be under the terms of his present contract) has a career debilitating injury from which he never truly recovers, or even worse, a career-ending injury?

 

In other sports, the injured player would still collect ALL the money on his contract, even if he were to never play again. In the NFL, Johnson could be cut and be owed NO MORE MONEY.

 

NFL players have very short careers. They play probably the most violent sport and they risk career-ending and catastrophic injuries more than players in other sports.

 

These are the compelling reasons that NFL players feel strongly that they must maximize their earnings, regardless of how the public feels about it.

 

IMO, no discussion of this issue is complete without considering the facts that:

 

A) NFL contracts are not guaranteed (even though they are in the NBA, NHL, and MLB)

B) NFL careers are much shorter than careers in the other major professional sports

 

If I were an NFL football player, I don't think I'd particularly care how the public reacted to my desire for more money…regardless of how many years remained on my contract (if I knew I was woefully underpaid).

 

Now Albert Haynesworth wanting to be traded out of Washington? I have a whole different take on that. He's getting ridiculous money. He needs to shut his mouth and do what the coaches tell him to do.

 

JaMarcus Russell? He needed to get off his lazy ass and lose some weight and study the playbook and act like what he was…the highest paid player on his team.

 

But Andre Johnson? The guy who works his ass off, plays through injuries, is a great teammate, leader, and one of the best players at his position? Andre Johnson who is one of the top two receivers in the game but who makes about half of what Larry Fitzgerald makes?

 

Sounds to me like he deserves a raise.

 

NFL Network discussed Andre Johnsons contract and stated that the majority of the money was up front, meaning he already received it, this skews your view that he is underpaid. The upfront money needs to be looked at to make a true comparison. The Texans also renegotiated his rookie contract paying him more than he got as a #1 draft choice. In the near future another WR will sign a huge contract and the guy will hold out again.

 

In this economy I have little sympathy for a player.

[abqmarko]

Well, you are right, the business is the NFL, but the teams are supposed to compete with each other much in the way businesses compete with each other. (The goal of a business is to thrive and make a profit, not to drive a competitor out of business. Is the goal of the NFL to drive the NBA out of business?) But your point makes the situation even more dire for the players. Many only have ONE real possible employer for their skills, the NFL. It's a freakin' monopoly and that screws both labor and the consumer (fans). The rules they set for their dealings with labor are tainted by that monopolistic approach.

 

The argument that the NFL isn't a monopoly because it competes against other forms of entertainment is fairly obviously spurious. That's the argument they make, but it is completely transparent. We fans are lucky our courts have looked the other way on this for so long.

 

 

EDIT: We are getting away from the point of the thread, of course. Irrespective of whether the NFL or the team is the real employer, any contract that can simply be broken by one side, and has all the limitations of the NFL contracts, isn't exactly an unfair deal in the players' favor.

 

There are thousands of companies that produce one unique product and/or very limited products, just like the NFL.

[Red]

So, recently there has been a trend of players holding out for more money while still under contract with their team (Jason Peters is a prime example of this). And now I see Andre Johnson is unhappy with his $60 million deal and still has 5 years left on his contract. It's becoming an epidemic in the NFL full of players that "need to feed their families." While I believe certain players deserve to be paid top dollar, there is a problem with their negotiating tactics.

 

You can't ask for a big signing bonus and a nice multi-year contract for stability, and then come back 2 years later after playing pro bowl level football and ask for more money. I'm sorry, it doesn't work like that. If you want to be paid more as a player for better performance on the field, then you need to sign an INCENTIVE BASED CONTRACT. But players aren't willing to do that. They're getting the best of both worlds. They're signing contracts with HUGE guaranteed signing bonuses. And if their play on the field fails or they get injured, they still have their money. It's a win-win for the player. All the while, teams are being held hostage by star players with no choice but to pay the guy or lose him to some moronic team willing to pay a fortune for a diva and some marketing appeal.

 

When does the bubble burst?

 

 

I could not agree more and I think this is perhaps the greatest reason why Peters was traded. If a team capitulates by literally being held hostage by the player, the message sent to the locker room is not a healthy one.

 

As much as I loved (and still do) Bruce Smith, every year he would pull the same garbage; wanting to be paid as the #1 DE in the league. Leverage would be comparison to Reggie White and his contract.

 

Now on the flip side, I know a team can cut a player, a player can get injured, etc and the team can always jettison a player with a contract. Football, by its very nature, is also an extremely violent sport. As science delves into it, we see the concussions and shortened life spans to go along with the lowered quality of life from having battered bodies. So there is a part of me that understands the players perspective and can be sympathetic to that.

 

Another point of course is the volumes of cash the owners and the league do make on the backs of the players themselves. Let's face it, I'm not paying for Sunday Ticket to watch commercials.

 

Finally, whenever I hear people complain about professional athlete contracts I am always amazed. I seldom (if ever) hear anyone complain about the $20 million George Clooney made from a single movie, or a Tom Cruise, or a Brad Pitt, etc. We tend to look at sports as somewhat different, but at their core both professional sports and films exist as entertainment. Why is it ok for Clooney to pull in $20 million for maybe 3 months of work with no physical risk of life-threatening injury, and a football player can't? Strange lack of outrage there.

 

But, with all of that being said, when you sign a contract you have got to honor that contract. You can't, as Bruce always did, sign a contract and then come back and demand more because somebody else is now making more. If a player is so concerned about security, then sign the multi-year deal. If a player is just going to cooperate until somebody else at their respective position is then making more than them, then they should be up front with their team and the length of the contract should reflect such a position as well.

 

So, like you said, it is an attempt by the player/ agent to have it both ways. Money and security. It's either or. And one thing I do grow tired of is a player talking about "feeding my family", as if signing a $10-25+ million contract does not set them up for life. As if any mere mortal would never again have to work a day in their life with that kind of money.

[SuperKillerRobots]

So, recently there has been a trend of players holding out for more money while still under contract with their team (Jason Peters is a prime example of this). And now I see Andre Johnson is unhappy with his $60 million deal and still has 5 years left on his contract. It's becoming an epidemic in the NFL full of players that "need to feed their families." While I believe certain players deserve to be paid top dollar, there is a problem with their negotiating tactics.

 

You can't ask for a big signing bonus and a nice multi-year contract for stability, and then come back 2 years later after playing pro bowl level football and ask for more money. I'm sorry, it doesn't work like that. If you want to be paid more as a player for better performance on the field, then you need to sign an INCENTIVE BASED CONTRACT. But players aren't willing to do that. They're getting the best of both worlds. They're signing contracts with HUGE guaranteed signing bonuses. And if their play on the field fails or they get injured, they still have their money. It's a win-win for the player. All the while, teams are being held hostage by star players with no choice but to pay the guy or lose him to some moronic team willing to pay a fortune for a diva and some marketing appeal.

 

When does the bubble burst?

 

It is ridiculous to a certain extent, but what you have to remember is that these players could be cut at any time and only are guaranteed part of the contract. On top of that, most players only get a very little amount of money (comparatively) in bonus vs actual wage. In light of that, it doe smake a little mroe sense because players want to maximize their good years and turn them into a big payday. If they play poorly, the team can just cut them. I think the biggest problem with this is that the team would get nothing in return for that player, which hurts especially if you drafted that player. I think one way to stop this would be to guarantee every contract written.

 

This would do two things. First it would take away the reason players hold out for more money - to maximize their earnings from a good season in thevent they get hurt. Second it would force team management to make realistics bets on how long a player is going to be able to play and if they are wrong, it'll hurt their bottom line (like hockey). I think the owners will definitely figure out a way to control costs better in the new CBA. If you as a player sign a market setting deal in 2006 for 7 years and then in 2009 another player gets nearly double what the first got in 06, that first player should have to honor that contract. Maybe they could just make it so that you cannot renegotiate a contract until it has one season left.

[Got_Wood]

What are you talking about? The owners ALREADY HAVE IT BOTH WAYS!!!! If a player under performs their contract do you think an owner will keep them on the books for the remaining "5 years" if they aren't performing up to their previous level by a significant margin? NO, they release them and void the contract. Why wouldn't players expect the same to work for them? If they out perform their contract why shouldn't they get paid for it?

 

The problem is not the players it is the system. Make contract guaranteed whether a player out performs or under performs and then you've got something to talk about.

 

You and pretty much every other poster in this thread must not have read my entire post. What part about "guaranteed signing bonus" do you not understand? Players are getting GIANT signing bonuses to offset the risk of getting cut during their contract.

 

If player X gets $30 million UP FRONT when they sign their contract, they never had to play a down to get this money. It was GUARANTEED money. Don't come back to the owner crying that life isn't fair when you already had your cake.

 

These guys get big money because they take big risks on the field. If they're not willing to take the risk of getting injured or not performing, then go sign up for tennis or curling.