cheesner
03-04-2009, 03:02 PM
I have heard this same thought at least a dozen times on the radio in the last few weeks.
NFL contracts are not guaranteed and it is unfair to the players.
Over the weekend was the most ridiculous opinion piece I have heard on the matter. The analyst was ridiculing the Albert Haynesworth deal saying it was too much money and that $41 million was guaranteed. The speaker then went on to say how it was still unfair to the player because the NFL team can cut him after only 2 years and will owe him nothing after that. I was thinking, Hayensworth will then have made over $20.5 million per year - I bet he wouldn't be complaining.
The simple fact of the matter is that a portion of almost every NFL contract is guaranteed in the form of signing bonuses or just plain guaranteed money over the life of the contract. Not 100% of the contact, but a portion of it is guaranteed. In the case of Haynesworth - 40% of the money is guaranteed. Is this a bad deal for the players? I feel it is for the benefit to the players not to have guaranteed contracts.
Fairness to ALL players: As we all know, there is a salary cap in the NFL. There is a finite amount of money to go around. Why not provide an incentive system to reward the best players? Suppose, for example, that Haynesworth tanks. He takes his $100M and starts living the good life. His play drops off dramatically and the Redskins are forced to cut him. They now take a $15M hit each year for the next few years - the original contract duration. That is $15M that could have gone to other players on the team, but instead is wasted on a player no longer with the team. I know Haynesworth sees no problem with that scenario, but is it fair to the rest of the team and other possible FAs that this money is off the table? Instead, the players are required to continue to earn their contracts.
Continuing with the Haynesworth example, would he even have gotten the contract from Redskins if all contracts were guaranteed? Consider all the free agents they have signed over the last few 10 years and had to cut. Arrington, Trotter, Stubblefield, Wilkerson, Bruce Smith, Deion Sanders, etc could have all been on the payroll years after being cut and it is doubtful the Redskins would be able to afford some of those contracts. Would the Raiders have been able to sign Asamougha if they still had to pay the FAs they signed last year and have recently cut:
Gibril Wilson S 6yr $39M 6.5M/yr
Dante Hall CB 7yr $70M 10M/yr
Kalimba Edwards DE 2yr $5M 2.5M/yr
Javon Walker WR 6yr $55M 9.1M/yr
This is an average of $28M that was saved by letting these underperforming players go. Although Javon has not been officially released at this time, it is doubtful he makes it next year. Therefore the NFL players need to ask themselves, should money be tied up in underperforming players? Or should that same money be made available to rising stars who deserve it?
Contract Size: What I think that most of the commentators do not realize is that teams are more willing to write bigger contracts because they are not guaranteed. If Hayensworth's contract was to be 100% guaranteed it would be for less money. It is the classic economic model of risk vrs reward. A guaranteed contract represents additional risk for the team for the reasons outlined above.
NFL contracts are not guaranteed and it is unfair to the players.
Over the weekend was the most ridiculous opinion piece I have heard on the matter. The analyst was ridiculing the Albert Haynesworth deal saying it was too much money and that $41 million was guaranteed. The speaker then went on to say how it was still unfair to the player because the NFL team can cut him after only 2 years and will owe him nothing after that. I was thinking, Hayensworth will then have made over $20.5 million per year - I bet he wouldn't be complaining.
The simple fact of the matter is that a portion of almost every NFL contract is guaranteed in the form of signing bonuses or just plain guaranteed money over the life of the contract. Not 100% of the contact, but a portion of it is guaranteed. In the case of Haynesworth - 40% of the money is guaranteed. Is this a bad deal for the players? I feel it is for the benefit to the players not to have guaranteed contracts.
Fairness to ALL players: As we all know, there is a salary cap in the NFL. There is a finite amount of money to go around. Why not provide an incentive system to reward the best players? Suppose, for example, that Haynesworth tanks. He takes his $100M and starts living the good life. His play drops off dramatically and the Redskins are forced to cut him. They now take a $15M hit each year for the next few years - the original contract duration. That is $15M that could have gone to other players on the team, but instead is wasted on a player no longer with the team. I know Haynesworth sees no problem with that scenario, but is it fair to the rest of the team and other possible FAs that this money is off the table? Instead, the players are required to continue to earn their contracts.
Continuing with the Haynesworth example, would he even have gotten the contract from Redskins if all contracts were guaranteed? Consider all the free agents they have signed over the last few 10 years and had to cut. Arrington, Trotter, Stubblefield, Wilkerson, Bruce Smith, Deion Sanders, etc could have all been on the payroll years after being cut and it is doubtful the Redskins would be able to afford some of those contracts. Would the Raiders have been able to sign Asamougha if they still had to pay the FAs they signed last year and have recently cut:
Gibril Wilson S 6yr $39M 6.5M/yr
Dante Hall CB 7yr $70M 10M/yr
Kalimba Edwards DE 2yr $5M 2.5M/yr
Javon Walker WR 6yr $55M 9.1M/yr
This is an average of $28M that was saved by letting these underperforming players go. Although Javon has not been officially released at this time, it is doubtful he makes it next year. Therefore the NFL players need to ask themselves, should money be tied up in underperforming players? Or should that same money be made available to rising stars who deserve it?
Contract Size: What I think that most of the commentators do not realize is that teams are more willing to write bigger contracts because they are not guaranteed. If Hayensworth's contract was to be 100% guaranteed it would be for less money. It is the classic economic model of risk vrs reward. A guaranteed contract represents additional risk for the team for the reasons outlined above.