The future of NFL contracts

[Partial]

Do you think teams will begin to kill off the signing bonus in favor of the roster bonus? I was thinking about that today, and that seems like the perfect way to keep the TOs of the world from putting a team in cap hell from absorbing the signing bonus money immediately when cutting or trading a player.

Any thoughts on the future of contracts?

[Patler]

Do you think teams will begin to kill off the signing bonus in favor of the roster bonus? I was thinking about that today, and that seems like the perfect way to keep the TOs of the world from putting a team in cap hell from absorbing the signing bonus money immediately when cutting or trading a player.

Any thoughts on the future of contracts?

For a rebuilding team it makes sense. For a team that is a contender, with one or two needs that a free agent or two might solve, they are likely to mortgage their future via a signing bonus to take their shot right now. They may never have another chance as good as this one, in their minds.

Thus, the bidding wars start which can be financed only by spreading the cost over numerous seasons.

The NFLPA would never go along with it, but one answer id to limit the time period over which the bonus can be spread. If it were limited to 3 years, the amounts would be smaller, perhaps with more and larger bonuses over the life of the contract. Teams would be looking more at their three year outlook than the 5-7 years that are now committed to.

[Creepy]

Players and agents like the roster bonus because it amkes the team have to re-work contracts or release players. Roster bonuses get bigger as the contract goes so you end up with a Fvre like bonus of 10M. You get rid of the bonus and players will be asking for 2M to 5M roster bonuses each year. Leave it the way they have it, right now teams have learned how to work in FA,and it is getting worked out. Chnage the system and it will be another 10-15 years before anybod gets it straight again.

[bbbffl66]

If it ain't broke......

[NewsBruin]

I though there were limits set to signing bonues recently, like 4 or 6 years; I can't remember.

If it were purely up to the teams, it would be all salary, and maybe seasonal guarantees or bonuses. However, signing bonuses are all about competing against other bidders.

This year's draft picks have had less up-front money, because the rookie cap is disproportionate to the overall salary cap, and teams have to be able to make both to sign their picks. You'd rather have guaranteed money now rather than later, but they'll take whatever they can get.

[Tarlam!]

The Blue Dog's view on this, the one he's propagated every off-season since I've read his stuff, is the ultimate contract situation.

Maximum contract length for rooks; vets get seasonal contracts.

One acknowledges a battery of lawyers are needed per team to negotiate 53 contracts minimum anually, but, it is the fairest and squarest way to deal with it....

Rarely do I agree with HH, but, he has this one nailed.

[mission]

If it ain't broke......

granted, but i think the big question comes in actually defining what IS broke? is it broke that we get shafted on mckenzie and walker or is that just business and sometimes the cards fall that way? depends on who you ask obviously and i think arguments can be made both ways.

partial -- you make a good case and i can definitely see it but it's also much from the vantage point of the fan/team. the player's union in the nfl is so strong right now that anything that takes away from a player's guarantee is going to be heavily protested.

im all for it personally -- make those pricks play -- but at the end of the day, i just dont see things headed in the right contractual direction. :cry: