Quote:
Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
I don't understand this. If you figure that the teams have a certain pile of money to spend on player salaries, they're going to pay players more if they know they'll be off the hook if they can cut the player instead. They'll pay the players less otherwise, knowing that they'll be paying 60 (55? 75?) contracts to have 50 players in uniform.
|
I don't understand this at all. There is a salary cap. Teams will spend as much as they can under the salary cap either way. Why would they pay players less if they were all competing using guaranteed contracts? Contracts might be shorter in term, but if they want to sign a player, they will have to pay him his market value. They wouldn't falsely inflate the contract by offering him $2 mil the first year, $3 mil the second and then $5 mil the third, knowing they'll never pay him that $5 mil, which is what they seem to do right now.
Plus, everyone on the roster would make the money they bargained for. If they get injured because their sport is inherently dangerous, they will still collect. Granted, this would mean that more players would make money over the course of the season, but I don't see why teams should be able to back out of their deal because they aren't satisfied with it any more than the player should.
TM
