Sgt. Largent":2ht0lpbd said:
It's the nature of the sport.
Football is violent, so violent that rosters are 53 men and contracts can't be guaranteed or a rash of injuries means you're done for the year, or multiple years.
I don't understand this logic. Actually, if I understand what you're saying, then that's just flat out wrong.
All contracts are guaranteed for the season after the cutdown to 53. There are no implications cap wise for injuries incurred during the season. All teams must reserve cap space for IR eventuality.
Sgt. Largent":2ht0lpbd said:
So yeah, the players can get guaranteed contracts, but they'll be year to year, and not over 3-5 years with guaranteed bonus money.
Patently false.
Current deals are already generally constructed to be in effect 2 year guaranteed deals. And not always even that long (e.g. Jermaine Kearse's deal). The third through fifth year of contracts are typically 'fluff'. And in truth, the bulk of the value tends to reside in these few remaining years.
In practice, any five year deal is merely the value of the two year base salary + guaranteed money. The reason to even go through the charade is two fold. To provide a way to amortize the signing bonus over 5 years instead of two from a cap perspective. And to give teams the ability to get out of their commitments at roughly half the original contract value.
Sgt. Largent":2ht0lpbd said:
Is that really what Richard and other players want? Having to renegotiate every off season. Cause that's not going to go well for most players with how often they get hurt, and how fast their skills deteriorate.
This is another fallacy. The implication is, that the 5 year deal provides a player with security in the event of injury or production decline. But since there is no real penalty for teams to truncate a 5 year deal to a 2 year deal -- this concept doesn't exist.
That's precisely why guarantees and 'new money' is so vitally important from a player perspective. Because these two concepts really comprise what a player is likely to earn on a deal. The remaining non guaranteed portion is in practice created like a balloon payment that the teams aren't required to honor.
Given the current Seahawks roster, it's hard to have an appreciation for how the NFL in general does it's contracts. Seattle is laden with players in the middle of their second deals (those not on rookie deals anyway). So Seattle is comfortable in keeping players beyond the 2 years -- although if we look at our deals closely, they aren't 5 year deals. But more 3 or 4 year deals. All generally set to expire by age 28-29. Because they're generally still worth their unguaranteed base salaries as they move into years 3+. It's not by accident. Seattle is very stingy about who they pursue in UFA. Generally ages 27+ need not apply here.
Around the league though, that's not always the case. On paper long term commitments are in reality short 2 year deals.
If the NFL guaranteed their contracts, they'd simply abide by the same contract structure we have today in practice.
In actuality, I don't think any NFLPA representative should bang the table for guaranteed contracts. It would be stupid on their part since that's in effect what they already have. And if they exceed that de facto 2 year guarantee length -- then they're already reaping the benefit of a ballooned base salary. So it benefits them either way.
From a player perspective, a couple things are critical:
1. Vastly reduce the length of rookie contracts.
Get players onto their second deals before they statistically decline. Also reduces by half the available pool of below vet minimum players in the league. This forces teams to employ more veteran players. Which was the snake oil promise delivered by the NFL owners in 2011 that Smith swallowed with complete blissful ignorance. The rookie pay scale in it's current length basically denies players a productive 3rd contract. And it vastly reduces the pool of quality talent available on the open market.
2. Increase the ability for players to reach the open market.
Length of deals and ability to extend/franchise players means that fewer quality veterans reach the open market. There is cap money to be spent and every year, we see star contracts being bestowed on decidedly average NFL talent. Those deals get made whether the talent warrants it or not. The cap is the cap. It's not going to budge. Teams don't have to spend 13 million for the likes of Okung or 8 million for the Joeckel's of the NFL if there is better available veteran talent on the market. And if there's better talent on the market, then the Okung's and the Joeckel's aren't making the deals they are enjoying now. They'll be the tier 2+ UFA value contracts.
3. Get to a place where it makes sense for teams to sign vets to their 3rd/4th contract than it is to keep on a cheaper but unproductive rookie.
Ultimately, players need to get to a point where players get to their market value deals sooner. It benefits any kind of player. Whether it's a player whose career spans 5 seasons. Or one that spans 8. They get either one or possibly two market value deals in their careers. It has the effect of adding talent (and better quality talent) to the UFA pool. And also reduces the pool of generically replaceable talent on suppressed rookie contracts (think Kevin Pierre-Louis). Every team is ripe with rookies that won't get a sniff of a second deal with their original clubs. But they are retained because they are so vastly cheaper than a league average veteran.
For the players, it's going to be all about the Rookie cap. I don't see it going away. It does allow for teams to get out from under draft day blunders. But it's current length is ruinous for players of any ilk and of any age. It's easy to demonstrate how the current rookie cap hurts every single player with the unique exception of the highest paid stars and those players disproportionately paid because they were just average enough to not be extended like a star player. It's a stupid system when you're better off being an Okung instead of a Joe Thomas.