User Tag List

Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 11 to 15 of 15

Thread: Should NFL contracts be fully guaranteed? Russell Okung thinks so.

  1. #11
    Senior Member pdom's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Posts
    22,067
    Quote Originally Posted by 1bigfan13 View Post
    Why don't we get an attitude when people with "real jobs" utilize their unions to challenge "raw deals"?
    cuz they got real jobs

  2. #12
    Senior Member mschmidt64's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Posts
    14,032
    I don't care if they fully guarantee the contracts as long as releasing the player clears the salary from counting against the salary cap.

  3. #13
    Senior Member 1bigfan13's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Posts
    13,831
    Quote Originally Posted by pdom View Post
    cuz they got real jobs
    Hate to break it to you but being a professional athlete is a real job for those guys. It's a profession.

  4. #14
    Senior Member 1bigfan13's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Posts
    13,831
    Quote Originally Posted by mschmidt64 View Post
    I don't care if they fully guarantee the contracts as long as releasing the player clears the salary from counting against the salary cap.
    That's a good idea.

    These billionaire owners could easily absorb the cost of paying players who are no longer on the roster. Of course that would mean there's even more pressure on GMs to smartly spend their money in FA.

  5. #15
    Senior Member mschmidt64's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Posts
    14,032
    Quote Originally Posted by 1bigfan13 View Post
    That's a good idea.

    These billionaire owners could easily absorb the cost of paying players who are no longer on the roster. Of course that would mean there's even more pressure on GMs to smartly spend their money in FA.
    That's the problem with the NBA (and NHL). The less cash rich owners cry poverty when this is brought up, claiming that the bigger market owners can "buy off their mistakes." Ie, the Lakers could throw 100 million at DeMarcus Cousins over 5 years, and then if he busts, they can just write him the check for the $100 million, and go throw $100 million at someone else. But a team like the Bucks or the Pelicans, they can't afford to pay off $100 million to a player who is no longer playing, and still have money left to go pay someone else, so this allegedly gives the richer teams a "competitive advantage."

    But I don't buy it. How about this, just don't waste your money on bad contracts? On what planet could it be seen as anything other than punitive for the Lakers to have to pay $100 million to clear a lousy player off their roster?

    At the end of the day, the salary cap would still be in place to ensure that you cannot have the 5 best players in the league on your roster at the same time, since it would be unaffordable in terms of cap space. It also helps get the best product on the court for the league since teams aren't stuck playing dead weight.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •