- Joined
- Apr 7, 2013
- Messages
- 27,184
It's not the guaranteed part that's bad about those contracts. It's the number of years the idiot GMs/owners sign these players to.fully guaranteed contracts are not good for any sport. It's a disaster in baseball and basketball, where if you were stuck with a guy who is not producing up to his contract, and he has years left on his deal, it is nearly impossible to get better. And then you have a fan base that has to deal with years of malaise and barely caring because a player or multiple players have bad contracts that the team can't get out of and which hinder the team's ability to bring in fresh better and more exciting players. It's a huge problem in the other sports. It would suck big fat hairy donkey balls if the NFL adopted that.
IMO, 5 years should be the absolute max that you pay someone guaranteed money. And I'd only reserve that for the players who are still in their prime years and have shown that they're not one-hit/contract year wonders.
Teams like the Yankees and Angels are idiots for signing guys on the backside of their career, e.g. Pujols & A-Rod, to 7-10 year deals. Signing 34 year old players to 10 year deals. That's just dumb management.
In the NFL I don't see anything wrong with having 3-5 year guaranteed contracts. You just have to tier it like they're already doing. For example, positions that experience a lot of wear and tear will usually get 2 or 3 yr deals unless they're a freak of nature like Adrian Peterson. Positions of longevity (OL, QB, CB) should see the longer term deals.