Quote:
Originally posted by ThurgreedMarshall
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.
|
The team is not backing out of anything if the deal was that they could walk away.
If the team needs 50 people on the roster, and if it's going to have to pay another 10 who would not be paid if their contracts were not guaranteed, it's going to have a payroll of 60 instead of 50. There's no reason to think that teams are going to be willing to spend more money on their player payroll than they do now, so they're going to divide up the money under the cap 60 ways instead of 50 ways.
