(06-14-2018, 03:17 PM)Deacon Wrote:

(06-12-2018, 09:50 PM)Bullseye Wrote: ...

I think whether it's better or not is immaterial.

If you have the longer deal and the player doesn't perform, the team will cut him.

If you sign the longer deal whose terms become obsolete due to the the player outperforming it and market, the player will hold out for a new deal.  If the team doesn't sign him, the holdout becomes a distraction, and possibly alienates other players on the team, depending upon how the negotiations are handled.  Eventually, he could be cut or traded, making the team lesser for it.

If you sign the shorter deal, and the player is still healthy, in his prime, and still performing well, you will need to re-sign him anyway.

Barring injury, there's no escaping the need to re-sign the  ultra productive star player.

Unless a team signs a player before reaching that 5th year, there will be holdouts.

That "cut" part is what I believe has drawn the attention of the Team. Remember that the Cap ramifications of cutting a player is that their cap hit accelerates onto the Cap in the given year. So if you have spread his hit out over the contract that will still hurt you due to having to carry that cap hit.

This is why I think teams like the shorter deal because it lets them get out of a bad situation that much easier. But it does make more work for them later when they want to re-sign him.