(10-02-2018, 08:25 PM)p_rushing Wrote:

(10-02-2018, 07:35 PM)Deacon Wrote: Do you believe that the organization that also signed the contract should employ and pay the player for the entirety of the contact as well?

Players don't want that. They keep talking about guaranteed contracts, but no one is signing one. If they want the guaranteed contract, the total $ and years come down. The players want to treat it as a 2-3 year deal so they can then double dip on the signing bonus and get another one.

They don't want to only sign a 2-3 year deal and their agents also don't want them too. They lose too much money if their play drops quickly which happens to a lot of NFL players.

...

I agree, and I wrote as much in this post. Players seem to get antsy over their contract, regardless of the size of the contract, around the three year point. But my question was aimed at the idea that if a player should honor his contract for the entire length, then shouldn't the organization who also signed the contract do the same? I see this as the players being held to a more rigid standard than the organizations and that doesn't seem right.

---

(10-02-2018, 09:18 PM)JagNGeorgia Wrote:

(10-02-2018, 07:35 PM)Deacon Wrote: Do you believe that the organization that also signed the contract should employ and pay the player for the entirety of the contact as well?

But the contract has clauses based around being released. When the player signs the contract, they understand that they can be released from that contract. That's why they ask for huge signing bonuses.

I was not aware that the contract has language regarding a players release, but then I am no attorney (paging Bullseye). I understand that the players are trying to protect themselves from their release by asking for more money up front but why is that their only option?

---