(10-03-2018, 10:54 AM)Deacon Wrote: 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.

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?

The problem is the backend of the contract is usually too large. The team and player signed it knowing that it most likely won't be played out. If the player lives up to the contract, they get the extremely high salary and costs in the later years.

The team can cut the player, but the player has already got their guaranteed money. The issue is they wanted a signing bonus for the full contract and cap space requires that they space it out for the full contract.

If they want a guaranteed contract, then they have to sign for 2-3 years and take a smaller signing bonus.

Sent from my SM-G950U1 using Tapatalk

---