(07-27-2023, 12:15 AM)p_rushing Wrote:

(07-26-2023, 07:25 AM)mikesez Wrote: Players want guarantees.  A 1 year contract sounds nice, but what if at the end of the year the team decides they don't want to renew it?
A 1 year deal at 10 million will have only 10 million guaranteed.
A 4 year deal at 40 million is going to have more than 10 million guaranteed and it will have a larger signing bonus.

(07-26-2023, 07:35 AM)NYC4jags Wrote: You can keep trying to convince me 10 mil is as good as 40 mil, but I'm afraid you're going to lose this argument.

10 will be close to 40 because the RB will never see the 40 million.

You can't talk terms of 4 year deals for a RB. Players want guaranteed money but they don't want to give up years on a deal. RBs are only going to get 2 years guaranteed now. So sign a 2 year 20-25 million or sign a 4 year 60 million deal that only has 20-25 million guaranteed. It's the exact same deal as the 2 year deal as the last 2 years will never be paid.

For a RB, they have to decide if they want to sign a short-term deal that is guaranteed or if they want a long-term deal that isn't but may pay them more if they ever actually play the contract out. If they stay healthy and don't drop off in performance, the 1 or 2 year deals will make them more money in the long run. If they get hurt or drop off the long-term deal may pay them more if they get hurt in year 1 but after that it is a wash or may even pay them less.

Sent from my SM-T970 using Tapatalk

I hear what you're saying, but 3, 4 and five year deals almost always contain more guaranteed money than one year deals

This is precisely why these backs are up in arms about being devalued

They are increasingly not getting these lucrative second contracts, that traditionally were longer deals with more guaranteed money, percentage, wise

---