Yet another Stud Safety a potential Free Agent?

[Rain Man]

Originally Posted by OnTheWarpath58

Yep.

One thing about front-loading contracts, because I've seen it mentioned a couple of time because of the lack of a cap.

Teams are going to want to front load deals, but I think doing so may effect the decision making of the players.

Getting your guaranteed money spread out? Security.

Getting all up-front? Not so much. Matt Cassel is an example of this. Granted, he'll get his money, but then could be out on his ass - where a player that has his guaranteed money spread out is less likely to be cut, and enjoys more long-term security - IMO.

It's likely that I don't understand how the system works, but it seems to me like getting all your money up front would help your job security. Two years from now, if I've got Matt Cassel for $500,000 because I paid him a lot up front, or I've got Matt Cassel for $3.5 million because I paid him less up front, I'm more likely to keep him if he's cheaper.

It would seem that the team has the bigger risk because the $500,000 Matt Cassel is going to be more likely to try to get out of his contract and go somewhere else.

But maybe I don't understand how the "up front" money works. I try to be logical about it, but the NFL's system is not always logical. I wish they'd just require a straight up dollars-per-year contract system so that teambuilding was more about who has the best players and less about who has the best accountants.

[RJ]

Originally Posted by Rain Man

I wish they'd just require a straight up dollars-per-year contract system so that teambuilding was more about who has the best players and less about who has the best accountants.

I'm going to be really pissed if I find out after all this time that what we really needed was a better accountant.

[OnTheWarpath15]

Originally Posted by Rain Man

It's likely that I don't understand how the system works, but it seems to me like getting all your money up front would help your job security. Two years from now, if I've got Matt Cassel for $500,000 because I paid him a lot up front, or I've got Matt Cassel for $3.5 million because I paid him less up front, I'm more likely to keep him if he's cheaper.

It would seem that the team has the bigger risk because the $500,000 Matt Cassel is going to be more likely to try to get out of his contract and go somewhere else.

But maybe I don't understand how the "up front" money works. I try to be logical about it, but the NFL's system is not always logical. I wish they'd just require a straight up dollars-per-year contract system so that teambuilding was more about who has the best players and less about who has the best accountants.

I'm assuming that a salary cap will be re-instated at some point in the future.

Let's continue to use Cassel as an example.

Keep in mind that guaranteed money is exactly that - the only money in a contract that a player is guaranteed to receive.

Cassel's contract calls for $28M guaranteed, all to be paid in the first two years of a six year deal.

That means that after this season, the Chiefs can cut him with absolutely no penalties.

Had that $28M been spread out over the life of the deal, averaging just under $5M guaranteed per - and the Chiefs wanted to cut him after this upcoming season - they'd still owe him over $18M, and face a huge cap hit/penalties. Which means they'd be more likely to keep him, because it would cost significantly more to cut him.

Now, if there is never a salary cap re-introduced, this all means nothing - but IMO, there will be.