09-10-2024, 12:22 AM
(09-09-2024, 11:44 PM)007BengalsFan Wrote: Here is the problem with you guys that keep saying pay the players what they are worth, then using the player getting cut as a justification for large guaranteed money, if a player gets cut, it is because he is not worth his contract anymore. You want the player to get paid what he is worth? He is. If he is cut he will get paid his worth by some other team and he can sign with them for his proper value.
Why should a player get a huge contract for what they are worth and when they dont play to that same level should the owners keep paying them big money. It’a one way street for your logic. You only want to pay the player what he is worth when he is playing good but if he isnt playing to his worth, you still want the team to keep paying him as if he is. Pay me what I am worth but if I start to suck, I want guaranteed money that still pays me elite money even if I dont play to that same level. That logic makes no sense.
I don’t think I opined on the salaries—if I did wasn’t my intent or relevant to my question. I simply stated that it is the owners doing with the historical nature of contracts that has pushed the situation to cause players to demand guaranteed money. I’m coming at this from the whole system screws teams like the Bengals. The owners wealth independent of the NFL should not be an advantage pertaining to contract structure and funding. With the current requirements, right/wrong or indifferent Bengals ownership is at a severe disadvantage to the likes of the wealthiest owners. This will shift the competitive balance even more.
My point was both signed a contract. They both agreed to it. If the player blows up and is the best in the league, he should still be required to fulfill the contract. Holding out should be punished in a significant manner. The contract should be fulfilled by both sides. My commentary was simply because players signed contracts, can be cut and resulting in the contract being worthless without guarantees. Thus the players now demanding huge guarantees that require significant funding. This hurts the Bengals as the rules are currently written. Owners with significant cash flow streams outside of the NFL can now use that as a competitive advantage against owners who basically are wealthy based on the value of their franchise. Works counter to the salary cap for competitive balance.
Is the cash flow requirement the hang up for Mike Brown? Don’t know but it sure seems possible.
