Yesterday, 09:22 PM
(Yesterday, 08:12 PM)SunsetBengal Wrote: That has no bearing on rookie deals. They are slotted with a max value that is all guaranteed over the life of the contract. There are situations that allow the team to discontinue paying for a player that might not be available because of his own actions. Should a team be forced to pay for a guy that can't be available to the team due to actions of his own? I mean injuries happen and he should still get paid, but for example bad behavior like buying a supercar and causing harm to others like a recent case shouldn't hold the team on the hook.
The bearing is on his thoughts of his own situation, because if he signs, thought is another contract may one day be in the future; nothing to do with the rookie deal or guaranteed aspects of it. I think he should have been signed and start training. If he just doesn’t like how these people do business with other people, may make him think that bending to their wishes is something he is less likely to do. Don’t think the Bengals are giving him a warm and fuzzy feeling. As of right now, though in different career and contract positions, both edges are saying the Bengals are offering contracts they don’t want to sign.
Like a teenage girl driving a Ferrari.
