05-17-2016, 01:38 PM
(05-17-2016, 01:29 PM)Au165 Wrote: 1.) Contracts should be based on future outlook not past performance. 2.) You are paying them for what they will do not what they did. Past performance may help them gauge future outlook but they also have information we don't have such as practice performance. As for what he would get in FA he would have gotten close to double the guaranteed money with a decent year. Plus keep in mind Hiney badger is about to sign a massive contract which will reset the safety market.
1.) No they shouldn't. They should be based on any number of things beyond potential, and past production is most certainly included.
2.) This is simply not true. Previous accomplishments and past results are always going to come into play in negotiations in signing a veteran.
Yes, teams most certainly will, and have, paid handsomely for potential. But you better believe, that had that potential been backed with previous production, that player would have seen an even greater deal. You always pay more proven results. When paying for potential alone, you often see a savings, relative to the risk.
Put it this way: Take two players of equal skill level, both have a comparable set of attributes, and their ages are similar. Player A is a 4 year starter with 2 Pro Bowls. Payer B was on the bench, stuck behind an All Pro veteran. Both players grade out the same by various teams. Are you telling me that Player B sees the same contract as player A, simply because they the same future potential?
