03-24-2019, 01:43 PM
(03-23-2019, 10:20 PM)Synric Wrote: Exceptions dont make a rule. More players are cut because they aren't producing than cap casualties.
Players that are producing are more likely to be traded even if it's for late picks.
I was responding to this post by Fred:
Quote:Yes it does. Players are not cut if they are earning their pay.
(03-24-2019, 10:33 AM)fredtoast Wrote: The only "fake news" is that you think 9 examples over thirty years proves your point. Those are the outliers. The overwhelming majority of the time a player is not cut if he is earning his salary.
And the fact that you mention guys getting cut for "salary cap reasons" proves that they are overpaid. If you sign a guy to a contract you can not afford to pay then that is "over paying".
If they were not overpaid they would get traded instead of cut.
"Yes it does. Players are not cut if they are earning their pay."
Sorry, you seemed to be saying that players never get cut if they're earning their pay, so I just provided you with a slew of examples to disprove that statement. Do either of you guys have stats to back up this notion that the "overwhelming majority" of cuts are specifically due to underperforming the contract? Not the various reasons I listed?
And no, a player being cut for salary cap purposes doesn't prove that player is overpaid. There's a lot to consider when making a trade. Namely, is the player/agent even open to being traded? Perhaps other teams don't like the structure or length of the contract.
You are making claims that you can't possibly prove.
The training, nutrition, medicine, fitness, playbooks and rules evolve. The athlete does not.
