Going forward, everybody is on a two-year deal....

[Marleydawg 60]

Except Mahomes. There are some variations with Hitchens probably at 3 and Hill/Jones (Maybe Houston) at 1. Everyone else though, they can let walk within 2 years. Changing of the guard. It will be interesting to watch a team build from scratch around a quarterback; I’ve been watching the Chiefs for 30+ years and I don’t recall this storyline.

[xen 1,010,220]

Yeah they can get out of every big deal in the next 2 years. The 3 year FA deal is the new hotness this offseason. Weird.

[KC Warpaint 3,238]

next big thing will be the 100% Guaranteed contract thanks to the vikes and Cousins

[FANATIC 852]

Hon

 

next big thing will be the 100% Guaranteed contract thanks to the vikes and Cousins

Honestly NFL is so profitable. Owners make huge profits. Its also dangerous and a shorter career for most. Players should get guaranteed contracts.

[Chiefsfan1963 1,101]

Hon

 

Honestly NFL is so profitable. Owners make huge profits. Its also dangerous and a shorter career for most. Players should get guaranteed contracts.

No they shouldn't, they should have incentive laced contracts and be evaluated every year. If they played well and met their goals or standards then they get their bonuses if not then they don't. Of course their goals or incentives would need to be realistic. There would need to be a character clause to keep woman beaters, friend killers etc at bay, you screw up you don't get your bonuses and depending on the infraction, like a felony conviction, you would be banned for life.

 

The teams or NFL should provide them with the option to get insurance through the organization like most others.

[SEMO 6,812]

No they shouldn't, they should have incentive laced contracts and be evaluated every year. If they played well and met their goals or standards then they get their bonuses if not then they don't. Of course their goals or incentives would need to be realistic. There would need to be a character clause to keep woman beaters, friend killers etc at bay, you screw up you don't get your bonuses and depending on the infraction, like a felony conviction, you would be banned for life.

 

The teams or NFL should provide them with the option to get insurance through the organization like most others.

I actually agree with a lot of that.  And, I don't agree with you very often.

 

I like the incentive laden deals.  I don't see any need for guaranteed contracts.  My salary, or job, isn't guaranteed.  If I can't perform my tasks adequately, then I am out the door.  And, I better have a nest egg built up, because I am not going to get paid while I look for something else.

[PAChiefsFan79 136]

I actually agree with a lot of that.  And, I don't agree with you very often.

 

I like the incentive laden deals.  I don't see any need for guaranteed contracts.  My salary, or job, isn't guaranteed.  If I can't perform my tasks adequately, then I am out the door.  And, I better have a nest egg built up, because I am not going to get paid while I look for something else.

 

I disagree with the part about guaranteed money. Incentive based contracts are fabulous, but considering these guys play a sport that greatly debilitates the body and reduces their average life expectancy I fully support players getting paid guaranteed money. Lets' put a million dollars in context for you. If I start working for a company at the age of 20 and never received a raise, worked at that company for 40 years, and was paid $25,000 annually gross I would make $1 million in that time span. That's not great money when you think about it like that. Giving a player several million dollars isn't a lot of money when you break it up over their lifetime. Add into the matter that they will suffer injuries that will probably cause them to become disabled later in life at some level they should be paid for that earlier in life. Also, keep in mind that after their career is over they won't be likely bringing in anywhere close to that type of money. Some will, most won't. This is their time to cash in on a business that generates billions of dollars on their backs. 

 

I have no problem with guaranteed contracts. You just have to have good language in that contract that can get you out of it if that player does something moronic or criminal in nature outside of work. Think of Bowe in this regard. Chiefs were off the hook because he likes his weed.

[Chiefsfan1963 1,101]

I disagree with the part about guaranteed money. Incentive based contracts are fabulous, but considering these guys play a sport that greatly debilitates the body and reduces their average life expectancy I fully support players getting paid guaranteed money.

It's the life THEY chose.

 

They KNOW the possibility of a long-term injury.

Everyone, or at least most people have to live with their decisions. If they elect to play a sport with high risk then they have to live with the possibility of being often injured.

 

Most, if not all first responders, military and teachers do not go into their professions to get rich. They know what they are getting into from day one and if they don't that's on them. Athletes are in the same boat, they know what they are getting into and still elect to do it.

[KCSLC2008 607]

next big thing will be the 100% Guaranteed contract thanks to the vikes and Cousins

Another thing about the guaranteed is that there isn't the fourth and fifth year. I think that's going to be a trend as well. Because the fact is that when you have guaranteed for only three years in a five-year contract, you wellare stuck on the team for two more years if you are good but the team is bad. And if you get injured, they're just going to cut you for those final two years. No real upside. If you were good and your team is good, you will want another contract.

 

There may be a distinction when you come to someone like Tom Brady who is good but old on a good team. Maybe he would want those two extra years that the team has to cut him to let him go and have some dead money. It'd be worse for PR to cut someone like Brady than it would be to not re-sign him due to age.

 

So if you have the leverage, you sign for the shorter term contract that is guaranteed for the same amount as a longer contract. Obviously, if they could've guaranteed five years, he would've taken that, but 86 or 84 million was what they were going to pay in the next three years and so that's what he wanted guaranteed and he wanted nothing else added to that.

 

So everyone focuses on the hundred percent part but that doesn't matter as much. It's the final two years. I know that you can space out things with bonuses and stuff and that might be gone with the guaranteed, but if he had signed an 120 million contract, 84 or 86 would be guaranteed. It's the same thing but now he has two more years that he can either extend or leave.

 

Not that his situation is unique in desire, but he did not like being stuck with Washington. Minnesota could tag him in a couple years too, but at least he's not under contract for nonguaranteed years.

[Calichief 3,017]

next big thing will be the 100% Guaranteed contract thanks to the vikes and Cousins

They should be guaranteed.

[xen 1,010,220]

People need to stop comparing athletes jobs to their own. Nobody wants to pay money to watch you work.

 

They are entertainers so i guess there's a comparison there.

 

Better to compare them to other sports leagues but MLB and NBA have better players unions and of course there's less mouths to feed.

 

NFL players really do have the worst contracts out of all the major leagues and it's the hardest league to make it in.

[moons314 2,463]

They should be guaranteed.

If they’re guaranteed, you have to reduce the overall number. Look at how much baseball suffers from guaranteed contracts. Guaranteed contracts increase the probability of dead money, and dead money will eat a teams competitive ability in a sport that has a salary cap. Too many variables to guarantee 5 or 6 year contracts.

[xen 1,010,220]

If they’re guaranteed, you have to reduce the overall number. Look at how much baseball suffers from guaranteed contracts. Guaranteed contracts increase the probability of dead money, and dead money will eat a teams competitive ability in a sport that has a salary cap. Too many variables to guarantee 5 or 6 year contracts.

Not to mention the average career is what, 3 years?

[Chiefsfan1963 1,101]

People need to stop comparing athletes jobs to their own. Nobody wants to pay money to watch you work.

 

They are entertainers so i guess there's a comparison there.

People need to stop putting athletes on pedestals also. I have not paid to see a football game in person for close 30 years. Haven't paid the NFL for a single piece of merchandise either. So no, I don't pay to watch them work either.

[Chiefsfan1963 1,101]

Not to mention the average career is what, 3 years?

Please, that's a skewed stat and you know it. They base that on ALL players that enter the league, from the undrafted who doesn't make the cut to the 20 year kicker.

 

I can look at most rosters today and the average years in the league is anywhere from 5 to 7 years.

[xen 1,010,220]

Please, that's a skewed stat and you know it. They base that on ALL players that enter the league, from the undrafted who doesn't make the cut to the 20 year kicker.

 

I can look at most rosters today and the average years in the league is anywhere from 5 to 7 years.

Uhhh that's why they call it the average. You have to use all the players to get a true average. That's how maths works. Or so I'm told. Maths are stoopud.

[Calichief 3,017]

Not to mention the average career is what, 3 years?

Something can be done. Warriors. They shouldn’t get totally screwed the way they do. These fuckers are billionaires.

[Marleydawg 60]

Uhhh... why does it have to be all incentive or all guaranteed? Give everybody as much freedom as possible, they’re all big boys.

[PAChiefsFan79 136]

It's the life THEY chose.

 

They KNOW the possibility of a long-term injury.

Everyone, or at least most people have to live with their decisions. If they elect to play a sport with high risk then they have to live with the possibility of being often injured.

 

Most, if not all first responders, military and teachers do not go into their professions to get rich. They know what they are getting into from day one and if they don't that's on them. Athletes are in the same boat, they know what they are getting into and still elect to do it.

 

True but those professions tend to have great pensions they can start collecting after 20 years. Most first responders live lengthy lives. Yes some are injured or killed on the job and they usually get disability close or equivalent to their pensions.

 

Do NFL players get a pension? No. Their pension is what they do with all of that money they made when playing. I respect the lives first responders save and respect their risks but it isn't the same. It's apples to oranges.

[moons314 2,463]

Something can be done. Warriors. They shouldn’t get totally screwed the way they do. These fuckers are billionaires.

Why does it matter if they are billionaires? They made their money on multiple businesses. The hunt family doesn’t just own the chiefs. The salary cap is a fixed percentage of league wide revenue which is shared. Several teams have posted no profits in recent years, raiders and Steelers being two of them. If you look at what owners make as a percentage of their investment, it’s not that much. If I have a 2 billion dollar franchise and it’s paying me 10 or 20 million a year profit, that’s a very small percentage of return. Compare that to a player like Tom Brady who made 44 million in a year between salary and endorsements.

 

Making contracts guaranteed would hurt players at the bottom end, as well as vets in their waning years. It wouldn’t change the amount of money in salaries, it would only concentrate money onto fewer players. Your special teams guys wouldn’t make shit, nor would your backups. It’d create an even bigger imbalance in contracts than we have now, and it would guarantee more wasted money on players who don’t contribute.

 

Guys used to work real jobs in the offseason so they could play this game. Now, making more money in a year than most people make in a lifetime isn’t good enough.

[Calichief 3,017]

Why does it matter if they are billionaires? They made their money on multiple businesses. The hunt family doesn’t just own the chiefs. The salary cap is a fixed percentage of league wide revenue which is shared. Several teams have posted no profits in recent years, raiders and Steelers being two of them. If you look at what owners make as a percentage of their investment, it’s not that much. If I have a 2 billion dollar franchise and it’s paying me 10 or 20 million a year profit, that’s a very small percentage of return. Compare that to a player like Tom Brady who made 44 million in a year between salary and endorsements.

 

Making contracts guaranteed would hurt players at the bottom end, as well as vets in their waning years. It wouldn’t change the amount of money in salaries, it would only concentrate money onto fewer players. Your special teams guys wouldn’t make shit, nor would your backups. It’d create an even bigger imbalance in contracts than we have now, and it would guarantee more wasted money on players who don’t contribute.

 

Guys used to work real jobs in the offseason so they could play this game. Now, making more money in a year than most people make in a lifetime isn’t good enough.

My main issue is players getting screwed to injury. Getting injured shouldn’t cost them. The owners are loaded because of the players. This is my opinion.

[moons314 2,463]

A defensive player making 8 million a season , if he plays 30 snaps a game, he’s making over $16,000 per snap. A qb making 25 million, if he attempts 450 passes in a season, that’s over $55,000 per pass attempt. I don’t feel like players get screwed at all. They get paid handsomely for their usage, and if they get hurt and can’t do their job, they shouldn’t continue to siphon money. The injury risk is part of why they make so much money in the first place.

 

If I have an accident at work and lose part of my hand, I’d be lucky to get a 50k settlement. Are you saying that if an nfl player gets a similar injury at work he should be entitled to millions of dollars? The ability to earn is based on availability.

[FANATIC 852]

A defensive player making 8 million a season , if he plays 30 snaps a game, he’s making over $16,000 per snap. A qb making 25 million, if he attempts 450 passes in a season, that’s over $55,000 per pass attempt. I don’t feel like players get screwed at all. They get paid handsomely for their usage, and if they get hurt and can’t do their job, they shouldn’t continue to siphon money. The injury risk is part of why they make so much money in the first place.

 

If I have an accident at work and lose part of my hand, I’d be lucky to get a 50k settlement. Are you saying that if an nfl player gets a similar injury at work he should be entitled to millions of dollars? The ability to earn is based on availability.

See baseball & basketball

[moons314 2,463]

See baseball & basketball

Exactly. Look at baseball. The angels are hosed on Pujols contract. That’s an example of why baseball gms weren’t handing out those types of contracts this offseason. A huge fully guaranteed contract is a detriment to the franchise. That’s why I contend if football went to fully guaranteed contracts, you’d see substantially shorter contracts given out. In the long run there’s no guarantee that such changes would actually benefit players, because a 29 year old player would be getting a 2 or 3 year contract instead of 5 or 6, and he’d be back on the market at 32 where the contract value is going to be lower. I think it would hurt the majority of players on their second contracts.

[xen 1,010,220]

Exactly. Look at baseball. The angels are hosed on Pujols contract. That’s an example of why baseball gms weren’t handing out those types of contracts this offseason. A huge fully guaranteed contract is a detriment to the franchise. That’s why I contend if football went to fully guaranteed contracts, you’d see substantially shorter contracts given out. In the long run there’s no guarantee that such changes would actually benefit players, because a 29 year old player would be getting a 2 or 3 year contract instead of 5 or 6, and he’d be back on the market at 32 where the contract value is going to be lower. I think it would hurt the majority of players on their second contracts.

Not arguing for or against but isn't that exactly the same? 3 years guaranteed is the same as cutting a guy 3 years into a 5 year contract. Either way he's back on the market at 32.