Quote
CeeZar
Quote
dzrams
The players would probably like to have either shorter deals or opt out clauses anyway. The long term deals really serve the teams more since salaries aren't guaranteed anyway. Why would a player want to be locked up for 6 years when, at best, 3 of those years are guaranteed? This is especially true when due to inflation, the player is severely underpaid in the latter years of the long contract.
Shorter contracts also mean lower signing bonuses and players like the signing bonus. Players are free to determine the length of their contracts now and they can try to include opt out clause if they can get the team to agree. As far as being underpaid in the latter years, well that is true in one respect due to inflation, assuming their level of play doesn't decline. If their play declines, they are getting overpaid at the end of a longer contract. For instance we see players kept on a year or more longer than their production would justify because their cap hits would be too high to trade or cut. So longer contracts have some benefits to the players. In the end though, I don't think mandating a maximum contract length would be an option as neither side would want to give up that flexibility. Perhaps some adjustment to the way cap implications are determined when trading a player or cutting him would be an option. Cut players are basically free agents.
Yes, it would mean lower bonuses. But that would be offset by them entering into more overall contracts in their career since the terms are shorter. For example, a 6 year, $60M contract that guarantees $30M in the first 3 years would turn into a $30M over 3 yr. contract with only $15M guaranteed. In theory, the player would be negotiating a new contract much earlier with another opportunity for a signing bonus.
You're correct in that's when their play doesn't decline that they would be underpaid in the latter years of a long contract.
OTOH, when there play does decline, teams often cut them since the guaranteed portion of the contract is typically over. Thus, there is less danger of players being overpaid than underpaid. In fact, one could argue that if the team isn't cutting the player when is as typical guaranteed money is no longer owed, maybe said player isn't overpaid. The teams is still finding some value in having them around.
There is sometimes some benefit of long term contracts to players but in general anything that helps player movement increase is better for them. Just like free agency ultimately proved to be boon for players, short term contracts as the norm would benefit them too.
Where players for sure would want to mandate contract length is on rookie contracts. Teams having control over first round picks for five years isn't beneficial to them all. I think you're right in that a short contract couldn't be mandated for vets but the trend of moving to shorter contracts would probably happen if they lessened the length of the rookie contracts.
These ideas are all alternatives to having fully guaranteed salaries. You'd have to tell me more about the cap implications for cutting a player, of how that help.
