singaporesoxfan said:
I think guaranteed contracts help a lot with players who suffer injuries as well as get rid of some of that asymmetry, and I think that outweighs the downside of perhaps being more closed to new talent.
I agree guaranteed contracts can help these items - for some players, at least, depending on how things are structured - but I'm wondering if there are other solutions that might offer this upside with less downside. I really like RetractableRoof's suggestion of a special Concussion Roster Exemption from another thread, for instance.
singaporesoxfan said:
The distinction between the current situation and what would evolve isn't going to be that un-meritocratic - teams often already face negative financial consequences to cutting a vet due to dead money eating into the cap etc.
Teams currently face positive, not negative, financial consequences when cutting a vet, because they get to write off the non-guaranteed part of the contract. The Pats saved money cutting Reggie Wayne and keeping Chris Harper. If we adopt SF121's plan above, it would cost more money to cut Wayne and keep Harper (because then Harper's contract would be guaranteed). This is why stuff like the Veteran Minimum Salary Benefit exists.
singaporesoxfan said:
I also think there could be a different sort of meritocratic element to guaranteed contracts in that it rewards GMs and teams who make good decisions about long-term consequences. If owners don't like that they are paying too much money to people who aren't playing, they should hire GMs and personnel who can make better decisions about contracts.
GMs are already pretty accountable for bad contracts and bad decisions. You're right that there would be more long-term consequences to bad long-term contracts, but it seems to me that that punishes the fans of those teams moreso than the incompetent decision-makers.
In constructing any cap / financial / contract system, there are a variety of tensions that the league has to resolve, like:
1) How do we want to divide revenue between the players and owners? Should this be strict or more prone to market forces?
2) Should big-market teams have an economic advantage, or should there be a level playing field?
3) How do we divide money between superstar players and non-superstars? Do we want to cap how much one individual can make?
4) How do we divide money between veterans and rookies / those on rookie contracts? How fair do we want competitions between them to be? What about the competition between undrafted rookies and drafted (especially highly-drafted) ones?
5) How easy do we want to make it for teams to get out of bad contracts? How easy do we want to make it for players?
6) How much should we protect players who decline or retire due to injuries sustained during games? What if they decline for non-game-related reasons?
7) How easy do want to make it for teams to stay together / superstars to spend their careers in one place? How much should we encourage turnover so bad teams can get better and parity can increase?
Every sport (well, I only really know about MLB, the NFL, and the NBA) has different resolutions to these tensions / answers to these questions. Guaranteed contracts are a potential solution for some of these items (like #5 and #6), but I think it's important to acknowledge that there are ripple effects through the items that they don't address specifically. My gut reaction is that guaranteed contracts are impractical with a hard cap, and the NFL will either need to move to no cap (as baseball does) or implement a bunch of exceptions (as basketball does). I don't necessarily have anything against either of those solutions, but they, of course, have their own ripple effects and plusses and minuses. I don't think the NFL system is fair or right or perfect as-is, but just because the other leagues have guaranteed contracts doesn't mean it's right for football, or that it will make the game better on the whole.