Bricks wrote:FNQ wrote:Bricks wrote:What's wrong with the 'Franchise' tag? I'm new to football business.
Doesnt provide any long-term security. If Bell suffers a big-time injury on the franchise tag, it could be his last paycheck. Even though its 14m, he could sign a 4-44 deal instead, with 20m guaranteed (5m per year). So let's say he gets injured in year 1.. he collects the 11m for that season and the 15m over the next 3 years, whether he plays or not.
Thanks for the education, that makes sense on Bell's stance but I thought there were no guaranteed contracts in the NFL so a team could drop a player at any moment without paying the remainder of the contact.
There are usually clauses that specify a date for when/if this can happen.
I think NBA contracts are easier to explain because the numbers are so massive, but generally speaking when a player is "really good" they can increase of money that is guaranteed, which basically means that even if they cut him/her they will get that amount.
The rest of the amount will be paid out as part of their salary and/or incentive clauses for performance.
As an example, if a player signs a 5 Yr/ 100 MIL with 45 MIL guaranteed, they will get that 45 regardless if he/she gets released/cut. The reason teams do this is that the guaranteed is money is likely what is spread out so, in this example 9MIL/year. But w/ the entire 100M they should be getting 20MIL/year. So if you cut the player by the set date, you would only have to pay them 9 as opposed to the 20. Hope that makes sense.
The cases where a player is cut and the team pays nothing is usually for free agents that are trying to prove their value. Often times they're younger or older and they are frequently 1 or 2 year deals. There's typically a date that once it passes, their contracts become guaranteed, so teams usually cut players before that date to save salary cap for next year. This is seen most frequently in the NBA.