Originally posted by NineFourNiner:Originally posted by PA9erFaithful:Originally posted by NineFourNiner:Originally posted by PA9erFaithful:
Because players like the security of a long-term contract, plus the fact that longer contracts almost always equal more guaranteed money.
I think the players' logic in that situation can be flawed. Again:
Originally posted by NineFourNiner:Originally posted by valrod33:
if they get hurt during a year they are franchised they are afraid they wont get that big payday
I don't buy it.
If Hampton and Franklin each get injured this year and cut, they make $11 and $7M respectively. OTOH, if they get injured NEXT year and cut, Franklin likely ends up with more money - $14M v. $11M or so.
A long term contract is not totally about financial security. I would suspect that many players like to know that they're going to be in the same city for a long time, so that they and their families can settle down and integrate into the community.
That makes sense to me. But at the same time, once that tag is slapped on there is a year to work on the new long term deal while the player is making top 5 money. In other words, the player's family gets to stay where they already were (continuity), make more money and still have another year to work out a long term solution.
But what if, let's say the player is franchised in a place like Detroit, and the player is in the last few years of his career. Money sometimes will take a backseat considering he actually wants a championship/ring. Money is the driving force, no doubt, but in the twillight of one's career, and let's say he already made mucho dinero, one could be thinking about the legacy instead of of the financial aspect...