CowboysFaninHouston
CowboysFaninDC
- Messages
- 33,872
- Reaction score
- 19,447
they can if they wanted to, on the surface it may make sense, but football is a violent game, injuries are par for the course, so would players agree to that type of contract? probably not. unless there are gaurantees like basketball and baseball, but then the owners carry all the risk....I mean if you played football, lets say a DL or a guard and they told you, yeah, in your contract we want to give you money only if you are not injured.....then some other owner says, I give you money even if you are injured, then who would you go with?Injuries are a part of the game, but so is team building! How can you build a team and you're paying a guy a huge amount of money, and he gets hurt often, that's strapping our team from getting other resources. I'm just it would be hard as hell for Jerry to sell this to an agent/players, but at this point, we're paying too much, and not getting the money back on our investments with these injuries. The last injury clause I remember was with Gerald McCoy who rightfully needed one. It's just a thought, how about it. Now please give your thoughts!!!
so there is a balance, of what's gauranteed, and when they can cut lose. unlike baseball and basketball where in my opinion there is a soft cap (luxuary tax) and some teams may afford that tax, in football they agreed to a hard cap that has to be managed, which limits the size of the contract and gaurantees you give.
Last edited: