- Joined
- Aug 22, 2014
- Messages
- 2,820
I'm sure this has been brought up earlier but we keep talking about "contracts". The only contract players/teams have is the GUARANTEED money. Journalists should stop referencing contracts as 4 or 5-year deals when the only thing that matters is the guaranteed money. The years don't mean anything. If Jones sucked last year he would have been cut this year with no compensation. On the other hand, if Jones got hurt in year 1 (ala Gurley) the Rams would have been forced to pay up. That's just the way it is and it's fair.This stance would make a lot of sense if contracts were fully guaranteed. But as things are, if a player isn't performing well a team wouldn't hesitate to throw out the contract and cut him.
So if teams can cut players whenever they want, why can't players do what's in their best interests? Please explain how it makes any sense to have a "play out your agreed contact" standard only apply to one side.
In regards to Earnest Jones, the Rams probably got sick and tired of hearing his agent bark at them and told him to go seek a trade. His agent knows that if he gets injured this year, he won't get crap next year, so might as well threaten the Rams while they have some negotiating power. I'm sure his agent also knows that the Rams will probably not sign Earnest to a second contract.
This is the business side of sports that I despise and money is the root of all evil.