Quote:
Originally Posted by Schneed10
It's really not rocket science. Hell, I've had the plan mapped out on here for weeks.
As for the debate over whether a player should be applauded for a restructure, I know I sound like a broken record but it needs to be said again. In a simple restructure, the player still gets the same amount of money his contract says he will, he just gets it all up front instead of spread over the course of the season. The player has no incentive to turn this down, and all the incentive in the world to accept it. Players don't do it out of the goodness of their heart. They do it because it's the same money up front.
Now if you see a player agree to a pay cut, then you should applaud them.
|
This sounds pretty rock solid. I wouldn't see any player refusing to restructure if a big chunk of change is converted to guaranteed money. Heck, it's like my company giving me my year's salary up front (of course not nearly as impressive as several million dollars!) This also appears to be an incentive in itself. What better way to keep your players than to say, "tell ya what, you're such a valuable player to us that we're just going to go ahead and give you a chunk of your contract now. I'm sure you'll earn it during the season!"
I don't ever see the Redskins getting into cap trouble as long as Danny has deep pockets. My question is, what would happen if this "share the wealth" program between owners in the league goes sour, and we have an uncapped year? I've heard we'd have to dump players left and right, but I guess I just don't understand the whole process.