I can't remember teams back in the day, teams being willing to agree to trade for an expensive (either cost or trade value expensive) player, that was in their contract year, UNLESS they reached an extension agreement before the trade, and said player basically signed the extension as part of the trade agreement.

Since the 2019 Dolphins to Texans trade of LT Laremy Tunsil, there have been a number of expensive trades for guys in the contract years where teams let the player play out the final year without an extension, and then get stuck in a situation where the player has all the power (as teams just traded a bunch of draft capital for them), and teams are basically put in a situation where they have give that said player a massive payday, more than the market would pay them.

It makes no d@mn sense to me...


The latest one of these is the Eagles to Jets trade of Edge Rusher Haason Reddick for a conditional 3rd that could potentially become a 2nd if certain conditions are met. Now that trade value isn't as bad as some of the others which have been 1st round picks.

But now Reddick is skipping all team activities until he gets a new deal over the one year $14 million deal he currently has agreed to.

The teams had this figured out before 2019... why are teams falling into these traps now? Don't trade for an expensive guy in the final year of their deal, unless you have an extension worked out with them already. It's that simple.

https://www.nbcsports.com/nfl/profootballtalk/rumor-mill/news/reports-haason-reddick-wont-report-to-jets-camp

Great question. There are several factors involved.
1. If I am trying to acquire a player but have to pay him AND the other team, I will offer a lower draft pick to the other team. Granted I still need to sign the player so he doesn't become a free agent but-
2. If he walks and signs elsewhere I will get a comp pick back in the draft. It's delayed for a year but long term an ecxtra draft pick is still an extra draft pick. Sometimes the players available in 3rd round are better than player who went in the 2nd round the year before.
3. If the player holds out for the entire year then you still have him the following year. It's bad for a player to hold out in his final year because so many of them show up late and don't perform well. That will cost them millions in their next contract.

I know there will be other factors but that's all I have time for now.

If Reddick doesn't sign with Jets, and shows up just for the ten games or whatever so he gets the one year accrued thing ... do Jets get compensatory pick if he Reddick signs elsewhere?

Zero2Cool;464529If Reddick doesn't sign with Jets, and shows up just for the ten games or whatever so he gets the one year accrued thing ... do Jets get compensatory pick if he Reddick signs elsewhere?

So far, the teams have signed them all to new over paid contracts and I don't believe any have gone the comp pick route.

But yes, I believe they would get a comp pick. Or course most of these trades have been for 1st and another pick (sometimes two 1st round picks) so a comp pick doesn't compare well, in this case it potentially is a 3rd so it could in this case.

wpr;464528Great question. There are several factors involved.
1. If I am trying to acquire a player but have to pay him AND the other team, I will offer a lower draft pick to the other team. Granted I still need to sign the player so he doesn't become a free agent but-
2. If he walks and signs elsewhere I will get a comp pick back in the draft. It's delayed for a year but long term an ecxtra draft pick is still an extra draft pick. Sometimes the players available in 3rd round are better than player who went in the 2nd round the year before.
3. If the player holds out for the entire year then you still have him the following year. It's bad for a player to hold out in his final year because so many of them show up late and don't perform well. That will cost them millions in their next contract.

I know there will be other factors but that's all I have time for now.

Most of the time in the old days you would see the teams do the sign and trade thing. Where the teams making the trade would agree upon a contract amount with the player and the holding team would give him the contract and then make the trade.
On the other note if the player holds out for the entire year the only person it hurts is the player because said player would still be under the contract he hasn't fullfilled. I think this is what happened to Leveon Bell a few years ago, where he ended up coming back to the training camp and then was traded.

The problem I see now is how the spoiled brats are deciding where they will play. I don't agree with the I want a new contract or trade me scenario that is being played way to much. If I was an owner I wouldn't give in He is still under contract and will be until he plays that final year out.
But then again I believe all positions should have a cap on them. Like a qb is only allowed 18% of the total cap. It's getting to a point where the QB is taking up 30 to 35% of the cap space.

dhazer;465710
The problem I see now is how the spoiled brats are deciding where they will play. I don't agree with the I want a new contract or trade me scenario that is being played way to much. If I was an owner I wouldn't give in He is still under contract and will be until he plays that final year out.

My issue with that logic is that teams are allowed to use all the tools in their toolbox when they want to renegotiate, and fans have no issues with that.

But when players try to do that same thing (which they are equal parts of the contract) then fans complain.

I think both sides should be treated the same and locked into the contract, or both sides should be allowed to use all the different tools in their toolboxes. Either way, it should be equal.

dhazer;465710But then again I believe all positions should have a cap on them. Like a qb is only allowed 18% of the total cap. It's getting to a point where the QB is taking up 30 to 35% of the cap space.

I think that would be extremely too hard position to position, I think a better method would be to set a cap space limit on any one individual player period, so no single player could make more than 20% or 25% or a teams cap limit.

I think that might work.

I'd be very interested on where the Union would come down on a rule like that, obviously at first they would be against more restrictions period. And against it as QBs would hate it and QBs are the face of the players and teams, but also the QBs have not usually been the most involved with the Union... and non-QBs might love it as it'd be more money left for them.

dhazer;465710The problem I see now is how the spoiled brats are deciding where they will play. I don't agree with the I want a new contract or trade me scenario that is being played way to much. If I was an owner I wouldn't give in He is still under contract and will be until he plays that final year out.
But then again I believe all positions should have a cap on them. Like a qb is only allowed 18% of the total cap. It's getting to a point where the QB is taking up 30 to 35% of the cap space.

I can be good with this if contracts were guaranteed. Current setup allows Franchises to agree to a contract, then cut the player 2-3 years into the deal.
If a Franchise can break contract, I feel it is only fair the player can also say hey I've out did my contract so let's revisit that!

The NFL needs to find a balance. Personally, I think shorter contracts and guaranteed is the win-win. Make contracts contractual again!

I think exploring some form of salary cap remediation in the event things go south would be an idea. Team still on the hook for the cash to the player, but either a full or partial reduction in the cap hit. I haven't hashed this out completely, but I do see where it could make these guaranteed contracts less scary for teams and fans of those teams.

dfosterf;465722I think exploring some form of salary cap remediation in the event things go south would be an idea. Team still on the hook for the cash to the player, but either a full or partial reduction in the cap hit. I haven't hashed this out completely, but I do see where it could make these guaranteed contracts less scary for teams and fans of those teams.

They already have suggested that and teams refused.

The simple answer is make the contracts percentage based, so if the cap goes up, player automatically gets more, and if it goes down, the players automatically gets less.

Teams refused this until COVID took it down, and were demanding the Union to suddenly agree to it, and the Union (rightfully so) was like bullshit... you wouldn't do it before, now when it'll extremely hurt our clients, you want to reduce their pay.


Simply allow contracts to be a percentage of the cap solves that issue. It's so simple, but the NFL won't do it during normal times and the Union won't agree to it when it directly hurts them right away.

The problem witht he cap % is under normal circumstances the cap goes up "slowly" for a few years then a new TV contract hits and the cap jumps for a year or two then resumes it more normal uptick.

Players on the other hand breakout and want the money right now. They don't want to wait for the new deal to come down the road.

The well run organizations are going to be at 80-90% of the cap most of the time and are not going to be eager to fill in the cap with player demands.