Watson to the Browns.

[MyGodWearsAHoodie]

Guaranteeing contracts, making it at will, voidable contracts etc.  Would neither destroy the game nor improve it.  Nor would any change other than raising or lowering the salary cap/salary floor have any impact on the overall benefit to players nor any impact on owners profits. 

The rookie salary formula did not hurt or help players overall.  It moved cash from some rookies to some vets.  If all contracts were guaranteed, the future contracts would fall somewhere between the current guaranteed value and the max value of the contract.  This would benefit some and lower the pay for others.  The ones who benefit the most would be those who underperform and the ones it would hurt are the ones that overperform -- so it is probably a bad idea.

The one pay issue that I think should be changed is RFA tenders should be guaranteed. I forgot who but years ago a I recall a back up QB getting a second round tender.  Being he wasn't a great QB nobody was willing to give up a second for him.  But there likely would have been a market for him before the start of training camp if not for the tender. Then after the the final cut to 53 he was forced to take a drastic pay cut or be cut.  With only a week before the start of the season there was no longer a market as he wouldn't have time to learn a playbook unlike earlier.  I thought that was sleazy and contrary to the purpose of RFA contracts.       

[Spider-Dan]

If all contracts were guaranteed, the future contracts would fall somewhere between the current guaranteed value and the max value of the contract.  This would benefit some and lower the pay for others.  The ones who benefit the most would be those who underperform and the ones it would hurt are the ones that overperform -- so it is probably a bad idea.

Another way to look at it is that salaries would be (more) normalized across the players.  So instead of players receiving these huge contracts on paper - that are frequently unrealized but count against the cap as if they will be paid - with guaranteed contracts, the top end contracts will be lower and the bottom end contracts will be higher (but the total amount of money will remain the same).

Additionally, just as player holdouts for increased pay are not a thing in MLB or the NBA because of the guaranteed salaries, that will cease to be a problem in the NFL; players know that they will receive every dollar they signed for, and won't have to worry about re-negotiating maximum value if they overperform (to make up for the lost wages when they are cut later in their careers).  You will also have fewer instances of players being threatened with being released if they don't restructure their contract to make less money.

In a sense, this is just another version of the risk-reward dynamic of contracts vs. no contracts: a league without any contracts at all would provide maximum value to the top performers on a year-by-year basis, but would provide no security for those on the lower end of the talent pool (or those nearing the end of their careers).  A league with fully guaranteed contracts swings the needle in the opposite direction, and a league with voidable contracts is somewhere in the middle.

[MyGodWearsAHoodie]

Another way to look at it is that salaries would be (more) normalized across the players.  So instead of players receiving these huge contracts on paper - that are frequently unrealized but count against the cap as if they will be paid - with guaranteed contracts, the top end contracts will be lower and the bottom end contracts will be higher (but the total amount of money will remain the same).

The fake money will go away but the disparity between top players and bottom players will remain. 

A possible downside of guaranteed contracts (if extended to rookies) would be teams choosing to give less UDFAs a chance at making the team.  Teams start camp with the 53 guys they expect to make the team and then 37 other guys that are given a chance to prove they are more worthy than the incumbent 53.  Those guys are typically offered a two year contract and a $50K signing bonus.  If they are good enough to make the team they earn $1.5 to $2 million over two years, if they get cut they only get the $50k.  If all contracts are guaranteed that means it will cost a team three fourth of a million dollars for each of the extended tryouts.  Teams might decided to only have 70-80 guys in camp so they can use the money elsewhere.   

If every tryout cost the team a full years salary there will be much less churn at the bottom of the roster meaning less guys being given a chance to prove themselves and other guys that should be cut hanging on.

[Spider-Dan]

I know in the NBA, there is a subset of non-guaranteed contracts for players at the bottom of the roster (usually players that have not accrued enough time in the league to qualify as a veteran).  I would imagine there would be something similar if the NFL went to a guaranteed contract system.

[EDGECRUSHER]

Baker Mayfield has no trade market. The Panthers nor Seahawks want him and there are basically no spots left. I think the Browns are going to have him as the backup QB or even worse, the starter for a few weeks if Watson is suspended. Baker has a fully guaranteed $18 Million contract too, it's just a mess of a situation.

[Spider-Dan]

I think there should be a few teams (ATL, NYG, PIT) willing to take Baker with a Brock Osweiler-style deal (e.g. Baker plus a third-round pick for a fourth-rounder).

[EDGECRUSHER]

I think there should be a few teams (ATL, NYG, PIT) willing to take Baker with a Brock Osweiler-style deal (e.g. Baker plus a third-round pick for a fourth-rounder).

Would have to be with the Browns eating something like $12 Million as well because of his huge salary. Even then, Giants got Jones and will give him every chance to be a star this year, Falcons got Mariota and the kid they just drafted and Pittsburgh just drafted their Week 1 starter. It's shocking but aside from Seahawks or Texans, he has no spot. Especially on a 1 year deal.

[Spider-Dan]

If the Texans had any interest in Baker, they would have taken him as part of the deal for Watson.

Jones is circling the drain just as much as someone like Drew Lock, and Mariota is no more an entrenched starter in ATL than Winston is in NO.  PIT certainly has enough pieces in place to want to trot out a veteran so Pickett is not thrown to the wolves on day 1 (Tomlin only said that Pickett will have "a chance to win the starting position"), and Baker is certainly an upgrade from Trubisky.  The music may have paused without a chair for Baker (and: Jimmy G) to sit in, but the song is far from over.

[ArtieChokePhin]

This will forever change the way contracts are handed out.  When Watson signed his deal, the Browns had to deposit $230 million into an escrow account to cover the guarantee (NFL requires it).   

Not very many owners can afford that.   Thankfully, Ross is one of the ones who can.

[EDGECRUSHER]

This will forever change the way contracts are handed out.  When Watson signed his deal, the Browns had to deposit $230 million into an escrow account to cover the guarantee (NFL requires it).   

Not very many owners can afford that.   Thankfully, Ross is one of the ones who can.

I didn't know they had to do that but I guess it makes sense. Heard some places say that other teams are reluctant to do any business with the Browns because of what they did. I know that would be collusion, but we aren't children. We understand it is done if it is in the league's best interest.

Moves like this can force the league to raise the salary cap dramatically because these contracts can't be moved and teams would be hamstrung. The league and owners are not going to like this.

[Fau Teixeira]

The NFL doesn't care if teams are hamstrung .. especially the Browns.

[ArtieChokePhin]

I didn't know they had to do that but I guess it makes sense. Heard some places say that other teams are reluctant to do any business with the Browns because of what they did. I know that would be collusion, but we aren't children. We understand it is done if it is in the league's best interest.

Moves like this can force the league to raise the salary cap dramatically because these contracts can't be moved and teams would be hamstrung. The league and owners are not going to like this.

It's really simple from an owner's point of view.   If you don't want to hamstring your team, don't sign anyone to a 100% guaranteed contract.  Especially one of that size.

[EDGECRUSHER]

It's really simple from an owner's point of view.   If you don't want to hamstring your team, don't sign anyone to a 100% guaranteed contract.  Especially one of that size.

It's simple until your franchise QB demands it and starts sitting out games.

[ArtieChokePhin]

It's simple until your franchise QB demands it and starts sitting out games.

Then you replace his ass.   And that goes for anyone who tries that shit.   There's thousands of other men lined up to take that spot.

[Spider-Dan]

Then you replace his ass.   And that goes for anyone who tries that shit.   There's thousands of other men lined up to take that spot.

Those "thousands of other men" suck playing QB and you'll be losing every year.
The Browns have already tried saving money with terrible QBs; dozens of men that aren't as good as their craft as Deshaun Watson.  They didn't like the results, so now they're paying Deshaun Watson.  It's that simple.