Post by tfundermann on Apr 10, 2024 11:12:49 GMT -6
It forces a decision. If they only did a vet minimum salary knowing he will probably retire, then if he decides to play again the team has control for dirt cheap and he technically couldn't do anything about it. This makes it certain either the team will cut him, give him a new deal, or he could retire before the guarantee kicks in. Also, Ben pointed out how this makes it so they don't add a bunch of void years and extend the dead cap hits out. A clean break next year if he is done or a pretty easy new contract if he wants to keep playing. Is truly a compromise to ensure neither party has too much control on the situation.
So why not just do a one year deal that matches all the terms of the first year of his deal? Thats the part I dont understand. All still holds true, a decision is forced when the deal runs out, no void years, etc. What is the true purpose of even having that $25M bubble clause in the first place?