Originally Posted by EddieMilner
Yesterday, at lunch, I was speaking with a few co-workers about Mark Prior and his latest year ending report. Someone made the comment that these baseball players would be healthy a lot more often if their contract were not guaranteed (much like the NFL). What are your guys opinions? Do you think that a player is more likely to go on the DL if he knows his job isn't in jeporady? I think its a fair, valid, and interesting argument.
Personally, I think having non-guaranteed contracts in football is a joke. Contracts are supposed to bind both sides equally, so there is an inherent lack of fairness in NFL contracts. The player is bound to team and must perform his contractual obligations, but the team is not bound to the player and has the ability to void the contract. Something about that just doesn't sit right with me.
As for the injury issue, I don't think it has much to do with guaranteed money. If a player is injured, then he shouldn't be playing. If he's trying to play through an injury because he's worried about his job security, then he could end up getting hurt worse and do substantial damage to his career.
I don't think money is much of a factor in missed games. Professional athletes are ultra-competitive and they want to play, not sit out.