#111
|
||||
|
||||
True. Further, I can't believe it is Dam who is the logical one. When does this ever happen?
__________________
Keep your political crap out of a football forum! Nobody here gives a rat's a** |
#112
|
||||
|
||||
Well, I think you'd find that if you'd clean the Cheeto dust off your scroll wheel every once in a while, it'll work better.
|
#113
|
||||
|
||||
Dude, if you can’t see the misinformation and garbage he’s spewing, then I can’t help you.
|
#114
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
I feel dirty saying Dam is 100% correct, so please give it up.
__________________
Keep your political crap out of a football forum! Nobody here gives a rat's a** |
#115
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
|
#116
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
Unless you're holding out your copy of the contract on us, all any of us are doing here is speculating. That said, you can observe prior contracts with similar clauses in them and generally predict what to expect from this contract. Data is a wonderful thing in that regard. My explanation is based on how I've seen the roster bonus clause operate in every other NFL contract, and how I've seen those contracts reported in terms of total salary and guarantees. It's possible that Ballard wrote an entirely new contract clause that operates completely differently than any other roster bonus I've seen, but unlikely, especially since that would disadvantage the team. You're referring to "option" in the security sense. Even then, it's a similar concept. Apply a sunk cost in exchange for an opportunity to purchase or sell a security at a previously agreed upon price at a given point in time. In the case of a team option (which is typically what these clauses are called in baseball where contracts are fully guaranteed unless otherwise specified), the buyout is the sunk cost (guaranteed money in the second year of the contract in this case) with the option for the team to purchase his services for the second season. The issue I've taken this whole time is you calling this contract "a lot of money". For the caliber of player the Colts are getting, I just can't see that argument as valid. As an example, the Texans will play Clowney $17.128 million next season if they don't work out a long term deal for him, and when you include the postseason, Houston has more sacks than Clowney over the last two years. You don't seem to be taking into account the value NFL teams place on pass rushers in your argument. Quote:
Quote:
|
#117
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
|
#118
|
|||
|
|||
Athletic article from Holder on Houston. Has some good clips showcasing what Houston offers the Colts.
https://theathletic.com/904992/2019/...ustin-houston/ |
|
|