Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Magooch" data-source="post: 1048178" data-attributes="member: 17987">I don't totally disagree but at the same time you have to play the hand you're dealt. It's fine to say "I don't think we should be paying guys these huge guaranteed contracts" and I can somewhat agree with that, but it's a moot point. If you don't pay that guy (Jaire or whoever it is) the contract they're asking for, 99% of the time someone else will. Until you can get all 31 owners on board with not handing out big guaranteed contracts that's pretty much how it's got to be: either you give out that contract, or you lose the player and watch someone else give out that contract to them. Yeah, but the trouble for me is that I think this ("want" to be available) implies that he's milking his injuries or just picking and choosing when he feels like playing or not. As far as I know, I can't see any evidence to suggest that this is the case. Maybe that's not what you meant to imply, but if so I feel like that's a pretty serious accusation to make without anything to corroborate it. I would also contend that in the case of a guaranteed contract (or partial - Ja "only" got 30m of his 84m extension guaranteed), the team also has a vested interest in protecting their investment. The player with the guaranteed contract collects their check whether they are healthy and able to play or not. But if they are questionable/doubtful/etc and the team allows (asks? encourages?) them to play and they exacerbate their injury or something, then the team is going to be without a key player for longer (and paying them all the same) while the player cashes their checks regardless. It seems to me like it's difficult to complain about big guaranteed contracts while also suggesting that the player themselves is the driving factor in if they play or not: IMO, if it's a guaranteed contract, the team has more incentive to be a bit more conservative with the player. If it's a non-guaranteed contract, the player has more incentive to get themselves back out there (even if not 100%). We should also consider that Jaire wasn't particularly injury-prone prior to his extension:In 2018 he had 11 starts in 13 games played. 2019 - 16/162020 - 15/15In 2021 he had a big shoulder injury that held him out for the year for the most part. Played and started just 4 games. Lest we forget however, he was listed as questionable heading into the 49ers game in the playoffs and he still suited up to play it. Signed extension in May of 22. Next season, again went and played 16/16. It wasn't until recently that he's seemed to have picked up the injury bug. If he was looking to catch a big payday and then just "pick and choose" when to play, why would he play in every game the season immediately following his big extension? He already got his payday. Again it seems similar to Bakh to me: a guy who was largely healthy and elite, got rewarded with a big contract, and then got hit by repeat injuries and just couldn't seem to stay healthy. But I haven't seen many accusing Bakhtiari of just wanting to collect a paycheck and only playing when he felt like it.</blockquote>

Verification

Members online

Total: 1,137 (members: 3, guests: 1,134)

Latest posts

R
Cam Achord new ST coach - Fire him
- Latest: rmontro
- Today at 9:17 AM
Green Bay Packers Fan Forum
Christian Watson signs a 4 year 110m extension
- Latest: Pokerbrat2000
- Today at 8:08 AM
Green Bay Packers Fan Forum
H
Why I Love The 2026-2027 Green Bay Packers
- Latest: Heyjoe4
- Today at 7:59 AM
Green Bay Packers Fan Forum
The Crew - 2026
- Latest: Pokerbrat2000
- Today at 7:44 AM
Milwaukee Brewers Forum
Valuation of NFL Teams
- Latest: Pokerbrat2000
- Today at 7:40 AM
Green Bay Packers Fan Forum