As was discussed in a previous thread, seems like there are increasingly more NFL news stories about veterans on the roster for week 1 have their salary for that season guaranteed.If a vested player -- with four or more years of NFL experience -- is on the roster for week 1, his salary is guaranteed for the year
http://www.fangm.com/sportstalk/viewtop ... =666#p7189
If that's the case every year and it becomes a big part of why certain players are on the roster or not in reality, I'm thinking might be something we need to look at also.
It could lead to more veterans being cut before the season, which would lead to tougher decisions, more talent on the open market for additional free agency signing battles, and extend some of the popular free agency activity.
How it technically would be handled in the system would be checking the years of experience on a cut player and if eligible adding a cap hit line at the bottom for his entire salary being paid. Like Kyle Orton last year, if that happened during an eligible time after the trading deadline and another team claimed the veteran on the waiver wire then his original team wouldn't have to pay the rest of the salary but his claiming team would pick up that remaining guaranteed amount.
Downside of this? More restriction perhaps on a team to cut veterans during the season if they are on the hook for their entire salary. Maybe adds confusion for some, or not seen as necessary?
The default position I'm leaning toward would be instituting that rule change (4year+ veterans on rosters after week 1 having their salary that year fully guaranteed) since it was an important factor frequently discussed in finalizing rosters last training camp, and presumably into the future I'd imagine as I don't think any 1-year temporary reasons for that. More veterans being cut and put onto the market could add more realism to our processes as you see that often in reality with expensive veterans being let go every year.