All NFL Contracts Should Be Performance Based ...

[oldmanfan]

If I was on either side I'd move to guaranteed contracts but for shorter lengths and less money.  Players would know they are going to get X amount but would still have an incentive to perform because of the short term and lower number.  And by lower number I would say a QB gets 15-20 a year as opposed to 20-25 or the insane Cousins deal.  Maybe negotiate to assign salary ranges by years of service and position.

 

Players would have certainty of income, owners would have certainty of expense.

[Kirby Jackson]

10 minutes ago, BringBackOrton said:

Not feasible.

I disagree (a little).  The bottoms of the rosters, say the bottom 15 or 20 guys, are basically UDFA/vet min replaceable.  3rd string OG's, DB's, LB's, RB's are dime a dozen.

Sorry it was supposed to say “are” not “aren’t.” I’d agree with the bottom 3rd being somewhat replaceable. The reality is those guys are a part of that 215 of 100,000.  Those  guys are the ones are least likely to have a large chunk guaranteed. 

 

The point was the top guys will always get large chunks guaranteed. The OP was suggesting that it should be more incentive based to give you a pass on a bad contract. The reality is that it is heading the other way. The NFL is giving MORE guaranteed money to the top players now. The Kirk Cousins deal set a very interesting precedent. 

[GreggTX]

I disagree that all contracts should be entirely because that ignores other worthy factors such as risk of injury and life long consequences as well as the many hours of preparation required.

[GunnerBill]

I think including Mario on that list is extremely harsh. He had 3 excellent years for the Bills and played at a borderline elite level (over his first 3 years here only JJ Watt and Justin Houston had more sacks in the same period). Halfway through year 4 - Rex's first year - he did appear to quit on the team and I thought so at the time too. Then I saw him 'play' the next season for the Dolphins and I am not sure Mario ever really quit. I just think somewhere around that London game Mario hit the career wall. He was done. Maybe the heart wasn't quite as willing but I think it is beyond doubt the body was no longer fully able in any event. 

[section122]

3 hours ago, EasternOHBillsFan said:

 

Holding someone to a standard at work? Noooo... don't do that... LOL

 

Funny.

 

This irony of this post coming during work hours.  This place is hopping during Monday - Friday 9a - 5p when most of us are working.  During off hours this place is a ghost town.  How many of us aren't allowed to post here during work hours?

 

This whole topic is funny to me because the contracts are performance and incentive based.  There are many incentives worked into current contracts and they are paid AFTER they accomplish something.  The performance they are paid for already happened (see Dareus).  

 

Under the new CBA the hardest contract to get is the 2nd one.  Players that have completed their rookie contract and are in line for a raise get squeezed by the rookies making peanuts.  Further imagine playing DT and killing yourself, putting your body on the line every day, putting your future at risk, on a rookie deal.  Kyle Williams made 468k and then 360k his first 2 years in the league.  That second contract is the one that sets players up for life.  I can very easily see the motivation to put yourself in harms way being greatly reduced once you sign a huge contract.  Once that extra motivation is gone it isn't surprising to see players struggle imo.

[BringBackOrton]

5 minutes ago, Kirby Jackson said:

Sorry it was supposed to say “are” not “aren’t.” I’d agree with the bottom 3rd being somewhat replaceable. The reality is those guys are a part of that 215 of 100,000.  Those  guys are the ones are least likely to have a large chunk guaranteed. 

 

The point was the top guys will always get large chunks guaranteed. The OP was suggesting that it should be more incentive based to give you a pass on a bad contract. The reality is that it is heading the other way. The NFL is giving MORE guaranteed money to the top players now. The Kirk Cousins deal set a very interesting precedent. 

I think the NFL FA market is one of the most interesting in sports, because it sometimes seems very whimsical and based off recency.

 

Case Keenum, for example.  1 very good year for him and he got $25M GTD over two years.  The Brocketship had 6-7 games of "decent" play and signed a 4 year deal, with $37M GTD in the first two years.  To me, that's the market taking a step back, not forward.

 

Then you have Sammy Watkins getting 3 years, $46M,  $30M GTD.  And Allen Robinson gets 3 years, $42M, $25M GTD.  Now Sammy has slightly better numbers compared to Robinson, but Robinson missed basically a whole year on an ACL. Per game, Robinson has better numbers, and played with a mediocre QB on a mediocre offense his whole career (so did Sammy for most of it too).  So why the difference in contract?  To my eye, Robinson should've gotten paid more.  

 

Then there was that wave a few years back of QB "prove it" deals.  Kaep, Tanny, Taylor all got big contracts with "outs."  But that seems to have fallen to the wayside compared to front loaded deals.  Bradford comes to mind as a guy given a once off payday, paid like a franchise QB for one year.  

 

It's odd, really.  I think it's impossible to predict.

 

To the OP's point, the wave of the future may be incentive-laden midlevel deals.  Rather than paying a Manny Lawons type player more than everybody else, structure his deal so that he can EARN more than what everybody is offering.  If he doesn't earn it, he makes the normal amount at market value.  Could teams fill out their mid to bottom rosters better with deals like this?  Everyone is offering 2 years at $2.2M AAV to a vet LB, but if you have 80+ tackles at the end of year one, you got a $800k bonus?  

[Kirby Jackson]

12 minutes ago, BringBackOrton said:

I think the NFL FA market is one of the most interesting in sports, because it sometimes seems very whimsical and based off recency.

 

Case Keenum, for example.  1 very good year for him and he got $25M GTD over two years.  The Brocketship had 6-7 games of "decent" play and signed a 4 year deal, with $37M GTD in the first two years.  To me, that's the market taking a step back, not forward.

 

Then you have Sammy Watkins getting 3 years, $46M,  $30M GTD.  And Allen Robinson gets 3 years, $42M, $25M GTD.  Now Sammy has slightly better numbers compared to Robinson, but Robinson missed basically a whole year on an ACL. Per game, Robinson has better numbers, and played with a mediocre QB on a mediocre offense his whole career (so did Sammy for most of it too).  So why the difference in contract?  To my eye, Robinson should've gotten paid more.  

 

Then there was that wave a few years back of QB "prove it" deals.  Kaep, Tanny, Taylor all got big contracts with "outs."  But that seems to have fallen to the wayside compared to front loaded deals.  Bradford comes to mind as a guy given a once off payday, paid like a franchise QB for one year.  

 

It's odd, really.  I think it's impossible to predict.

 

To the OP's point, the wave of the future may be incentive-laden midlevel deals.  Rather than paying a Manny Lawons type player more than everybody else, structure his deal so that he can EARN more than what everybody is offering.  If he doesn't earn it, he makes the normal amount at market value.  Could teams fill out their mid to bottom rosters better with deals like this?  Everyone is offering 2 years at $2.2M AAV to a vet LB, but if you have 80+ tackles at the end of year one, you got a $800k bonus?  

Great post!! A lot of interesting thoughts!! 

 

One more trend that we are seeing seeing more and more of is young players replacing mediocire vets. The money isn’t going to the Marshall Newhouse’s of the world. They sign for a relatively low number or are replaced by late round picks and UDFAs. The money is becoming more top heavy. 

[BringBackOrton]

18 minutes ago, Kirby Jackson said:

Great post!! A lot of interesting thoughts!! 

 

One more trend that we are seeing seeing more and more of is young players replacing mediocire vets. The money isn’t going to the Marshall Newhouse’s of the world. They sign for a relatively low number or are replaced by late round picks and UDFAs. The money is becoming more top heavy. 

Yep.  But honestly, that makes the most sense to me.  Ceilings over floors for the most part.  Give me Robert Foster (the Bama WR idk if that's his name) as my $500k #6 WR and let me see if he can become something, rather than signing a 30 year old Andre Roberts type for $1M.  

 

I know they tried to combat that with cap relief for vets, but it's not gonna cut it.

[Augie]

I wish this could be true. I pray they are never fully guaranteed. 

[BarleyNY]

5 hours ago, HappyDays said:

I will never understand people that worry about a billionaire's money.

 

Totally agree.  Tons of other issues too.   Although I’d consider going along with the OP if the returned money went to the fans who spent money on tickets, jerseys, etc. 

[StHustle]

So should teams also be forced to pay more when players outperform their paygrade? You can't have it one way. There is a players union if you didn't know.

[Delete This Account]

6 hours ago, T master said:

Muhammad Wilkerson, Ryan Fitzpatrick, Marcel Dareus, Mario Williams, the list goes on there are a ton of players that have gotten huge contracts & then seem to be content with just showing up & going through the motions then there are those that luck into the big contract like Fitz & then go back to being their old self & can't deliver, get cut & go on to collect 2 pay checks simultaneously, or remember Albert Haynesworth that dude just fell off the NFL planet & still got paid !!

 

Haven't these owners learned ? Why isn't there any clauses in these huge contracts that specify that the player has to reach certain goals or incentives before hitting a certain pay & if they don't then they don't get the big money that way the team is more so insured that they will get something in return rather than the scenario that happens in a lot of these big contract signings that don't pan out ! 

 

The player works their butt off to be the best they can be then they get the big contract (now with huge guarantees) & then they get complacent or the team (like the Fitz deal) jumps way to fast & think they have their guy of the future give them the big pay day & then the player just isn't the guy they thought he was going to be & get hung for all that cash then wind up paying out the contract when the dude is playing for another team ? 

 

In the world as we know it if you don't do your job up to the expectations put in place then you get let go & you don't still collect a pay check ! If you work for a company & do a great job for that company you get raises and are expected to continue to do that job at the high level that you have set for that position which is the reason you  earned the pay raise & if you don't continue that level of performance like in most jobs or in the military you get knocked down in rank or reprimanded with a loss of compensation in some way ! 

 

I get it in cases like Eric Woods situation, you play for a long time for a team sign a contract & while doing that job "Because of the job" you find out you have a medical condition that causes you to not be able to do that job then the team or company should have to pay out the contract .

 

Especially in a sports based contract if that player has set a high standard for their play & get paid as such they should have to live up to or at least be that above average contributor to continue to make that huge pay or have incentives built into their contracts to continue to have them over achieve to make the big money in that contract so they don't just show up like some have done & collect a paycheck !!

 

Or heck not even be there at all & collect 2 pay checks SIGN ME UP FOR THAT ONE !! ?

 

I'm sure this has been talked about in the past so sorry if i bore you with this but i read a article this morning that prompted these thoughts !! GO BILLS !! 

 

There are incentive clauses worked into contracts that go beyond base salary.

You seem to be against the players making what they're valued on in what is relatively a free market.

Owners are making money. Fans are still attending and, most importantly, watching. And the networks can't seem to pay enough for the broadcast rights.

 

So of course, you want the actual performer to be the one who gets the short end of the stick.

(Excuse me, are you on the NCAA executive committee by chance?)

 

Here's a better question, perhaps. Why are NFL contracts the only ones in pro sports that aren't entirely guaranteed?

Is that fair?

A case can be made one way or the other. But of course, you decide to go after the players on this one, asking them to risk everything with no certain guarantees.

 

You seem to think many of these athletes have had it easy to get to where they are to make a living.

They haven't. What is it, 90 percent of football players never make it out of college (I could be wrong on my numbers, so pardon me), and very few of them actually make it past their third season.

 

But you're absolutely right, why should they be making all this money. They should be working for peanuts.

Or, better still, making $25,000 a season like Gordie Howe did during much of the prime of his career. That's right, $25,000, while playing for an owner who at one point controlled two of the NHL six franchises.

 

Was that fair,  I dare to ask.

 

Terrible, take.

 

shrug.

 

jw

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited June 6, 2018 by john wawrow

[Over 29 years of fanhood]

I think your issue is valuation is established based on past performance and not tied to future performance.

 

But contract values are absolutely performance based for the most part.  

 

just gotta know past performance isn’t necessarily always indicative of future performance, but the valuation system is heavily performance oriented... 

 

 

Edited June 6, 2018 by Over 29 years of fanhood

[Punching Bag]

8 hours ago, T master said:

Muhammad Wilkerson, Ryan Fitzpatrick, Marcel Dareus, Mario Williams, the list goes on there are a ton of players that have gotten huge contracts & then seem to be content with just showing up & going through the motions then there are those that luck into the big contract like Fitz & then go back to being their old self & can't deliver, get cut & go on to collect 2 pay checks simultaneously, or remember Albert Haynesworth that dude just fell off the NFL planet & still got paid !!

play for a long time for a team sign a contract & while doing that job "Because of the job" you find out you have a medical condition that causes you to not be able to do that job then the team or company should have to pay out the contract .

THAT ONE !! ?

 

I'm sure this has been talked about in the past so sorry if i bore you with this but i read a article this morning that prompted these thoughts !! GO BILLS !! 

 

At no time did Fitzpatrick mail it in.    I agree on Marcel Dareus, Mario Williams and Fat Albert Haynesworth but not Fitzpatrick.

[zonabb]

So your justification is the overpaid, underperforming players? What about the underpaid, over-performing players? In true GOP fashion that's OK because the company wins and the labor loses? Sh!t take. 

[Wily Dog]

How about  Ryan Shazier of the Steelers, about to sign  a lifetime contract and gets injured. ~

[cba fan]

6 hours ago, Over 29 years of fanhood said:

I think your issue is valuation is established based on past performance and not tied to future performance.

 

But contract values are absolutely performance based for the most part.  

 

just gotta know past performance isn’t necessarily always indicative of future performance, but the valuation system is heavily performance oriented... 

 

 

agreed. The system to pay players 100% on performance ship has sailed. Founding fathers of NFL would have had to implement a system like that when they had all the power when league started. NFLPA union is too smart to give into this now.

 

Even though NFL pays players on performance slightly with a payment made at end of year based on playing time and performance that NFL owners slipped in last time they "won" the CBA. I guess that could evolve over the years and make the paid for performance slowly come to be. This money counts towards salary cap and I suspect is something owners put in to guarantee they spend the proper amount of cap every year to avoid NFL players union litigation.

 

The best system of course would be very simple. Rank all players on last year performance and playing time and pay them on a sliding scale.(age would be no factor) Spending all salary cap allowed.  Rookies and first year players all play on min contracts(ideal) or draft slot pay(less ideal).  If injury was a big factor previous year then pay the guy 80% of his take home for the next year just like workman's comp.

[iinii]

12 hours ago, HappyDays said:

I will never understand people that worry about a billionaire's money.

Yes Sir!

[papazoid]

all contracts should be fully guaranteed

[T master]

18 hours ago, Kirby Jackson said:

The OP was suggesting that it should be more incentive based to give you a pass on a bad contract. The reality is that it is heading the other way.

 

 

WOW some one that actually got the point from reading what was posted ... 1 out of 6o something that ain't bad ?

 

Thank you  KJ !!!

[cba fan]

On ‎6‎/‎6‎/‎2018 at 9:59 AM, HappyDays said:

I will never understand people that worry about a billionaire's money.

?? This keeps coming up over and over again.

 

No one cares or worries about billionaires money.

 

This salary paying debate, which is actually a cap spending debate, is about how your team you follow, spends the cap to the best of their ability to provide a winning team.

 

This is not about an EX like this: people concerned how much teachers and administrators are paid in salary benefits etc etc...….. because they pay directly for it in the way of property tax assessments and have no choice in the matter. And don't really agree a 9 month job should pay 60 to 100+ k per year for teachers and 150+ k for administrators.

 

NFL is mostly(but not all as tax dollars are sometimes spent for stadium) optional for you to spend money on the team in way of tickets merchandise and supporting their tv program etc etc......

[Jay_Fixit]

On 6/6/2018 at 7:07 AM, Bobby Hooks said:

Teams are always looking for an edge to land the “big fish.” Even if most of the teams decided to only sign free agents to performance based contracts there would always be those outlier teams that didn’t and attracted the biggest free agents. 

Thanks professor science.

[frostbitmic]

If all players salary was performance based, wouldn't all of the good offensive players hold out to be signed by a team with Rodgers, Brees, Brady etc... at QB ?

 

Why would anyone want to play for a team with a rookie QB or journeyman QB ?

 

Bad idea OP.

[OldTimeAFLGuy]

On 6/6/2018 at 10:05 AM, oldmanfan said:

Or you could go the other way and have guaranteed contracts but at lower salaries.

 

....again another NFLPA civil war.......a $12 BILLION dollar industry and they want their piece of the pie+......look at the franchise value escalation......sure as hell would like to see performance based contracts across all pro sports.......hell, we could call it "The Fat Albert Haynesworth Rule".....at least with MLB and NHL, both having substantial minor league systems, you can sign a player to a two way contract, starting in the minors....he gets called up and his major league salary initiates....demote him and he reverts back to his minor league salary....perform and you stay up at bigger $$$.....slack and back down you go....but it's not perfect....sign a guy to a major league contract and designate him for reassignment to the minors and he still gets his major league loot.......and endless debate as to how to solve it with the amount of money involved.....

Edited June 22, 2018 by OldTimeAFLGuy

[1ManRaid]

Prima donna receivers will demand the ball even more, QBs will throw 100% of the time, and what metrics will you judge linemen or defensive players by?  Good CBs who don't get thrown to to get pass breakups and whatnot will get shafted. 

 

SO many problems with this idea.

[Mango]

I’d actually go the other way. All contracts are 100% garaunteed. Maybe a 5 year, conditional years 4 and 5. Where if you hit your markers, the team is required to retain and pay you. You’d see less wasted money on unproven guys. 

 

I also think in instances loke Eric Wood, Aaron Williams,or the extreme Kevin Everett, the team should be required to pay, BUT it doesn’t have any effect on the cap. It’s just taken off the books. Forced retirement by a doctor.  

[row_33]

On 6/6/2018 at 4:31 PM, StHustle said:

So should teams also be forced to pay more when players outperform their paygrade? You can't have it one way. There is a players union if you didn't know.

 

 

it's the weakest players union, they have been hammered every single time in standoffs.

 

too much $$$ is riding on the high likelihood of a career limiting or-ending injury every single snap even in practices

 

 

 

 

many major knee injuries occur running through drills with no contact at all

 

 

[cba fan]

1 hour ago, row_33 said:

 

 

it's the weakest players union, they have been hammered every single time in standoffs.

 

too much $$$ is riding on the high likelihood of a career limiting or-ending injury every single snap even in practices

 

 

 

 

many major knee injuries occur running through drills with no contact at all

 

 

Anyone can get hurt on the job at any time.

 

Just like workman's compensation works, players should be paid less when injured and unable to work. Typical pay is 80% of take home pay. Sounds reasonable.

They are also eligible for long term disability via Social Security just like all Americans who work enough to qualify. IE: work and earn money in 5 preceding years before disability and you qualify.

 

 

[Bing Bong]

The CBA, the NFLPA, the WORLD. You're advocating for owners/franchises/companies to have full control over a contract. That doesn't happen for obvious reasons. Because a contract goes both ways.

 

Oh and how painfully expensive it is to monitor every athlete's production subjectively, day to day? Hour to hour? Miss a meeting and you lose .1% of your salary. You would need like 2000 people just to keep track of that nonsense.

 

Imagine you're a contract laborer. Have a setback. Boom, contract's out the window. Contracts protect the workers. That's why unions exist. Or we could go back to the lassai faire big industry:

 

"The committee chairman asked Rockefeller whether he would stand by his anti-union principles even “if it costs all your property and kills all your employees.” Rockefeller replied, “It is a great principle.”"

 

like what are we talking about here? This is just evolution of American economics. NFL players are virtually the same as contract employees.

[Bing Bong]

On 6/6/2018 at 9:01 AM, T master said:

In the world as we know it if you don't do your job up to the expectations put in place then you get let go & you don't still collect a pay check !

THAT'S NOT CONTRACTUAL LABOR. That's a salaried employee. NFL players aren't salaried employees. In a contract.. a company draws up details and stipulations, and if a worker agrees to that, both parties know what they're legally bound to do to finish the contract. 

 

Albert Haynesworth's agent was a genius, Dan Snyder is an idiot. I'm sure he proposed a few stipulations, but the agent knew his client was getting signed no matter what. he took advantage of that.. and drew the contract. If you're going to wax poetic on how money should be earned based on merit, think about Snyder being the idiot and losing all that money on a contract he signed.

[TBBills Fan]

I think he prefers hawaiian rolls 

[Punching Bag]

Sure have guaranteed contracts so players could get Planters Fakeitis and collect for salary for free and they ALREADY do that without guaranteed contract.  I am sure no player will reveal an offseason injury, say tripping over the dog going to door to get pizza, and just wait to training camp where it will  magically appear.

[DabillsDaBillsDaBills]

2 minutes ago, Limeaid said:

Sure have guaranteed contracts so players could get Planters Fakeitis and collect for salary for free and they ALREADY do that without guaranteed contract.  I am sure no player will reveal an offseason injury, say tripping over the dog going to door to get pizza, and just wait to training camp where it will  magically appear.

 

The other major sports leagues have guaranteed contracts and that doesn't seem to be a problem there. 

 

 

[Rocky Landing]

Really, there are two separate philosophies. 

On one hand, you have the corporate model, which espouses the PAAC philosophy (profit at all cost).

On the other hand, there is the philosophy that a football team provides a service that benefits the community as a whole (which includes the players, and the owners).

 

Performance based contracts, or (as Oldmanfan suggested) lower salaries, would work well under PAAC, and does not hold ownership, or shareholders accountable in any way. IMO, if such a contract existed in the NFL, it would most certainly need comprehensive protections for players who suffer injury, and incentives to keep players from playing injured.

 

But, I understand the frustration with players who pedal their efforts back after they land a big contract. But, I wonder if there weren't some more player-friendly (and safety-friendly) options that would help the same issues? How about profit sharing for players,and coaches? Perhaps a certain portion of each team could be owned by the community in which they reside, like the Packers' structure, but at a percentage?

 

What people often don't realize about an organized labor force is that the labor force operates under the same economic pressures that the business does. If the company doesn't thrive, then neither do the workers. The more invested the labor force is in the product, the higher the motivation to put out a high quality product.

 

 

[Punching Bag]

29 minutes ago, DabillsDaBillsDaBills said:

 

The other major sports leagues have guaranteed contracts and that doesn't seem to be a problem there. 

 

Yes because the union allows and supports such things.  Do you deny it happens is NFL?

 

The NFL has a lot larger roster than other sports with a lot of UDFAs, players signed when other players are injured, etc.

Should every player signed get guaranteed contracts?  Just drafted players? Just free agents?

 

Who determines when a player does not perform and needs to be penalized?  NFLPA?

Do you really think the NFLPA will not argue every penalty?

Do you think they will pull guarantee of a player (aka Billy Joe) as an example did not read playbook?  I do not think so.

This is a zero money game. Guaranteed money is coming from somewhere and some players will lose.

 

[cba fan]

14 minutes ago, Rocky Landing said:

Really, there are two separate philosophies. 

On one hand, you have the corporate model, which espouses the PAAC philosophy (profit at all cost).

On the other hand, there is the philosophy that a football team provides a service that benefits the community as a whole (which includes the players, and the owners).

 

Performance based contracts, or (as Oldmanfan suggested) lower salaries, would work well under PAAC, and does not hold ownership, or shareholders accountable in any way. IMO, if such a contract existed in the NFL, it would most certainly need comprehensive protections for players who suffer injury, and incentives to keep players from playing injured.

 

But, I understand the frustration with players who pedal their efforts back after they land a big contract. But, I wonder if there weren't some more player-friendly (and safety-friendly) options that would help the same issues? How about profit sharing for players,and coaches? Perhaps a certain portion of each team could be owned by the community in which they reside, like the Packers' structure, but at a percentage?

 

What people often don't realize about an organized labor force is that the labor force operates under the same economic pressures that the business does. If the company doesn't thrive, then neither do the workers. The more invested the labor force is in the product, the higher the motivation to put out a high quality product.

 

 

I don't think anyone is suggesting the salary cap would be abolished.

 

The players collectively, including those injured, would still share the players portion of all defined income via the current salary cap.

 

The plan suggested by several would just redistribute some(but far from all) salary away from underperforming and injured players and into the rightful hands of players who produce and are available.

8 minutes ago, Limeaid said:

Yes because the union allows and supports such things.  Do you deny it happens is NFL?

 

The NFL has a lot larger roster than other sports with a lot of UDFAs, players signed when other players are injured, etc.

Should every player signed get guaranteed contracts?  Just drafted players? Just free agents?

 

Who determines when a player does not perform and needs to be penalized?  NFLPA?

Do you really think the NFLPA will not argue every penalty?

Do you think they will pull guarantee of a player (aka Billy Joe) as an example did not read playbook?  I do not think so.

This is a zero money game. Guaranteed money is coming from somewhere and some players will lose.

 

Virtually every NFL contract has some guaranteed portion. Some have salary itself guaranteed, some have sign bonuses that are paid out on signing so are same as guaranteed.

 

For those low end guys who do not get a sign bonus I agree wholeheartedly they should have a portion guaranteed or given a sign bonus. Even practice squad players should get a reasonable severance pay when cut.