Should We Or Shouldn't WE

[miket]

There are players out there being released with questionable character would it be worth the risk to have them on our roster. Maybe with the right kind of incenitve/moral clause type contract where they don't get paid if they violate it.If they sign a contract like that and it doesn't work out would it count against the salary cap if we get rid of them.

[esanton]

There are players out there being released with questionable character would it be worth the risk to have them on our roster. Maybe with the right kind of incenitve/moral clause type contract where they don't get paid if they violate it.If they sign a contract like that and it doesn't work out would it count against the salary cap.

That would be tough to enforce. Appeals alone would last weeks.

[photomonkey]

There are players out there being released with questionable character would it be worth the risk to have them on our roster. Maybe with the right kind of incenitve/moral clause type contract where they don't get paid if they violate it.If they sign a contract like that and it doesn't work out would it count against the salary cap if we get rid of them.

That you even bring it up - there being players with questionable character - clearly indicates that we need not bring these folks into the fold as it is more of a distraction than anything else. Not to mention that the 49ers have already done this risk/reward game enough to prove beyond any doubt that it backfires. Recall Lawrence Phillips and Antonio Bryant if you need a little refresher. These two brought their baggage and fulfilled management's worst nightmares. Why take the risk when there exists a significant chance that it will absolutely blow up in your face?

[esanton]

That you even bring it up - there being players with questionable character - clearly indicates that we need not bring these folks into the fold as it is more of a distraction than anything else. Not to mention that the 49ers have already done this risk/reward game enough to prove beyond any doubt that it backfires. Recall Lawrence Phillips and Antonio Bryant if you need a little refresher. These two brought their baggage and fulfilled management's worst nightmares. Why take the risk when there exists a significant chance that it will absolutely blow up in your face?

Agreed 100% I don't want trouble makers on the team. That's why we cut Bryant last offseason.

[SB49er4life]

Agreed 100% I don't want trouble makers on the team. That's why we cut Bryant last offseason.

Bryant was also given a pretty decent sized contract and dubbed to be our Main Man in the passing game before he even went to his 1st 49ers' practice.

There are ways to keep players on a short leash, and if a player KNOWS he is on his last leg, they are more likely to take it seriously.

It is ALWAYS a risk bringing in a player with past character concerns, but then again, you are ALWAYS taking a risk bringing in a new player, IMO, whether it be the draft or FA.

The name of the game is "measured risks"... if we can get a character concern player at a good risk/reward ratio, I'd be all for it !

I do believe that people deserve 2nd chances, and it is not completely fair or accurate to think that people with past problems are incapable of changing.

A good example it T.O. (although he was given a pretty large contract by Jerry Jones)... he was considered hopeless after the Philly incident, but has come into Dallas and seems to be as good of a teammate as a player can ask for.


Granted, some guys are just **** ups and will continue to be, but I think the individual and the situations they were should be examined more closely. Sometimes good people make bad decisions.

And then, there is PacMan Jones....

[TheWiz]

The risk doesn't lie in the finances. In fact, there are CBA clauses in effect that allow teams to sue to get back signing bonuses. not only does the owner get a rebate, but the eventual cap savings go onto the next season's cap.

The risk is a roster risk. Plenty of these guys need to seriously play 1 or 2 year deals, prove they can stay healthy, out of trouble, and be effective and hope that they will hit free agency with momentum. It may only get them a 3 year deal elsewhere, but that's the type of deal they can get extended big time if they play over half of it good standing. The risk involves going with a potential problem player.

Positives: Better talent, possibly very good production for little investment.

Negatives: Could be a public embaressment, player is likely to leave for big bucks than re-up with you so its a one-time wonder at best, uses up a roster spot.

In my eyes, if you're a playoff level team with established depth then picking up a troubled player is worth it. The black eye from a failure lasts shorter when you're winning and you've got the depth to axe a player and keep rolling. For a weaker team, cutting a very talented UDFA or late rounder to keep a guy who makes you regret it later means you gambled and lost on 2 talents, not just one.

If there was a trouble FS out there I'd take a chance of him because I doubt it would lose us a key future all-star type DB. Meanwhile, the risk would be acceptable to get a big upgrade at that spot.

[winorlose]

Antonio Bryant proudly endorses this thread.

[theduke335]

Bryant was a good player for us. He would be our #1 if we had him today. I don't remember him saying anything bad, all i remember is the DUI he had. Is that why he got cut?

[MR. WEBBER]

didnt bryant throw a lil tantrum on the sidelines?