DeMarcus Ware hits a contract snag

There's a lot in this link, including a rehash of the Jarmon pick, but I thought that I would highlight the part dealing with Ware:
NFL: The Washington Redskins hope they beat the supplemental draft odds in their selection of Jeremy Jarmon - ESPN (http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/columns/story?columnist=pasquarelli_len&id=4335794)

Odd scene. Usually it is the player who wants a longer contract and the club which wants to shorten it. But I understand Ware's desire to hit the negotiating table again before he's past his prime.

He would be taking a chance on injury by signing a shorter deal, but he may be thinking no salary cap too. It makes me feel bad for Dallas. :laughing2

I hope that the deal which we gave AH, plus the Suggs deal, ruptures the Cowboys salary cap, if and when there is one in the future. You know Ware is demanding more than AH and Suggs.

I also think with a short contract Ware will be asking for a higher percentage of guaranteed money.

There's a lot in this link, including a rehash of the Jarmon pick, but I thought that I would highlight the part dealing with Ware:
NFL: The Washington Redskins hope they beat the supplemental draft odds in their selection of Jeremy Jarmon - ESPN (http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/columns/story?columnist=pasquarelli_len&id=4335794)

Odd scene. Usually it is the player who wants a longer contract and the club which wants to shorten it. But I understand Ware's desire to hit the negotiating table again before he's past his prime.

Players would always take the shorter deal, especially since the last years of contracts are just for the sake of an agent's reputation and the club's ability to pro-rate the signing bonus over a longer period. If Ware can get multiple contracts in his prime years then he will make more real money. The reason players don't like signing franchise tenders, for instance, is that they do not get big signing bonus checks, not because they are only one year contracts.

Players would always take the shorter deal, especially since the last years of contracts are just for the sake of an agent's reputation and the club's ability to pro-rate the signing bonus over a longer period. If Ware can get multiple contracts in his prime years then he will make more real money. The reason players don't like signing franchise tenders, for instance, is that they do not get big signing bonus checks, not because they are only one year contracts.

I disagree. I've seen many players go for longer deals because they like the financial security. Same thing with unhappiness the franchise tags - the ever-present threat of injury means that a longer-term deal provides financial security in a way that a franchise tag does not. In this way NFL players are not much different than the rest of us: don't we all want our bosses to provide us with a job not just for today, but for years down the road as well?

I disagree. I've seen many players go for longer deals because they like the financial security. Same thing with unhappiness the franchise tags - the ever-present threat of injury means that a longer-term deal provides financial security in a way that a franchise tag does not. In this way NFL players are not much different than the rest of us: don't we all want our bosses to provide us with a job not just for today, but for years down the road as well?

Sure, and I don't mean to argue the point really because it is not particularly significant, but the only thing guaranteed in an NFL contract is the signing bonus (or other guarantees written into the contract). You could have a 100-year contract, but if you got hurt and the team cut you then the only money you would ever see would be the signing bonus. So there is no security in a longer deal, there is only security in a larger signing bonus. The two are not entirely unrelated since a longer deal would allow a team to pro-rate a signing bonus over more years and thus give more money up front, but just having a longer deal would not give you any more security.

Sure, and I don't mean to argue the point really because it is not particularly significant, but the only thing guaranteed in an NFL contract is the signing bonus (or other guarantees written into the contract). You could have a 100-year contract, but if you got hurt and the team cut you then the only money you would ever see would be the signing bonus. So there is no security in a longer deal, there is only security in a larger signing bonus. The two are not entirely unrelated since a longer deal would allow a team to pro-rate a signing bonus over more years and thus give more money up front, but just having a longer deal would not give you any more security.

right, but since longer deals typically = higher signing bonus, players want longer deals. It seems that short deals, lets say 3 years & under, are either for older players, guys that aren't that proven, or who are stop gap measures for the team. I can't recall a star in his prime, such as Ware, signing a deal under 5 years. Maybe some big 4 year deals have been done, I can't recall.

I would guess that ware & his agent, like someone said earlier, are trying to leave their options open due to the potential uncapped scenario. You also have to wonder if his agent is looking into JJ's financial situation & isn't confident that the cowpokes will be able to pony up big $ in a couple years. A new stadium w/no corporate sponsor yet, a slow economy, you have to wonder what kind of impact that will have on them trying to re-sign Ware.