Its really beneficial to both sides.
For teams they get these superstars on cheap deals. Sure a few end up in clunkers but the money now a days is silly so even if you have to eat 60 million in five years its not a death knell.
For players, it might delay free agency by a year or two. But your still getting there around 30 and you get insane amount of guarenteed moeny and are set for life.
Teams have a remedy though to end contracts early - and teams frequently refuse to pay players under the contract. It's called a cut. What's the players' remedy?
Ok, Guess scott felt differently.
Those guys at the bottom of a roster a dime a dozen. Smith was just victim of adding good guys at the top and needing to protect others. Smith hadn't shown much so we wasn't gonna bring anything useful back, especially being DFA'ed
It was unlikely to ever be much. Limited history as a relief, got squeezed off 40 man, so no team was going to give up anything for him. Those guys are out there. Some find a career as reliever, most don't.
I just am trying to get to the mindset that 'you gotta establish the run' is driving this thinking. Its very 20 years ago. Its hard to be good at everything so you have to pick and choose. But i dont think a guy being good against the run is more impactful than a pass rush specialist. Both offer pros and cons. You just have to pick which one you are gonna do, but that doesn't make you more impactful