SHOULD INJURY WAIVERS BE REQUIRED?

by Moondog, The World According to Moondog

If you read the latest in a laundry list of weird events involving Dallas Cowboys wide receiver Terry Glenn, you would know the soap opera appears to have reached an end.

This past weekend the Cowboys announced they will release Glenn, although Dallas owner Jerry Jones denies the move had anything to do with Glenn's refusal to sign an injury waiver.

If you haven't been watching "As the Glenn Turns," here's a quick review of the last few episodes.

Last year, Glenn missed all but the final regular season game against the Redskins and the NFC Divisional round game against the Giants recovering from a knee injury.

Glenn underwent a pair of arthroscopic surgeries last year and could stand to have microfracture surgery to get his right knee back in top condition. Glenn has opted against the surgery in hopes of strengthening the knee enough to play this season.

In an effort to protect themselves, Jones asked Glenn to sign a $500,000 injury waiver in case he re-injures his knee. Glenn, at least initially, was a little miffed when asked to sign the waiver. If Glenn were to sign the waiver and suffer an unrelated injury, he would still receive his $1.74 million base salary.

Glenn publicly stated he would seek his release from the Cowboys if the issue of the injury waiver didn't get resolved. A day after making the statement, Glenn recanted.

"I want Jerry to understand that I know he has the ultimate power in everything that goes on with the Cowboys, and I'm not trying to challenge him in any way, shape or form."

Now that the Cowboys are prepared to move forward without Glenn, it got me to thinking about injury waivers.

Why haven't more NFL teams sought protection from season-ending or career-ending injuries to players?

I pondered a plan that could make the teams and players happy without threats of lock-outs or strikes. Let's set up a few hypothetical situations and implement what I believe could be a equitable solution.

In the third game of the season, Giselle's boyfriend, Tom Brady, drops back to pass during the second quarter of the Pats clash with the Jets. Brady plants his leg as he prepares to throw but lands awkardly, and he falls to the ground in a crumpled heap. There's silence in the stadium and the training staff is hovering around Brady like vultures over a fresh carcas.

Brady is taken off the field on a cart and is sent to the local hospital for X-Rays. Initially, there doesn't appear to be any structural damage to his knee, but after a few days, Brady is given an MRI that clearly shows he's torn his ACL and MCL, finishing his season.

The Patriots are forced to play the next 13 games of the regular season without their star QB and they're on the hook for the pro-rated portion of his $8 million salary. I don't believe the Pats should have to pay Brady his full salary when he's are unable to play, regardless of the reason.

I'm not suggesting Brady shouldn't be paid at all. Like any employee that is injured on the job, if you get hurt and miss work, that's where workman's compensation and AFLAC come into the equation.

But this is the NFL, where the circumstances and dollar amounts are dramatically different. Some will argue that these are the conditions of the industry and the Pats should pay the full $8 million. But why?

Brady can't play and he's not fulfilling the terms of his contract. He's not generating any revenue for the franchise by standing on the sidelines.

Here's what I suggest. Pay Brady 50% of his $8 million salary and put the remainder in escrow, allowing it to draw interest. When Brady returns the following season, the Pats will add the money sitting in escrow into the current seasons' salary. The Pats get to keep the interest as a form of compensation for losing a vital member of their team.

That might not seem like a great deal for the Pats, but the amount of interest you earn on $4 million isn't chump change. It could pay the marketing director's salary or could be put to use towards any number of fixed expenditures a franchise incurs.

Now let's take it even further. What if Brady incurs an injury that ends his career? Take the remaining years on his contract and arrive at the dollar amount in question. Again we're going to place that money in escrow and allow the Pats to earn interest.

The Pats can pay Brady over a pre-determined length of time. Let's say there's three years left on Brady's contract and he's owed $24 million. Instead of paying that over three years, the Pats could pay that over 10 years. Where else can you earn $2.4 million a year for doing nothing?

But here's the best part - allow the Pats to reduce their salary cap number equal to the amount they're paying Brady over that same 10-year period. Why should a franchise be penalized on their salary cap number for a player that can't perform?

Some might argue that this plan leads to a revenue stream for the franchises and helps them on their long-term salary cap numbers, giving them an unfair advantage. There's nothing unfair about this.

Look at it this way. If you're the Pats, would you rather take a $2.4 million deduction on your salary cap or have your star QB on the field? Quarterbacks win games and generate revenue, especially a player like Brady who is one of the top stars in the NFL.

Obviously, not everyone in the NFL makes $8 million annually. In fact, upwards of half the players on every NFL roster earn less than $1 million. That being the case, let's set the threshold for the aforementioned plan at $1 million.

Thus, any player earning $1 million or less that suffers a season-ending injury must be paid his full salary during the season.

If a player earning $1 million or less incurs a career-ending injury, he must be paid his remaining salary over a length of time not to exceed double the length of years remaining on his contract.

In other words, if there are three years remaining on his deal, he must be paid the $3 million he's owed within six years. That's still a good deal for the player considering he's earning $500,000 for doing nothing.

Franchises will continue to be allowed to reduce their salary cap number equivalent to what they're paying the injured player, but only under a career-ending scenario, not a season-ending injury.

Let's review. We're paying the players their full salaries, the franchises are being compensated financially and competitive balance is maintained. What else do you want?

Is this realistic? Probably not, but it's a viable alternative. If you have a better idea, I'm all ears.