#1 ·
I was thinking about this last night while watching some old highlights. It feels like the era of the "franchise cornerstone" is getting increasingly complicated. Back in the day, you’d just sign a guy and he’d be there for a decade, but now every time a star player approaches a new deal, it feels like a high-stakes gamble for the front office.
It’s a weird tension to watch. On one hand, you want to reward the talent that defines your team's identity, but on the other, you see how one massive contract can completely hamstring a roster's depth for years. I’ve seen teams go all-in on a single superstar only to watch their defense or special teams fall apart because there's no cap space left to fix them.
Do you think it’s better to overpay for a cornerstone player to keep the culture intact, or is it smarter to spread that money out to keep the whole squad competitive?
It’s a weird tension to watch. On one hand, you want to reward the talent that defines your team's identity, but on the other, you see how one massive contract can completely hamstring a roster's depth for years. I’ve seen teams go all-in on a single superstar only to watch their defense or special teams fall apart because there's no cap space left to fix them.
Do you think it’s better to overpay for a cornerstone player to keep the culture intact, or is it smarter to spread that money out to keep the whole squad competitive?