It's kind of a generational thing.
You're even seeing it in basketball. Players are becoming much more business savvy when it comes to contracts/marketing etc.. I think by now that most athlete's have seen the documentary "Broke", and they know that the multimillion $$ contracts will not last forever. So you are seeing less and less players willing to take 'hometown discounts'. Less players willing to take a pay-cut for their value. But can you fault them?
Additionally, I think calling them selfish is a bit much. They play in one of richest leagues in the world, yet their contracts are both at the lower end of the salary scale and non-guaranteed. If the players are selfish- then what does say about the Rooney/Krafts of the world? Hell, any NFL player that is trying to get paid is not selfish, just intelligent.
I don't know if I think that is the reason.
To me there has been a change in WHEN we sign draft choices and that has greatly changed the leverage and win-win scenarios that can result.
For some reason throughout the 2007-2010 draft classes, we never seemed to sign anyone early (and by early, I mean after that critical 3rd year in the league). That is the CRITICAL time (and maybe the only time) a win-win contract exists for both parties.
But in order to do that, as an organization, you need to be on top of your game in regards to player evaluation and market value. You have to get correct info from the coaches and self-scouters that these young players ARE potential building blocks for your franchise AND know what to pay them.
When you look back, we kind of passed on every young player when given an opportunity to sign a win-win contract with our rookies. Even Woodley we waited until after year-4, franchise tagged him and (in hindsight) overpaid him. On Wallace, Lewis, Hood, Mendenhall and Sanders we basically let their rookie contracts and RFA tender's expire without long term deals. That puts any type of win-win contract out the window when players are so close to the golden goose (free agency). You have to offer them incentives and the only incentive to take less money is not a "home town discount" (those don't really exist anyhow) but rather pay the player earlier. Giving the bonuses earlier and reducing the players risk/loss at a potential injury are the only way a player takes less money.
We just have stopped doing that. Even with players like Pouncey and Heyward and the new 1st round structure of contracts we are waiting until the very end (after year 4) when the players now are scheduled to earn average top-20 salaries at their positions before talking about new contracts. What incentive does Heyward have to take less money when he's scheduled to make $7 million this year AND be a free agent next year? Same thing happens when you tag someone (like we did with Starks and Worilds). Same thing will happen next year with DeCastro.
DeCasto has made $6.35 million so far in his career. He's seen what injuries can do. He's been in the league enough to know. He is now scheduled to put in another 16 games making only $1.1 million this season and $7 million next year. That's a little over $8 million over the next two seasons. Why can't we find a win-win contract that doubles that AND guarantees something in year 3 (2017)? We can't make a deal to lock up DeCastro now? Why wait? Are we concerned he can't stay healthy? Are we concerned he's not that good?
The longer we wait on DeCastro the more expensive he gets, the less leverage we have and the more risk DeCastro takes. Contracts are about risk. Who is paying for them. You don't get good contracts unless the team is willing to take some risk on players' health and potential to contribute BEFORE proving it on the field.
