I don't know this for an absolute fact, but I'm pretty sure player contracts cannot just be terminated by a team based solely on a "whim". Pretty sure they'd have to show cause in order to make it stick. Sounds like simple contract law to me.
Yes there has to be a "reason". If not, there are legal and financial consequences. Player contracts cannot be "terminated" on a whim for no reason. The teams present reasons for terminating a contract that fit into whatever the guidelines agreed upon by the owners and NFLPA.
Portions of NFL contracts have been guaranteed of late. And if I'm not mistaken, a quarterback, Kurt Cousins I think, had his entire contract guaranteed. The important thing is, there are no rules in place that prohibit guaranteed contracts. Obviously, the more money that is guaranteed, the less incentive a team has to terminate a player's contract on a "whim".
Every NFL contract contains language that allows a team to cut a player for "football reasons" or conduct issues. The NFLPA and owners all agreed on this. But owners almost always make a distinction when they are "terminating" a player's contract as opposed to cutting him. The latter is always explained, the explanation for the former is assumed.
The Raiders' trade of Khalil Mack looks better and better.
Regardless of any differences in the situations, the Clowney trade makes the Mack trade look better, in fact much better, at least from the Raiders standpoint.
