I did answer your question you just didnt like the answer. There is also the fact most team try to resign good player before they become FAs(like Hardy) but some like to gamble and go for the cash. So yes they do try to give them extra money for overperforming and some take it and some dont. Just ask Capt, DG offered him a decent contract for his skills but he wanted the most cash he could get. Only reason he was a Panther last year was because no one wanted him. So he lost his contract and had to play for the min. So he gave up being payed what he was worth for the hope he would get a random, but it was his choice.
So once again, You are the weakest link, good bye.
Since you don't seem to have the capacity to pick up my point, I'll spell it out for you more clearly.
You said that players are "greedy" when they try to get as large of a contract as they can, because it's possible that they could underperform and wouldn't give any of the money back. However, despite the red herrings and strawmen you have been trying to answer my question with, teams who have a player that performs to a higher level than his contract, they DO NOT pay their players retroactively as a reward for past performance. They might offer a larger contract next time, but they are paying for predicted future performance, not as a reward for past performance. They are simply competing with every other team for the player's future services.
And when teams offer to extend contracts, it's to prevent players from hitting free agency, it's not as a reward. Here's another hypothetical for you, although I'm doubtful you will understand this one either considering your track record. If a player was making league minimum over a season but still ended up breaking records and winning MVP, then destroyed his knee in the last game of the season and had to retire, would his team give him the millions he should have earned over the season anyway?
If your answer is no (and no is the correct answer), then your argument about players being greedy because they might underperform falls apart.
Hardy has overperformed for two years. The other two he hardly played and had to learn. I think I would call that a even deal, especially with him violating his contract with riding a sports bike. The Panthers could have fined him a good bit for that.
So bad example, and thanks for playing but you lose.
Hardy's salary until this year has basically what you would pay a good depth player (and this year he's just making what you would pay a mediocre starting DE), so the other two years he was not getting overpaid, and the past two he has been playing like someone getting paid 10 times what he's making now. It's nowhere near an even deal.
Besides, you didn't answer my question. Taking Hardy out of the equation completely, do teams pay players extra after the contract is over if they outperform their contract? Are the Seahawks going to pay Wilson the millions extra he should be making before they have to give him a long term deal?
Two ideas of thought. Do I want to be the best or do I want money. There is a player at every position that gets paid the most, and most of the time that player is on a bad team. Being selfish has its rewards but it also has its down falls. I really dont care if Hardy stays or goes, he is one piece to a big puzzle. If we sign Hardy to a huge contract next year and he breaks his leg then we are still without him. Bennett seems like a selfish asshole to me, if he underperforms to his contract does he give that money back? Or what if he gets injured for two years of his contract? Will he give back half that money or more? Hell no he will not do any of that. So why should teams pay him a premium price when he did nothing more than take advantage of a good team.
Do teams pay more to a player if they overperform? Because Hardy has been overperforming compared to his contract here for 2 years. Should we give him millions of dollars extra now as compensation for what he did over the last two years?
And who are you saying that took advantage of a good team?