I hate to bring this up, but...

TheOak · 06-24-2013, 09:40 AM

Originally Posted by biloxi-indian

Oak,

"That's correct, and he won his franchise tag appeal, he could have played under the tag and made more money last year and hit the market this year. But he didn't, he signed his contract.... "

The quote of "he could have played under the tag and made more money last year and hit the market this year". It is this part which is confusing to me... "hit the market this year" (2013) appears to be inconsistent with the "linky" thing you provided. i.e. the Saints had one more year to use an exclusive franchise tag for Brees.

I thought the CBA indicated a player can be "franchised" three times.

He can but there is an escalation clause to the franchise tag and years two and three are increased percentages over the franchise tag.

First franchise tag = franchise tag value for that year.
Second franchise tag = franchise tag + %
Third Franchise tag 2013 would have been 144% of the previous franchise tag - For a third Franchise tag Drew would have been paid 24m this year.... Or if not FT, he could have hit the market... Mind you "the market" this year for a top QB has increased significantly with the contracts of Flacco and Rogers.

In essence - Drew would have peen paid 40m with two franchise tags in 2012 and 2013 (if tagged twice by the Saints) then hit the market in 2014 and still gotten his huge contract. That being said the Saints would not have tagged him again in 2013 for 23.5m thus allowing him to hit the marker sooner.

Drew is not scheduled to make over 24m until 2015 with this contract.

biloxi-indian · 06-24-2013, 10:24 AM

Oak,

Thanks for the clarification. So, if Brees had not signed a contract in 2012, the Saints could have applied the "exclusive franchise tag" for the third and final time (this year...2013) if they chose to do so and had a long-term contract not been agreed to and signed.

This position is further supported by the "linky" thing you provided;

"Drew Brees scored a win in his ongoing battle for a new contract Tuesday, when system arbitrator Stephen Burbank ruled in the New Orleans Saints quarterback's favor on a franchise-tag grievance filed by the NFL Players Association and heard last week in Philadelphia.

Brees argued that the next franchise tag he's assigned should count as his third since he was tagged in 2005 as a San Diego Charger and this offseason as a Saint. Language on the matter in the new collective bargaining agreement was vague, saying "any club" using the tag a third time on a player would have to tender that player at 144 percent of his previous year's salary, but not specifying if it had to be the same club tagging the player each time."

However, this quote "Brees argued that the next franchise tag he's assigned should count as his third since he was tagged in 2005 as a San Diego Charger and this offseason as a Saint." is confusing as Brees grievance appears to be about a possibility of being exclusive franchise tagged in 2013 and not specifically being exclusive franchise tagged in 2012.

So Brees grievance was about having the exclusive franchise tag applied in 2013?

TheOak · 06-24-2013, 10:36 AM

Originally Posted by biloxi-indian

Oak,

Thanks for the clarification. So, if Brees had not signed a contract in 2012, the Saints could have applied the "exclusive franchise tag" for the third and final time (this year...2013) if they chose to do so and had a long-term contract not been agreed to and signed.

This position is further supported by the "linky" thing you provided;

"Drew Brees scored a win in his ongoing battle for a new contract Tuesday, when system arbitrator Stephen Burbank ruled in the New Orleans Saints quarterback's favor on a franchise-tag grievance filed by the NFL Players Association and heard last week in Philadelphia.

Brees argued that the next franchise tag he's assigned should count as his third since he was tagged in 2005 as a San Diego Charger and this offseason as a Saint. Language on the matter in the new collective bargaining agreement was vague, saying "any club" using the tag a third time on a player would have to tender that player at 144 percent of his previous year's salary, but not specifying if it had to be the same club tagging the player each time."

However, this quote "Brees argued that the next franchise tag he's assigned should count as his third since he was tagged in 2005 as a San Diego Charger and this offseason as a Saint." is confusing as Brees grievance appears to be about a possibility of being exclusive franchise tagged in 2013 and not specifically being exclusive franchise tagged in 2012.

So Brees grievance was about having the exclusive franchise tag applied in 2013?

The issue around the franchise tag for Drew is that the verbiage in the CBA is vague in regards to the second and third Franchise tag.

The Leagues/Saints stance was that the FT in 2012 was Drews first FT by the Saints, and Drew was owed only the Franchise Tag value with out the premium for it being his second FT. Sine the CBA didn't clarify whether the second FT had to be by the same team the NFL/Team was claiming he didnt get the added %, Drew argues that the CBA stated second FT (period), it was his second in his career and he was owed the value of a second tag.

Drew won effectively adding to the value of the tag the Saints wanted to put on him and making any subsequent FTs more valuable.

The teams stance was that he had been FT by San Diego but it wasn't the Saints so they shouldn't be held to the higher premium.

The Team/league also trued to argue it wasn't the second FT "in a row".

Seer1 · 06-24-2013, 11:00 AM

And now it's all just money under the bridge...

biloxi-indian · 06-24-2013, 11:00 AM

Oak,

So this quote from the "linky" thing you provided is accurate;

"Drew Brees scored a win in his ongoing battle for a new contract Tuesday, when system arbitrator Stephen Burbank ruled in the New Orleans Saints quarterback's favor on a franchise-tag grievance filed by the NFL Players Association and heard last week in Philadelphia.

Brees argued that the next franchise tag he's assigned should count as his third since he was tagged in 2005 as a San Diego Charger and this offseason as a Saint. Language on the matter in the new collective bargaining agreement was vague, saying "any club" using the tag a third time on a player would have to tender that player at 144 percent of his previous year's salary, but not specifying if it had to be the same club tagging the player each time."

Thanks.

TheOak · 06-24-2013, 12:36 PM

Originally Posted by biloxi-indian

Oak,

So this quote from the "linky" thing you provided is accurate;

"Drew Brees scored a win in his ongoing battle for a new contract Tuesday, when system arbitrator Stephen Burbank ruled in the New Orleans Saints quarterback's favor on a franchise-tag grievance filed by the NFL Players Association and heard last week in Philadelphia.

Brees argued that the next franchise tag he's assigned should count as his third since he was tagged in 2005 as a San Diego Charger and this offseason as a Saint. Language on the matter in the new collective bargaining agreement was vague, saying "any club" using the tag a third time on a player would have to tender that player at 144 percent of his previous year's salary, but not specifying if it had to be the same club tagging the player each time."

Thanks.

The quick and dirty answer is yes. Drew's case effectively made his sizable contract cheaper than Franchise Tagging him in the long run.

If he wanted to get the most $ he could have done his best to get two franchise tags then hit the market and get the same or larger contract.... that however comes with risk, as does everything.

What Drew did in reality was mitigate as much risk as he could. He negotiated his contract as high as he could given the market which made the signing bonus increase to keep cap low. Drew wasnt after the 100m, he know that was a pipe dream. He was after the 39m bonus.

saintsfan403 · 06-24-2013, 05:54 PM

how can anyone doubt Loomis after this last offseason?

Rugby Saint II · 06-25-2013, 02:39 PM

[QUOTE=SapperSaint;508997]with Aaron Hernandez more than likely going to jail and Gronk no where near healthy; I think we need to start worrying about signing Jimmy now. I just have this "Thing" telling me NE will be pursuing him hard.

Am I being a worry wart?
Yes, but there is medicine for that over the counter called Compound W.

Seer1 · 06-25-2013, 08:24 PM

[quote=Rugby Saint II;509430]

Originally Posted by SapperSaint

with Aaron Hernandez more than likely going to jail and Gronk no where near healthy; I think we need to start worrying about signing Jimmy now. I just have this "Thing" telling me NE will be pursuing him hard.

Am I being a worry wart?
Yes, but there is medicine for that over the counter called Compound W.

That W stands for whiskey. Uh huh!

SaintsBro · 06-26-2013, 09:02 AM

The whole myth of blaming Drew for Nicks leaving is getting really old, and doesn't jibe with the facts. The truth is that Carl Nicks was basically gone, the moment that Jahri Evans got his big payday. They were never going to pay Nicks to stay, and that was the obvious reality, the writing was on the wall as far back as 2010.

But meanwhile for a number of good years, Carl Nicks busted his rump trying to get that same payday, which he ultimately did, but not with the Saints. But after Jahri got that deal, something happened, and Nicks had attitude problems --he got benched one time in preseason, he threw a temper tantrum and got in a fight with the coaches in the Rams game, there were other attitude and behavioral things going on with him.

Tagging Nicks would have been a terrible move, if the tag had been available for him. I'm soooooooo glad they didn't tag him. At best they would have tagged him and had him for only one more year, Nicks would have grumbled and been difficult, played sloppy, become even more of a head case, and who knows, he probably would have phoned it in, blown a block on Drew and ruined our season. If you've got a ticked off, immature, grumbling, selfish guy, who can ruin your whole season by spacing out and not concentrating for one play, you don't want him in there.

I knew Nicks was a goner, the moment he led the "Who Dat" chant before the Lions playoff game. There was a reason for that. Drew and everyone in the locker room already knew Nicks wouldn't be back, it was his last game in the Dome, so they picked him to pump his fist and lead the chant. Then a week later after the 49ers Drew made a comment about looking around the locker room at the end of the season, and not knowing which guys would be back next year -- it was clearly a comment about Nicks, because Nicks was the only major guy on offense besides Drew himself who had a major contract situation going on. So they all knew.

Nicks was never gonna stay in New Orleans, it had nothing to do with Drew other than it happened at the same time as Drew's contract.

06-24-2013, 09:40 AM	#31
TheOak 10000 POST CLUB Join Date: Dec 2009 Location: Cypress Tx. Posts: 18,978	Re: I hate to bring this up, but... Originally Posted by biloxi-indian Oak, "That's correct, and he won his franchise tag appeal, he could have played under the tag and made more money last year and hit the market this year. But he didn't, he signed his contract.... " The quote of "he could have played under the tag and made more money last year and hit the market this year". It is this part which is confusing to me... "hit the market this year" (2013) appears to be inconsistent with the "linky" thing you provided. i.e. the Saints had one more year to use an exclusive franchise tag for Brees. I thought the CBA indicated a player can be "franchised" three times. He can but there is an escalation clause to the franchise tag and years two and three are increased percentages over the franchise tag. First franchise tag = franchise tag value for that year. Second franchise tag = franchise tag + % Third Franchise tag 2013 would have been 144% of the previous franchise tag - For a third Franchise tag Drew would have been paid 24m this year.... Or if not FT, he could have hit the market... Mind you "the market" this year for a top QB has increased significantly with the contracts of Flacco and Rogers. In essence - Drew would have peen paid 40m with two franchise tags in 2012 and 2013 (if tagged twice by the Saints) then hit the market in 2014 and still gotten his huge contract. That being said the Saints would not have tagged him again in 2013 for 23.5m thus allowing him to hit the marker sooner. Drew is not scheduled to make over 24m until 2015 with this contract.
	It's not what you look at that matters, it's what you see. ~ Henry David Thoreau

06-24-2013, 10:24 AM	#32
biloxi-indian Site Donor Join Date: Jan 2004 Location: Southlake, TX Posts: 1,706	Re: I hate to bring this up, but... Oak, Thanks for the clarification. So, if Brees had not signed a contract in 2012, the Saints could have applied the "exclusive franchise tag" for the third and final time (this year...2013) if they chose to do so and had a long-term contract not been agreed to and signed. This position is further supported by the "linky" thing you provided; "Drew Brees scored a win in his ongoing battle for a new contract Tuesday, when system arbitrator Stephen Burbank ruled in the New Orleans Saints quarterback's favor on a franchise-tag grievance filed by the NFL Players Association and heard last week in Philadelphia. Brees argued that the next franchise tag he's assigned should count as his third since he was tagged in 2005 as a San Diego Charger and this offseason as a Saint. Language on the matter in the new collective bargaining agreement was vague, saying "any club" using the tag a third time on a player would have to tender that player at 144 percent of his previous year's salary, but not specifying if it had to be the same club tagging the player each time." However, this quote "Brees argued that the next franchise tag he's assigned should count as his third since he was tagged in 2005 as a San Diego Charger and this offseason as a Saint." is confusing as Brees grievance appears to be about a possibility of being exclusive franchise tagged in 2013 and not specifically being exclusive franchise tagged in 2012. So Brees grievance was about having the exclusive franchise tag applied in 2013?
	Insanity is defined as doing the same thing over, over, and over again...and expecting a different outcome!

06-24-2013, 10:36 AM	#33
TheOak 10000 POST CLUB Join Date: Dec 2009 Location: Cypress Tx. Posts: 18,978	Re: I hate to bring this up, but... Originally Posted by biloxi-indian Oak, Thanks for the clarification. So, if Brees had not signed a contract in 2012, the Saints could have applied the "exclusive franchise tag" for the third and final time (this year...2013) if they chose to do so and had a long-term contract not been agreed to and signed. This position is further supported by the "linky" thing you provided; "Drew Brees scored a win in his ongoing battle for a new contract Tuesday, when system arbitrator Stephen Burbank ruled in the New Orleans Saints quarterback's favor on a franchise-tag grievance filed by the NFL Players Association and heard last week in Philadelphia. Brees argued that the next franchise tag he's assigned should count as his third since he was tagged in 2005 as a San Diego Charger and this offseason as a Saint. Language on the matter in the new collective bargaining agreement was vague, saying "any club" using the tag a third time on a player would have to tender that player at 144 percent of his previous year's salary, but not specifying if it had to be the same club tagging the player each time." However, this quote "Brees argued that the next franchise tag he's assigned should count as his third since he was tagged in 2005 as a San Diego Charger and this offseason as a Saint." is confusing as Brees grievance appears to be about a possibility of being exclusive franchise tagged in 2013 and not specifically being exclusive franchise tagged in 2012. So Brees grievance was about having the exclusive franchise tag applied in 2013? The issue around the franchise tag for Drew is that the verbiage in the CBA is vague in regards to the second and third Franchise tag. The Leagues/Saints stance was that the FT in 2012 was Drews first FT by the Saints, and Drew was owed only the Franchise Tag value with out the premium for it being his second FT. Sine the CBA didn't clarify whether the second FT had to be by the same team the NFL/Team was claiming he didnt get the added %, Drew argues that the CBA stated second FT (period), it was his second in his career and he was owed the value of a second tag. Drew won effectively adding to the value of the tag the Saints wanted to put on him and making any subsequent FTs more valuable. The teams stance was that he had been FT by San Diego but it wasn't the Saints so they shouldn't be held to the higher premium. The Team/league also trued to argue it wasn't the second FT "in a row".
	It's not what you look at that matters, it's what you see. ~ Henry David Thoreau Last edited by TheOak; 06-24-2013 at 10:40 AM..

06-24-2013, 11:00 AM	#34
Seer1 Site Donor Join Date: Apr 2010 Location: Bayou Bayfield CO Posts: 4,722	Re: I hate to bring this up, but... And now it's all just money under the bridge...

06-24-2013, 11:00 AM	#35
biloxi-indian Site Donor Join Date: Jan 2004 Location: Southlake, TX Posts: 1,706	Re: I hate to bring this up, but... Oak, So this quote from the "linky" thing you provided is accurate; "Drew Brees scored a win in his ongoing battle for a new contract Tuesday, when system arbitrator Stephen Burbank ruled in the New Orleans Saints quarterback's favor on a franchise-tag grievance filed by the NFL Players Association and heard last week in Philadelphia. Brees argued that the next franchise tag he's assigned should count as his third since he was tagged in 2005 as a San Diego Charger and this offseason as a Saint. Language on the matter in the new collective bargaining agreement was vague, saying "any club" using the tag a third time on a player would have to tender that player at 144 percent of his previous year's salary, but not specifying if it had to be the same club tagging the player each time." Thanks.
	Insanity is defined as doing the same thing over, over, and over again...and expecting a different outcome!

Latest Blogs
2023 New Orleans Saints: Training Camp Last Blog: 08-01-2023 By: MarchingOn Puck the Fro Browl! Last Blog: 02-05-2023 By: neugey CFP: "Just Keep Doing What You're Doing" Last Blog: 12-08-2022 By: neugey

06-24-2013, 12:36 PM	#36
TheOak 10000 POST CLUB Join Date: Dec 2009 Location: Cypress Tx. Posts: 18,978	Re: I hate to bring this up, but... Originally Posted by biloxi-indian Oak, So this quote from the "linky" thing you provided is accurate; "Drew Brees scored a win in his ongoing battle for a new contract Tuesday, when system arbitrator Stephen Burbank ruled in the New Orleans Saints quarterback's favor on a franchise-tag grievance filed by the NFL Players Association and heard last week in Philadelphia. Brees argued that the next franchise tag he's assigned should count as his third since he was tagged in 2005 as a San Diego Charger and this offseason as a Saint. Language on the matter in the new collective bargaining agreement was vague, saying "any club" using the tag a third time on a player would have to tender that player at 144 percent of his previous year's salary, but not specifying if it had to be the same club tagging the player each time." Thanks. The quick and dirty answer is yes. Drew's case effectively made his sizable contract cheaper than Franchise Tagging him in the long run. If he wanted to get the most $ he could have done his best to get two franchise tags then hit the market and get the same or larger contract.... that however comes with risk, as does everything. What Drew did in reality was mitigate as much risk as he could. He negotiated his contract as high as he could given the market which made the signing bonus increase to keep cap low. Drew wasnt after the 100m, he know that was a pipe dream. He was after the 39m bonus.
	It's not what you look at that matters, it's what you see. ~ Henry David Thoreau

06-24-2013, 05:54 PM	#37
saintsfan403 1000 Posts + Join Date: Sep 2012 Location: WHO DAT NATION Posts: 2,261	Re: I hate to bring this up, but... how can anyone doubt Loomis after this last offseason?

06-25-2013, 02:39 PM	#38
Rugby Saint II Bounty Money $$$ Join Date: Oct 2008 Location: 5800 Airline Dr. Metairie, LA. Posts: 23,718	Re: I hate to bring this up, but... [QUOTE=SapperSaint;508997]with Aaron Hernandez more than likely going to jail and Gronk no where near healthy; I think we need to start worrying about signing Jimmy now. I just have this "Thing" telling me NE will be pursuing him hard. Am I being a worry wart? Yes, but there is medicine for that over the counter called Compound W.

06-25-2013, 08:24 PM	#39
Seer1 Site Donor Join Date: Apr 2010 Location: Bayou Bayfield CO Posts: 4,722	Re: I hate to bring this up, but... [quote=Rugby Saint II;509430] Originally Posted by SapperSaint with Aaron Hernandez more than likely going to jail and Gronk no where near healthy; I think we need to start worrying about signing Jimmy now. I just have this "Thing" telling me NE will be pursuing him hard. Am I being a worry wart? Yes, but there is medicine for that over the counter called Compound W. That W stands for whiskey. Uh huh!

06-26-2013, 09:02 AM	#40
SaintsBro Site Donor Join Date: Sep 2010 Location: in line with my ridiculous CLEAR PLASTIC BAG Posts: 3,650 Blog Entries: 3	Re: I hate to bring this up, but... The whole myth of blaming Drew for Nicks leaving is getting really old, and doesn't jibe with the facts. The truth is that Carl Nicks was basically gone, the moment that Jahri Evans got his big payday. They were never going to pay Nicks to stay, and that was the obvious reality, the writing was on the wall as far back as 2010. But meanwhile for a number of good years, Carl Nicks busted his rump trying to get that same payday, which he ultimately did, but not with the Saints. But after Jahri got that deal, something happened, and Nicks had attitude problems --he got benched one time in preseason, he threw a temper tantrum and got in a fight with the coaches in the Rams game, there were other attitude and behavioral things going on with him. Tagging Nicks would have been a terrible move, if the tag had been available for him. I'm soooooooo glad they didn't tag him. At best they would have tagged him and had him for only one more year, Nicks would have grumbled and been difficult, played sloppy, become even more of a head case, and who knows, he probably would have phoned it in, blown a block on Drew and ruined our season. If you've got a ticked off, immature, grumbling, selfish guy, who can ruin your whole season by spacing out and not concentrating for one play, you don't want him in there. I knew Nicks was a goner, the moment he led the "Who Dat" chant before the Lions playoff game. There was a reason for that. Drew and everyone in the locker room already knew Nicks wouldn't be back, it was his last game in the Dome, so they picked him to pump his fist and lead the chant. Then a week later after the 49ers Drew made a comment about looking around the locker room at the end of the season, and not knowing which guys would be back next year -- it was clearly a comment about Nicks, because Nicks was the only major guy on offense besides Drew himself who had a major contract situation going on. So they all knew. Nicks was never gonna stay in New Orleans, it had nothing to do with Drew other than it happened at the same time as Drew's contract. ProMallNinja likes this.

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

LinkBacks (?) LinkBack to this Thread: https://blackandgold.com/saints/58587-i-hate-bring-up-but.html
Posted By	For	Type	Date	Hits
I hate to bring this up, but...	This thread	Refback	06-21-2013 08:59 AM	30
The Latest Aaron Hernandez News \| SportSpyder	This thread	Refback	06-21-2013 08:44 AM	1
The Latest New Orleans Saints News \| SportSpyder	This thread	Refback	06-21-2013 08:39 AM	11