I hate to bring this up, but...
 

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?

Police issue arrest warrant for Aaron Hernandez of New England Patriots, reports ABC News - ESPN Boston

Re: I hate to bring this up, but...
 

They have a large amount of money invested in those TE's. Adding another 8 million per season TE is putting a lot of the resources at one position.

I'd be more worried about a team that doesn't already have a stud TE and a ton of cap room. That would be about half the league.

I think numerous teams will be pursuing him hard, but I don't think New England will be one of them.

I'm worried too.

Re: I hate to bring this up, but...
 

I see Jimmy as more of a loyalist than a capitalist. It's what I get from his interviews and public statements. He has a sense of loyalty to Drew and Sean.

Personally, I would much rather leverage Jimmy against Drews restructure next season. They both know they are each others best shot.

The present situation dictates that we:

1. Do not have the $ this season.
2. Can ill afford to lose the leverage that next season will present in regards to both players contracts.

Develop the stomach required to play the game. Next season we can leverage both against each other.

Re: I hate to bring this up, but...
 

Not gonna happen, mickey will get the job done

NE are in a little bit of bother at the minute, no WR's brady knows at camp, now no TE's

Re: I hate to bring this up, but...
 

^^^

This. Graham has stated on more than one occasion that he wants to remain a Saint as long as Brees is here.

Re: I hate to bring this up, but...
 

Nabbing Ballard from the Giants and stashing him on IR last year looks like it will pay off for them.

Re: I hate to bring this up, but...
 

I wish I could believe he isn't going to leave. Money talks folks. If the crappiest team throws guranteed millions at him, I think her leave "loyalty" at the door.

Not bringing up old wounds; Drew left "Loyaty" at the front door of his house when it came to his contract/money.

Re: I hate to bring this up, but...
 

I am probably in the minority here, but let Graham play out his last year and see what happens. In the NFL the injury risk is just too much to rip up contracts before they expire, especially a team friendly one.

Re: I hate to bring this up, but...
 

I'm not going to worry about it, that's all on Loomis... Not like worrying about it will have any difference on the outcome

Re: I hate to bring this up, but...
 

I'm not going to sweat it. Loomie knows what he's doing, and I don't think the Saints would let Jimmy walk based on where he's at right now.

But if he DID leave for the money I wouldn't hold it against him.

Re: I hate to bring this up, but...
 

One year at a time my friend. If we get the ring, look for a wholesale buh-bye next year. If we don't many, including Jimmy"ll be around for a while. The Pats are going to need TEs this year and Jimmy's ours for this one.*

*Providing he stays healthy.

Re: I hate to bring this up, but...
 

Drew stayed loyal, he just won the contract negotiation game. Sorry, I seem to be one of the few people that wouldn't pay his employer to work for him. Dollar values are moot, when negotiating employment you give nothing because they are not going to just give more to you than they have to.


Which teams did he visit? What were his other offers?

Re: I hate to bring this up, but...
 

Saints placed their exclusive-rights franchise tag on Brees. Under the rules of the exclusive franchise tag, Brees could not be contacted by other teams and remained exclusive property of the Saints.

Re: I hate to bring this up, but...
 

Worst case scenario - he gets franchised next season, approximately 6.5mil/year, then we could tag him again next year with escalator, allowing two years to find a replacement...

The smart move: contract extension now, giving more money sooner and spreading the salary cap hit over more years with less of a dent per year...

He gets wealthier faster and the Saints have a manageable salary impact...

Plus you eliminate the "distraction"; and Drew won't let the big Mo affect his play, game...

Re: I hate to bring this up, but...
 

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....

Re: I hate to bring this up, but...
 

I was thinking the samething and I believe your right we need to sign him before the seasons over.

Re: I hate to bring this up, but...
 

Loyalty? No such thing anymore from either side. "When I say it's a game, you say it's a business. When I say it's a business, you say it's a game."

Re: I hate to bring this up, but...
 

Oak, just for the record, there is no appeal with a franchise tag. He negotiated a long-term deal. If he had not negotiated a long-term deal he could have taken the average salary for QB or sit out a year.

Also, the franchise tag was worth approximately $14mm/yr...so his approximate $20mm/yr was a bit more. Just saying.

Btw; I don't disagree with your premise, just the facts. :)

Re: I hate to bring this up, but...
 

You should maybe google a little more.... Search B&G..... Follow the Saints a little closer....

Here, I'll help you out.

http://www.nfl.com/news/story/09000d...-vs-nfl-saints


"Just saying" .... Your wrong on all accounts. I didn't post premise, I posted facts.

Drews Franchise Tag after he won his appeal was worth 16m making his 2013 FT worth 23.5m for a two year total of 39,945,240.00 or let's just say 40 Million for ****z and grins.

Re: I hate to bring this up, but...
 

What me worry? Saints have Loomis, he'll make sure Jimmy gets paid and it doesn't put the Saints is salary cap hell for the next 5-8 years

Re: I hate to bring this up, but...
 

Graham has said that as long as Brees is QB, he's not going anywhere

Re: I hate to bring this up, but...
 

Whilst I agree with you - Brees "said" his contract would be team friendly - then he held out for months and we lost carl nicks

Re: I hate to bring this up, but...
 

Brees did not "hold out" he was waiting on a ruling about being "franchised" for the 3rd time. If you remember once the ruling went in his favor he was signed.

Re: I hate to bring this up, but...
 

So? Carl Nick's contract as opposed to an easily replaceable player would have handicapped the Saints more than the Brees deal. Get your priorities straight.

Re: I hate to bring this up, but...
 

I am not sure how losing Carl nicks can be placed on Drew... especial when Drews cap hit was a whopping 10M in 2012...

Evans carried 9M and Smith carried 11M in 2010.....

Re: I hate to bring this up, but...
 

Not that it matters now anyway and the fact that Grubbs is more than a serviceable replacement but because of Drew's contract negotiations, we had to use the franchise tag on him instead of Nicks which allowed Nicks to walk. In hindsight I don't think it worked out to badly since Nicks was injured most of last year anyway.

Re: I hate to bring this up, but...
 

I forgot about the tag since Drew signed a contract.

Re: I hate to bring this up, but...
 

Oak,

Trying to decipher your statement re; Brees ability to;

"and hit the market this year"

Do you have one of those "linky" things which provides a bit of clarity.

TIA

Re: I hate to bring this up, but...
 

Which reply? Do you mean this link?
Drew Brees wins franchise-tag grievance vs. NFL, Saints - NFL.com

Re: I hate to bring this up, but...
 

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.

Re: I hate to bring this up, but...
 

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.

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?

Re: I hate to bring this up, but...
 

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".

Re: I hate to bring this up, but...
 

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

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.

Re: I hate to bring this up, but...
 

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.

Re: I hate to bring this up, but...
 

how can anyone doubt Loomis after this last offseason?

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. :p

Re: I hate to bring this up, but...
 

[quote=Rugby Saint II;509430]That W stands for whiskey. Uh huh!

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.