Question for the forum

Danno · 03-03-2012, 04:57 PM

Originally Posted by CharityMike

Yes we can tag him next year and the year after..BUT the amount goes up by 20% the second time and 40% the third time.

Hmmm, with the expected huge increase in the 2014 cap, this may not have been a bad move.

It'll hurt us a bit in 2013, but we'll benefit greatly in 2014.

CharityMike · 03-03-2012, 04:59 PM

Originally Posted by Danno

Hmmm, with the expected huge increase in the 2014 cap, this may not have been a bad move.

It'll hurt us a bit in 2013, but we'll benefit greatly in 2014.

I think the amount was like 56 mil total for tagging him 3 times

Jankman8 · 03-03-2012, 04:59 PM

Originally Posted by Danno

Hmmm, with the expected huge increase in the 2014 cap, this may not have been a bad move.

It'll hurt us a bit in 2013, but we'll benefit greatly in 2014.

So what you are saying is that, this might not be a bad move?

Danno · 03-03-2012, 05:04 PM

Originally Posted by Jankman8

So what you are saying is that, this might not be a bad move?

From a numbers point of view yes, but from a PR standpoint it remains to be determined.

I want Brees long term, but I'm not comfortable with not being able to upgrade the rest of the team because of him.

Jankman8 · 03-03-2012, 05:06 PM

Originally Posted by Danno

From a numbers point of view yes, but from a PR standpoint it remains to be determined.

I want Brees long term, but I'm not comfortable with not being able to upgrade the rest of the team because of him.

How could we still get Colston and Nicks under contract?

CharityMike · 03-03-2012, 05:08 PM

Originally Posted by Jankman8

How could we still get Colston and Nicks under contract?

We won't. If we got 1 of them it will most likely be Colston. So we are just going to let our pro bowl guard go wherever and get a big fat 0 in return. Thanks Drew!

vtiger72 · 03-03-2012, 05:09 PM

Originally Posted by Jankman8

So what you are saying is that, this might not be a bad move?

A lot of people believe that Loomis's position in negotiating was that the tag set the value for the first and second season at roughly 16 and 18 million and that's what was holding things up. So yes, the leverage Brees has is that he is likely worth on the open market what he was asking, but that the Saints position was that he wasn't going to be on the open market and with these deals he lacks the security of a long term deal.

On the flip side, Brees does not have to sign the tender right away and could use the fact he isn't technically under contract to skip ota's and the start of training camp without incurring fines. Not sure if he will do that or not.

The biggest drawback on using the tag for Brees is that it can't be used on Nicks or Colston and the 16 million of the tag is immediately deducted from cap space until a long term deal is worked out to reduce that figure.

Danno · 03-03-2012, 05:12 PM

Originally Posted by vtiger72

The biggest drawback on using the tag for Brees is that it can't be used on Nicks or Colston and the 16 million of the tag is immediately deducted from cap space until a long term deal is worked out to reduce that figure.

I wonder if this isn't Loomis pressuring Condon/Brees to sign, or it will hurt the team overall?

If Brees truly is interested in keeping our key players (which I now doubt), then this pressures him to sign before Monday.

This may be a brilliant move by Loomis. I'm simply not smart enough to put all the pieces together.

QBREES9 · 03-03-2012, 05:13 PM

The funny thing is he was trying to get rid of the TAG during the CBA talks. Came back back to bite him in the a**. For someone who is very smart, that was dumb.

vtiger72 · 03-03-2012, 05:14 PM

Originally Posted by Danno

I wonder if this isn't Loomis pressuring Condon/Brees to sign, or it will hurt the team overall?

If Brees truly is interested in keeping our key players (which I now doubt), then this pressures him to sign before Monday.

This may be a brilliant move by Loomis. I'm simply not smart enough to put all the pieces together.

It may be a pressure move but not for the reason you mentioned. It's more sign our deal or play under a one year contract for less than the avg value of what we offered. And with that comes the risk of injury....etc.

03-03-2012, 04:57 PM	#11
Danno Truth Addict Join Date: Dec 2003 Location: Spanish Fort, AL (via NO and B/R) Posts: 24,720	Originally Posted by CharityMike Yes we can tag him next year and the year after..BUT the amount goes up by 20% the second time and 40% the third time. Hmmm, with the expected huge increase in the 2014 cap, this may not have been a bad move. It'll hurt us a bit in 2013, but we'll benefit greatly in 2014.

03-03-2012, 04:59 PM	#12
CharityMike Site Donor 2018 Join Date: Oct 2011 Location: Mid City, New Orleans Posts: 3,556	Originally Posted by Danno Hmmm, with the expected huge increase in the 2014 cap, this may not have been a bad move. It'll hurt us a bit in 2013, but we'll benefit greatly in 2014. I think the amount was like 56 mil total for tagging him 3 times

03-03-2012, 04:59 PM	#13
Jankman8 Site Donor Join Date: Feb 2012 Location: Austria, Europe Posts: 374	Originally Posted by Danno Hmmm, with the expected huge increase in the 2014 cap, this may not have been a bad move. It'll hurt us a bit in 2013, but we'll benefit greatly in 2014. So what you are saying is that, this might not be a bad move?

03-03-2012, 05:04 PM	#14
Danno Truth Addict Join Date: Dec 2003 Location: Spanish Fort, AL (via NO and B/R) Posts: 24,720	Originally Posted by Jankman8 So what you are saying is that, this might not be a bad move? From a numbers point of view yes, but from a PR standpoint it remains to be determined. I want Brees long term, but I'm not comfortable with not being able to upgrade the rest of the team because of him.

03-03-2012, 05:06 PM	#15
Jankman8 Site Donor Join Date: Feb 2012 Location: Austria, Europe Posts: 374	Originally Posted by Danno From a numbers point of view yes, but from a PR standpoint it remains to be determined. I want Brees long term, but I'm not comfortable with not being able to upgrade the rest of the team because of him. How could we still get Colston and Nicks under contract?

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

03-03-2012, 05:08 PM	#16
CharityMike Site Donor 2018 Join Date: Oct 2011 Location: Mid City, New Orleans Posts: 3,556	Originally Posted by Jankman8 How could we still get Colston and Nicks under contract? We won't. If we got 1 of them it will most likely be Colston. So we are just going to let our pro bowl guard go wherever and get a big fat 0 in return. Thanks Drew!

03-03-2012, 05:09 PM	#17
vtiger72 100th Post Join Date: Mar 2012 Posts: 185	Originally Posted by Jankman8 So what you are saying is that, this might not be a bad move? A lot of people believe that Loomis's position in negotiating was that the tag set the value for the first and second season at roughly 16 and 18 million and that's what was holding things up. So yes, the leverage Brees has is that he is likely worth on the open market what he was asking, but that the Saints position was that he wasn't going to be on the open market and with these deals he lacks the security of a long term deal. On the flip side, Brees does not have to sign the tender right away and could use the fact he isn't technically under contract to skip ota's and the start of training camp without incurring fines. Not sure if he will do that or not. The biggest drawback on using the tag for Brees is that it can't be used on Nicks or Colston and the 16 million of the tag is immediately deducted from cap space until a long term deal is worked out to reduce that figure. Danno and Rugby Saint II like this.
vtiger72 100th Post Join Date: Mar 2012 Posts: 185

03-03-2012, 05:12 PM	#18
Danno Truth Addict Join Date: Dec 2003 Location: Spanish Fort, AL (via NO and B/R) Posts: 24,720	Originally Posted by vtiger72 The biggest drawback on using the tag for Brees is that it can't be used on Nicks or Colston and the 16 million of the tag is immediately deducted from cap space until a long term deal is worked out to reduce that figure. I wonder if this isn't Loomis pressuring Condon/Brees to sign, or it will hurt the team overall? If Brees truly is interested in keeping our key players (which I now doubt), then this pressures him to sign before Monday. This may be a brilliant move by Loomis. I'm simply not smart enough to put all the pieces together.

03-03-2012, 05:13 PM	#19
QBREES9 Moderator Join Date: Sep 2007 Location: New Haven Ct Posts: 23,985	The funny thing is he was trying to get rid of the TAG during the CBA talks. Came back back to bite him in the a**. For someone who is very smart, that was dumb.

03-03-2012, 05:14 PM	#20
vtiger72 100th Post Join Date: Mar 2012 Posts: 185	Originally Posted by Danno I wonder if this isn't Loomis pressuring Condon/Brees to sign, or it will hurt the team overall? If Brees truly is interested in keeping our key players (which I now doubt), then this pressures him to sign before Monday. This may be a brilliant move by Loomis. I'm simply not smart enough to put all the pieces together. It may be a pressure move but not for the reason you mentioned. It's more sign our deal or play under a one year contract for less than the avg value of what we offered. And with that comes the risk of injury....etc.
vtiger72 100th Post Join Date: Mar 2012 Posts: 185

LinkBacks (?) LinkBack to this Thread: https://blackandgold.com/saints/41699-question-forum.html
Posted By	For	Type	Date	Hits
Question for the forum	This thread	Refback	03-03-2012 03:25 PM	2