FinSaint |
06-06-2012 01:23 PM |
Quote:
Originally Posted by Supertek
(Post 410290)
Can't possibly believe some of the possibilites I read here. Come on Brees wants to be here this whole thing is due to the Saints slapping that tag on Him then stalling negotiations not in good faith. Personally I think the tag should be abolished period. If you are not willing to negotiate a deal then that player should have the right to go and negotiate with whomever is willing to deal with Him and you would not have this type of S#@t going on. If he sits this year I believe that next year other teams can make offers and then the saints would have to match. This does not matter though because if he sits it is over between Him and the Saints. All the good things Loomis has done as far as I am concerned are negaited If he fails to get Brees back.
|
I disagree, I support the tag fully because it gives the franchises a chance to hold on to their "face of the franchise" guy even if they might not want to sign him to a long term contract or if they just want to buy some more time to conclude the contract negotiations.
I probably would feel another way if the teams could tag more than one player at a time and for longer than 3 consecutive years, but the way it stands at the moment I do feel that it is fair for the franchises to have this additional tool in their arsenal because they are responsible to far more parties than just their immediate family's financial security.
It's true that if Brees sits out a season, the tag the Saints can put on him next season won't be the exclusive type. But what I was speaking about was that I'm not sure how that affects the yearly wage rise that is accompanied with consecutive tags, since if he sits out he won't get payed this year. Still, you have to remember that while other teams could then offer Brees a contract, they would also lose 2 1st round picks in addition to paying Brees a record amount of money. I'm not saying that there aren't teams willing to do that, but I wonder if Brees wants to sign with one of those teams - he might if he is only after the money.
And in conclusion, while it would probably reflect badly on Loomis if he isn't able to sign Brees to a long term contract, I would personally be more pissed at him if he was to sign Brees to a contract which in effect would handcuff the FO in regards to what they can do with the rest of the team and in addition set a bad precedent for future contract negotiations - like when Charles Grant's contract set a bad precedent for Will Smith's contract.
Honestly, if I had to choose between Loomis and Brees, the decision wouldn't even be that hard.
|