What I wrote is completely accurate, they way you are interpreting it is not. When a contract is over there are no more legal, business, or moral oblations on the part of either party.

An athlete is a specialized occupation... In this regard other specialized employees are the same... A chemist, engineer, lawyer, Doctor... etc... No one has to employ them for any price. There are plenty... PLENTY of people that are not professional athletes that are so damned good at what they do they can achieve pay higher than their peers on the open market.

I didn't nit pick.... Its the reality of the business and legal situation, which is exactly what i said. Now, if Drew had shopped the market as leverage then you may have an arguement that he tried to leverage outside influences... Did the Saints tell him they wouldn't pay his asking price forcing him to shop the market? Nope... This is on Loomis.

Did Peyton Manning get a pay raise to go to Denver? No, he ended up with an increased pay.... As far as for Drew having the Saints over a barrel, the Colts fared well with a new rookie QB, as well as the Seahawks. Dont tell me about draft position.. you can move up to get what you need.

"Undeserving" is a subjective statement and only matters in regard to opinion. Endorsement deals are moot and outside the scope of his contract with the Saints or NFL.

Looking at someones financial situation and determining that they have "enough", or should take an action that is related to having more than others is liberal in approach.... it is the equivalent to saying someone with 500k in salary should pay a higher tax% than someone with 25k in salary just because they have enough... You may take offense or not. It is what it is. Drew earned the ability to negotiate the highest pay in the NFL, and he was successful. Had he not, he would be playing for less money or another team.

I know it is difficult as a fan to separate passion for a team from the business aspect of the NFL... The NFL was not founded by fans that wanted a league for their teams. It was founded by businessmen wanting to make a profit. Just like the AFL, and CFL were founded to do the same thing off of the model the NFL built.

You're repeating yourself, and my point remains exactly the same. I understand the technicality between a pay raise and an increased Salary. Let me say Again... Offering him more money the second time around, means they valued him at a greater price than before. Which is not in any way different than a raise. Is it a raise in legal terms? No. I don't need a lesson in legality. I'm making a simple comparison that is not hard to understand. When you say that Drew shouldn't lessen the income in his house, you are insinuating that he already has a set pay, and is taking a pay CUT. So guess what? That is legally incorrect. See where I'm going with this? But I'm not concerned about legal matters. They offered him the highest paid contract and he turned it down for even more.

The argument about Drew not shopping the Market is not a strong one. I have said many times, the Saints had to keep him. Drew knew this, and used it as leverage to play market value. Yes, most players do that. But most players aren't in the neighborhood of 100 million, either.

In other words, don't pretend that just because he didn't openly shop other teams, that he wasn't playing the field. You don't think his agent was feeling out other teams to get a sense of his value? You're extremely naive if you don't think so.

As for your examples of the Colts and the Seahawks, please. The Colts had the number one pick! do we? No. The Seahawks got lucky on a 3rd rounder. What part of "no guarantee they work out" do you not get? sure, those guys had decent years. What about Tim Couch, David Carr, Jamarcus Russell, Matt Leinart, Alex Smith (took him 6 years to be serviceable), Blaine Gabbert, Mark Sanchez, and on I could go. Peyton Manning was 36, coming off neck surgery. That's why the Colts felt they had to rebuild. It just so happened they also had the number one pick. We are in no such position.

You think we can trade up? With what? You're making a ton of assumptions all in the name of defending a contract. I can't make my points any more clear, so if you only care about legalities, instead of the common sense factors, as if it makes a difference, then this has been a pointless conversation.

Repeating my self? Your contradicting your self... In order for there to be a "pay raise" there has to be a "set pay", you just stated he had no "set pay". Quit spinning to suit your story.. One minute correct terms are moot then in the same paragraph you want to use correct terminology.

You keep leveraging '100 million" as if it matters, it doesn't. "Highest paid" denotes a desired status, full market value denotes exactly that and what others make in regards to Drew is moot.

However... Ill play your game.

Drews market value was x, accepting anything less whether is was more than he was previous making is not a sound business practice and is taking money away from his home... Accepting anything other than the FULL pay
raise is absurd.

Drew is Starbucks coffee... Everyone complains about the price. Many people will pay it, and do.

If my employer offers me a 20% raise and I hold out and actually get a 30% raise am I greedy?

The issue is not Drew making more money that he brings in to the NFLs or Benson's coffers.

Drew also stood up for the position he held as the player rep in the NFLPA.. To accept a lower contract lowered what other QBs would make. Did you see what Tom Brady accepted yesterday? While good for the Patriots it was bad for every other QB looking for a new contract. NFL contracts set the market value for each position. Brady's contract gave leverage to the Ravens against Flacco.


And for the last time.. NO the Saints did not HAVE to keep him. They WANTED to keep him. Need and want are entirely two different terms.

Keep spinning, I am done here.