I hate to bring this up, but...

TheOak · 06-24-2013, 08:48 AM

Originally Posted by biloxi-indian

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

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

biloxi-indian · 06-24-2013, 09:13 AM

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.

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.

44Champs · 06-22-2013, 03:30 PM

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

dizzle88 · 06-22-2013, 03:37 PM

Originally Posted by 44Champs

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

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

AsylumGuido · 06-23-2013, 06:17 PM

Originally Posted by dizzle88

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

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.

vpheughan · 06-23-2013, 06:12 PM

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.

TheOak · 06-24-2013, 07:16 AM

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.....

Budsdrinker · 06-24-2013, 08:10 AM

Originally Posted by TheOak

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.....

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.

TheOak · 06-24-2013, 08:14 AM

Originally Posted by Budsdrinker

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.

I forgot about the tag since Drew signed a contract.

06-24-2013, 08:48 AM	#1
TheOak 10000 POST CLUB Join Date: Dec 2009 Location: Cypress Tx. Posts: 19,039	Re: I hate to bring this up, but... Originally Posted by biloxi-indian 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 Which reply? Do you mean this link? Drew Brees wins franchise-tag grievance vs. NFL, Saints - NFL.com

06-24-2013, 09:13 AM	#2
biloxi-indian Site Donor Join Date: Jan 2004 Location: Southlake, TX Posts: 1,706	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.
	Insanity is defined as doing the same thing over, over, and over again...and expecting a different outcome!

06-24-2013, 09:40 AM	#3
TheOak 10000 POST CLUB Join Date: Dec 2009 Location: Cypress Tx. Posts: 19,039	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

06-22-2013, 03:30 PM	#4
44Champs Site Donor Join Date: Dec 2010 Posts: 2,589	Re: I hate to bring this up, but... Graham has said that as long as Brees is QB, he's not going anywhere
44Champs Site Donor Join Date: Dec 2010 Posts: 2,589

06-22-2013, 03:37 PM	#5
dizzle88 10000 POST CLUB Join Date: Oct 2009 Posts: 11,518	Re: I hate to bring this up, but... Originally Posted by 44Champs Graham has said that as long as Brees is QB, he's not going anywhere Whilst I agree with you - Brees "said" his contract would be team friendly - then he held out for months and we lost carl nicks Danno and SapperSaint like this.

06-23-2013, 06:17 PM	#6
AsylumGuido 10000 POST CLUB Join Date: Sep 2007 Location: Bossier City, LA Posts: 26,484	Re: I hate to bring this up, but... Originally Posted by dizzle88 Whilst I agree with you - Brees "said" his contract would be team friendly - then he held out for months and we lost carl nicks 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.

06-23-2013, 06:12 PM	#7
vpheughan 1000 Posts + Join Date: Aug 2007 Posts: 4,543	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. TheOak likes this.
vpheughan 1000 Posts + Join Date: Aug 2007 Posts: 4,543

06-24-2013, 07:16 AM	#8
TheOak 10000 POST CLUB Join Date: Dec 2009 Location: Cypress Tx. Posts: 19,039	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..... ProMallNinja likes this.

06-24-2013, 08:10 AM	#9
Budsdrinker A Cajun Transforming TX Join Date: Jul 2007 Location: The Woodlands, Texas Posts: 2,787	Re: I hate to bring this up, but... Originally Posted by TheOak 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..... 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.

06-24-2013, 08:14 AM	#10
TheOak 10000 POST CLUB Join Date: Dec 2009 Location: Cypress Tx. Posts: 19,039	Re: I hate to bring this up, but... Originally Posted by Budsdrinker 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. I forgot about the tag since Drew signed a contract.

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