I'm well aware of market value. It's been discussed for years and years, and is a secret to no one, at this point. But market "value" is mostly a residual consequence of teams being desperate and over paying. Once they over pay, the bar is set. And when that happens every decent QB, not just the elite, want to negotiate at or above that number, because the precedent is already set that teams will do anything to have stability at the QB position.

Neither Drew nor any other of these guys with 100 million plus contracts have actually "earned" that money. Nothing they do is that important when you compare it to other jobs around the world. So I get highly annoyed by this idea that the team owes Drew something extra because market value has risen since his last deal. They don't owe him anything, he has made plenty. But I get it from his perspective that he can't just take a low ball offer when he could make more elsewhere. So I'm not gonna toilet paper his house if he should leave. It's business. But the Saints have to be reasonable. They can't pay a guy his age like he's 25.

I hear what you are saying about the cap rising, and I have heard that many times from people defending Loomis' tactics. You mentioned a couple players whom the team has signed, but the problem is it's always just a player here, and a player there, each year. I'll admit that I wanted Byrd before he came here, but when I actually saw the contract I was blown away. It was extremely ill-advised to put that much into one player with as many problems as they needed to address on defense.

There never seems to be enough money to go around in free agency. And when they do sign people, it's usually a bad move. I think they over paid for Fleener, for example, but that's just my opinion. It's hard to build through the draft alone. There are so many busts. You need to have a few proven commodities. Many of the key players who were on the '09 team were not drafted by the Saints.

For the past several years Loomis has been deferring money, which has only served to keep the team out of the penalty. I don't consider that very smart business.

I know there are other responses that match this. I thought I had posted this before I left out. Posting anyway.



That coupled with the available pool of money is what defined the market.


I disagree about "earned". The value of any good or service is strictly defined by what people are willing to pay for it. It's the reason that the highest paid employee in virtually every state government is the high-profile football coach.

Brees does a job in a nearly $14 billion a year market that has less than 10,000 employees at a level that less than 5 people on this planet can do. Now is it fair that the NFL has that market size? Probably not. But has Brees earned his share of the market? Absolutely.

And you are asking the correct question. You have a guy that is far outproducing all the 25 year olds that are getting paid more than he is. The desperate teams in the market will pay to get the type of stability we've had at the QB position for the last decade.


So that's the value choice that each and every GM has to make. The system is set up with cost controls for the first 5 years of the contract after the draft and an open market afterwords. Players who are extremely productive before free agency build a potential value that can be tapped on the second contract. Teams always make the value proposition that the production will continue and match the value of the dollars. Sometimes it works (Brees, Jordan, Ingram) and sometimes it doesn't (Byrd, Gallette, up until now Spiller). And the Saints will have make more of these choices in the future (Cooks, Breaux). And sometimes I think the team just takes a flyer where the value of the contract doesn't match the previous production and there is a hope that the future production will in fact pan out. As of today I put Fleener in that category.

Deferring the money is the teams hedge against bad decisions in theory. All organizations are only on the hook for guaranteed money. So pushing a chunk of money in the future allows for further evaluation into the next contract as to make decision of whether to continue to pay or not.

It has to be balanced against players wanting their money up front. The NFL is the only pro league that has deferred non guaranteed contracts. When Lebron signed his 3 year $100 million contract this month, he's going to get that money whether or not he ever steps foot on the court for Cleveland ever again. It's all guaranteed. You can see the failures of that model with Kobe as an example. His last contract paid him I believe $24 million/year over a number of years, many of which he simply did not play. That contract in the NFL would be structured as up front guaranteed money, bonus payments contingent on being on the team, and unguaranteed salary, which simply isn't paid when the player is cut.

We'll see a sample of this with Byrd next year. He'll either restructure, or he will be cut because it'll cost the team more to keep him than to cut him.

But at the end of the day, this is the chess match of the NFL. Teams like the Patriots tend to cut most of their high profile people the year before they come into big money and continue their success with getting and developing young talent. Other clubs are a continual string of poor choices. The Saints have been hit and miss. But understand it's rare that someone becomes a Hall of Famer with their second or third club. Brees has been nothing but money since 2006. So my opinion is that the title of this thread is absolutely correct.

SFIAH

I feel like a broken record having to say this over and over. And before I continue, let me make sure you understand that this is not meant to be condescending towards you. You are making a point based strictly on market value, of which I fully understand how it works. I'm arguing against the opinion that he is necessarily worth, or owed market value. We disagree on that, and that's fine. But the real disconnect here, is that you are going the long way of explaining the market, when that isn't real the point here. You should be worth what your performance states you are worth in comparison to the other players' salaries. He's worth being paid as one of the best, but he's not THE best. And without knowing for sure, I feel pretty confident that's what his agent is trying to get him paid like. That's the agent's job.

He might be out performing 25 year old's now but for how long? And I think a lot of fans are over estimating his performance. He throws a ton of passes, and has been quite turnover prone in recent years. Points per game are well down. Not all of that is his fault as he has taken a beating. He's still a top QB, but is he top 5 in terms of efficiency? I'm, not so sure, and it's the beating he keeps taking that makes me worry about his future. The line needed to be addressed. It was not. That needs to be addressed, in my opinion, before dealing out another mega contract.

Again, in terms in terms of market value, I don't think any team should be held hostage by whatever the going rate is. It should be based on performance vs. peers. Instead it has become a quagmire of average QB's making tons of money just because they wanted a shiner toy than the other guy got. It's ridiculous. And I blame the irresponsibility of the GM's who have helped create this nightmare. Drew deserves to be paid exactly what his performance suggests. When they gave him that last contract, he was the highest paid player. He's been up and down over the duration of that deal. So did he earn it? Not really, but he did GET that money. We all know with the way the market plays, that he will probably become the highest paid player in the league again, until someone passes him up 5 minutes later. Is he worth highest paid player when he hasn't been the best QB in the league? In reality, no. But will the Saints pay up anyway? We'll see.

Or maybe, just maybe, they can settle somewhere in the middle. I have no idea. I'm just tired of hearing things like "we were nothing before he got here, so he deserves whatever he wants". People find this mean spirited when I say this, perhaps, but it's just life. You don't pay a guy whatever he wants just because of what he's meant. You have to pay him based on what you think he can do going forward. I hope he can stay at this level for another 4 or 5 years. Or even more. But I'm reacting to all the panicking about Drew by fans who seem to think that there can never be life beyond him, and that the Saints should just cave in.

I know our other QB's aren't real good. But maybe that's an indictment on this team's ability to prepare for the future. Somehow the Patriots won 11 games with Matt freaking Cassel. Matt Flynn one threw 6 touchdowns in place of Aaron Rodgers. Good teams can't make excuses, and they can't afford to get desperate. They should be prepared.

The problem is that there's no time to do that now. The Saints are not going to be able to compete with "we need a QB stat!" teams in the open market. And honestly the Saints have made some attempts at addressing the line issues including trading for Unger and drafting Peat.

As for efficiency, Football Outsiders has a chart of QB metrics for last year:

FOOTBALL OUTSIDERS: Innovative Statistics, Intelligent Analysis | QUARTERBACKS 2015

Brees was ranked 3rd in total QBR and 6th and 7th respectively in DVOR and DVOA.


That argument certainly would hold water for other QBs. But Brees run for the last 10 years is unprecedented. He isn't average by any stretch of the imagination. And on QB performance, he should be at the very top of the QB pay list.

Now the Saints have been up and down over the duration of that deal. But Brees has not.
He's averaging 5000 yards passing, 36.8 TDs, and a passer rating of 99.8 from 2012 to 2015 over the current length of the contract. So other than the 19 INTs in 2012 where exactly are the "ups and downs" you refer to?


But it's clear that they are not. And even if they were prepared, as I stated before this run is unprecedented.

I found an article that mirrors our discussion and refers to Brees explicitly. Describes it as a dilemma.

https://theringer.com/nfl-new-era-ol...ed4#.w7y03lehd

The article points out this is really new territory in the NFL. There just hasn't been an elite healthy 38 year old QB near the top of the league in the free agent market before.

BTW I don't think that Brees is asking for everything in the world. But it makes no sense for him to sign a below market contract either.

I get that you don't like the market. But that dislike doesn't change it. If Brees keeps up close to the same production that he's had the last 10 years, and the Saints make the decision not to sign him, then many teams next year will see Brees for his production: A HOF caliber 38 year old QB.

SFIAH

I didn't say that Brees is average. Refer to my most recent reply to you, and I have addressed most of your points. I merely brought up that what is considered "value" has been more about panic an over paying mediocrity than anything to do with production. I understand that my dislike for the market won't change it, and I didn't suggest that anyone will change it, regardless of my opinion. Again, it's going over that market that I think would be unwise, and it's what some have suggested that not only we COULD, but SHOULD do. And obviously I disagree with that.

In reference to the ups and downs, yes, I am talking about turnovers for one. It's not just INT's. He fumbles a lot as well, and also we throw a lot more short yardage plays in place of running the ball, because for much the past several years we can't run. That has kept his yardage total up and lead to lower yards per attempt and ultimately is not leading to more points. He's also been very good a fair amount of that time, hence why I say UPS and downs. I'm not telling you he's been awful.

I'm truly not sure how this small point on my part has turned into two or three pages of discussion.