Vilma blaming everyone but himself in bounty-gate

[Superman]

I can't argue with your cogent points Superman other than to say that the franchise tag used to be a sign of honor & respect among players that the front office really valued your superb play, community presence, & value to a specific organization over an extended period of years. Now, the franchise tag is frowned upon with groans of agony & disdain. Strange how the franchise tag has evolved perception wise over time in my estimation.

The bolded is what the problem is with the tag. The thinking by the players is "if I'm your franchise player, why not offer me a long-term contract?" The name of the tag isn't congruent with the way it's used.

You and I would gladly play football for one year for $16 million, but a player like Brees has a lot more earning potential than that. As a top five quarterback (by any estimation), he ought to be able to get a long term contract along the lines of what Brady and both Manning's have received in recent years. And the Saints absolutely HAVE to keep him. As long as he's healthy, the fans will not tolerate letting him walk. His desire for a long-term deal is absolutely reasonable.

The tag limits a player's earning potential by not allowing him to shop his services. That's not a big deal, so long as he gets what he thinks he deserves. As of right now, Brees is not, not only because the Saints aren't giving him a deal, but also because provisions in the new CBA drastically reduced the value of his tag, making it easier for the Saints to swallow the idea of keeping him on the tag for a full season. So while he can legitimately demand close to $20 million a year (Brady and Manning both got $18 million a year; then Manning got $19.3 million a year, and Brees is younger than both) on the open market, the Saints aren't giving him that.

I don't think the Saints should have to cave to his demands, and I don't think anyone feels sorry for Drew Brees if he doesn't get $20 million a year. My point is just that him being tagged hurts his earning potential. And if the market dictates that he's worth X, the only reason he shouldn't get X is if he doesn't want X. If he's willing to leave money on the table, good for him. But that's a horse of a different color from being willing to and excited about playing a physical contact sport on a one year contract.

And then there's the personal of it, from his standpoint. He chose the beleaguered Saints and the city of New Orleans of his own accord, and because he did, they went from also-ran to perennial Super Bowl contender, and they won one as well. He's established himself, not only as a great player, but a leader, and a figurehead in the community. And instead of them rewarding him with a market value contract, they tag him. In his viewpoint, they should have offered him an extension like the Patriots did Brady, like the Giants did Manning, like the Steelers did Roethlisberger, like the Jets did Sanchez, etc. He should never have reached free agency.

Again, I'm just articulating how I think he sees the situation, and why I don't have a problem with him commenting publicly. I don't think he's done anything wrong. I think his taking the side of his teammates in the bounty situation has the potential of hurting him in the court of public opinion if damaging information comes to light about the bounty situation, but only by association. He didn't have anything to do with it himself, but he could look like a buffoon if the NFL releases airtight evidence against Vilma and the others.

[JoKeR]

The harshest penalty received so far is Gregg Williams, suspended indefinitely. Then Sean Payton and Jonathan Vilma got equally harsh year-long suspensions. I don't see how the coaches didn't get the harsher penalties. If you line them all up, they did.

1 year for a player is a bigger punishment than 1 year for a coach because players have very short careers IMO.

[southwest1]

The bolded is what the problem is with the tag. The thinking by the players is "if I'm your franchise player, why not offer me a long-term contract?" The name of the tag isn't congruent with the way it's used.

You and I would gladly play football for one year for $16 million, but a player like Brees has a lot more earning potential than that. As a top five quarterback (by any estimation), he ought to be able to get a long term contract along the lines of what Brady and both Manning's have received in recent years. And the Saints absolutely HAVE to keep him. As long as he's healthy, the fans will not tolerate letting him walk. His desire for a long-term deal is absolutely reasonable.

I agree Superman. I would gladly take $16 million for 1 season as you suggest. The owners and fans aren't letting Brees go otherwise Miami would try to land him.

The tag limits a player's earning potential by not allowing him to shop his services. That's not a big deal, so long as he gets what he thinks he deserves. As of right now, Brees is not, not only because the Saints aren't giving him a deal, but also because provisions in the new CBA drastically reduced the value of his tag, making it easier for the Saints to swallow the idea of keeping him on the tag for a full season. So while he can legitimately demand close to $20 million a year (Brady and Manning both got $18 million a year; then Manning got $19.3 million a year, and Brees is younger than both) on the open market, the Saints aren't giving him that.

I do have sympathy for Brees considering the shoulder injury he endured as a Chargers QB that darn near ended his football career and I was glad to hear that a judge ruled Brees would be entitled to more money since this would technically be the 3rd time Brees was placed under the franchise tag. You are right though. If I was the Saints GM and owner, there is no way I pay him an annual salary of $20 million. $19.2 million maybe. The GM has to spread money around to other players on the team. You can't bankrupt an entire on 1 player even if it is Brees.

Although the Saints owner recently purchased the Hornets Basketball team, so it's hard for Tom Benson to make the argument to Brees that he's not worth his asking price.

I don't think the Saints should have to cave to his demands, and I don't think anyone feels sorry for Drew Brees if he doesn't get $20 million a year. My point is just that him being tagged hurts his earning potential. And if the market dictates that he's worth X, the only reason he shouldn't get X is if he doesn't want X. If he's willing to leave money on the table, good for him. But that's a horse of a different color from being willing to and excited about playing a physical contact sport on a one year contract.

And then there's the personal of it, from his standpoint. He chose the beleaguered Saints and the city of New Orleans of his own accord, and because he did, they went from also-ran to perennial Super Bowl contender, and they won one as well. He's established himself, not only as a great player, but a leader, and a figurehead in the community. And instead of them rewarding him with a market value contract, they tag him. In his viewpoint, they should have offered him an extension like the Patriots did Brady, like the Giants did Manning, like the Steelers did Roethlisberger, like the Jets did Sanchez, etc. He should never have reached free agency.

Again, I'm just articulating how I think he sees the situation, and why I don't have a problem with him commenting publicly. I don't think he's done anything wrong. I think his taking the side of his teammates in the bounty situation has the potential of hurting him in the court of public opinion if damaging information comes to light about the bounty situation, but only by association. He didn't have anything to do with it himself, but he could look like a buffoon if the NFL releases airtight evidence against Vilma and the others.

Brees could certainly have egg on his face if new details emerge about Vilma's alleged participation in pay for injury bounty gate I agree. I seriously doubt Brees reputation would ever take a hit over it though. Any field general can support their loyal team mates, but intricate delicacy and public diplomacy are certainly required IMO. Choose your words and language carefully Drew.

[Superman]

I agree Superman. I would gladly take $16 million for 1 season as you suggest. The owners and fans aren't letting Brees go otherwise Miami would try to land him.

That's why they tagged him, which is their right. I still understand his frustration.

I do have sympathy for Brees considering the shoulder injury he endured as a Chargers QB that darn near ended his football career and I was glad to hear that a judge ruled Brees would be entitled to more money since this would technically be the 3rd time Brees was placed under the franchise tag. You are right though.

Just to nitpick, this is the second tag for Brees. The next time he's tagged would be the third time, which is designed to be much more prohibitive than the current tag number.

If I was the Saints GM and owner, there is no way I pay him an annual salary of $20 million. $19.2 million maybe. The GM has to spread money around to other players on the team. You can't bankrupt an entire on 1 player even if it is Brees.

That's the going rate for a quarterback of his caliber. And if you force him to play under the tag this year, and then you tag him again next year, you will have paid him a total of about $40 million, or essentially $20 million a year. Talk about bankrupting a team.

The best way to handle this situation is to take a portion of that $40 million that you'd be paying him this year and next year, make it his signing bonus (about $25 million ought to do it), and front-load his contract, but hide the cap hit until Years 4-6. It's not the hard to do. Based on how other teams with top-level quarterbacks have handled these situations in recent years, it seems like the Saints are making this more difficult than it needs to be. Tom Condon is Brees' agent; they know what the money needs to look like. Yes, you're devoting about 1/6 of your cap to one player (at least for the next two years), but that's the cost of doing business. Bite the bullet.

Although the Saints owner recently purchased the Hornets Basketball team, so it's hard for Tom Benson to make the argument to Brees that he's not worth his asking price.

Yup, Benson and his money guys definitely have the coin.

Brees could certainly have egg on his face if new details emerge about Vilma's alleged participation in pay for injury bounty gate I agree. I seriously doubt Brees reputation would ever take a hit over it though. Any field general can support their loyal team mates, but intricate delicacy and public diplomacy are certainly required IMO. Choose your words and language carefully Drew.

Yeah, I get that. But, like you said, I think Brees comes off as a loyal teammate more than anything else here. Even if this thing goes against Vilma, I don't think Brees' comment affect his contract negotiations at all. He's still a top five quarterback, and the Saints still lose a ton of money in tickets, TV appearances and playoff spots if they don't get him on the field.

[southwest1]

That's why they tagged him, which is their right. I still understand his frustration.

Just to nitpick, this is the second tag for Brees. The next time he's tagged would be the third time, which is designed to be much more prohibitive than the current tag number.

Man, this is twice today that I was wrong. First, the Wes Welker Butterfinger episode after the SB and now the number of times the franchise tag has been applied to Drew Brees. My batting average is down. Of well, tomorrow is a new day and I get to hit the reset button right. I could use the excuse that since I do not reside in Massachusetts I didn't know what person or business entity was responsible for the candy bar joke that was not funny, but I could have verified it first and I didn't. My bad and I assume full responsibility for that minor oversight.

That's the going rate for a quarterback of his caliber. And if you force him to play under the tag this year, and then you tag him again next year, you will have paid him a total of about $40 million, or essentially $20 million a year. Talk about bankrupting a team.

The best way to handle this situation is to take a portion of that $40 million that you'd be paying him this year and next year, make it his signing bonus (about $25 million ought to do it), and front-load his contract, but hide the cap hit until Years 4-6. It's not the hard to do. Based on how other teams with top-level quarterbacks have handled these situations in recent years, it seems like the Saints are making this more difficult than it needs to be. Tom Condon is Brees' agent; they know what the money needs to look like. Yes, you're devoting about 1/6 of your cap to one player (at least for the next two years), but that's the cost of doing business. Bite the bullet.

I can't refute your argument there Superman. Pay Brees what he wants. The Saints need Brees more than the other way around. Tom Benson can't afford to let Brees leave Louisiana permanently. Let the GM and CFO figure out how to work out the payment allotments over time. Just get it done ASAP.

Yup, Benson and his money guys definitely have the coin.

It must be nice to have access to so many greenbacks and Benjamin’s. I always wondered what it must be like to live on the rich side of the railroad tracks.

Yeah, I get that. But, like you said, I think Brees comes off as a loyal teammate more than anything else here. Even if this thing goes against Vilma, I don't think Brees' comment affect his contract negotiations at all. He's still a top five quarterback, and the Saints still lose a ton of money in tickets, TV appearances and playoff spots if they don't get him on the field.

Yeah, Drew Brees will be smiling when he signs his new, lucrative contract in a few weeks. Hey Drew, can you spare a few bucks? Just Kidding!!!