- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Coaching Changes
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
Carl Nicks contract question
Posted on 3/6/12 at 11:43 pm
Posted on 3/6/12 at 11:43 pm
I realize this has probably already been discussed
I've heard that on the radio, this board, & TV. My question is this-
If Brees wanted $23 million a year, & the Saints offered $18 million year. They couldn't agree so he was franchised him at $14 million a year.
My math would be plus $9-7 million above what Nicks' franchise tag, in year one. What am I missing?
quote:
Since the Saints franchising Brees, we have lost Nicks & Colston.
I've heard that on the radio, this board, & TV. My question is this-
If Brees wanted $23 million a year, & the Saints offered $18 million year. They couldn't agree so he was franchised him at $14 million a year.
My math would be plus $9-7 million above what Nicks' franchise tag, in year one. What am I missing?
2
Posted on 3/6/12 at 11:46 pm to TigerintheNO
I don't understand what you're asking.
Posted on 3/6/12 at 11:48 pm to THRILLHO
The 23m would cut deeper into what Drew would make anyways. So you have multiple people wanting/due more money than they made the previous year. Which causes cap problems.
So therefore you have ....well problems......
So therefore you have ....well problems......
Posted on 3/6/12 at 11:49 pm to THRILLHO
Yeah me neither, are you trying to say the saints should tag nicks? Because I'm fairly certain we can't tag more than one player
Posted on 3/7/12 at 12:04 am to SCLSUMuddogs
I think he's saying it would have been cheaper giving in to Drew's contract and then franchising Nicks.
Posted on 3/7/12 at 12:12 am to ATLienTiger
quote:
I think he's saying it would have been cheaper giving in to Drew's contract and then franchising Nicks.
The opposite of that- instead of paying Bress $23 million & franching him for $14 million, would be a plus $9 million.
Assumming we ready to pay Nicks the franchise tag price, wouldn't we now have an extra $9 million?
Posted on 3/7/12 at 12:45 am to TigerintheNO
quote:
wouldn't we now have an extra $9 million
Not for long. Brees is almost certainly going to sign an extension this season that would result in his being paid more than that. We're only $6m or so below the cap now, so we'd have to make cuts/renegotiate deals just to make room to give Nicks that "saved" $9m.
Really, if we had signed Brees on time, I'd say there was a 90% or so chance that he would have simply been dealt.
Posted on 3/7/12 at 5:36 am to TigerintheNO
Actually Brees was franchised with the exclusive franchise tag which is expected to cost 15-16 million. The final number isn't in yet since the league and players' union is working on the cap number for 2012 (yes they still don't know the final cap number for the teams).
Franchising Nicks would have cost around 9.4 million (non-exclusive tag) so you'd only have saved 5-6 million from the salary cap by franchising Nicks instead of Brees. Same goes for Colston since the non-exclusive tag for WR would have been around 9.4 million as well.
Franchising Nicks would have cost around 9.4 million (non-exclusive tag) so you'd only have saved 5-6 million from the salary cap by franchising Nicks instead of Brees. Same goes for Colston since the non-exclusive tag for WR would have been around 9.4 million as well.
Posted on 3/7/12 at 7:38 am to bbrownso
Signing Nicks to some long term deal using the cap space difference btw the franchise tag and whatever long term deal Drew eventually gets, would probably mean all our cap space would be eaten up.
Then we have no space to sign Drew to a long term deal so we would have to backload it even more.
Then we have no space to sign Drew to a long term deal so we would have to backload it even more.
Posted on 3/7/12 at 8:35 am to jacks40
All I know is that Drew is not stupid, he knows that his bread is butter on the inside. Behind the scene they have to be figuring out a way to keep Nicks. They just have to.
Posted on 3/7/12 at 8:44 am to Nissanmaxima
quote:
. Behind the scene they have to be figuring out a way to keep Nicks. They just have to.
Or a way to replace him.
I know Nicks is a great guard, but he isn't the only player who can be good at the position
Posted on 3/7/12 at 8:54 am to jacks40
quote:
I know Nicks is a great guard, but he isn't the only player who can be good at the position
truth
as for the op, the thing you overlook is that the franchise tag in this case is being used to prolong the contract negotiations. just because they tagged him does not mean they plan on halting all long term contract talks. he will have a deal done sometime this year
Posted on 3/7/12 at 10:41 am to Midget Death Squad
quote:
as for the op, the thing you overlook is that the franchise tag in this case is being used to prolong the contract negotiations. just because they tagged him does not mean they plan on halting all long term contract talks. he will have a deal done sometime this year
Yeah, the franchise tag is just to give them time to sign him to a long-term deal. I seriously doubt he'll be making the $15 mil this year from the franchise tag. I'm assuming about 21 or so.
Page 1 of 1
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News