- 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
re: Doesn't look like we're getting a discount on Brees....
Posted on 2/11/10 at 12:35 pm to THRILLHO
Posted on 2/11/10 at 12:35 pm to THRILLHO
quote:
And, again, I never said he was obligated to take less money just because woe is us Katrina blah blah. I said if he wants his arse upright (think first 4 games of 2007 season) and the defense to keep getting turnovers, he would be best to sacrifice some money. He doesn't seem like the kind of guy that would really feel the difference between $90m over 6 years vs. $120m over 6 years, especially if it means winning more games and raising your chances of going down as the best QB in history (keep up these numbers +2 more SB wins and I think he would be).
I get what you're saying, but I would still be apprehensive to give management back that $30M for two reasons:
1) That's a ton of cheddar. No, Brees isn't going to miss that in his life as far as how he enjoys day-to-day living, but what about his philanthropic endeavors? He gives money to a variety of charities and foundations and when it comes to things like cancer research, $30M isn't all that much.
2) You're also assuming that saved $30M is going to be used wisely by going out and getting the best possible players and high value free agents. Benson is notoriously cheap. Imagine if Brees signed that 6 year, $90M deal instead of a 6 year, $120M deal only to watch management pocket that money. That's a $30M oopsie with no take-backsies.
1
Posted on 2/11/10 at 1:25 pm to SaintLSUnAtl
quote:
His original 6 year/$60 million deal WAS the discount.
No it really wasn't. A lot of people looked at him as damaged goods, and noone else would have given him that kind of deal. In hindsight yes it was a bargain and I think we should absolutely front load a new contract in a non-salary cap year, but to say he did the Saints a favor in that first contract is rediculous. We were taking a big chance on him.
Posted on 2/11/10 at 1:28 pm to Guess
I sort of took that as his point.
The Saints have already gotten a "discount" on Brees because of the perceived possibility that he might have been damaged goods, due to the injury.
Now he will want to, and should, be paid what he deserves.
The Saints have already gotten a "discount" on Brees because of the perceived possibility that he might have been damaged goods, due to the injury.
Now he will want to, and should, be paid what he deserves.
Posted on 2/11/10 at 1:56 pm to Y.A. Tittle
Pay the dude. Saints cant afford to lose him. Revenue with Brees compared to Revenue without Brees. Sorta simple math here. Make the dude very very happy. He is great for the Saints and great for N.O.
Where else are you gonna find a Super Star QB?
Where else are you gonna find a Super Star QB?
Posted on 2/11/10 at 3:06 pm to Guess
The original contract Brees signed was very favorable to the Saints and the best an injured QB could hope for. While it was a lot of money, it was set up so that we could cut him after the first year if he wasn't okay with minimal damage to the cap.
There was some type of bonus (I believe around $12M) due before the second year that. We could have cut him before paying that and only been on the hook for something like $10M total. The flip side is that if he panned out (which he more than did) he would get a lot more money.
$10M a year was pretty good at the time for a QB that hadn't really challenged for an MVP or won playoff game - and this is assuming he was never hurt. Now he is the best (at least one of the best) in the league with quite a few good years left so he'll get paid like Manning and Brady.
There was some type of bonus (I believe around $12M) due before the second year that. We could have cut him before paying that and only been on the hook for something like $10M total. The flip side is that if he panned out (which he more than did) he would get a lot more money.
$10M a year was pretty good at the time for a QB that hadn't really challenged for an MVP or won playoff game - and this is assuming he was never hurt. Now he is the best (at least one of the best) in the league with quite a few good years left so he'll get paid like Manning and Brady.
Posted on 2/11/10 at 3:15 pm to Guess
quote:
We were taking a big chance on him.
I don't think anybody disagrees with that, but the chance paid off. The money the Saints have been paying him the past four years isn't close to what his value is to the franchise and the city. Pay the man whatever he wants, he deserves it and he's earned it. Not to mention that with all the charity work he does around the city, the city will see a lot of that money make its way back to it.
Posted on 2/11/10 at 3:19 pm to bigpapamac
PAY.
THE
MAN.
THE
MAN.
Posted on 2/11/10 at 3:26 pm to THRILLHO
Pay the man.
Posted on 2/11/10 at 3:31 pm to ClientNumber9
quote:
Benson is notoriously cheap.
Do some research before throwing shite against the wall. If Benson was "notoriously cheap", Brees wouldn't be here in the first place. The 6 year/$60 mill contract signed in 2006 looks cheap now; but it was top dollar for a QB with Brees' experience and success...oh yeah, also coming off a major injury. 20/20 hindsight is the greatest asset known to man.
This "Benson is cheap" crap has been discussed ad nauseam on this board. Under Benson's ownership, the Saints have never lost a player because Benson didn't want to pay him.
Morten Anderson was let go because Mora decided he didn't want him (check out the 2009 Saints Hall of Fame induction ceremony for proof. Mora clearly states who made that decision).
Bobby Hebert was sent packing because Jim Finks and Hebert got into a pissing contest. Finks made that decision.
Joe Horn was sent packing because Loomis didn't want to pay the big bucks for an aging WR.
Benson didn't make any of these decisions, or any other decision to let a player go...now, those are facts, not crap thrown against the wall.
This post was edited on 2/11/10 at 3:51 pm
Posted on 2/11/10 at 3:33 pm to adono
quote:
Do some research before throwing shite against the wall. If Benson was "notoriously cheap"
Cheap about paying players? Not at all. Cheap when it comes to front office staff and other things? A little bit.
Posted on 2/11/10 at 3:34 pm to adono
Benson's not really cheap when it comes to paying players. It's really not a fair slam.
He seems short-sighted at times in other economic areas related to the team, which can come across as "cheap" to some.
He seems short-sighted at times in other economic areas related to the team, which can come across as "cheap" to some.
Posted on 2/11/10 at 3:45 pm to tigerguy121
quote:
Cheap about paying players? Not at all. Cheap when it comes to front office staff and other things? A little bit.
You do realize that Payton makes $8 mill a year, right?
LINK
That makes Payton one of the top paid coaches in the league. Benson didn't want to come up with the extra $250,000 for Williams because he was still paying Gibbs' salary. We now know Williams was worth it, and so did Benson. BTW, Payton got his money back months ago.
quote:
Yes, Payton made all the right moves and calls in this game and this season. His special teams had practiced the onside attempt successfully during the week, and after last year's 8-8 record he made a personal bet on Williams, coughing up $250,000 of his own money, to help boost the defensive coordinator’s salary. The Saints gave Payton back his money after the team started the season 9-0.
LINK
This post was edited on 2/11/10 at 3:55 pm
Posted on 2/11/10 at 3:54 pm to adono
i am a firm believer that when u go to paying single players too much money, u cant afford the talent to win a championship. look at the highest paid players in the league. other than peyton manning, where were the rest of them? u guessed it, at the frickin house while the saints were winning the super bowl. no one player single handily wins shite so u have to have talent around u. i agree we need to keep drew cause he means alot to the team but if u have lineman and are paying them league minimum to block cause u cant afford to pay a decent lineman, what do u have. not shite so u have to be smart.
Posted on 2/11/10 at 4:00 pm to Y.A. Tittle
Brees owns this town. Pay him whatever the hell he wants. That being said I don't expect him to want to make more than Manning, that isn't him. But paying him the market rate for a qb of his caliber is only fair.
Posted on 2/11/10 at 4:02 pm to BilJ
I think Brees is a lot like Payton. He'll see the example of his coach, who gave up part of his salary to improve the team. I don't think Brees is greedy.
Posted on 2/11/10 at 4:04 pm to liquid rabbit
its time to up the ante on Payton as well. Les Miles makes more than him. COME ON
This post was edited on 2/11/10 at 4:06 pm
Posted on 2/11/10 at 4:05 pm to BilJ
quote:
Peyton
might wanna check that
Posted on 2/11/10 at 4:05 pm to BilJ
quote:
its time to up the ante on Peyton as well. Les Miles makes more than him. COME ON
What's with the guy above saying he makes $8 million? I didn't think he made that much. What is it?
Posted on 2/11/10 at 4:06 pm to Y.A. Tittle
I thought he was right in the 4 mil neighborhood. I could be wrong
Posted on 2/11/10 at 4:07 pm to BilJ
Whatever it is, it's indeed criminal if Les is making anywhere close to what he gets, not to mention if he's making more.
Page 2 of 3
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News