Rick Mueller Talks about Vilma and Free Agency on WIST Sports Saturday (1 Viewer)

[bigno]

I said it before and I will say it again Shanle and David will start next season!!! I was hoping I was wrong but it is not looking to good.......

 

[Gore]

Ok, lets set some things straight and explain why Mueller is right.

First, the Saints dont just have to give new contracts to Colston, Evans and Smith. The Saints have a Top 10 pick too and as we all know Vilma is a Saint now too. He`s in the last year of his contract and if he`s anything close to what we hope he will be he will demand a big contract too.

I know that that the cap has gone up a lot in recent years but that wont go on forever and I dont think its smart to overpay just because the Saints could do it now. And we are are also talking a philosophical thingy here. Where do you spend your money? Id rather spent a lot of money on linemen than on LBs.

Second, Mueller is talking about a huge contract and that he doesnt want one player to get a huge chunk of the cap. Its ok to do that with a QB but hey, just look at the Cardinals. They are paying one player a LOT - Fitzgerald. And despite of having a new stadium and the cap going up they have a hard time signing players because they invested heavily in him. Who wants a situation like that? Mueller doesnt. I dont want it either.

 

[Kin Korn Karn]

The Cardinals are notoriously cheap as well.

 

[CCL36]

Ok, lets set some things straight and explain why Mueller is right.

First, the Saints dont just have to give new contracts to Colston, Evans and Smith. The Saints have a Top 10 pick too and as we all know Vilma is a Saint now too. He`s in the last year of his contract and if he`s anything close to what we hope he will be he will demand a big contract too.

I know that that the cap has gone up a lot in recent years but that wont go on forever and I dont think its smart to overpay just because the Saints could do it now. And we are are also talking a philosophical thingy here. Where do you spend your money? Id rather spent a lot of money on linemen than on LBs.

Second, Mueller is talking about a huge contract and that he doesnt want one player to get a huge chunk of the cap. Its ok to do that with a QB but hey, just look at the Cardinals. They are paying one player a LOT - Fitzgerald. And despite of having a new stadium and the cap going up they have a hard time signing players because they invested heavily in him. Who wants a situation like that? Mueller doesnt. I dont want it either.

-1

 

[Saint Droopy]

-1

 

[terryj]

This is pathetic. Two seasons ago, we had a team that was one game away from the Super Bowl. After the run, team talent was over-estimated and both free-agency and the draft were wasted.

Based on last season, you would think the roster would be realistically evaluated but that's not the case. The front office is signing the same players from last years under-achievers and low balling free agents. This organization does not want to win a Super Bowl, they are content with selling tickets.

In contrast, look at Jacksonville. They played well in the playoffs but are agressive in free-agency and signing quality free agents to reach the next level.

It's difficult being a saints fan.

 

[nolastyle]

This is pathetic. Two seasons ago, we had a team that was one game away from the Super Bowl. After the run, team talent was over-estimated and both free-agency and the draft were wasted.

Based on last season, you would think the roster would be realistically evaluated but that's not the case. The front office is signing the same players from last years under-achievers and low balling free agents. This organization does not want to win a Super Bowl, they are content with selling tickets.

In contrast, look at Jacksonville. They played well in the playoffs but are agressive in free-agency and signing quality free agents to reach the next level.

It's difficult being a saints fan.

It's not difficult for me, but whatever. The Saints are doing exactly what needs to be done, building through the draft. Take the Colts, Pats, Giants, and Packers for example.

Colts- 22 starters drafted, or signed UDFA.
Pats- 16 starters drafted, or signed UDFA.
Giants- 15 starters drafted, or signed UDFA.
Packers- 16 starters drafted, or signed UDFA

The Saints? Only 11.

 

[nmcsnyder]

The Cardinals are notoriously cheap as well.

That avatar is killing me, please, I am begging you, no more armpit hair!

 

[St. Geezy]

so from rick meullers own mouth the jeremy shockey trade is not true the saints never offered a pick to the giants.

I don't think he could comment about that even if he wanted to...It would be tampering. Even if a team is engaged in discussions about a player, they can't go on record commenting about such player to the media.

 

[Code]

Why did I have to read this post? I am so upset with myself for opening this thread up and seeing this post. No, I am not upset with you for reporting what you heard. I am upset with Mueller for saying it. What the hell does he mean that our chunk of cap would go to Briggs and we don't want that. What is, then, do we want? Oh yeah, over-the-hill players like Aaron Glenn who we entertained yesterday. I mean, that's the dumbest statement ever. The Saints have $35 million. Sure, we must re-sign Colston, Evans and Smith. But we have plenty of money to have signed at least one and still have re-signed those guys. I mean, we pretend as if the cap does not go up every year. It used to be that you had to be careful signing guys or you could end up in cap hell. That reality has changed and the only team that perennially faces cap hell is the Redskins because of how they structured deals in the past with all those signing bonuses.

Let's look at it this way. Let's say the Saints would have offered Briggs a 7 year deal worth $49 million with $17.5 million guaranteed. The guaranteed money would prorate over the life of the deal at $2.5 million per year. Now, let's say this yearly base salaries were as follow:

Year 1: 3, 000, 000 So in year 1, he only counts $5.5 million against our cap and we have $35 million available

Year 2: 2, 250, 000

Year 3: 2, 750, 000

Year 4: 3, 500, 000

Year 5: 4, 500, 000

Year 6: 5, 500, 000

Year 7: 27, 500, 000

The Saints could have easily set up a deal like this where his cap figures would be $5.5, $4. 75, $5.25, $6.0, $7.0, and $8.0 million in the first six years of the deal. So the deal would either be a five or six year deal. After 5 years, Briggs is 32. So we could make a decision on him for the final two years. If we would have cut him after 5 seasons, he would immediately count $5 million against the cap for that sixth season. But we would have cap savings that year of $3.0 million since his base salary would not be included once he is cut; only the prorated bonus would become accelerated against the cap. Given that the cap is steadily increasing, I am led to believe that in six years, $8 million against the cap won't be significant. So, the notion that he would have commanded a huge chunk of our cap is RIDICULOUS. If further buttresses my belief that the Saints dropped the ball on this one.

Ugh!

+2 Well stated.

 

[St. Geezy]

Why did I have to read this post? I am so upset with myself for opening this thread up and seeing this post. No, I am not upset with you for reporting what you heard. I am upset with Mueller for saying it. What the hell does he mean that our chunk of cap would go to Briggs and we don't want that. What is, then, do we want? Oh yeah, over-the-hill players like Aaron Glenn who we entertained yesterday. I mean, that's the dumbest statement ever. The Saints have $35 million. Sure, we must re-sign Colston, Evans and Smith. But we have plenty of money to have signed at least one and still have re-signed those guys. I mean, we pretend as if the cap does not go up every year. It used to be that you had to be careful signing guys or you could end up in cap hell. That reality has changed and the only team that perennially faces cap hell is the Redskins because of how they structured deals in the past with all those signing bonuses.

Let's look at it this way. Let's say the Saints would have offered Briggs a 7 year deal worth $49 million with $17.5 million guaranteed. The guaranteed money would prorate over the life of the deal at $2.5 million per year. Now, let's say this yearly base salaries were as follow:

Year 1: 3, 000, 000 So in year 1, he only counts $5.5 million against our cap and we have $35 million available

Year 2: 2, 250, 000

Year 3: 2, 750, 000

Year 4: 3, 500, 000

Year 5: 4, 500, 000

Year 6: 5, 500, 000

Year 7: 27, 500, 000

The Saints could have easily set up a deal like this where his cap figures would be $5.5, $4. 75, $5.25, $6.0, $7.0, and $8.0 million in the first six years of the deal. So the deal would either be a five or six year deal. After 5 years, Briggs is 32. So we could make a decision on him for the final two years. If we would have cut him after 5 seasons, he would immediately count $5 million against the cap for that sixth season. But we would have cap savings that year of $3.0 million since his base salary would not be included once he is cut; only the prorated bonus would become accelerated against the cap. Given that the cap is steadily increasing, I am led to believe that in six years, $8 million against the cap won't be significant. So, the notion that he would have commanded a huge chunk of our cap is RIDICULOUS. If further buttresses my belief that the Saints dropped the ball on this one.

Ugh!

This is all fine and dandy but you also need to factor in the team's cash flow and "real money." Maybe they are operating out of a different cap.

You also have to factor in player's contracts increasing over the next 2-3 seasons and how it will effect future caps. That's the only logical explanation I could gather from his comment which still to me is unacceptable.

 

[StChadwick]

I don't think he could comment about that even if he wanted to...It would be tampering. Even if a team is engaged in discussions about a player, they can't go on record commenting about such player to the media.

I think thats only for FA before it begins, not for trades. FO to FO discussions can occur anytime.

 

[St. Geezy]

I think thats only for FA before it begins, not for trades. FO to FO discussions can occur anytime.

Yes FO to FO discussions can occur. I am talking about openly talking to the media about another player who is under contract with another team is not permissible. Its tampering.

 

[saintned]

What a bunch of whinny namby pambys! I just drove 9 hours in a car with my wife on her period and came home this thread full of estrogen laiden complaints. Grow a set people, and chill out! I wanted Lance briggs as well, but am happy we ended up with Vilma. I know having both on the team would have been killer, but there are probably other reasons we don't know about as to why we didn't break the bank open yet.