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

[St. Geezy]

Tampering refers to a team negotiating for the services of an athlete or coach contracted to another team without that team's permission. They have the team's permission because its them they are talking to. What does the media have to do with it?

Tampering has a very broad definition my friend...Trust me on this. You can't go out and discuss a trade of a player under contract with another team through the media. Even in the case of Vilma, who was given permission to seek a trade, you still can not go on record commenting about them.

 

[bdog]

Another reason the Saints may be hoarding their cap money could be the cap hit they will take if they decide to cut Deuce. I hope this doesn't happen, but could be a factor in their decision making.

 

[basilisk]

Tampering has a very broad definition my friend...Trust me on this. You can't go out and discuss a trade of a player under contract with another team through the media. Even in the case of Vilma, who was given permission to seek a trade, you still can not go on record commenting about them.

so prior to vilma accepting our terms neither he nor the jets nor the saints could have said to the media "there's an offer on the table and it's under consideration"? that isn't true... aamof, they could have said "the saints have offered a conditional 4th round pick and it's being considered"

 

[Pbody]

I just ran outside and as i thought the sky was still not falling.

 

[meily]

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.

This is the way I see it, and have been seeing it....

We have Colston, Evans and Smith who's contracts are ending next year, i'm assuming that they will re-up this offseason or sometime during the year, then you have to take into consideration that Vilma is working off the last year of his contract and could be in for a big payday, so people wanted us to get Briggs forgetting that we have 4 potential big contracts coming our way...not to mention a top 10 pick...I want to win badly to, but lets not forget we have other needs besides getting big names here...we gotta take care of our own, people want change for the sake of change and i'm sorry to tell guys, but we cant have pro bowl players at every position...we might have to get away with Shanle for one more year simply because we need that cap space to keep some core players...the weakside linebacker project probably wont take place till next offseason, or possibly in this years draft...the FO probably wants to keep a certain amount of cap money available and by getting Briggs, resigning Evans, Colston and Smith would have us looking like the Redskins....I think if we had gotten Briggs, one of those other three guys would have to walk (probably Smith) because there wouldnt be enough money specially with Vilma on the last year of his deal.

 

[St. Geezy]

so prior to vilma accepting our terms neither he nor the jets nor the saints could have said to the media "there's an offer on the table and it's under consideration"? that isn't true... aamof, they could have said "the saints have offered a conditional 4th round pick and it's being considered"

The Jets could have, the Saints could not have and didn't. Shockey is the property of the Giants. The Saints can not opinionate on him or discuss anything to do with him publicly.

I remember the exact scenario two seasons ago with Donnie Edwards. Loomis specifically said that he is not allowed to comment on a player that is under contract with another team. And this was a player who was actively being shopped.

 

[AARPSaint]

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.

The first paragraph of your post is spot on. Now, we do have to wait a few years to evaluate last year's draft appropriately--but it's not looking good at present. The overestimation of 2006's team led to the problem with the subsequent draft and free agency.

It appears that they are counting on the draft to shore up the defense further, and it needs to start with improvement in the pass rush. Meanwhile, the corenerback situation is awful. I actually believe that Randall Gay would help. Aaron Glenn just signed up for a three-day pass here at the home, so the Saints should pass on him IMHO. Usama Young needs to step it up big time next year because McKenzie is unlikely to be ready. The best case scenario right now is for the Saints to draft a STARTING DT (not a player who is inactive for 16 weeks) and somehow get a starting CB.

 

[gregh]

Actually, the list of players we have to re-sign by next year also includes Jon Vilma. That's 4 players who are arguably as good, if not outright better, than all but 1, maybe 2, on the open market this off-season. That's 4 players over the next 2 seasons who will legitimately command top dollar to retain their services. I think that's more prevalent in the minds of our front office than simply being frugal. Furthermore, I wonder if Briggs ever really intended to leave Chicago, or if he was simply determining his market value. If that was the impression on the minds of GMs around the league, it would explain the seemingly limited interest in him. Even if we had been able to convince him to leave an ideal situation for him with the Bears, how much might it have cost us? With all the young talent that we have to consider extending, I'm not sure it would have been feasible to over-extend for a player like Briggs or Samuel.

if all the other people would stop crying and actually think that the front office knows what they are doing. i like your thinking, good post. if they would do what everyone wants them to do. we would have signed all these guys this year and had to let go colston and smith next year and they would be the ones fussing about why we spent all the money last year.....

 

[St. Geezy]

if all the other people would stop crying and actually think that the front office knows what they are doing.

I'm sorry...Would you tell me exactly how many Lombardi Trophies has this team won that makes them above criticism?:dunno:

 

[dtc]

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.

+1 Maybe some guys should get Viagra scrips and split them up into little tiny pieces and eat a bit each day. And realize there wasn't a whole lot out there in FA. There are trades coming adn there will be the draft. You can't just go out and take whoever you want like Madden.

 

[rickyjones]

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!

What in the world makes you think that Briggs would have signed that contract? (Remember his agent is Drew Rosenhous) Even proposing that contract would have been an insult. He signed for 6 years and 36 million and the contract that you proposed would have been worth less than 30 million because he WITHOUT A DOUBT WOULD HAVE BEEN CUT BEFORE BEING PAID THAT YEAR 7 SALARY.

Many contracts are full of window dressing-like Nate Clements 8 year 80 million $$$ deal last year. It was really a 5 or 6 year deal for around 54 million. The final years of those deal are heavily backloaded and will never be seen.

The Saints have had one of the best cap men in the business recently-Russ Ball. He will be missed. However, his Drew Brees contract was genius in my opinion. He basically layered it so that if Drew did not come back from shoulder surgery as planned, he could be cut with very little salary cap problems. Year 2 (last year) he had a 12 million dollar roster bonus which now that it has been paid lowers Drew's cap number to about 6 million for the next 4 years.

So what you proposed was probably less than what Briggs will recieve. I hope you don't apply for Russ Ball's open position. We would never sign another free agent if we proposed contracts like that.

 

[Dark Knight II]

The signing bonus is the only money guaranteed in the NFL and structured contracts are made to protect the NFL owners . Briggs would never see year 7 of that contract .

 

[dchalona]

Actually, the list of players we have to re-sign by next year also includes Jon Vilma. That's 4 players who are arguably as good, if not outright better, than all but 1, maybe 2, on the open market this off-season. That's 4 players over the next 2 seasons who will legitimately command top dollar to retain their services. I think that's more prevalent in the minds of our front office than simply being frugal. Furthermore, I wonder if Briggs ever really intended to leave Chicago, or if he was simply determining his market value. If that was the impression on the minds of GMs around the league, it would explain the seemingly limited interest in him. Even if we had been able to convince him to leave an ideal situation for him with the Bears, how much might it have cost us? With all the young talent that we have to consider extending, I'm not sure it would have been feasible to over-extend for a player like Briggs or Samuel.

+1, it is more than one player in the now. Liife is not a sill shot.

 

[REALCHRISM]

What in the world makes you think that Briggs would have signed that contract? (Remember his agent is Drew Rosenhous) Even proposing that contract would have been an insult. He signed for 6 years and 36 million and the contract that you proposed would have been worth less than 30 million because he WITHOUT A DOUBT WOULD HAVE BEEN CUT BEFORE BEING PAID THAT YEAR 7 SALARY.

Many contracts are full of window dressing-like Nate Clements 8 year 80 million $$$ deal last year. It was really a 5 or 6 year deal for around 54 million. The final years of those deal are heavily backloaded and will never be seen.

The Saints have had one of the best cap men in the business recently-Russ Ball. He will be missed. However, his Drew Brees contract was genius in my opinion. He basically layered it so that if Drew did not come back from shoulder surgery as planned, he could be cut with very little salary cap problems. Year 2 (last year) he had a 12 million dollar roster bonus which now that it has been paid lowers Drew's cap number to about 6 million for the next 4 years.

So what you proposed was probably less than what Briggs will recieve. I hope you don't apply for Russ Ball's open position. We would never sign another free agent if we proposed contracts like that.

I respect your opinion on the matter but your contention that my proposed deal would be an insult to Briggs and less money than he what he is getting from Chicago is FAR off the mark. I read that the deal that Chicago proposes is worth $28 million over the first four years, $12 million of which is the guaranteed money that he is receiving. That means that the base salary for the first four years of his deal is worth $16 million. The final two years of his deal would be worth $20 million but he won't see that money. It is basically contractual aesthetics (i.e. window-dressing) on the part of the Bears. His deal with the Bears is a four year deal.

By contrast, in the first four years of my deal, he would have gotten $29 million, $1 million MORE than he is getting with the Bears. Why? Because he's getting more guaranteed money in the deal I suggested. But here's the kicker. While the Bears' deal is only four years, the deal I proposed would have been a 5 or 6 year deal. I say 5 or 6 year because the team would have had the discretion of releasing Briggs if his performance had declined after year 5. Keep in mind, in 6 year he will be 33. Now, in year 6 of the deal I offered, he still would have a manageable cap figure but we would have the option of unloading him and saving money on the cap if we so chose. But let's say he plays out the 6 years. He would end up making $39 million total, which is $11 million MORE than what he will see in the Bears deal. By the way, there's no need to remind me that he wouldn't see year 7 of the deal I suggested. I already noted that in my post. It is for contractual aesthetics and allows us to spread out his bonus longer. But under my deal, Briggs would have a firm 6-year deal as opposed to the 4-year deal he has with the Bears.

But he's the really big kicker. My deal is also MORE CAP FRIENDLY. Under the Bears deal, his base salaries for the first four years is $16 million. His bonus is $12 million, which prorated over the life of the deal is $2.0 million per season. Under my deal, his base salaries for the first four seasons is only $11.5 million. His guaranteed money of $17.5 million prorated over the life of the deal is $2.5 million. That means that for the exception year 1 (since I used that year to offer a bigger payout given that we are $35 million under the cap), he has a LOWER cap figure under my deal than under the Bears' deal. Here is an example of what his contract might look like with the Bears in comparison to his cap figure under my deal:

Year 1: Base Salary: $3.0 million Cap Figure: $5 million Cap (under my deal): $5.5 million

Year 2: Base Salary: $3.5 million Cap Figure: $5.5 million Cap (under my deal): $4.75 million

Year 3: Base Salary: $4.5 million Cap Figure: $6.5 million Cap (under my deal): $5.25 million

Year 4: Base Salary: $5 million Cap Figure: $7 million Cap (under my deal): $6 million

So it is clear that not only does my deal pay out more, but it is also a more cap friendly deal for the team. You could logically argue that I am proposing what the yearly breakdown in base salary might be for the Bears, which skews things in favor of my deal. That could be true, but it is not because it would be difficult for the Bears to have lower base salaries the first two or three years and then have this big balloon payment. That would essentially make the deal possibly even shorter than a 4 year deal. For instance, let's say that his base salaries in the first three seasons were only $1.5 million, $2 million, and $2.5 million (giving him, on the surface, a more cap friendly deal in Chicago over the first three seasons than my deal offers). That would mean in year four, his base salary would have to jump to $10 million, which means he would count $12 million against the cap. The Bears would have to likely release him. If they did with three years remaining on his deal, his bonus would accelerate against their cap to the tune of $6 million. So while they would save $6 million in year 4 (down from the $12 million), they would be on the hook for $6 million and out of player who would only be 30 at the time. So, the example I gave above is probably close to the way in which the Bears would have to structure his deal in order to offer a payout of $28 million over the first four seasons.

By the way, I DO NOT WANT Russ Ball's old job. I make way more money than he does. However, let me say this. First, the point of my post was more for conjection and to contend with the argument made by Rick Mueller. Nothing more, nothing less. It does not matter what deal I proposed because it's not like I work for the Saints and, besides that, Briggs has already re-signed. I wanted to grapple with Mueller's contention that Briggs would cost a huge chunk of money. So in that regard, I find your response somewhat amusing (not in a funny sort of way but in the way of you really trying to delineate between the deal that I made and the one Chicago made). Secondly, and somewhat to my last statement, what makes that funny is the fact that you OBVIOUSLY did not comprehend my deal since you criticized it so harshly for allegedly not doing something, it, in fact, does. My deal, no matter how MOOT this point should be, pays more than the Bears' deal. So it is insulting for you to say that Briggs would be insulted by my deal since players want more guaranteed money. Even more, it is insulting to hear you say that we would never be able to attract players if I was negotiating deals when it is you that misunderstood the terms of my deal (that I will say, again and again, does not even count because it's conjecture for the purpose of responding to Mueller).

In the final analysis, I think you would have been better served using Saintaholic's argument that we might not have the cash-flow (ie. real money) in hand to give Briggs that sort of deal, which is a totally different argument that even the one presented by Mueller. Mueller's rationale for not signing Briggs is based on what it would cost under the cap. Saintaholic's argument is based on us not having the revenue in place to give him the sort of money that we have under the cap, and, at the same time, have resources to do the same for other players like Smith, Colston, and Evans. That's a fair argument because New Orleans is a small market team that has counted on money from the state in order to sustain itself.

 

[whodatman81]

+1 Maybe some guys should get Viagra scrips and split them up into little tiny pieces and eat a bit each day. And realize there wasn't a whole lot out there in FA. There are trades coming adn there will be the draft. You can't just go out and take whoever you want like Madden.

The Browns are just going out and taking who they want so yes you can. This team is only a few star players away and to see how they are handling this it is obvious they are content with the scrubs we have and therefore the actual talented players we have are all gonna go to waste. How many years do you think Drew Brees will continue to play at a high level? The window of opportunity is small and if we don't add some players to help us then that window of opportunity will close and then what? Wait another 20 years or so before we have a QB who can win a Super Bowl? I understand some of you may be content with mediocrity but I would like to see a Super Bowl winning Saints team in my lifetime.