"In Good Faith???"

[NinerSickness]

Drew Brees said Tuesday that he's confident he'll agree to a deal with the New Orleans Saints, but the players' union reportedly has quietly asked the NFL to investigate if the team is negotiating with its franchise player in good faith.

The NFL Players Association recently sent a letter to NFL commissioner Roger Goodell asking the league to check into the Saints' negotiations with Brees, CBSSports.com reported, citing unnamed sources. A source has confirmed to ESPN senior NFL analyst Chris Mortensen that the letter was sent to Goodell.

According to the CBSSports.com report, some members of the NFLPA believe the Saints might be punishing Brees for the vocal role he took during last year's lockout. Brees also was one of the 10 named plaintiffs on the antitrust suit filed against the league during the work stoppage.

Brees did not ask the NFLPA to contact the league, according to the report. Brees and the Saints have until July 16 to agree to a long-term contract or he must play under his one-year franchise tender in 2012, worth $16.371 million. If the league doesn't start an investigation before the July 16 deadline, the NFLPA will file a complaint with the National Labor Relations Board, CBSSports.com reported.

CBSSports.com reported that the NFLPA specifically asked the NFL in the letter to investigate whether the Saints had violated Article 49, Section 1 of the collective bargaining agreement, which states: "No Discrimination: There shall be no discrimination in any form against any player by the NFL, the Management Council, any Club or by the NFLPA because of race, religion, national origin, sexual orientation, or activity or lack of activity on behalf of the NFLPA."

During an interview Tuesday on ESPN Radio's "Mike & Mike in the Morning," Brees said he is "very confident" that he will reach an agreement with the Saints before July 16.

"I've always said, you would think this process should be a lot simpler than it is," Brees said. "It just always seems to be complicated. But I'm still very confident that we'll get a long-term deal done, and hopefully that will happen sooner than later."

Loomis submitted a revised proposal to Brees' representatives earlier this month, but the renewed talks did not create a significant breakthrough in the deadlock, sources told ESPN's Ed Werder and Mortensen.

The protracted contract battle has been further complicated by a grievance hearing that took place Wednesday morning with arbitrator Stephen Burbank to determine the designation of Brees' franchise tag.

The NFLPA has asked Burbank to determine whether Brees has been hit with the franchise tag for a first or second time, because the language in the collective bargaining agreement is vague.

Burbank is expected to render a decision within a week.

Brees' first team, the San Diego Chargers, placed the tag on the six-time Pro Bowler in 2005 after his rookie contract expired. The applicable language in the CBA says "any club that designates a player for the third time ... " The union's position is the CBA intended for a player to be franchised no more than three times, regardless of which team places the tag.

The value of Brees' $16.371 million tag for 2012 won't change regardless of Burbank's ruling. But the effect on a would-be tag in 2013 would be significantly impacted because the league's policy stipulates a second franchise tag is a 120 percent bump in salary from the first tag and the third time is 144 percent.

According to ESPN.com senior NFL writer John Clayton, a 144 percent bump would put Brees' cap number for 2013 at $23,574,240, though another exclusive tag could raise the number a little higher. That would put his two-year earnings at $39,945,240, or a little less than $20 million per year.

Information from ESPN senior NFL analyst Chris Mortensen, ESPN NFL reporter Ed Werder and The Associated Press was used in this report.

 

[Bemular]

That's interesting

 

[NinerSickness]

I just don't even know what to say about them any more. This is more nonsense from the nonsense factory that is the NFLPA.

 

[MHSL82]

The value of Brees' $16.371 million tag for 2012 won't change regardless of Burbank's ruling. But the effect on a would-be tag in 2013 would be significantly impacted because the league's policy stipulates a second franchise tag is a 120 percent bump in salary from the first tag and the third time is 144 percent.

It took me half a minute to figure out why the ruling wouldn't affect this year's money. I initially thought, "they're claiming this is the second time, why isn't it higher if the ruling finds that it is the second time?"

But then I realized that the CBA likely says "120% or the average of the top 5 (or 10?) at the position whichever is higher." I suspect 16.371 is more than 120% of what Brees got last time but next time the percentage is higher (unless Smith gets his 170 Million raise ).

 

[Bemular]

I just don't even know what to say about them any more. This is more nonsense from the nonsense factory that is the NFLPA.

So does your disdain for the NFLPA emit from the belief they are hindering the invisible hand?

 

[NinerSickness]

So does your disdain for the NFLPA emit from the belief they are hindering the invisible hand?

Wow. You have to go all Adam Smith on me when I simply point out how immature and whiney the NFLPA is.

Let's not turn this into a Marxism (you) VS free market (me) subject. I don't have any problem with private sector unions. I actually tried to start one a long time ago (unsuccessfully). My disdain for them is because they are acting like children...

Brees is a free friggn' agent! The team doesn't have to give him a single penny outside of what he's making under the franchise tag. Statements like the following are simply moronic:

the NFLPA believe the Saints might be punishing Brees for the vocal role he took during last year's lockout.

Punishing??? They're paying him like 16 million dollars, and that's a "punishment?" Sign me up for some punishment! They have no power to punish him financially unless Brees breaches his contract (and he hasn't). On the flip side, they have no obligation to sign him to a long term deal. It's like a wedding; if one party doens't agree then the wedding is off. It doesn't matter WHY either party doesn't want to make that covenant; they simply don't agree. That's how negotiations work. Once you sign on the dotted line you have to do what it says, so don't sign anything you don't want to fulfill.

The NFLPA acts like Brees is entitled to a contract. What a bunch of babies! Brees is entitled to whatever he scratches & claws his way into his millionaire hands (legally) and not a penny more.

 

[Bemular]

Wow. You have to go all Adam Smith on me when I simply point out how immature and whiney the NFLPA is.

Let's not turn this into a Marxism (you) VS free market (me) subject. I don't have any problem with private sector unions. I actually tried to start one a long time ago (unsuccessfully). My disdain for them is because they are acting like children...

Brees is a free friggn' agent! The team doesn't have to give him a single penny outside of what he's making under the franchise tag. Statements like the following are simply moronic:

the NFLPA believe the Saints might be punishing Brees for the vocal role he took during last year's lockout.

Punishing??? They're paying him like 16 million dollars, and that's a "punishment?" Sign me up for some punishment! They have no power to punish him financially unless Brees breaches his contract (and he hasn't). On the flip side, they have no obligation to sign him to a long term deal. It's like a wedding; if one party doens't agree then the wedding is off. It doesn't matter WHY either party doesn't want to make that covenant; they simply don't agree. That's how negotiations work. Once you sign on the dotted line you have to do what it says, so don't sign anything you don't want to do.

Wow, slow your roll there Sickness, I honestly wasn't going all anything on you...I was just asking a question for the sake of gaining perspective - that's all. As for me, I can see both sides.

 

[NinerSickness]

Wow, slow your roll there Sickness, I honestly wasn't going all anything on you...I was just asking a question for the sake of gaining perspective - that's all. As for me, I can see both sides.

Sorry. Consider my roll slowed. I guess I thought you were implying a lot more than you were.

 

[Bemular]

Sorry. Consider my roll slowed. I guess I thought you were implying a lot more than you were.

No worries at all - I thought there were a few ways you might have gone with your perspective and was just curious.

 

[MHSL82]

Wow. You have to go all Adam Smith on me when I simply point out how immature and whiney the NFLPA is.

Let's not turn this into a Marxism (you) VS free market (me) subject. I don't have any problem with private sector unions. I actually tried to start one a long time ago (unsuccessfully). My disdain for them is because they are acting like children...

Brees is a free friggn' agent! The team doesn't have to give him a single penny outside of what he's making under the franchise tag. Statements like the following are simply moronic:

the NFLPA believe the Saints might be punishing Brees for the vocal role he took during last year's lockout.

Punishing??? They're paying him like 16 million dollars, and that's a "punishment?" Sign me up for some punishment! They have no power to punish him financially unless Brees breaches his contract (and he hasn't). On the flip side, they have no obligation to sign him to a long term deal. It's like a wedding; if one party doens't agree then the wedding is off. It doesn't matter WHY either party doesn't want to make that covenant; they simply don't agree. That's how negotiations work. Once you sign on the dotted line you have to do what it says, so don't sign anything you don't want to fulfill.

The NFLPA acts like Brees is entitled to a contract. What a bunch of babies! Brees is entitled to whatever he scratches & claws his way into his millionaire hands (legally) and not a penny more.

I think punishing is too strong of a word, but from the perspective of what he could and what he thinks he should be paid, it could be steep. He's asking for 23 M a year, the franchise tag is 16. He's asking for 5-6 years, the franchise tag is one year, possibly two (if San Diego's counts). Obviously, what they are offering him is higher than 16 but lower than 23. Let's split the baby: 19. They obviously are offering more than 2 years, mainly because they have the power to cut him later. Let's say it's 4-5 years.

Under those assumptions, they are offering him 19/23 of what he thinks he's worth (and probably could get elsewhere).82%. If that's what the Saint's think he's worth, there's just a diagreement, not punishment. But if what the NFLPA says is true (which I don't believe), that;s perhaps something to be mad at, considering it's now 16/23 of what he could get elsewhere (70%) and has no commitment beyond this year. They are treating him like Alex Smith, cuttable after one year - for the record setting Super Bowl winning QB (albeit a few year's removed).

So, no, I don't see 16 million as punishment and I don't think what the NFLPA says is true. But if it were, that would be a significant gripe. Mind you, this is not Brees complaining. Rather, it's the NFLPA (though Brees stands to benefit by the pressure). He's only complaining by not signing lower, shorter offers or the franchise until last minute.

I think the franchise tag should have a different effect. The player can be franchised, thus not able to sign until July 16. But after that, it should be optional and until then the franchise cap counts against the cap. If he signs, then the surplus over the cap has no effect.

 

[MHSL82]

I had to run earlier so I didn't get to explain why I thought the franchise should have that different effect explained above. My basis is not because it's unfair, because it isn't unfair. They signed the CBA. But I think that is a crazy lopsided thing for the owners despite the fact that these franchise tags are pretty high.,Perhaps the punishment the NFLPA is wrongly claiming is that the players have to sign it or not play; they have no choice. BUT the NFLPA signed off on this for the CBA so they get no complaints, and why other players would care about what Brees got, I don't know unless they think they can base his contract for theirs (use as leverage - but who besides Brady and Rodgers could do that that does not already have a deal?)

 

[NinerSickness]

People like to use the "split the baby" idea, but I think it's a terrible thing to assume doing so would be wise. Usually that idea benefits the one on the higher end of the negotiating table (Brees in this case). However, this time I think that would be less than Brees is worth. 19 + 23 = 42. 42 / 2 = 21. I think Brees is worth 22 per year or more.

However, that doesn't mean I think the Saints are wrong for playing hardball. It's their choice; Brees can stick it out and have even more leverage next offseason if he plays up to his usual, elite level.

Another thing is they could be arguing over guarenteed money.

 

[MHSL82]

People like to use the "split the baby" idea, but I think it's a terrible thing to assume doing so would be wise. Usually that idea benefits the one on the higher end of the negotiating table (Brees in this case). However, this time I think that would be less than Brees is worth. 19 + 23 = 42. 42 / 2 = 21. I think Brees is worth 22 per year or more.

However, that doesn't mean I think the Saints are wrong for playing hardball. It's their choice; Brees can stick it out and have even more leverage next offseason if he plays up to his usual, elite level.

Another thing is they could be arguing over guarenteed money.

Fuck! Oops, pardon my Swedish. How did I get 19? Man, that is embarrassing. Ugh. :smh:

Edit: I figured it out. I took 16 + 23 = 39 divided by two, rounded down.

Edit 2: Even though you are right with the "split the baby" explanation, I think you took my 19 split and again averaged it with 23. But you're right, 19 is at least 3 million short of what Brees is worth. I just saw your 19 + 23 = 42 equation and assumed I messed up on that equation.

P.S. I "split the baby" for illustration purposes because I did not know what the Saints were offering. It was more for the sake of argument, not what I thought the negotiators should do.

 

[Kinzu]

I agree with Sickness. They don't owe Brees anything. "negotiating with its franchise player in good faith." are you kidding me? I think the NFLPA is just trolling us at this point. They are butt hurt over signing that collective bargaining agreement last year. The Saints have every right to put the franchise tag on Brees and refuse to give in to his demands. That is what you negotiated to leave in the agreement last year.

 

[deep9er]

I agree with Sickness. They don't owe Brees anything. "negotiating with its franchise player in good faith." are you kidding me? I think the NFLPA is just trolling us at this point. They are butt hurt over signing that collective bargaining agreement last year. The Saints have every right to put the franchise tag on Brees and refuse to give in to his demands. That is what you negotiated to leave in the agreement last year.

yep, thats how i see it too.

 

[spacedoodoopistol]

I like the whole "how can he complain about X millions?!??!" when the flip side is that the team will net many 10s of millions this year......the extra few mil isn't essential to them either. Would have been interested to see the different reactions if the word "union" wasn't mentioned.

 

[mem49er]

I like the whole "how can he complain about X millions?!??!" when the flip side is that the team will net many 10s of millions this year......the extra few mil isn't essential to them either. Would have been interested to see the different reactions if the word "union" wasn't mentioned.

I would think that the team is not negotiating due to profits/losses but due to the salary cap and what portion they want to commit to him. No?

 

[Bemular]

I would think that the team is not negotiating due to profits/losses but due to the salary cap and what portion they want to commit to him. No?

If the NFL and the Saints in particular were struggling financially then I could see P&L influencing the negotiations otherwise I would think the biggest factors are size and/or length or contract, salary cap, or maybe management believes the Saints are going to have a down year and they just don't want to cut him a big check until the organization gets out of the penalty box. - Those are just my thoughts

 

[NinerSickness]

I like the whole "how can he complain about X millions?!??!" when the flip side is that the team will net many 10s of millions this year......the extra few mil isn't essential to them either. Would have been interested to see the different reactions if the word "union" wasn't mentioned.

Very true. That's why I say let 'em hash it out, and if Brees gets his deal - fine. If not - earn an even better contract next offseason or take your 140% pay raise (or is it 120%?). But if either side starts whining about the process (or if another party like the NFLPA does) then I say take one from J.T.