Quote:
Originally Posted by barrett
You aren't being dictated to if you have exclusive rights. You retain all the power and can do whatever you feel like at any point. It is just like regular Free Agency but with a safety net. Other teams make offers, only unlike URFA, we don't have to beat their offers, we just CHOOSE (notice we are not dictated to) whether or not we want to match.
By the way you mention after signing the higher tender we have the right to negotiate with him for a year on an extension. What do you think the extension would look like on a guy already making 1.5 million per year? On a young player you are trying to extend there will unquestionably be a raise involved.
So now you have jacked up the initial salary, payed him more in year one for the right to pay him even more in year 2 and 3 (or let him walk). Genius.
So please explain to me how tendering him high results in paying him less or even the same amount of money over a 3 year deal as what we got.
|
You're changing the discussion. All along, my complaint was not with the outcome. I agreed that the ultimate outcome was fine (I suspect if they had tendered him for a 2nd and worked out an extension, it would have been very close to this deal). However, there was no guarantee of this. What if Denver decided DA was the next Wes Welker and offered him 3 years, $9 million? What if they put in a $2 million bonus if he plays 6 games in Texas? By matching, the Texans clearly indicated he was a player they wanted to keep, but they very easily could have lost him.
Also, your definition of choice; i.e., choosing whether or not to match another team's offer, basically takes all practical meaning out of it. Assuming that most free agents go to the highest bidder (I think that, generally speaking, this is a safe assumption), then we even have control over every UFA. All we have to do is "choose" to offer more than the next team. By this logic, I can't conceive of any scenario whereby you couldn't assert the Texans controlled the player. Heck, the Texans controlled Albert Haynesworth by choosing not to offer $120 million. But such claims are pointless.
Finally, I notice you didn't address OD. Did you agree with the Texans tendering him for a 1st and a 3rd? If so, I'm curious why you would be in favor of this considering your arguments above. Why not just tender him for a 4th? By your logic, there is no downside in this. Would you advocate the lowest tender possible for all RFAs since we have the choice to match?