02-28-2017, 01:14 PM
(02-28-2017, 01:08 PM)oncemoreuntothejimbreech Wrote: According to Over the Cap, it was slightly more, but let's go with the $5 million figure. That $5 million is the difference between re-signing Marvin Jones vs. LaFell. Or signing a LBer better than Dansby. But, every year we are told we can't use that $5 million to re-sign our Marvin Joneses because we have to re-sign our Whitworths, Zeitlers, and or Kirkpatricks next. Well, it's next year. And what do they tell us? We can't re-sign Whitworth, Zeitler, and Kirkpatrick because next year we have to re-sign Eifert and Burfict.
Meanwhile, the team signs another FA on his last leg like Dansby. Plus they retain underperforming veterans like Maualuga and Michael Johnson. Why? Because IOT get the home town discount when players re-sign with the team, they almost always allow the player to play out the life of the contract even when they need to be replaced in favor of an upgrade ala Maualuga and Johnson. Johnson's a one year wonder and Maualuga is 2 down zero year wonder.
It's not just the math, but the BS explanation combined with the how they spend it x the amount of years they have done it.
We offered Marvin the same deal he took in DET, so I am not sure what else you wanted us to do. It's tough to know how much you will need in contract negotiations because structure has a lot to do with it and you have to find a structure that works for everyone.
Once again, I don't disagree with the thought we don't spend money the best at times, however we do spend it which is the argument that has been presented in this thread.
If Hobson did this same article last year and at the end said "that leaves us $5 Million to play with in FA" would everyone have had a different view? I'd guess no. They would still argue his math was misleading and so on.
