Quote:
Originally Posted by Joshua
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?
|
What if, What if, What if?
Well, I guess it's good that our GM had a good feel for what his players were valued at and what other teams would offer. You can say he got lucky, but sometimes I'd rather be lucky than good. Bottom line is we got him for 3 years at 4.5. If we give him 1.5 for this year his extension will logically include a raise (like any extension for any young player), and we pay more. So no matter what you think, Rick Smith's way of doing things worked. Save your arm-chair GMing for an argument where you actually disagree with the outcome.
As for OD, you treat him differently because he is going to get paid more than the high tender. DA wasn't worth more than 1.5 to any other team, so there is no reason to start your offer at 1.5. But with Daniels he will get far more than that from someone when he does sign a longer deal. So it is fine to give him the higher tender since you are not jumping up his value by doing so.
Bottom line is I think giving DA a salary of 1.5 million through the tender inflates his value in your subsequent contract negotiations. Not to mention you can afford to lose DA if some team goes nuts.
OD will be paid far more so the 1.5 does not affect future negotiations, and you can't afford to lose him, so you tender him high. Seems like they were right on both counts and both situations worked out perfect for them.