San Diego Chargers' Management Are Scumbags

[cthomer5000]

If Brees hadn't fucked up his shoulder playing in a completely meaningless Week 17 game while a 2nd year, 1st round pick sat on the bench, there is no doubt he would have been franchised again. There was no reason for Brees to even be playing in that game, and now San Diego has (IMHO) pulled a real dirtbag move by apparently opting to let Brees walk.

-------------------

http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=2334609

Updated: Feb. 18, 2006, 10:00 AM ET
Options narrow as Chargers rule out tagging Brees


<!-- end pagetitle --> <!-- begin bylinebox --> By John Clayton
ESPN.com

<!-- begin presby2 --><!-- end presby2 -->
<!-- end bylinebox -->
<!-- begin text11 div --><!-- begin leftcol --> <!-- template inline --> The Chargers have all but ruled out the possibility of placing the franchise or transition tag on quarterback Drew Brees (http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/players/profile?statsId=5479), leaving them only two options: signing him to a new contract or letting him hit the free-agent market.

<table align="right" border="0" cellspacing="0"> <tbody><tr><td width="2">
</td><td width="65">http://espn.starwave.com/i/nfl/profiles/players/statsid/s5479.jpg</td></tr><tr><td width="2">
</td><td width="65"><center>Brees</center></td></tr></tbody> </table> For a month, the Chargers had been considering the transition designation for Brees following his shoulder surgery because it gave them the flexibility of keeping his rights but not offering him a guaranteed contract. But an interpretation from the NFL Management Council late this week scared them out of that concept.

Because Brees had the franchise tag in 2005 and his $8.078 million salary was guaranteed, the league interpreted two things. First, the tender offer for Brees' transition tag would have to be at 120 percent of his 2005 salary instead of the 2006 quarterback transition number of $8.327 million. That means Brees would have to be offered $9.7 million by the Chargers. Second, there can be a case made that because his principle terms of the 2005 franchise tag was guaranteed, Brees' 2006 transition tag could also be considered a guaranteed offer.

The Chargers could ask for a hearing to determine whether that was the case or not, but instead have ruled out giving him the franchise or transition tag.

In the meantime, negotiations between Brees and the Chargers have continued all week. General manager A.J. Smith said he wanted to keep all three of his quarterbacks -- Brees, Philip Rivers (http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/players/profile?statsId=6763) and A.J. Feeley (http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/players/profile?statsId=5603). Earlier this week, the Chargers worked out a two-year, $2 million deal for Feeley. Rivers is entering the third year of a six-year contract.

If Brees isn't signed to a new contract by March 3, he will be a free agent.

[gstelmack]

Because Brees had the franchise tag in 2005 and his $8.078 million salary was guaranteed, the league interpreted two things. First, the tender offer for Brees' transition tag would have to be at 120 percent of his 2005 salary instead of the 2006 quarterback transition number of $8.327 million. That means Brees would have to be offered $9.7 million by the Chargers. Second, there can be a case made that because his principle terms of the 2005 franchise tag was guaranteed, Brees' 2006 transition tag could also be considered a guaranteed offer.
I think that's the key paragraph right there. They were planning to franchise him, but found out it would cost far more than they thought (thanks to franchising him last year), so now they are back to regular negotiations.

[Eaglesfan27]

If they let him become a FA, he should leave on principle.

[cthomer5000]

I think that's the key paragraph right there. They were planning to franchise him, but found out it would cost far more than they thought (thanks to franchising him last year), so now they are back to regular negotiations.
So, wait... although I knew how much Brees would cost in 2006, we'll excuse the Chargers for not knowing? They're full of shit. Everyone knows it's either the top 5 average OR 20% more than the previous year.

The made the guy risk his career for a meaningless fucking game, in a spot that would have been perfect to get their backup (who has next to no game experience) some action. I'm sure Schottenheimer probably had some contract incentive riding on a win.

If they don't tag him, he shouldn't even let them talk to him about a contract. They've shown what kind of organization they are with this move, IMHO.

[TroyF]

If they let him become a FA, he should leave on principle.


Agree 100%.

I'm starting to agree with Eli more and more everyday.

[Jesse_Ewiak]

Wait, but I thought NFL players were greedy scumbags taking advantage of the vitruious billionaire owners who would never take advantage of an athlete?

[Rizon]

This is great news.

Sincerely,

Miami

[clintl]

I thought players got pissed off when they were franchised, and that this course of action from the athlete's viewpoint is preferable. So why would he leave "on principle" if he's not franchised? I would think Brees would be ecstatic about it. It gives him options and negotiating leverage.

[cthomer5000]

I thought players got pissed off when they were franchised, and that this course of action from the athlete's viewpoint is preferable. So why would he leave "on principle" if he's not franchised? I would think Brees would be ecstatic about it. It gives him options and negotiating leverage. Except for that whole torn labrum in his shoulder thing...suffered in a game he shouldn't even have been playing in.

[MrBug708]

Funny, I thought athletes were paid to play?

[clintl]

I think you're being unrealistically critical. I can't remember a team out of the playoffs benching its starting QB for the last game to protect him, so I don't know why you would expect the Chargers to do so. They were playing the game the way it's traditionally played. No one would be criticizing that decision if Brees hadn't been hurt.

[kcchief19]

So, wait... although I knew how much Brees would cost in 2006, we'll excuse the Chargers for not knowing? They're full of shit. Everyone knows it's either the top 5 average OR 20% more than the previous year. Assuming for a moment John Clayton has his facts right (which is always an issue in a case like this) and also assuming that San Diego knows the rule (which I believe is the case), you've missed two key points of the article: (1), the Chargers were considering the transition tag, which is the average of the top 10 salaries at that position of 120 percent. I'll bet that San Diego knew that rule. But (2) the bigger key is guaranteed money. Since Bree's franchise salary last year ended up being guaranteed money, the transition tag would be guaranteed as well. That means that if the Charges transitioned Brees, they would be on the hook for $9.7 million against the cap and couldn't cut him for cap relief if worst case scenario Brees can't play next year or doesn't come back as his old self. If the Chargers could transition tag Brees without the money being guaranteed, I think they would do it.

I'll admit it's a sad case, but unfortunately the NFL isn't a charity. I don't see your outrage that the Jets look like they may cut Pennington lose despite the fact that his problems are injury related and he screwed up his shoulder again last year playing hurt for a collection of stiffs. What would you say if the Jets came out and said they were giving Pennington a $9.7 million guaranteed contract for next year because they felt sorry for him and realized he got hurt trying to help the team when maybe he shouldn't have been playing?

It's silly to jeopardize the future of the team for upcoming seasons for charity. I feel bad for Brees, but it's not like he didn't have a choice. He played for $8 million last year and if he didn't want to risk his career for that kind of money, he could have sat out for a long-term contract.

I don't feel sorry for a multi-millionaire athlete who knew exactly the risks of playing and played under those rules. It's unfortunate, but I don't blame the Chargers one bit for not wanting to screw their salary cap for this season for a player they don't know will be able to play.

[kcchief19]

I think you're being unrealistically critical. I can't remember a team out of the playoffs benching its starting QB for the last game to protect him, so I don't know why you would expect the Chargers to do so. They were playing the game the way it's traditionally played. No one would be criticizing that decision if Brees hadn't been hurt.Plus, it wasn't an entirely meaningless game. The outcome of the Chargers game had an impact on the Steelers/Chiefs playoff outcome if the Chiefs won and the Steelers lost. Kudos to the Chargers for playing to win and not just rolling over like some other teams have done when their game has playoff implications at the end of the season.

[cthomer5000]

Funny, I thought athletes were paid to play?
They are, and they're paid well. If Drew Brees never plays another down, he's still set for life. He's been paid quite well in the last two years alone.

But it doesn't mean that ethics can't come into play once in a while. Here's the situation:

1. Drew Brees is played in a game, in a circumstance where he would be on the bench 99.999% of the time. The Chargers were already eliminated from the playoffs, and the Chargers have highly paid backup QB who may or may not be their future. It was odd that Philip Rivers didn't start that game.

2. Drew Brees suffers a pretty serious injury to his throwing shoulder in that game.

3. Chargers now say "thanks but no thanks" to tagging Brees.

Now, I can see both sides of the argument, I really can. If Brees was concerned about something like this happening, he could have signed a long-term deal sooner. Fair point.

My real problem is with the Charger management. In Week 17, they simply didn't do what was in the best interests of the whole franchise. That would have been getting Philip Rivers some playing time to get a better idea of what he has to offer. No, why did they make this decision? My guess is short-term gain. I'm guessing that Marty Schottenheimer felt a win would aid him in either financial terms (contract incentice) or job security. For what I've read there are whispers that another Charger win triggered an incentive for Schottenheimer.

I don't care if I change anyone's viewpoint, but I feel pretty strongly about this particular situation.

[cthomer5000]

I'll admit it's a sad case, but unfortunately the NFL isn't a charity. I don't see your outrage that the Jets look like they may cut Pennington lose despite the fact that his problems are injury related and he screwed up his shoulder again last year playing hurt for a collection of stiffs. What would you say if the Jets came out and said they were giving Pennington a $9.7 million guaranteed contract for next year because they felt sorry for him and realized he got hurt trying to help the team when maybe he shouldn't have been playing?
He was under a long-term contract, which is why i think it's a very different situation. Also, I think the Jets are going to have more trouble cutting him than they realize. You simply can't cut an injured player. They'll have to either reach an injury settlement or wait until he's 100%. I'm not sure what his current health level is.

[clintl]

1. Drew Brees is played in a game, in a circumstance where he would be on the bench 99.999% of the time. The Chargers were already eliminated from the playoffs, and the Chargers have highly paid backup QB who may or may not be their future. It was odd that Philip Rivers didn't start that game.



This right here is where your argument fails. The odds are closer to the other way around - 99% of teams would have been starting Brees in that game. At most, some of them might have given Rivers some second half snaps, but almost nobody would have started him.

[cthomer5000]

By the way, If he is available, I'd like the Jets to take a look.

[tucker rocky]

This is great news.

Sincerely,

Miami

....and a host of other teams.

[cthomer5000]

This right here is where your argument fails. The odds are closer to the other way around - 99% of teams would have been starting Brees in that game. At most, some of them might have given Rivers some second half snaps, but almost nobody would have started him.
I strongly disagree. We all have to admit this is a unique situation. I can't remember the last time a team drafted a QB extremely high (1.3) with the intention of replacing the incumbent, only to see that guy (Brees) become and instant all-pro.

That being said, the Rivers situation has become a bit of a distraction there. If I were management I would realize that ultimately the easiest thing for the team would be to trade Brees and let Rivers become the starter. This is because the financial ramifications of trading Rivers are still completely unpalatable.

Now, Rivers has gotten next to no playing time, he's still largely an unknown. If you thought you might have a solid QB on your bench, and knew you certainly had a tradeable commodity in your current starter, what would you do in the final, meaningless game of the year?

Rivers wasn't a rookie, I could have understood the decision if he was. I think the Chargers have ultimately hurt themselves and Brees by opting to start him in Week 17 of last year.

[lynchjm24]

Why isn't it Brees' fault? If Brees hadn't played like crap before they traded for Rivers, he wouldn't be in this position now.

[larrymcg421]

Paging Nick Saban...

Paging Nick Saban...

You have a Quarterback waiting for you at the front register.

[MrBug708]

Nevermind the fact the Chargers were probably giving Brees a chance to collect a few more stats to hit incentives in his contract.

[ice4277]

This could make the Lions' situation interesting as well. Harrington is due a big roster bonus early next month, but up to now, most talk has been that he will be back next year. Who knows if this will affect that?

[cthomer5000]

Nevermind the fact the Chargers were probably giving Brees a chance to collect a few more stats to hit incentives in his contract.
He was under the franchise tag. No incentives.

[EagleFan]

Scumbags? Wow, someone is being a little dramatic.

[cthomer5000]

Scumbags? Wow, someone is being a little dramatic.
It's just my opinion. Take it for what it's worth.

[Crapshoot]

I'm sure Schottenheimer probably had some contract incentive riding on a win.
\

True- he had a bonus or something close for winning 10 as opposed to 9. Rather than giving Rivers a start (which would have been best for the team, to know what they have) - he started Brees because he wanted to win.

[Lorena]

If SchSchottenheimer won 10 games, he'd get a bonus, that's whey they started Brees.

Those sons of bitches...

[Lorena]

True- he had a bonus or something close for winning 10 as opposed to 9. Rather than giving Rivers a start (which would have been best for the team, to know what they have) - he started Brees because he wanted to win.

Damn, beat me to it.

[MrBug708]

Damn those coaches for trying to win! Damn them all!

[cthomer5000]

Damn those coaches for trying to win! Damn them all!
So you support jeapordizing the long-term success of your franchise so the coach can hit an incentive bonus?

[MrBug708]

Chargers dont seem to concerned about it....

[Joe]

I would've done the same thing. Bonuses are good

[General Mike]

The Chargers didnt want to play Rivers because they didn't want to get him exposed and cost themselves trade value. I remember hearing that.

[Noble_Platypus]

So you support jeapordizing the long-term success of your franchise so the coach can hit an incentive bonus?

Long term success that he might not be a part of. There is no such thing as loyalty in the NFL anymore. You cant have a few poor seasons while rebuilding the team and have the owner keep you around. Marty could have been canned for not even making the playoffs, it happens all the time. If I am Marty I think 10 wins looks a whole lot better than 9, especially when it comes with a bonus and just a bit more job security.

[ISiddiqui]

The Chargers didnt want to play Rivers because they didn't want to get him exposed and cost themselves trade value. I remember hearing that.Another important factor. There was no reason to think that the Chargers wanted to keep Rivers for the future rather than dealing him away. In that case, they want to tell other teams that he's been playing great in practice, but not like a crappy game drive down any value he has.

[hoosiergoody]

I strongly disagree. We all have to admit this is a unique situation. I can't remember the last time a team drafted a QB extremely high (1.3) with the intention of replacing the incumbent, only to see that guy (Brees) become and instant all-pro.

Kitna wasn't quite all-pro, but he had quite a year the year Palmer was drafted and labeled the qb of the future...

While I understand your frustration, most other fans would have been upset if he didn't play. Only in the last 5 or so years has it been even considered to bench players that last week or so to "keep them healthy" I was more annoyed that he got hurt b/c he was my fantasy qb and cost me a win in the playoffs... :D

Long term success that he might not be a part of. There is no such thing as loyalty in the NFL anymore.

with the salary cap being brought in this has caused more players to get cut vs. be kept. Not the only reasoning, I am sure, but it is a contributer to this.

(I love my http://img117.imageshack.us/img117/2203/edit9cg.jpg (http://imageshack.us) button!!!)

[Rockstar]

Loyalty is only something that they drink in England.
Marty started Brees because he gave them the best chance to win. Its not like the ownership and the GM have exactly given Marty the best in job security now have they? The one thing in the NFL that cant be argued with is winning.
I really cant think of one job that I know of that a company wouldnt pull the same crap had an accident happened on the job to one of its employees. As jacked up as it is, that is just reality of the NFL.

[cthomer5000]

The Chargers didnt want to play Rivers because they didn't want to get him exposed and cost themselves trade value. I remember hearing that.
Not gonna happen. It is such a poor financial move to trade Rivers, that it just isn't happening.


Clarification on Philip Rivers...

The Chargers gave him a 14.25 million dollar bonus on a 6 year deal. That leaves 9.5 million of cap charge hanging out there.

If they traded him before June 1st, they would take a 9.5 million cap hit in 2006.
If they traded him after June 1st, they would take a 4.75 million cap hit in 2006, and a 4.75 cap hit in 2007.
They would need to receive a hell of a lot to make it worth dumping that kind of immediate cap space, not to mention the actual money they've poured into this guy with no return yet.

[MrBug708]

I think it was one of the worst kept secrets that Rivers was going to be traded this offseason

[mmarra82]

Brees will be a Jet, and hook up with his quarterback coach, Schottenheimer (spelling?).

[Kodos]

I hope Brees leaves and Rivers gets to start and they flop horribly.

[Butter]

I hope the Chargers permanently bring back the powder blue unis.

As for this case, I'm surprised that ct is arguing so strongly that the Chargers should have started Rivers. Maybe you name him starter for a series of games if you're 4-7 or something... but to throw him one start at the end of a season isn't really going to tell you much of anything.

[Raiders Army]

I hope Brees leaves and Rivers gets to start and they flop horribly.
I concur.

[cthomer5000]

I think it was one of the worst kept secrets that Rivers was going to be traded this offseason
Except if you look at the numbers, you see there is no way it's happening.

[Joe]

the chargers dont care about the numbers

[rkmsuf]

So what, the Chargers are supposed to give 8-10 million to a guy that's damaged goods? Is that really what you want for football?

Or is it they forced him to play week 17.

I don't see the call for outrage either way. You feel bad for the guy for getting hurt but I don't remember this hue and cry for him to sit week 17 at the time.

[Daimyo]

It didn't really make any sense for them to deal Rivers cheaply because he wasn't costing them much salary (since his deal was so front-loaded). If someone had offered them real value I imagine they would have taken it, but they certainly weren't looking to dump him...

[Daimyo]

DOLA, in this case i don't think anyone is at fault. I strongly disagree with the idea that the Chargers should have started Rivers... I can only remember anything like that happening once (Buffalo - Johnson over Flutie) and that was because I think they genuinely thought that RJ gave them a better chance to win than Flutie and had nothing to do with protecting the starter or developing a new QB for next year. If you want to deal Rivers its stupid because starting him can only hurt his value. If you want to make Rivers the QB of the future its stupid because you have nothing to gain from a signle EOS start.. i think you'd much prefer to bring him up when he has time to play a string of consecutive games and/or at the start of the season so you can focus on him in training camp.

So given that Brees should have been starting what are you left with? The injury was unfortunate, but you certainly can't expect the team to now give him a huge contract when his future is uncertain. If you want to blame something, blame the franchise tag as that is what really caused this... this is exactly the reason players hate being tagged so much.

[Vinatieri for Prez]

ct, the one thing lost in all of this is that Brees decided not to sign a long term contract last year. If he had been reasonable in negotiations, then SD never would have had to franchise him.

you're also wrong on some other points. Brees is pleased as punch not to be franchised this year. He'll get his long term contract, with signing bonus, in FA with another team. I also have to disagree that it is usual for the starting QB not to start that last game of the season -- it's quite the opposite (usually because the guy is receiving several millions to play). Finally, don't get so worked up over the torn labrum. It's not anywhere career ending. Apparently, surgery went fine, and other QBs have recovered.

[clintl]

He could still get a long term contract from the Chargers, too. The fact that the Chargers didn't franchise him doesn't automatically mean he's going to sign with another team.

[hukarez]

They had a news conference here earlier today.

The skinny is: they couldn't reach an agreement, so as of March 3rd, he'll be UFA.

[cthomer5000]

ct, the one thing lost in all of this is that Brees decided not to sign a long term contract last year. If he had been reasonable in negotiations, then SD never would have had to franchise him.
I did concede that point in an earlier post. I can see both sides, I honestly can. I just think San Diego handled the whole situation poorly.

I hope Rivers is the next Ryan Leaf.

[Vinatieri for Prez]

Yeah, I'm sure Brees is really bummed out about becoming a FA. :rolleyes:

[Fouts]

Good for Brees. He should make some big money.

[BrianD]

For comparison, did any teams out of the playoff hunt bench their starters in week 17? I know Green Bay didn't.

[kcchief19]

I did concede that point in an earlier post. I can see both sides, I honestly can. I just think San Diego handled the whole situation poorly.Fair enough, I suppose. I just don't know why the Chargers are scumbags for not wanting to to put themselves into cap hell because they feel sorry for somebody who wouldn't sign a long-term contract a year ago and preferred to risk it by playing under the franchise tag.

I also don't think it's fair since we don't know the end of the story. Brees will leave San Diego and probably get more money that they San Diege wanted to pay him. But let's say for instance that he never played again. You don't know if San Diego might give Brees a cushy office job and keep him on the payroll in the front office for as long as he wants. You're not giving them a chance, and we certainly don't know the whole story.