(04-11-2024, 02:02 PM)flsprtsgod Wrote:

(04-11-2024, 01:51 PM)Mikey Wrote: I certainly do believe that if we put the agreed offer on the table before FA began any agent worth his salt would have told him to wait to see how the market plays out.

Given the choice of the two, I am much happier that we chose not to risk losing Allen over Ridley. Do you not think that the FO considered the possibility of losing either guy, replacing either guy, and chose the most prudent avenue?

If we REALLY wanted Ridley, would you think that sacrificing the second round pick was too steep a price for us to make our BAFO while he was still able to negotiate exclusively? Why fart around with a tag in that case, either? Tells me they were willing to risk the loss, or were prepared to replace him via other avenues if someone chose to grossly overbid our offer. We weren't hoodwinked. We knew full well what the probable outcomes would be.

And I'm not saying that was the opening offer, I'm saying the process simply could've gotten there sooner, but you don't know if you don't even pick up the phone to the guy to get started. Instead Trent likes to toss out the Tag, which to me seems like an unnecessary flex to slap on players you really want to keep.

Is it? I could understand this if the end result is a guy playing on a high dollar one-year deal, but each time we've done it, it basically bought us time for the big deal to get done while we focused on the little deals while urgency was needed for those.

Every guy he's tagged signed the tender and every guy has since gotten a better multi-year deal before the bill came due. Seems to me like everyone in the building understands that's the plan. I could be naive or too forgiving, it's one of my faults. I just don't feel that he's some jerk when it comes to signing his guys.

---