Devin
09-11-2005, 11:28 PM
I am not arguing one side or the other, merely posing the question. I personally feel better with the "A" option myself simply because I feel we will be able to better stretch money. Nothing personal against Nate......But im curious what you guys think.
Say McGahee has the monster year we all think he will.
Would you:
A. Franchise Nate, get a pick or two and extend McGahee/other free-agents.
B. Sign Nate to the 50-60 mil contract he will no doubt command (and perhaps deserves) but suffer the potential cap problems or inability to career multiple large contracts.
While defense wins championships I feel McGahee is the better long term investment. Not only for the team on the field but with Moulds gone in a year or two securing these younger guys imo is priority.
Say McGahee has the monster year we all think he will.
Would you:
A. Franchise Nate, get a pick or two and extend McGahee/other free-agents.
B. Sign Nate to the 50-60 mil contract he will no doubt command (and perhaps deserves) but suffer the potential cap problems or inability to career multiple large contracts.
While defense wins championships I feel McGahee is the better long term investment. Not only for the team on the field but with Moulds gone in a year or two securing these younger guys imo is priority.