[MTK]

According to a recent article in the Post the team has a 3-year plan financial at all times, so moves they make (or don't make) now will effect our 3-year plan.

Perhaps if we brought back Pierce and Smoot it would cost us Ramsey down the road, or another key player.

I really liked how they put a firm price on Smoot and Pierce and didn't budge. That's how the majority of NFL teams operate. The team wasn't interested in giving Pierce more money than they gave Washington a year ago. Can you blame them? Who is the better player straight up? Pierce or Washington? I think the answer is pretty clear.

They also didn't want to give Smoot more than they gave Springs a year ago, and again, can you blame them? Again the answer is pretty clear who the better overall player is. Springs had a Pro Bowl quality season for us and a better season than Smoot. So we should reward Smoot with a bigger deal than Springs?

I just think it's so funny that for the past few offseasons we've always complained that the team is too lose with their wallet, and now that they are tightening it up and playing it smart all of a sudden the sky is falling.

Like Gibbs said, the last 2 offseasons we've lost 3 key free agents (Pierce, Smoot and Bryan Johnson), I'd really like to know how that compares with other teams because I think it's pretty damn good.