Bucs trying to sign Antonio Bryant to a long term deal!

by TheUltimateBucFan on Jan 7, 2009 10:06 PM EST Comment 9 comments

Courtesy of Pewterreport.com, I was able to read an article indicating the Buccaneers push to sign Antonio Bryant to a long erm deal. Her's the link:

http://pewterreport.com/articles/view/5087

The article also states that if the Bucs can not persuade Bryant to sign before he becomes a free agent on February 27, that they would use their Franchise Tag in an attempt to secure him. He would make an excess of 9 million next year if they did Franchise him which I hope is not the case. It's good to see that it looks like the Bucs will actually spend some of that league high 46 million in salary cap they have and no better player to start with than Bryant. D- Line is next on the wish list

0 recs | Comment 9 comments

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

I hope they use the non-exclusive franchise tag

if they choose to go the franchise tag route. The non-exclusive tag uses the top 5 salaries from the previous year (instead of the current year) and the Bucs could get 2 first round picks if another team signs him and the Bucs choose not to match.

Cannons... fire them.

www.BucEm.com - SBNation's home for discussion of all things regarding the Tampa Bay Buccaneers.

by Craig T on Jan 7, 2009 10:15 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

rec'd

That goes withoutbeing said

by TheUltimateBucFan on Jan 7, 2009 10:53 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

He would be worth the Franchise Tag

Nobody else worth using it on.

by UNFNOLE on Jan 8, 2009 4:57 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

seconded

hopefully it doesnt come to a franchise tag… sign with the team that gave you a second chance

Buc 'Em Your SBNation Tampa Bay Bucs Blog where Dull Boys are not allowed!!

by JScott on Jan 8, 2009 6:47 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Totally agree

With the cap room the Bucs currently have, I don’t see why we don’t put this guy in a long term contract. Use the franchise tag as leverage, if need be, but we need a receiver that his proven himself and that can last (comment directly pointed at Galloway, Clayton, Stovall).

by LinuxTX on Jan 9, 2009 10:10 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

I think putting him on a 'long-term'

is risky.

by UNFNOLE on Jan 9, 2009 11:34 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

yeah

i wouldnt go any further than three years, four years at the absolute max if he had other teams beckoning his services.

Buc 'Em Your SBNation Tampa Bay Bucs Blog where Dull Boys are not allowed!!

by JScott on Jan 9, 2009 12:33 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Definition of long term

I not saying to sign him like A-Rod.

My point was to not test the waters again and sign him to a one year deal.
If we can cinch him up for 3-4 years, make sure he knows we want him to play here, then all is well.

If the Bucs throw a one or two year deal at him, I’m afraid he might look elsewhere.

by LinuxTX on Jan 9, 2009 3:55 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs