Came across this article yesterday from our friend Mike Florio at Pro Football Talk. If you haven't read it yet, do so now. It's short and won't take but a minute. In it, Florio reacts to Mickey Loomis' statement that the Saints would be keeping Reggie Bush at his current salary in 2010.
Honestly, I really think Florio's main purpose with this article was to point out the possibility of a bad management decision on the part of the Saints front office. But whether it was intended or not, it comes off more as a hidden-agenda attack on Bush's ability and production. I'm only now getting a chance to comment on it because I wasn't really sure what to make of it. Like a deer in headlights, I was frozen. Here are a few bits and pieces that I am choosing to nitpick:
It is, in our view, a move that has more to do with business and less to do with football. It can't be about football, because Bush doesn't bring $8 million worth of football value to the table.
Can value really be defined? Reggie, like a rare coin to a numismatist or a mahogany floral carved Victorian chest to Leslie Keno, is worth whatever someone is willing to pay for him. If the Saints are willing to give him $8 million, than that's how much the team values Reggie. I'm not so sure it's really up to Florio to determine any players value, let alone Reggie's in Sean Payton's offense.
No, this is about maintaining the Bayou post-Super Bowl buzz, about selling jerseys, about keeping the fans from engaging in an all-out revolt.
Have you ever even met a Saints fan, Mike? World War III breaking out during Woodstock was more likely than Saints fans putting together any kind of revolt after finally watching their team win the Super Bowl. It's all kumbaya down here, baby. In forty-three years we've never been happier; now is the least likely time this fan base would do anything of the sort. In Payton and Loomis we trust. So if they thought they could do without Bush, I'm sure most of us would just go along with it. Besides, given Reggie's penchant for being so controversial among Saints fans, getting rid of him might actually cut back on some of the in-fighting.
But of all the things Florio says in this article, I find one statement above all else to be the most controversial and this is where I'll leave it for you guys to take over the discussion...
Though the Saints likely would have won the Super Bowl without Bush...
What do you think?