I understand what you're saying but I don't agree. Why should he have accepted a contract below market value and less than what he's worth? Why should he save money for his owner who is worth $9 billion? Would you accept a below-market value and long-term employment contract that locked you into one employer but one where they could fire you at will for no reason other than they think they can find a cheaper solution? The sums of money these guys are making are unfathomable to 99.99% of the world's population but that doesn't mean they should give these billionaires a discount just because it's a lot of money. As we've all seen, injuries can and do end or shorten careers in one play so I don't fault players at all for trying to extract maximum value as would any other person during a job offer negotiation, especially when they guys writing the checks are wealthier than them by several orders of magnitude and get to sit in a climate-controlled press box all game being waited on while the players are out there bashing each others brains in.
What we should be bemoaning is the franchise tag. It's garbage and allows owners to extract maximum value from players without having to commit to them. The franchise tag should turn into a three-year deal that's all guaranteed money in year one and that gives the player the option to extend or renegotiate the contract in years two and three. This would give the players some longer term security and incentivize the owners to either negotiate in good faith and pay the players what they're worth or let the player hit the market.
The part I'd disagree with, and obviously opinions will vary on this, is that he turned down "below market value". IMO, 5 yrs $175M, which is what he turned down, which would have tied him for highest paid QB in the league, was in fact market value, IMO maybe even higher than market for a guy who had won only one playoff game. The contact he turned down would have tied him with Russell Wilson who just signed his deal, and Wilson HAS won a Super Bowl. I'm not alone in thinking the offer he turned down was fair, was market value.
According to
Spotrac's market-value tool, Prescott is worth $33 million per year ($165.1 million over five years). In other words, the type of contract he reportedly turned down in September.
The reason he turned it down was he wanted 4 years, the Pokes wanted 5, so Prescott insisted that contract prevent the Pokes from franchising him when the deal expired - he wanted another big payday after 4 years. It wasn't necessarily about dollars per year. He wanted to gamble on his ability to land an even more massive contract in 4 or 5 years.
My point is, he just lost that gamble.