The big surprise for me with Brooks' contract is the 4 years. He's just never been a consistently good player and we signed him longterm after his best season and he basically stunk it up after that. He was obviously in a weak team and that's not all his fault, but he certainly didn't do anything to lift the club in that time.
Why would they offer 4 years? Were other clubs competing for him and 2 wouldn't do it? I think the money offered is fine for him, but this could go like Reynolds did for us as they won't be able to offload him on that salary and for that many years if it doesn't work out. Just don't see the upside for them.