Go Back   New Orleans Saints - blackandgold.com > Main > Saints
Shop Horizontal

Watson/Moore trade nullified

this is a discussion within the Saints Community Forum; The trade may be amended, it may not be, but watson is done in New Orleans....

Closed Thread
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 05-11-2006, 09:17 PM   #11
500th Post
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Thibodaux, La
Posts: 614
The trade may be amended, it may not be, but watson is done in New Orleans.
JimBone is offline  
Old 05-12-2006, 01:59 AM   #12
1000 Posts +
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Posts: 2,889
Watson hasn't done anything for the Saints, and apparently he never will. I will be happy if we get anything for him. At least Payton knows that if you have a problem with a player, you at least trade them away and get something in return instead of just hating each other for another year and then releasing them angry.
TheDeuce is offline  
Old 05-12-2006, 08:07 AM   #13
5000 POSTS! +
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: San Antonio, TX
Posts: 6,941
Originally Posted by TheDeuce
Watson hasn't done anything for the Saints, and apparently he never will. I will be happy if we get anything for him. At least Payton knows that if you have a problem with a player, you at least trade them away and get something in return instead of just hating each other for another year and then releasing them angry.
LeCharles Bentley?
saintswhodi is offline  
Old 05-12-2006, 08:10 AM   #14
The Dark Overlord
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: dirty south
Posts: 3,450
i dont think he had a problem with LeCharles... Bentley was a player and gave it his all... i just dont think they wanted to pay a center 35 mill over 5 years or whatever it was...
pakowitz is offline  
Old 05-12-2006, 08:13 AM   #15
5000 POSTS! +
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: San Antonio, TX
Posts: 6,941
Originally Posted by pakowitz
i dont think he had a problem with LeCharles... Bentley was a player and gave it his all... i just dont think they wanted to pay a center 35 mill over 5 years or whatever it was...
The front office had a problem with LeCharles, and Payton was here when we lwt him walk for nothing. A non-exclusive franchise tag allows us to get something for him, and he is free to negotiate with other teams. So withwhat Cleveland paid him, I am pretty sure we could have gotten something for him. The point stands.
saintswhodi is offline  
Old 05-12-2006, 08:25 AM   #16
The Dark Overlord
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: dirty south
Posts: 3,450
u talkin about the transition tag?
pakowitz is offline  
Old 05-12-2006, 08:29 AM   #17
5000 POSTS! +
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: San Antonio, TX
Posts: 6,941
Originally Posted by pakowitz
u talkin about the transition tag?
The transition tag only allows you the right of first refusal. A non-exclusive franchise tag allows a player to negotiate with any team in the league, and if he agrees to a deal, that team would have had to compensate us. If he agreed with someone under a transition tag, we wouldn't get anything except the right to match the offer. Three routes we could have gone: non-exclusive franchise tag which I have explained, exclusive tag which means he couldn't negotiate with anyone, or the transition tag where we could match any offer. Actually, I guess there's 4 routes, the let him walk for nothing route.
saintswhodi is offline  
Old 05-12-2006, 08:57 AM   #18
1000 Posts +
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: baton rouge
Posts: 2,540
They did not tag him because signing away a non-exclusive franchised player requires the payment of TWO first round draft choices. Rarely is any player worth that muchless a center. So there would have been little possibility of anyone biting on him for two firsts. Also, the franchise tag requires the team to tender the player a one year contract that is the minimum of the average of the five largest salaries for players at the position. They lump all OL together, so this would be pay at the average of what the top 5 OTs are getting. Transition players also get this amount- what the Vikings were criticized about paying to guard Hutchinson. They would have been stuck with him and had to have paid him top 5 OL pay... for a guy that wanted to move along. Sometimes a guy can play happy with the tag because they just cannot quite come to terms. Have a guy that wants to go and make him stay... there have been plenty enough cases where the public acrimony has become quite vile.
LKelley67 is offline  
Old 05-12-2006, 09:19 AM   #19
5000 POSTS! +
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: San Antonio, TX
Posts: 6,941
Originally Posted by LKelley67
They did not tag him because signing away a non-exclusive franchised player requires the payment of TWO first round draft choices. Rarely is any player worth that muchless a center. So there would have been little possibility of anyone biting on him for two firsts. Also, the franchise tag requires the team to tender the player a one year contract that is the minimum of the average of the five largest salaries for players at the position. They lump all OL together, so this would be pay at the average of what the top 5 OTs are getting. Transition players also get this amount- what the Vikings were criticized about paying to guard Hutchinson. They would have been stuck with him and had to have paid him top 5 OL pay... for a guy that wanted to move along. Sometimes a guy can play happy with the tag because they just cannot quite come to terms. Have a guy that wants to go and make him stay... there have been plenty enough cases where the public acrimony has become quite vile.
NOT....AT...ALL....TRUE.....

Exhibit A) Peerlees Price. Buffalo placed a non-exclusive franchise tag on him and DID NOT receive two firsts from Atlanta for him. Two firsts is similar to the value chart in the draft, it's a suggestion for a value more than a rule. You DO NOT have to get two firsts in a trade for a franchise player. Seattle had the franchise tag on Shaun Alexander and was only looking for a second round pick. Same with Edge and the Colts. So that's not true.

Also, the salary associated with the franchise tag is valid ONLY if the player signs the offer. Bentley didn't want to be here. And I am 100%certain the transition tag is the salary average of the top 10 players at a given position and not the top five like a franchise tag.

So Bentley could have freely negotiated with Cleveland, and we could have gotten SOMETHING for him. We didn't.
saintswhodi is offline  
Old 05-12-2006, 09:28 AM   #20
5000 POSTS! +
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: San Antonio, TX
Posts: 6,941
Let me also add that we had the franchise tag on Darren Howard last year, he had a deal with Dallas, and we were gonna trade him for Dat Nguyen and a second round pick. Not even close to two firsts. Then the Eagles jumped in, we got greedy and got nothing.
saintswhodi is offline  
Closed Thread

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 12:38 PM.


Copyright 1997 - 2013 - BlackandGold.com
no new posts