Watson/Moore trade nullified

JimBone · 05-11-2006, 09:17 PM

The trade may be amended, it may not be, but watson is done in New Orleans.

TheDeuce · 05-12-2006, 01:59 AM

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.

saintswhodi · 05-12-2006, 08:07 AM

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?

pakowitz · 05-12-2006, 08:10 AM

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...

saintswhodi · 05-12-2006, 08:13 AM

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.

pakowitz · 05-12-2006, 08:25 AM

u talkin about the transition tag?

saintswhodi · 05-12-2006, 08:29 AM

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.

LKelley67 · 05-12-2006, 08:57 AM

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.

saintswhodi · 05-12-2006, 09:19 AM

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 · 05-12-2006, 09:28 AM

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.

05-12-2006, 01:59 AM	#12
TheDeuce 1000 Posts + Join Date: Apr 2005 Posts: 2,928	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 1000 Posts + Join Date: Apr 2005 Posts: 2,928

05-12-2006, 08:07 AM	#13
saintswhodi 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?

05-12-2006, 08:13 AM	#15
saintswhodi 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.

05-12-2006, 08:29 AM	#17
saintswhodi 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.

05-12-2006, 09:19 AM	#19
saintswhodi 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.

05-11-2006, 09:17 PM	#11
JimBone 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.

Latest Blogs
2023 New Orleans Saints: Training Camp Last Blog: 08-01-2023 By: MarchingOn Puck the Fro Browl! Last Blog: 02-05-2023 By: neugey CFP: "Just Keep Doing What You're Doing" Last Blog: 12-08-2022 By: neugey

05-12-2006, 08:10 AM	#14
pakowitz 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...

05-12-2006, 08:25 AM	#16
pakowitz The Dark Overlord Join Date: Oct 2002 Location: dirty south Posts: 3,450	u talkin about the transition tag?

05-12-2006, 08:57 AM	#18
LKelley67 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.

05-12-2006, 09:28 AM	#20
saintswhodi 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.