Watson/Moore trade nullified

LKelley67 · 05-12-2006, 09:34 AM

exhibit A- The Falcons did not sign price as a franchised player. The Bills had designated him (thus the commitment that the Saints were avoiding in the bentley case) but traded him to Atlanta. If Atlanta would have signed him outright it would have cost two number ones. You can tag someone and ask for a lot less in trade but you do have to tag them and commit. I take it that they thought commiting to that was too great a risk if he could not be traded. Again, two firsts to sign him but less yes if you trade him.

If only he signs the offer? He has no choice unless he wants to sit out a year with no pay.

If you are 100% certain on the top ten then I will have to have corroboration. I do not have access to the CBA directly. I do have a link to in depth explanation of the CBA, free agency, etc. that does say top 5% though.
http://www.askthecommish.com/freeagency/

I would have liked to have gotten something too. I can however see the reasoning of risk of being stuck with an overpaid player that doesn't want to be here also.

LKelley67 · 05-12-2006, 09:39 AM

one more link from a usually reliable source-

The second type of franchise player is offered a minimum of the average of the top five salaries at his position in the 2005 season, or a 20 percent salary increase, whichever is greater. This type of franchise player may negotiate with other clubs. His original club may match the offer and retain the player, or receive two first-round draft choices as compensation if the original club elects not to match.

http://www.nfl.com/freeagency

saintswhodi · 05-12-2006, 09:45 AM

How exactly do you designate someone as a franchise player, then not trade them as a franchise player? That doesn't even sound right. If you designate a player with the franchise tag, THAT'S IT. If you remove the tag, that player becomes an unrestricted free agent, and teams can't trade unrestricted free agents. Wow. Price was traded as the franchise player. Also, a player that is franchised DOES NOT have to sign the offer. Corey Simon was franchised with the Eagles up until when, the start of the season, when they finally removed it and he was free to sign with Cleveland, cause he refused to sign it. Wow again. If we franchised Bentley, WE WOULD HAVE TRADED HIM, and did not have to receive two firsts.

Any explanation for Shaun Alexander, Darren Howard, and Edge James?

As far as the top 10 players for a transition tag goes:

Section 4. Required Tender for Transition Players:

(a) Any Club that designates a Transition Player shall be deemed on the first day of the League Year following the expiration of the playerÃƒÂ¢Ã¢Â‚Â¬Ã¢Â„Â¢s last contract to have automatically tendered the player a one year NFL Player Contract for the average of the ten largest Prior Year Salaries for players at the position at which he played the most games during the prior League Year, or 120% of his Prior Year Salary, whichever is greater. The tender may be withdrawn at any time, but if such tender is withdrawn, the player immediately becomes an Unrestricted Free Agent and thereafter is completely free to negotiate and sign a Player Contract with any Club, and any Club shall be completely free to negotiate and sign a Player Contract with such player, without any penalty or restriction, including, but not limited to, Draft Choice Compensation between Clubs or First Refusal Rights of any kind, or any signing period.

Anything else? We would not have been stuck with Bentley, as bad as he wanted to go, and as bad as Cleveland wanted him. Even a third round pick would have been better than nothing. And they gave him a HUGE contract, so they obviously wanted him bad.

saintswhodi · 05-12-2006, 09:47 AM

Originally Posted by LKelley67

one more link from a usually reliable source-

The second type of franchise player is offered a minimum of the average of the top five salaries at his position in the 2005 season, or a 20 percent salary increase, whichever is greater. This type of franchise player may negotiate with other clubs. His original club may match the offer and retain the player, or receive two first-round draft choices as compensation if the original club elects not to match.

http://www.nfl.com/freeagency

You do not have to receive two first round picks if you trade the player, which is what I have been saying we should have done with Bentley. You are completely off base here. My point on placing a non-exclusive tag on him WAS TO TRADE HIM, not hope some team signs him away and gives us two firsts. nto even in the same ballpark.

LKelley67 · 05-12-2006, 09:50 AM

uh, your quote is about Transition players not Franchised. Care to use the Franchised rule?

LKelley67 · 05-12-2006, 09:54 AM

Yes, I also noted less via trade. BUT when the player wants out bad and you are obligated to pay him way more than you want to then you have zilch for bargaining leverage in a trade.

Another issue with franchising is the whole holding a player hostage issue. It is an attractive point for your franchise if perspective players think you will tag them whether they want to be there or not. I think the new regime wants to establish a rep as an organization that has the kind of players they want and players that also want to be a part of that program.

saintswhodi · 05-12-2006, 10:00 AM

Originally Posted by LKelley67

uh, your quote is about Transition players not Franchised. Care to use the Franchised rule?

Okay, see if you can keep up. you said:

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

To which I responded:

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.

To which you then said:

If you are 100% certain on the top ten then I will have to have corroboration. I do not have access to the CBA directly. I do have a link to in depth explanation of the CBA, free agency, etc. that does say top 5% though.

To which I replied with that post from the CBA. Now you say:

uh, your quote is about Transition players not Franchised. Care to use the Franchised rule?

Um, the 10% talk was about transition players all along. wow.

LKelley67 · 05-12-2006, 10:03 AM

I don't think anyone was forwarding the idea of a transition tag on him. What relevance is that when we are discussing why they did not franchise him?

saintswhodi · 05-12-2006, 10:04 AM

Originally Posted by LKelley67

Yes, I also noted less via trade. BUT when the player wants out bad and you are obligated to pay him way more than you want to then you have zilch for bargaining leverage in a trade.

Another issue with franchising is the whole holding a player hostage issue. It is an attractive point for your franchise if perspective players think you will tag them whether they want to be there or not. I think the new regime wants to establish a rep as an organization that has the kind of players they want and players that also want to be a part of that program.

Christ almighty. What does a player WANTING out have to do with placing a franchise tag on him that allows him to negotiate with other teams? Since when does what a player WANTS factor into that decision. Even when Bentley said he WANTED to go to Cleveland, Loomis came out and said we don't have to comply with a player's wants. That's why everyone was so certain we would place some kinda tag on him, because of that statement. The franchise tag DOES NOT obligate you to anything, cause as long as the player does not sign the one year offer, YOU CAN REMOVE IT ala Corey Simon. Bentley DID NOT WANT to be here, what makes you think he would have signed it? Cleveland just gave him the richest deal ever for a center, what makes you think they wouldn't have given us SOMETHING for him. Darren howard did not WANT to be tagged the year before, and we did it anyway. Player wants is no point at all.

gandhi1007 · 05-12-2006, 10:04 AM

I won't even get into the whole "Francchise-Transition" thing....too murky. I will however say that my pride says we got bamboozled in the outcome. Cleveland got Bentley & the #34 overall pick from us, & we got Faine & the #43 overall pick from them. Somehow I feel we did not come out on top with our dealings with the Browns.

05-12-2006, 09:45 AM	#23
saintswhodi 5000 POSTS! + Join Date: Oct 2004 Location: San Antonio, TX Posts: 6,941	How exactly do you designate someone as a franchise player, then not trade them as a franchise player? That doesn't even sound right. If you designate a player with the franchise tag, THAT'S IT. If you remove the tag, that player becomes an unrestricted free agent, and teams can't trade unrestricted free agents. Wow. Price was traded as the franchise player. Also, a player that is franchised DOES NOT have to sign the offer. Corey Simon was franchised with the Eagles up until when, the start of the season, when they finally removed it and he was free to sign with Cleveland, cause he refused to sign it. Wow again. If we franchised Bentley, WE WOULD HAVE TRADED HIM, and did not have to receive two firsts. Any explanation for Shaun Alexander, Darren Howard, and Edge James? As far as the top 10 players for a transition tag goes: Section 4. Required Tender for Transition Players: (a) Any Club that designates a Transition Player shall be deemed on the first day of the League Year following the expiration of the playerÃƒÂ¢Ã¢Â‚Â¬Ã¢Â„Â¢s last contract to have automatically tendered the player a one year NFL Player Contract for the average of the ten largest Prior Year Salaries for players at the position at which he played the most games during the prior League Year, or 120% of his Prior Year Salary, whichever is greater. The tender may be withdrawn at any time, but if such tender is withdrawn, the player immediately becomes an Unrestricted Free Agent and thereafter is completely free to negotiate and sign a Player Contract with any Club, and any Club shall be completely free to negotiate and sign a Player Contract with such player, without any penalty or restriction, including, but not limited to, Draft Choice Compensation between Clubs or First Refusal Rights of any kind, or any signing period. Anything else? We would not have been stuck with Bentley, as bad as he wanted to go, and as bad as Cleveland wanted him. Even a third round pick would have been better than nothing. And they gave him a HUGE contract, so they obviously wanted him bad.

05-12-2006, 09:47 AM	#24
saintswhodi 5000 POSTS! + Join Date: Oct 2004 Location: San Antonio, TX Posts: 6,941	Originally Posted by LKelley67 one more link from a usually reliable source- The second type of franchise player is offered a minimum of the average of the top five salaries at his position in the 2005 season, or a 20 percent salary increase, whichever is greater. This type of franchise player may negotiate with other clubs. His original club may match the offer and retain the player, or receive two first-round draft choices as compensation if the original club elects not to match. http://www.nfl.com/freeagency You do not have to receive two first round picks if you trade the player, which is what I have been saying we should have done with Bentley. You are completely off base here. My point on placing a non-exclusive tag on him WAS TO TRADE HIM, not hope some team signs him away and gives us two firsts. nto even in the same ballpark.

05-12-2006, 10:00 AM	#27
saintswhodi 5000 POSTS! + Join Date: Oct 2004 Location: San Antonio, TX Posts: 6,941	Originally Posted by LKelley67 uh, your quote is about Transition players not Franchised. Care to use the Franchised rule? Okay, see if you can keep up. you said: 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 To which I responded: 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. To which you then said: If you are 100% certain on the top ten then I will have to have corroboration. I do not have access to the CBA directly. I do have a link to in depth explanation of the CBA, free agency, etc. that does say top 5% though. To which I replied with that post from the CBA. Now you say: uh, your quote is about Transition players not Franchised. Care to use the Franchised rule? Um, the 10% talk was about transition players all along. wow.

05-12-2006, 10:04 AM	#29
saintswhodi 5000 POSTS! + Join Date: Oct 2004 Location: San Antonio, TX Posts: 6,941	Originally Posted by LKelley67 Yes, I also noted less via trade. BUT when the player wants out bad and you are obligated to pay him way more than you want to then you have zilch for bargaining leverage in a trade. Another issue with franchising is the whole holding a player hostage issue. It is an attractive point for your franchise if perspective players think you will tag them whether they want to be there or not. I think the new regime wants to establish a rep as an organization that has the kind of players they want and players that also want to be a part of that program. Christ almighty. What does a player WANTING out have to do with placing a franchise tag on him that allows him to negotiate with other teams? Since when does what a player WANTS factor into that decision. Even when Bentley said he WANTED to go to Cleveland, Loomis came out and said we don't have to comply with a player's wants. That's why everyone was so certain we would place some kinda tag on him, because of that statement. The franchise tag DOES NOT obligate you to anything, cause as long as the player does not sign the one year offer, YOU CAN REMOVE IT ala Corey Simon. Bentley DID NOT WANT to be here, what makes you think he would have signed it? Cleveland just gave him the richest deal ever for a center, what makes you think they wouldn't have given us SOMETHING for him. Darren howard did not WANT to be tagged the year before, and we did it anyway. Player wants is no point at all.

05-12-2006, 09:34 AM	#21
LKelley67 1000 Posts + Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: baton rouge Posts: 2,540	exhibit A- The Falcons did not sign price as a franchised player. The Bills had designated him (thus the commitment that the Saints were avoiding in the bentley case) but traded him to Atlanta. If Atlanta would have signed him outright it would have cost two number ones. You can tag someone and ask for a lot less in trade but you do have to tag them and commit. I take it that they thought commiting to that was too great a risk if he could not be traded. Again, two firsts to sign him but less yes if you trade him. If only he signs the offer? He has no choice unless he wants to sit out a year with no pay. If you are 100% certain on the top ten then I will have to have corroboration. I do not have access to the CBA directly. I do have a link to in depth explanation of the CBA, free agency, etc. that does say top 5% though. http://www.askthecommish.com/freeagency/ I would have liked to have gotten something too. I can however see the reasoning of risk of being stuck with an overpaid player that doesn't want to be here also.

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, 09:39 AM	#22
LKelley67 1000 Posts + Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: baton rouge Posts: 2,540	one more link from a usually reliable source- The second type of franchise player is offered a minimum of the average of the top five salaries at his position in the 2005 season, or a 20 percent salary increase, whichever is greater. This type of franchise player may negotiate with other clubs. His original club may match the offer and retain the player, or receive two first-round draft choices as compensation if the original club elects not to match. http://www.nfl.com/freeagency

05-12-2006, 09:50 AM	#25
LKelley67 1000 Posts + Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: baton rouge Posts: 2,540	uh, your quote is about Transition players not Franchised. Care to use the Franchised rule?

05-12-2006, 09:54 AM	#26
LKelley67 1000 Posts + Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: baton rouge Posts: 2,540	Yes, I also noted less via trade. BUT when the player wants out bad and you are obligated to pay him way more than you want to then you have zilch for bargaining leverage in a trade. Another issue with franchising is the whole holding a player hostage issue. It is an attractive point for your franchise if perspective players think you will tag them whether they want to be there or not. I think the new regime wants to establish a rep as an organization that has the kind of players they want and players that also want to be a part of that program.

05-12-2006, 10:03 AM	#28
LKelley67 1000 Posts + Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: baton rouge Posts: 2,540	I don't think anyone was forwarding the idea of a transition tag on him. What relevance is that when we are discussing why they did not franchise him?

05-12-2006, 10:04 AM	#30
gandhi1007 Part Time Pimp Join Date: Oct 2005 Posts: 1,967	I won't even get into the whole "Francchise-Transition" thing....too murky. I will however say that my pride says we got bamboozled in the outcome. Cleveland got Bentley & the #34 overall pick from us, & we got Faine & the #43 overall pick from them. Somehow I feel we did not come out on top with our dealings with the Browns.