Brilliant View of the Horn Situation!

BlackandBlue · 04-20-2003, 06:49 PM

I\'m confused.

So this guy thinks that we should have continued to pay AB $650,000 a year, even though he is our starting QB and future QB star? Or that we should continue to pay Horn, a pro bowler and our #1 reciever, the equivalent of #2 recievers on other teams? Is this how we reward players in the NFL?
\"Yes, Joe, we\'re paying you $2 million, so we expect you to play like a #2 reciever. Would you mind dropping a few more passes so your yardage total goes down to, say, 7-800 yards? We don\'t want to pay you anymore money because we\'re afraid of some two-bit journalist that has an agenda and what he might write about our organization.\"
\"Yes, AB, you heard me. We DON\'T want you to throw directly to the recievers, could you maybe, throw twice as many interceptions as you do TD\'s so we don\'t have to pay you more than a bench player?
Yeah....that makes complete sense! :casstet:

SFinAustin · 04-20-2003, 08:06 PM

The situations are different. Most contracts get renegotiated in the last season, which AB was in. Same thing goes for Turley for that matter. Horn has two years left on his deal paying him $3 mil per, not exactly the veteran minimum.

Clearly, Sammy Knight wasn\'t let go because of money because Tebucky has the 4th richest deal for a safety in league history. His speed is why he\'s gone.

rusta · 04-20-2003, 10:15 PM

actually knight had one more year one his contract that he voided himself because he wanted to be a free agant, the saints did not cut knight, he thought he could make more elsewhere

DUH!

SFinAustin · 04-20-2003, 10:31 PM

It\'s also known that he exercised his option because they wouldn\'t negotiate with him. Had he not decided to become a free agent, they would have decided for him.

Duh!

rusta · 04-20-2003, 10:48 PM

actually there were some negotiations but they didn\'t last long because knight wanted too much money, knight thought he deserved big money after a mediocre season in which he played a role in the team\'s biggest weakness

and now he is reaping the benefits of all his ability

FWtex · 04-20-2003, 11:09 PM

What gets me about this article is this so called exec. trying to throw blame on the saints. Where is this execs criticism of the patriots new contract for Brady last year? I would be very much opposed to iving Horn a new contract if Mueller had not promised a new deal. I would rather honor an agreement than have a player on the field who will ride out his contract with less than 100% effort.

A solution in my mind would be to add incentives to Horns contract that will allow him to earn top money with continued performance.

LordOfEntropy · 04-21-2003, 02:27 AM

I understand what you\'re saying about setting a precedent. It\'s a valid point.

However, in light of his voluntary restructure last year, I stand by my opinion. And I believe Loomis feels the same.

BlackandBlue · 04-21-2003, 09:43 AM

The situations are different. Most contracts get renegotiated in the last season, which AB was in.

True, so why use this as evidence in your article to back your claims when all the Saints were doing in AB\'s case was following precedence.

Said one exec, \"The Saints front office is showing that they have no balls, again.\"

Again?

Quote from profootballtalk.com

Launched in November 2001, Profootballtalk.com has only one objective -- to inform and to entertain. (Okay, we have two objectives.)

indeed :exclam:

ScottyRo · 04-21-2003, 12:45 PM

The funny thing about those of you who are in agreement with this article is that the \"exec\" has so much faith in his statements that he didn\'t want his identity revealed. We can\'t even be sure the author actually quoted any real person. If there are actual NFL execs quetioning how the Saints are handling this situation, surely one of them would have the \"balls\" to identify himself. Since he did not, his opinion means \"diddly poo\" to me.

Note, however, that just because I question the veracity of the source doesn\'t mean I admit the facts as presented by the source. I\'m not saying the exec is out to get the Saints. I\'m saying it\'s easy to make comments that you don\'t have to stand behind.

Don\'t take that as an admission that the exec is right either because the exec is flatly wrong in his logical conclusions of what is taking place here. The article is about two things:

1. That Horn is playing the Saints into increasing his salary by threatening to hold out and will succeed because Saints management doesn\'t have the balls to stand up to him; and

2. That if he succeeds, then other players are likely to follow his lead and want pay raises prior to the expiration or near-expiration of their contracts.

Addressing point 1: Horn has been promised a contract that will pay him a value more equal to the value he has been to the Saints. That aside, the Saints have shown that they are willing to pay the players that they think are worth it and will let go those who aren\'t worth paying. Knight is a good example because he\'d still be a Saint if the Saints had offered him TJ \'s money. Glover is another. Again, the player wanted more than the Saints wanted to pay so he\'s gone. This clearly indicates that the Saints aren\'t going to be held hostage to somebody\'s contract demands unless they want to be. It\'s not about whether the Saints have the balls to stand up to Horn, it\'s about the Saints paying the players they want to keep - especially when that player was previously promised a new contract. I say it takes bigger balls to let your pro bowl players go when they want too much rather than keep them. The Saints have proven they\'ll let them go.

Addressing point 2: Using Deuce as an example of a player who might take Joe\'s actions as precedent setting is a wholly erroneous view because the two situations are completely different. A) Joe was promised a new deal; B) Joe has performed at pro bowl level for three straight years. By the time Deuce does that his contract will be up for renewal anyway; C) Deuce already has a better leverage position than Joe because he doesn\'t have a 1st round pick waiting behind him to take his job, as Joe does.

I brought up AB because the article said the Saints aren\'t showing any \"balls, again.\" I couldn\'t think of another player who might have used his value to the Saints against the organization by holding out other than Brooks ( I\'m talking about recent history). I assumed that is what the article was referring to but I could be wrong.

Don\'t get me wrong. I would rather under pay than over pay. If Joe hadn\'t been promised a new deal, then I\'d say let him hold out if he wants to risk Stallworth taking the #1 spot. At the same time, I want the Saints to keep their players happy as best they can and paying a proven star and leader isn\'t a bad way of doing that.

scotty

WhoDat · 04-23-2003, 05:02 PM

Well, I said I wasn\'t going to go back and read posts that I had missed, but I read this one and the second I saw it I had to wade into this sh-t-storm... especially since GATOR popped into my head about three words in and I knew he would get destroyed for siding with this loon.

I have a couple of initial thoughts... A - why are these \"executives\" unnamed? Why do people always think the Spokesman is lying but the unidentified soure is honest? That\'s always confused me. I don\'t know anything about the author of this article, but I have no reason to give him the slightest amount of credit or believe he could pick an NFL \"exec\" out of a lineup. Sounds like total crap to me.

Next - as we move on from the author\'s credibility to the merits of the argument we only sink deeper into a pit of poo. Big-time players almost always get new contracts while under contract. ESPECIALLY, when that player has broken out, like say, I don\'t know, Joe Horn, Aaron Brooks, Deuce McAllister... etc. What are you going to do? Tell a guy who is in the top five in the NFC at his position (DEUCE, BROOKS, HORN) that he has to just serve out his contract b/c hey, he signed it? Yeah, that\'s a great plan. I\'m sure he\'ll come rushing back to you when his contract is actually up. All those Draftees you love Gator wouldn\'t be around very long if they started playing like pro bowlers in their second years and we kept paying them like second stringers b/c \"hey, you signed the contract\". Think about what you\'re saying Gator. I know your opinion on Horn, but think about this argument. Sure you\'d get great value for a guy like Horn right now and you would effectively assure yourself of never keeping a great player or signing a free agent ever again... b/c who wants to play in a place where you don\'t get rewarded for superior performance?

Ask yourself this. If you began to do much better work at your job, would you expect a promotion? Would you expect more money? Or would you be OK with your boss telling you, \"hey you knew what the job paid when you signed on. It doesn\'t matter how much better you are than everyone else around here, you\'re getting what you agreed to when you walked in the door.\"

04-20-2003, 06:49 PM	#11
BlackandBlue Kinder, gentler Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: dirty south Posts: 3,889	Brilliant View of the Horn Situation! I\'m confused. So this guy thinks that we should have continued to pay AB $650,000 a year, even though he is our starting QB and future QB star? Or that we should continue to pay Horn, a pro bowler and our #1 reciever, the equivalent of #2 recievers on other teams? Is this how we reward players in the NFL? \"Yes, Joe, we\'re paying you $2 million, so we expect you to play like a #2 reciever. Would you mind dropping a few more passes so your yardage total goes down to, say, 7-800 yards? We don\'t want to pay you anymore money because we\'re afraid of some two-bit journalist that has an agenda and what he might write about our organization.\" \"Yes, AB, you heard me. We DON\'T want you to throw directly to the recievers, could you maybe, throw twice as many interceptions as you do TD\'s so we don\'t have to pay you more than a bench player? Yeah....that makes complete sense! :casstet:
	The waiting drove me mad.... I don't want to hear from those that know... Everything has changed, absolutely nothing's changed Eddie is a....draftnik?

04-20-2003, 08:06 PM	#12
SFinAustin 100th Post Join Date: Feb 2003 Posts: 176	Brilliant View of the Horn Situation! The situations are different. Most contracts get renegotiated in the last season, which AB was in. Same thing goes for Turley for that matter. Horn has two years left on his deal paying him $3 mil per, not exactly the veteran minimum. Clearly, Sammy Knight wasn\'t let go because of money because Tebucky has the 4th richest deal for a safety in league history. His speed is why he\'s gone.
SFinAustin 100th Post Join Date: Feb 2003 Posts: 176

04-20-2003, 10:15 PM	#13
rusta 100th Post Join Date: Apr 2003 Posts: 361	Brilliant View of the Horn Situation! actually knight had one more year one his contract that he voided himself because he wanted to be a free agant, the saints did not cut knight, he thought he could make more elsewhere DUH!
rusta 100th Post Join Date: Apr 2003 Posts: 361

04-20-2003, 10:31 PM	#14
SFinAustin 100th Post Join Date: Feb 2003 Posts: 176	Brilliant View of the Horn Situation! It\'s also known that he exercised his option because they wouldn\'t negotiate with him. Had he not decided to become a free agent, they would have decided for him. Duh!
SFinAustin 100th Post Join Date: Feb 2003 Posts: 176

04-20-2003, 10:48 PM	#15
rusta 100th Post Join Date: Apr 2003 Posts: 361	Brilliant View of the Horn Situation! actually there were some negotiations but they didn\'t last long because knight wanted too much money, knight thought he deserved big money after a mediocre season in which he played a role in the team\'s biggest weakness and now he is reaping the benefits of all his ability
rusta 100th Post Join Date: Apr 2003 Posts: 361

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

04-20-2003, 11:09 PM	#16
FWtex 100th Post Join Date: Sep 2002 Posts: 370	Brilliant View of the Horn Situation! What gets me about this article is this so called exec. trying to throw blame on the saints. Where is this execs criticism of the patriots new contract for Brady last year? I would be very much opposed to iving Horn a new contract if Mueller had not promised a new deal. I would rather honor an agreement than have a player on the field who will ride out his contract with less than 100% effort. A solution in my mind would be to add incentives to Horns contract that will allow him to earn top money with continued performance.
FWtex 100th Post Join Date: Sep 2002 Posts: 370

04-21-2003, 02:27 AM	#17
LordOfEntropy 1000 Posts + Join Date: Apr 2003 Location: Cary, NC Posts: 1,838	Brilliant View of the Horn Situation! I understand what you\'re saying about setting a precedent. It\'s a valid point. However, in light of his voluntary restructure last year, I stand by my opinion. And I believe Loomis feels the same.

04-21-2003, 09:43 AM	#18
BlackandBlue Kinder, gentler Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: dirty south Posts: 3,889	Brilliant View of the Horn Situation! The situations are different. Most contracts get renegotiated in the last season, which AB was in. True, so why use this as evidence in your article to back your claims when all the Saints were doing in AB\'s case was following precedence. Said one exec, \"The Saints front office is showing that they have no balls, again.\" Again? Quote from profootballtalk.com Launched in November 2001, Profootballtalk.com has only one objective -- to inform and to entertain. (Okay, we have two objectives.) indeed :exclam:

04-21-2003, 12:45 PM	#19
ScottyRo 1000 Posts + Join Date: Jun 2002 Location: Williamsburg, VA (ugh, the food here) Posts: 1,704	Brilliant View of the Horn Situation! The funny thing about those of you who are in agreement with this article is that the \"exec\" has so much faith in his statements that he didn\'t want his identity revealed. We can\'t even be sure the author actually quoted any real person. If there are actual NFL execs quetioning how the Saints are handling this situation, surely one of them would have the \"balls\" to identify himself. Since he did not, his opinion means \"diddly poo\" to me. Note, however, that just because I question the veracity of the source doesn\'t mean I admit the facts as presented by the source. I\'m not saying the exec is out to get the Saints. I\'m saying it\'s easy to make comments that you don\'t have to stand behind. Don\'t take that as an admission that the exec is right either because the exec is flatly wrong in his logical conclusions of what is taking place here. The article is about two things: 1. That Horn is playing the Saints into increasing his salary by threatening to hold out and will succeed because Saints management doesn\'t have the balls to stand up to him; and 2. That if he succeeds, then other players are likely to follow his lead and want pay raises prior to the expiration or near-expiration of their contracts. Addressing point 1: Horn has been promised a contract that will pay him a value more equal to the value he has been to the Saints. That aside, the Saints have shown that they are willing to pay the players that they think are worth it and will let go those who aren\'t worth paying. Knight is a good example because he\'d still be a Saint if the Saints had offered him TJ \'s money. Glover is another. Again, the player wanted more than the Saints wanted to pay so he\'s gone. This clearly indicates that the Saints aren\'t going to be held hostage to somebody\'s contract demands unless they want to be. It\'s not about whether the Saints have the balls to stand up to Horn, it\'s about the Saints paying the players they want to keep - especially when that player was previously promised a new contract. I say it takes bigger balls to let your pro bowl players go when they want too much rather than keep them. The Saints have proven they\'ll let them go. Addressing point 2: Using Deuce as an example of a player who might take Joe\'s actions as precedent setting is a wholly erroneous view because the two situations are completely different. A) Joe was promised a new deal; B) Joe has performed at pro bowl level for three straight years. By the time Deuce does that his contract will be up for renewal anyway; C) Deuce already has a better leverage position than Joe because he doesn\'t have a 1st round pick waiting behind him to take his job, as Joe does. I brought up AB because the article said the Saints aren\'t showing any \"balls, again.\" I couldn\'t think of another player who might have used his value to the Saints against the organization by holding out other than Brooks ( I\'m talking about recent history). I assumed that is what the article was referring to but I could be wrong. Don\'t get me wrong. I would rather under pay than over pay. If Joe hadn\'t been promised a new deal, then I\'d say let him hold out if he wants to risk Stallworth taking the #1 spot. At the same time, I want the Saints to keep their players happy as best they can and paying a proven star and leader isn\'t a bad way of doing that. scotty

04-23-2003, 05:02 PM	#20
WhoDat 5000 POSTS! + Join Date: Sep 2002 Posts: 5,631	Brilliant View of the Horn Situation! Well, I said I wasn\'t going to go back and read posts that I had missed, but I read this one and the second I saw it I had to wade into this sh-t-storm... especially since GATOR popped into my head about three words in and I knew he would get destroyed for siding with this loon. I have a couple of initial thoughts... A - why are these \"executives\" unnamed? Why do people always think the Spokesman is lying but the unidentified soure is honest? That\'s always confused me. I don\'t know anything about the author of this article, but I have no reason to give him the slightest amount of credit or believe he could pick an NFL \"exec\" out of a lineup. Sounds like total crap to me. Next - as we move on from the author\'s credibility to the merits of the argument we only sink deeper into a pit of poo. Big-time players almost always get new contracts while under contract. ESPECIALLY, when that player has broken out, like say, I don\'t know, Joe Horn, Aaron Brooks, Deuce McAllister... etc. What are you going to do? Tell a guy who is in the top five in the NFC at his position (DEUCE, BROOKS, HORN) that he has to just serve out his contract b/c hey, he signed it? Yeah, that\'s a great plan. I\'m sure he\'ll come rushing back to you when his contract is actually up. All those Draftees you love Gator wouldn\'t be around very long if they started playing like pro bowlers in their second years and we kept paying them like second stringers b/c \"hey, you signed the contract\". Think about what you\'re saying Gator. I know your opinion on Horn, but think about this argument. Sure you\'d get great value for a guy like Horn right now and you would effectively assure yourself of never keeping a great player or signing a free agent ever again... b/c who wants to play in a place where you don\'t get rewarded for superior performance? Ask yourself this. If you began to do much better work at your job, would you expect a promotion? Would you expect more money? Or would you be OK with your boss telling you, \"hey you knew what the job paid when you signed on. It doesn\'t matter how much better you are than everyone else around here, you\'re getting what you agreed to when you walked in the door.\"
WhoDat 5000 POSTS! + Join Date: Sep 2002 Posts: 5,631	\"Excuses, excuses, excuses. ThatÃ¢Â€Â™s all anyone ever makes for the New Orleans SaintsÃ¢Â€Â™ organization.\" - Eric Narcisse \"Being a Saints fan is almost like being addicted to crack,\" he said.[i]\"You know you should stop, but you just can\'t.\"