|
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....
|
|
LinkBack | Thread Tools | Display Modes |
05-11-2006, 10:17 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.
|
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, 02:59 AM | #12 |
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.
|
05-12-2006, 09:07 AM | #13 |
5000 POSTS! +
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: San Antonio, TX
Posts: 6,941
|
Originally Posted by TheDeuce
LeCharles Bentley?
|
05-12-2006, 09:10 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...
|
05-12-2006, 09:13 AM | #15 |
5000 POSTS! +
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: San Antonio, TX
Posts: 6,941
|
Originally Posted by pakowitz
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, 09:25 AM | #16 |
The Dark Overlord
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: dirty south
Posts: 3,450
|
u talkin about the transition tag?
|
05-12-2006, 09:29 AM | #17 |
5000 POSTS! +
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: San Antonio, TX
Posts: 6,941
|
Originally Posted by pakowitz
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, 09:57 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.
|
05-12-2006, 10:19 AM | #19 |
5000 POSTS! +
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: San Antonio, TX
Posts: 6,941
|
Originally Posted by LKelley67
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. |
05-12-2006, 10:28 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.
|