Watson/Moore trade nullified
 

http://www.nola.com/newslogs/tpupdat...11.html#140137

This kinda makes me laugh after the thread today...

Seriosuly, Courtney Watson can't be THAT bad. And you know what the amended trade will be right? Jack Hunt!!!!!!!

I will give my boy Jack Hunt credit - he is GREATLY responsible for the '03 NC. It's not just a coincidence that the only game that year he missed was LSU's only loss. (Florida)

Maybe the Fins will re-sign Schulters, a SAFETY, and ship him to the Saints to make the deal. The Saints are stockpiling safeties (for what reason is anyone guess!)

guy sounds like cie grant......

HAHAHA!!!!! Geesh.... this guy's more fragile than I first thought! What the heck was Payton thinking?

We need another linebacker...Dont be surprised if some other teams come to the table now they know Watson is on the table and we are willing to take a gimp for him

if he doesn't fit the system, he doesn't fit the system. it's not that he's a bad player, wish the guy well, hope he finds a team that has the right system for him, so he can benefit down the road.

....but let's get someone who can actually play a couple games for him. :wink:

NO GIMPS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! :?

look aat this way guys watson was more than likely too drunk to know what happened maybe he wont hold a grudge

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

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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:

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.

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.

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

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.

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

To which I responded:

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

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

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?

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.

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. :bang:

I'm sorry, what?? I was correcting you on saying the transition tag gets a top 5 salary offer as well. THAT'S IT. I never pushed the idea of a transition tag for Bentley. Dude, wow. I even outlined the convo for you where it was a CORRECTION to an erroneous statement. :?

THANK YOU!!!

What did the Eagles get for Simon? Nada. Why? Because teams knew the Eagles didn't really want to pay that much for him. Thus no one traded with them. I believe that is the exact same scenario with Bentley. Why would anyone give anything for him if they didn't have to?

And what a player wants is an issue. Keeping someone captive in an oragnization that they do not want to be a part of breeds acrimony and creates a bad rep around the league of players considering what teams they might want to play for. Besides the injuries, didn't Howard look like he had enough last year too? Gimme the check and I'm going home.

whew, I DID NOT say a transition player is top 5%.

Why you responded with Transition player info to that statement I dunno. Oh, about Hutchinson? The point was how the Saints could have been criticized similarly for overpaying for a franchised player, not the technicality of the rule.

Wow. Just wow. You know why the Eagles got nothing for Simon? Cause they were asking the world for him. They didn't want to take just a second or third, they wanted a first round pick. That's why. Noone was willing to give them that. Again, Shaun Alexander and Edge James were being offered for 2nd round picks, as franchise players. You're not even close with anything you're saying.

And how exactly do you keep someone captive when you franchise them WITH THE INTENT TO TRADE THEM? If we had gotten an offer, we would have traded him. What acrimony? We could have traded Howard if we weren't greedy. Yikes. I would give credit for grasping at straws at this point, i'll let you know when you get that close to being on point.

Your welcome. :wink: On a more serious note, the thing that really urks me is the "1st Round" talent (at positions we need help at) we missed in the second round that went between picks #34-42. D'Qwell Jackson, Rocky McIntosh, Jimmy Williams, Winston Justice, Thomas Howard, & "Deuce" Latui. And don't give me the "character thing", because only 2 players on that list had "character" issues. But hey.....We did get another safety in round 2......a real need position for this team. :roll: O.K., my ranting is done. Sore subject for me.

OH MY GOD!!! Dude you are straight killing me right now. Please, explain to me the meaning of you bringing up the transition tag in this statement:

Get WHAT amount ALSO, when you were talking about top 5 pay for the franchise tag? Wow, I can;t even believe you are trying to backtrack on such a minor point. Just admit your error and move on. Or explain what thattransition statement meant and what you were referring to. :shock:

Whodi, did you take your blood pressure medicine? :D

i suppose we just have a difference of opinion. I think the Saints would have had no bargainig leverage. A lot of trouble and a ding in PR IMO that would have accomplished nothing.

You are right on the asking price thing. It is like Harrington, why give anything for him if you can have him for free in June? You can play a charade like you are gonna keep Bentley but I think in many cases it is common knowledge when there is no intent. Why give ANYTHING if you can have him for free and everyone knows it.

I need to. Lordy, is it that hard to admit a mistake? And to keep going on about it? Man, I need a pill. :lol: