Looks like we are stuck with Howard, for now

BreesFN9 · 03-14-2005, 10:24 PM

I agree! I don\'t know if it\'s even true, but something held up that deal. The Saints don\'t want to enter into any long term negotiations, so something is up? Maybe they know something they\'re NOT sharing. To end the rest of that thread it pointed out that when this came out it scared away a lot of the teams that WERE interested. It seems that the Cowboys are the only ones left and Jones seems content on waiting it out until he gets a better deal.

TayTay · 03-14-2005, 10:31 PM

Maybe they know something they\'re NOT sharing.

You do of course realize that you said the front office knows something?????????????????

saintswhodi · 03-14-2005, 10:43 PM

It was said Howard wants a deal similar to the one Wistrom got last year, and the bonus is in the neighborhood of 17 mil on Wistrom\'s deal. The thing is, and I have said this elsewhere, maybe here, but everyone knows the Seahwaks overpaid Wistrom to get him to leave the Rams. Howard knows this too but that\'s what he has asked for.

saintswhodi · 03-14-2005, 10:51 PM

More info from Cowboys fans:

and now it\'s being reported on DallasCowboys.com too...

\"As of Monday, the Cowboys and New Orleans remain in negotiations for the five-year veteran tagged by the Saints as their franchise player for the second straight season. The one-year franchise tender for defensive ends is $7.8 million, although the Saints have been trying to negotiate a long-term contract with Howard. The Saints have until Wednesday\'s 3 p.m. deadline to sign Howard to a long-term deal.\"

\"...[T]he Saints likely would have to settle for the Cowboys\' 2005 second-round pick (10th) and possibly a draft choice in 2006 or a player.

BreesFN9 · 03-14-2005, 11:45 PM

Boy can this get confusing??? Anyways so NOW we are negotiating a long term deal? I thouhgt that was the One area where we were not going? If so, then is it just to get a deal done to make a trade easier? Doesn\'t make sense. By making a long term deal we are still taking a risk that we CAN deal him and the other team would be willing to accept the contract as well. I\'m lost, I\'ll wait for more info?

P.S TAY Tay... I guess I did!

saintswhodi · 03-15-2005, 12:31 AM

It\'s kinda like when Portis was traded to the Skins, and Denver had to sign him to his new contract first, I think that is what is going on. If he signs a new deal that Dallas agrees to before we trade him, that protects them from him and his agent from going back on it once he is traded. Makes sense. Cause if they didn\'t work out a deal first, he could demand the 7.8 and screw them, and we\'d be out of it, sitting back and laughing.

BreesFN9 · 03-15-2005, 01:04 AM

I see and agree. But doesn\'t it work both ways? What if we do sign him and Dallas backs out...then we\'re really screwed! I guess you would have it all in writing from them 1st, stating they agree to a certain deal? Either way to be honest I\'m glad he\'s a Saint for now. If we do hold on to him for the season, then He can have a huge year and JUSTIFY his signing bonus demands and maybe even up his stock...Who knows?

WhoDat · 03-15-2005, 09:18 AM

So let me see if I\'ve got this straight....

We currently retain a Pro Bowl level DE who led our team in sacks last year despite injury, and who can still be dealt to another team without penalty, for serious picks and/or players. Yeah, I\'m crushed.

Like I said, I\'d be happy to see Howard stay.

GoldenTomb · 03-15-2005, 09:27 AM

I don\'t think anyone is doubting Howard\'s ability as a player...it\'s just that we would like to see the team spend it\'s money more wisely. It would be in the best finacial interests of the team to trade him, since he\'s getting starter\'s salary and he won\'t be playing full time.

Euphoria · 03-15-2005, 09:32 AM

Full time player??? No one ever said he wouldn\'t be a full time player? You play your pro-bowl players... you play the ones who produce. YOu don\'t sit someone who makes plays.

03-14-2005, 10:24 PM	#31
BreesFN9 500th Post Join Date: Feb 2005 Location: Vancouver, B.C. Posts: 596	Looks like we are stuck with Howard, for now I agree! I don\'t know if it\'s even true, but something held up that deal. The Saints don\'t want to enter into any long term negotiations, so something is up? Maybe they know something they\'re NOT sharing. To end the rest of that thread it pointed out that when this came out it scared away a lot of the teams that WERE interested. It seems that the Cowboys are the only ones left and Jones seems content on waiting it out until he gets a better deal.

03-14-2005, 10:31 PM	#32
TayTay 100th Post Join Date: Feb 2005 Posts: 118	Looks like we are stuck with Howard, for now Maybe they know something they\'re NOT sharing. You do of course realize that you said the front office knows something?????????????????
TayTay 100th Post Join Date: Feb 2005 Posts: 118

03-14-2005, 10:43 PM	#33
saintswhodi 5000 POSTS! + Join Date: Oct 2004 Location: San Antonio, TX Posts: 6,941	Looks like we are stuck with Howard, for now It was said Howard wants a deal similar to the one Wistrom got last year, and the bonus is in the neighborhood of 17 mil on Wistrom\'s deal. The thing is, and I have said this elsewhere, maybe here, but everyone knows the Seahwaks overpaid Wistrom to get him to leave the Rams. Howard knows this too but that\'s what he has asked for.

03-14-2005, 10:51 PM	#34
saintswhodi 5000 POSTS! + Join Date: Oct 2004 Location: San Antonio, TX Posts: 6,941	Looks like we are stuck with Howard, for now More info from Cowboys fans: and now it\'s being reported on DallasCowboys.com too... \"As of Monday, the Cowboys and New Orleans remain in negotiations for the five-year veteran tagged by the Saints as their franchise player for the second straight season. The one-year franchise tender for defensive ends is $7.8 million, although the Saints have been trying to negotiate a long-term contract with Howard. The Saints have until Wednesday\'s 3 p.m. deadline to sign Howard to a long-term deal.\" \"...[T]he Saints likely would have to settle for the Cowboys\' 2005 second-round pick (10th) and possibly a draft choice in 2006 or a player.

03-14-2005, 11:45 PM	#35
BreesFN9 500th Post Join Date: Feb 2005 Location: Vancouver, B.C. Posts: 596	Looks like we are stuck with Howard, for now Boy can this get confusing??? Anyways so NOW we are negotiating a long term deal? I thouhgt that was the One area where we were not going? If so, then is it just to get a deal done to make a trade easier? Doesn\'t make sense. By making a long term deal we are still taking a risk that we CAN deal him and the other team would be willing to accept the contract as well. I\'m lost, I\'ll wait for more info? P.S TAY Tay... I guess I did!

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

03-15-2005, 12:31 AM	#36
saintswhodi 5000 POSTS! + Join Date: Oct 2004 Location: San Antonio, TX Posts: 6,941	Looks like we are stuck with Howard, for now It\'s kinda like when Portis was traded to the Skins, and Denver had to sign him to his new contract first, I think that is what is going on. If he signs a new deal that Dallas agrees to before we trade him, that protects them from him and his agent from going back on it once he is traded. Makes sense. Cause if they didn\'t work out a deal first, he could demand the 7.8 and screw them, and we\'d be out of it, sitting back and laughing.

03-15-2005, 01:04 AM	#37
BreesFN9 500th Post Join Date: Feb 2005 Location: Vancouver, B.C. Posts: 596	Looks like we are stuck with Howard, for now I see and agree. But doesn\'t it work both ways? What if we do sign him and Dallas backs out...then we\'re really screwed! I guess you would have it all in writing from them 1st, stating they agree to a certain deal? Either way to be honest I\'m glad he\'s a Saint for now. If we do hold on to him for the season, then He can have a huge year and JUSTIFY his signing bonus demands and maybe even up his stock...Who knows?

03-15-2005, 09:18 AM	#38
WhoDat 5000 POSTS! + Join Date: Sep 2002 Posts: 5,631	Looks like we are stuck with Howard, for now So let me see if I\'ve got this straight.... We currently retain a Pro Bowl level DE who led our team in sacks last year despite injury, and who can still be dealt to another team without penalty, for serious picks and/or players. Yeah, I\'m crushed. Like I said, I\'d be happy to see Howard stay.
WhoDat 5000 POSTS! + Join Date: Sep 2002 Posts: 5,631

03-15-2005, 09:27 AM	#39
GoldenTomb 500th Post Join Date: Jan 2004 Posts: 591	Looks like we are stuck with Howard, for now I don\'t think anyone is doubting Howard\'s ability as a player...it\'s just that we would like to see the team spend it\'s money more wisely. It would be in the best finacial interests of the team to trade him, since he\'s getting starter\'s salary and he won\'t be playing full time.
GoldenTomb 500th Post Join Date: Jan 2004 Posts: 591

03-15-2005, 09:32 AM	#40
Euphoria 5000 POSTS! + Join Date: Mar 2004 Location: Hollywood, CA Posts: 7,601 Blog Entries: 5	Looks like we are stuck with Howard, for now Full time player??? No one ever said he wouldn\'t be a full time player? You play your pro-bowl players... you play the ones who produce. YOu don\'t sit someone who makes plays.