We cannot afford to keep Howard.
 

Source: http://www.nola.com/saints/t-p/index...1102199980.xml

That was as of March 12. So we actually only have about 4 mil in space right now, since releasing T-buck actually cost us 1 mil (and some change) in cap space instead of saving us any.

Signing our rookies this year will cost about 3.5-4 mil, if it is anything like previous years. That would leave us with roughly .5 mil to sign anyone else to a long term contract or to the team, period.

If we keep Howard and don't sign McAllister to a long term deal that includes no more than a .5 mil increase for this year (since that appears to me to be all we can afford given our cap space) both will be UFAs next season. We can only franchise on of them, so one will go AND we will get no compensation for him. Even if we can afford to resign both next year, we will have to do so in the open market rather than signing McAllister now for a Saints friendly deal.

Furthermore, trading Howard and meeting other defensive needs would free up an additional 7.8 mil to use to re-sign guys like McKenzie, McAllister, and Bentely; this way, our hand will not be forced in signing them later against an open market. Also, Grant is still playing on his rookie contract; I'm sure he'll want to see the money soon.

This isn't so much an issue of who wants to stay in NO (like Duece), but who we can afford to keep and who will have the upper hand in the negotiations. If we renegotiate now, we are doing these players a favor (by giving them better contracts) AND they will not have the threat of FA to hold over us. Now, all they can do is hold out.

Benefits of keeping Howard:
1. We keep a stud DE who will play at most 2/3 of the time (or be asked to play out of position, where he has said he doesn't want to, at DT in passing downs).

Costs
1. We keep a guy who wants to see Wistrom like money, so we are unlikely to ever make a long term deal with.
2. His injury record is shakey, his trade value may never be higher than it is now.
3. We CANNOT offer advantageous long-term contracts to McKenzie, Bentley, and McAllister (and possibly Grant).
4. We will be forced to chose between McAllister and Howard next year with our franchise tag AND may lose one with NO compensation.
5. A DE will not help the middle of our run defense, which is in serious need (even when Howard is on the field).

Don't get me wrong, I like Howard a lot, but financially, I just don't think it is feasible to keep him through the season without putting McKenzie, McAllister, and Bentley at risk of departure at the end of the upcoming year. Also, we need a LB or DT - Howard can get us one of those, and not a bad one either.

We cannot afford to keep Howard.
 

Correction- Deuce\'s current contract does not expire until after the 2006 season.

We cannot afford to keep Howard.
 

Ah, well that does change things a good deal. My bad.

We cannot afford to keep Howard.
 

When do those other guy\'s contracts expire, since the same argument could be made using one of them instead of Duece?

If everyone is good for the next two years (except Howard), then I retract the argument. If not, it remains.

It also remains the case that we need LB and DT help now, which Howard can only get us in a trade.

We cannot afford to keep Howard.
 

good presentation kool. i appreciate your effort. i don\'t have the patience to present the case for things that to me are so obvious. ya know they can get a 3rd rounder minimum. i\'d do that before keeping him. it is nothing at all to do with him but about cap management. there is $85mil and the saints cap squeeze is starting. ya gotta be extremely prudent in who you dole out 10% of a team\'s payroll to. i think the case stands regardless if deuce is \'06 or not.

think woodson in oakland for $10mil! an even worse scenario, they\'ll be lucky to get anything for him. he is probably a lot harder to sign than howard cuz of such outrageous contract demand. and if he doesnt, he has oakland by the kahunas for 10mil.

[Edited on 31/3/2005 by LKelley67]

We cannot afford to keep Howard.
 

Horn, after this coming season.
McKenzie, after the 2006 season.
Bentley, after this coming season.

We cannot afford to keep Howard.
 

Thanks BnB.

I restate my case with Bentley then, instead of Duece.

Thanks LK.

It seems I was in error, but BnB has straightened it up.

I don\'t think that a 3rd rounder is enough for Howard. We should be able to get a second or a starter - since that is what Howard is/was. Furthermore, picks have a certain level of risk that Howard doesn\'t - even if Howard only plays 10 games a season, that is way better than a draft \"bust\".

We\'re not so far over the barrel to take only a 3rd, don\'t you think?

(BnB - where do you get your contract info, so I can get it in the future?)

We cannot afford to keep Howard.
 

We cannot afford to keep Howard.
 

Thanks BnB! I\'ll check it out.

We cannot afford to keep Howard.
 

Point still taken JKool. I don\'t think we can afford to keep Howard. We \"can\" afford to keep him, technically, but I think it would be in the best financial interests to deal him now. For starters, and this is the most important reason, his value will probably never be this high again, especially with him splitting so much time with Will Smith and Charles Grant. I don\'t think he\'ll be able to keep Will Smith on the bench that much this year, so his numbers will dwindle, yet he\'ll still have a high asking price next year. If he would adjust his asking price, that would be one thing, but he will want starter money again. I can\'t say that I blame him. He has the talent and he deserves to be a full time starter, but it no longer makes sense(financially) for the Saints to pay for his services at that rate, not when we have who I think is a future superstar in Will Smith.

We cannot afford to keep Howard.
 

Quite right GT.

It even disputable that we \"can\" afford to keep him. We have only 4 mil (roughly) left under the cap, if my calculations are close. We may actually need all of that (and possibly more) for our rookie signings this year. If that is the case, we can\'t even \"\"can\" afford\" Howard (wow, that sentence sucked, didn\'t it).

We cannot afford to keep Howard.
 

JKool is probably right about our affordability -- that probably is one of the main reasons why teams are playing hardball in their trade offers. They realize that we are at their mercy because we need to dump him -- its a shame really -0- when we cannot afford a pro bowl DE.

We cannot afford to keep Howard.
 

But see the thing is we don\'t need to afford him since we have Will Smith waiting in the wings. Our team can\'t afford a luxury. We need to have a more complete team, and we will have that if we deal Howard.

We cannot afford to keep Howard.
 

Tru dat, GT. Tru dat.

We cannot afford to keep Howard.
 

[quote
But see the thing is we don\'t need to afford him since we have Will Smith waiting in the wings. Our team can\'t afford a luxury. We need to have a more complete team, and we will have that if we deal Howard. [/quote:f603df36a2]

Oh -- I completely agree -- but should we take a terrible deal just to get rid of him -- I don\'t want to do that and I think that teams are thinking we will because we can\'t afford him -- that was my point. I have always felt that our team has too many holes to keep an extra starter

We cannot afford to keep Howard.
 

To our advantage, there are some teams that will have to compete with each other to get Howard. Thus, his cost doesn\'t make it such that we have to merely give him away - since even if we were to simply put him out there, there would still be a bit of a bidding war on him.

We cannot afford to keep Howard.
 

I\'m admittedly a bit surprised there isn\'t more interest in Howard (at least not publicly). Given the clamoring last offseason surrounding Wistrom (who is no better than Howard, but drew a major contract) and Kearse (who had previously had his own injury problems), I sorta thought we\'d have no shortage of suitors wanting to trade for Howard. I wonder if the Saints are asking too much for him?

Then again, all this stuff could change on a dime. I expect more rumors as the draft approaches (if not on draft day itself).

We cannot afford to keep Howard.
 

There are five teams interested in Howard. My guess is they\'re trying to see how much they need him given the draft is pending or if some will drop out of the hunt, which might effectively lower his price. There are also some health concerns regarding Howard.

Eitherway, you don\'t think a 2nd rounder, which is his rumored cost is too much for Howard, do you Mutey?

We cannot afford to keep Howard.
 

From the Cowboys\' boards--

There is some mixed feelings concerning the trade. Almost all agree that a 1st is too much, except for one guy who pointed out all the years and lost draft picks the Cowboys have wasted on finding that DE.
Some feel that a 2nd would work, some don\'t. Those that don\'t either mentioned that Jones might be offering a 2nd from next years draft, or, a 3rd and a player (if Jones offers any pick from next years draft, it better be the 1st, in my opinion).

This is nothing more than a look from a different fans\' perspective.

[Edited on 1/4/2005 by BlackandBlue]

We cannot afford to keep Howard.
 

even if deuces contract doesnt expire till after 2006 we still have ony this season to resign him. i mean it does give us this season but he isnt going to play next season without a contract. i wouldnt if i was him. but either way it would help us to deal howard. i think we will deal him on draft day. just what i believe. should be a lot of room for dealing then

We cannot afford to keep Howard.
 

Great post JKOOL i dont see how anybody can argue that we should keep Howard. great job......

Everyone join our mock( Ya\'ll know i had to pimp our mock)

We cannot afford to keep Howard.
 

i just posted the current cap numbers, saints 1.1mil in space. 6th least in the league. this makes the case all the more compelling in must moving him.

We cannot afford to keep Howard.
 

So it started out as getting a 1st or starter for Howard (of the stud variety), then it went to Dat and a 2nd, then just a second, now a 3rd and some unnamed player?

Folks, it\'s not worth it. The Saints have only two current players who HAVE to have their contracts addressed before next off-season - Horn and Bentley.

Signing Horn to a long-term deal could actually reduce his current season cap hit. That leaves only Bentley. Although I think Bentley is a good player who could be great for the Saints for a long time, he is not of the caliber at this point, absent a great season in 2005, to attract tons of attention in FA.

I still think that you keep Howard unless you get decent value for him. Moreover, I think the Saints need to get a starting LB for the guy... or CB. I mean, a second only? Don\'t think about that as what the Saints could get (in your fantasies), but how they\'ve used those picks in the past. Henderson is of equal value? C\'mon. They should move Howard if the right deal comes along. But they shouldn\'t give him away... and that is exactly what a 3rd rounder is. The Oakland deal would be fine. The Dallas deal is starting to sound like poo.

We cannot afford to keep Howard.
 

It isn\'t just Bentley is gone if we keep Howard. We\'d have to ditch someone we have with a big contract just to sign our rookies. And don\'t everyone start screaming QB, because it is unlikely we\'ll get Smith or anyone else who can start right away. Though, we could keep Howard if we dealt AB.

I agree that a 3rd isn\'t enough. I\'d like to see a 2nd (this year or next) and a starter at LB or DT. OR a 1st this year. It is certain to me that that is his value.

We cannot afford to keep Howard.
 

Fine Kool. What happens when the best offer we get is a 3rd or 2nd next year? Then what do you do?

We cannot afford to keep Howard.
 

He has to go, but there still is such a thing as giving him away. If the Saints get a third for him, I blame that on the Saints FO and their lack of negotiation acumen. If the Saints blow this deal and get shafted(which shouldn\'t happen since the Cowboys are the ones in demand), that doesn\'t mean that the idea of dealing him was all wrong.

We cannot afford to keep Howard.
 

No. I agree. I\'m not arguing that trading him is wrong. I\'m suggesting that if the Saints cannot get a serious impact player or a first or second round pick this year, then he shouldn\'t be dealt.