oakland ups ante for howard

ScottyRo · 04-13-2005, 06:11 PM

Didn\'t he sign the tender? If he did that puts him under contract. To say that we were gonna get nothing for him is unbased. We always had the ability to place the franchise tag on him just like we did. Only stupidity would have let him walk for no compensation.

My point is just that were giving up a proven1st round quality player for a second round pick which by nature is speculative.

Besides simple player for player considerations, I can see where the deal is better because it helps so much (salary, DE being full), I\'m just not understanding how Gallaway can be worth 2 1st rounders, but D. Howard and E James are worth only one 2nd.

That is, if there is any truth to the rumor.

[Edited on 13/4/2005 by ScottyRo]

saintswhodi · 04-13-2005, 06:23 PM

Cause the Galloway trade was ridiculously dumb, and teams aren\'t that stupid when it comes to draft picks any more. Did you see what the Boys got for Herschel Walker when they traded him to Minnesota? A buttload of draft picks Minny just threw at them. The draft is a different animal now, and more value is placed on draft picks because of what they are, cheap labor. And if a guy comes in and produces at this cheaper salary, all the better. How is it that Galloway went for two firsts yet Moss goes for one? That alone should tell you how much the value on draft picks have changed.

Also, hate to keep beating this drum, but Edge James is a pro bowl first round pick RB, and he is gonna be traded for less than a first. As well as Shaun Alexander. Do teams place more value on picks than they should? Probably. But that market is what dictates a players price, not an I feel like he is worth such and such notion. Gerard Warren was a first round pick and he got traded for a 4th. Where a player is picked previously has nothing to do with his worth as a trade for picks now. Howard\'s value on the market is a second, and we would be getting a high one at that. We tagged him with the intent of trading him. The team knew it wasn\'t gonna get a first rounder, hell their first offers was for a second only and then they got greedy with Dallas and wanted Dat too. If this is the deal they are presented, they take it. Sure they could try to scrape by playign hardball and trying to keep him, but that is not in the best interest of the team. Other teams know our cap situation as well as we do. It\'s a good trade.

mutineer10 · 04-13-2005, 07:06 PM

I\'d be delighted with the trade. Howard doesn\'t really fit a pressing need anymore, no to mention he has struggled with injuries the past couple of years. We have Will Smith (cheaper and younger) waiting on the sideline, and a number of needs that trading Howard could undeniably help meet. We\'ve simply gotta free up some cap room in order to sign our upcoming draft picks.

It seems to make sense for the Raiders as well. They had virtually no significant pass rush last year, and (similar to us) few playmakers in their defensive front seven. It would be sensible for them to give up a 2nd rounder for a proven DE, a position that usually demands a stiffer premium (think Grant Wistrom and Jevon Kearse last offseason).

Assuming this rumor holds any truth, the Saints should be stongly considering it...

baronm · 04-13-2005, 07:08 PM

1. sorry I didn\'t post a linka nd for a rumor without a link.
2. There probably is a shred of truth to it...though as for right now it is a rumor.

CheramieIII · 04-13-2005, 07:13 PM

Call Dallas and tell JJ that we got the #38 for Howard and see if he blinks and gives us his 2nd rounder and DAT. It\'s worth a shot, if the story is true.

If he does\'nt blink take #38 and say bye, bye to Howard.

baronm · 04-15-2005, 08:50 AM

rumor confirmed-it\'s in this weeks sportsweekly. DOn\' tknow how valid there info is..but usually they are the last to print things.

WhoDat · 04-15-2005, 09:22 AM

My point is just that were giving up a proven1st round quality player for a second round pick which by nature is speculative.

Scotty - I agree completely. I\'ve never understood it myself. Why do teams always go after trades involving picks for proven players? Assuming age isn\'t a big factor, which it isn\'t with Howard, that just doesn\'t make sense to me.

People on this board prefer a draft pick to Buchannon or Woodson. Why? The Saints might draft another CB of the quality of about McKenzie in the 2nd. Or they might draft another JeRod Cherry.

The only reasons I can come up with are money and New England.

Money becomes an issue because every 4 year starter in the NFL now thinks he deserves huge money, and fights for it. You just can\'t keep signing guys like that. Maybe you could sign 22 guys, but your depth would be horrendous. It also doesn\'t make sense for an owner. Pay a few stars to put butts in the seats, and then try to surround those stars with guys good enough to make your team look decent.

The New England factor is something that I think has subtly effected the whole league. Teams now seem to like \"role\" players. Guys who are good, not great, who can play their part real well. I think New England has done this better than anyone since the FA era. Now the idea seems to be - why pay an A player A money when you can pay two or three B to C players half as much total to fill three spots and maybe one of them develops into an A player (at which time you let him leave through FA b/c he will have become too expensive and you go and find another B or C player to replace him).

I\'m not sure whether it\'s a good strategy or not. I think it has failed in New Orleans because in the past, the Saints could have significantly upgaded the overall play of the team by adding a few stud players, instead of adding depth through youth across the board.

[Edited on 15/4/2005 by WhoDat]

GoldenTomb · 04-15-2005, 09:47 AM

My point is just that were giving up a proven1st round quality player for a second round pick which by nature is speculative.

Scotty - I agree completely. I\'ve never understood it myself. Why do teams always go after trades involving picks for proven players? Assuming age isn\'t a big factor, which it isn\'t with Howard, that just doesn\'t make sense to me.

People on this board prefer a draft pick to Buchannon or Woodson. Why? The Saints might draft another CB of the quality of about McKenzie in the 2nd. Or they might draft another JeRod Cherry.

The only reasons I can come up with are money and New England.

Money becomes an issue because every 4 year starter in the NFL now thinks he deserves huge money, and fights for it. You just can\'t keep signing guys like that. Maybe you could sign 22 guys, but your depth would be horrendous. It also doesn\'t make sense for an owner. Pay a few stars to put butts in the seats, and then try to surround those stars with guys good enough to make your team look decent.

The New England factor is something that I think has subtly effected the whole league. Teams now seem to like \"role\" players. Guys who are good, not great, who can play their part real well. I think New England has done this better than anyone since the FA era. Now the idea seems to be - why pay an A player A money when you can pay two or three B to C players half as much total to fill three spots and maybe one of them develops into an A player (at which time you let him leave through FA b/c he will have become too expensive and you go and find another B or C player to replace him).

I\'m not sure whether it\'s a good strategy or not. I think it has failed in New Orleans because in the past, the Saints could have significantly upgaded the overall play of the team by adding a few stud players, instead of adding depth through youth across the board.

[Edited on 15/4/2005 by WhoDat]

Howard is precisely the kind of player you were just talking about. He wants big money, and deserves it. However it doesn\'t make sense to pay for 3 first round caliber players when only two of them can play on the field at any given time. It\'s inefficient spending to pay a guy $7.8 mil and have him rotating. For a change, I think the Saints are doing the right thing. Since we already have someone in-house who is younger, cheaper, and has more potential than Howard, I think it\'s time to send him on his way. And I am of the belief that they intend to get rid of him no matter what, and it\'s been that way since they drafted Will Smith.

In our unique case, it makes sense to part ways with him and build on other areas that are not as strong as the DE spot. Why fortify an already strong area when we are so weak in others???

[Edited on 15/4/2005 by GoldenTomb]

saintswhodi · 04-15-2005, 10:19 AM

Exactly GT. Exactly. How many times must the same thing be said? :casstet: Howard has to go, we are not gonna get a first for him, so a high second seems just fine. Terrell Owens was traded for a 5th and Brandon Whiting. Is Howard a better player than Owens? James can\'t get a first rounder, Alexander can\'t fet a first rounder, hell Travis Henry went to the Pro Bowl a year or two ago and he isn\'t going for a first rounder. The Dolphins were talking about trading Surtain for a 4th rounder, same withthe Texans and Jamie Sharper. How is Howard more valuable than any of those players? Must be cause he wears the black and gold. We have two starting DEs. let\'s tie most of our cap up in keeping a third cause we want to get more for him than teams are getting for better players. Nice plan.

ScottyRo · 04-15-2005, 10:31 AM

Terrell Owens was traded for a 5th and Brandon Whiting. Is Howard a better player than Owens?

This isn\'t an applicable situation by contrast. I\'m sure you realize that the NFL essentially stole Owens from the Ravens or 49ers in order to get him to Philli. It\'s a completely different situation.

James can\'t get a first rounder, Alexander can\'t fet a first rounder, hell Travis Henry went to the Pro Bowl a year or two ago and he isn\'t going for a first rounder

We don\'t know what these players\' values are until they\'re actually traded. I think this is unprecedented where RBs like Alexander and James aren\'t worth 1st round picks. I can see how James\' injury a while back might diminish his value, but Alexander? He\'s worth a 1st everday - especially to a team outside the top 15 in the draft.

Certainly there are finances that play into why we might take a second and feel good about it because we were able to free up space and all.

I still say, however, if he\'s not worth a 1st, he is worth a 2nd and some additional compensation.

04-13-2005, 06:11 PM	#21
ScottyRo 1000 Posts + Join Date: Jun 2002 Location: Williamsburg, VA (ugh, the food here) Posts: 1,704	oakland ups ante for howard Didn\'t he sign the tender? If he did that puts him under contract. To say that we were gonna get nothing for him is unbased. We always had the ability to place the franchise tag on him just like we did. Only stupidity would have let him walk for no compensation. My point is just that were giving up a proven1st round quality player for a second round pick which by nature is speculative. Besides simple player for player considerations, I can see where the deal is better because it helps so much (salary, DE being full), I\'m just not understanding how Gallaway can be worth 2 1st rounders, but D. Howard and E James are worth only one 2nd. That is, if there is any truth to the rumor. [Edited on 13/4/2005 by ScottyRo]

04-13-2005, 06:23 PM	#22
saintswhodi 5000 POSTS! + Join Date: Oct 2004 Location: San Antonio, TX Posts: 6,941	oakland ups ante for howard Cause the Galloway trade was ridiculously dumb, and teams aren\'t that stupid when it comes to draft picks any more. Did you see what the Boys got for Herschel Walker when they traded him to Minnesota? A buttload of draft picks Minny just threw at them. The draft is a different animal now, and more value is placed on draft picks because of what they are, cheap labor. And if a guy comes in and produces at this cheaper salary, all the better. How is it that Galloway went for two firsts yet Moss goes for one? That alone should tell you how much the value on draft picks have changed. Also, hate to keep beating this drum, but Edge James is a pro bowl first round pick RB, and he is gonna be traded for less than a first. As well as Shaun Alexander. Do teams place more value on picks than they should? Probably. But that market is what dictates a players price, not an I feel like he is worth such and such notion. Gerard Warren was a first round pick and he got traded for a 4th. Where a player is picked previously has nothing to do with his worth as a trade for picks now. Howard\'s value on the market is a second, and we would be getting a high one at that. We tagged him with the intent of trading him. The team knew it wasn\'t gonna get a first rounder, hell their first offers was for a second only and then they got greedy with Dallas and wanted Dat too. If this is the deal they are presented, they take it. Sure they could try to scrape by playign hardball and trying to keep him, but that is not in the best interest of the team. Other teams know our cap situation as well as we do. It\'s a good trade.

04-13-2005, 07:06 PM	#23
mutineer10 Site Donor Join Date: Nov 2004 Location: Baton Rouge, LA Posts: 1,739	oakland ups ante for howard I\'d be delighted with the trade. Howard doesn\'t really fit a pressing need anymore, no to mention he has struggled with injuries the past couple of years. We have Will Smith (cheaper and younger) waiting on the sideline, and a number of needs that trading Howard could undeniably help meet. We\'ve simply gotta free up some cap room in order to sign our upcoming draft picks. It seems to make sense for the Raiders as well. They had virtually no significant pass rush last year, and (similar to us) few playmakers in their defensive front seven. It would be sensible for them to give up a 2nd rounder for a proven DE, a position that usually demands a stiffer premium (think Grant Wistrom and Jevon Kearse last offseason). Assuming this rumor holds any truth, the Saints should be stongly considering it...

04-13-2005, 07:08 PM	#24
baronm 500th Post Join Date: Jan 2005 Posts: 954	oakland ups ante for howard 1. sorry I didn\'t post a linka nd for a rumor without a link. 2. There probably is a shred of truth to it...though as for right now it is a rumor.
baronm 500th Post Join Date: Jan 2005 Posts: 954

04-13-2005, 07:13 PM	#25
CheramieIII Fan Since 1967 Join Date: May 2004 Location: Nomad Posts: 7,487 Blog Entries: 3	oakland ups ante for howard Call Dallas and tell JJ that we got the #38 for Howard and see if he blinks and gives us his 2nd rounder and DAT. It\'s worth a shot, if the story is true. If he does\'nt blink take #38 and say bye, bye to Howard.

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

04-15-2005, 08:50 AM	#26
baronm 500th Post Join Date: Jan 2005 Posts: 954	oakland ups ante for howard rumor confirmed-it\'s in this weeks sportsweekly. DOn\' tknow how valid there info is..but usually they are the last to print things.
baronm 500th Post Join Date: Jan 2005 Posts: 954

04-15-2005, 09:22 AM	#27
WhoDat 5000 POSTS! + Join Date: Sep 2002 Posts: 5,631	oakland ups ante for howard My point is just that were giving up a proven1st round quality player for a second round pick which by nature is speculative. Scotty - I agree completely. I\'ve never understood it myself. Why do teams always go after trades involving picks for proven players? Assuming age isn\'t a big factor, which it isn\'t with Howard, that just doesn\'t make sense to me. People on this board prefer a draft pick to Buchannon or Woodson. Why? The Saints might draft another CB of the quality of about McKenzie in the 2nd. Or they might draft another JeRod Cherry. The only reasons I can come up with are money and New England. Money becomes an issue because every 4 year starter in the NFL now thinks he deserves huge money, and fights for it. You just can\'t keep signing guys like that. Maybe you could sign 22 guys, but your depth would be horrendous. It also doesn\'t make sense for an owner. Pay a few stars to put butts in the seats, and then try to surround those stars with guys good enough to make your team look decent. The New England factor is something that I think has subtly effected the whole league. Teams now seem to like \"role\" players. Guys who are good, not great, who can play their part real well. I think New England has done this better than anyone since the FA era. Now the idea seems to be - why pay an A player A money when you can pay two or three B to C players half as much total to fill three spots and maybe one of them develops into an A player (at which time you let him leave through FA b/c he will have become too expensive and you go and find another B or C player to replace him). I\'m not sure whether it\'s a good strategy or not. I think it has failed in New Orleans because in the past, the Saints could have significantly upgaded the overall play of the team by adding a few stud players, instead of adding depth through youth across the board. [Edited on 15/4/2005 by WhoDat]
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.\"

04-15-2005, 09:47 AM	#28
GoldenTomb 500th Post Join Date: Jan 2004 Posts: 591	oakland ups ante for howard My point is just that were giving up a proven1st round quality player for a second round pick which by nature is speculative. Scotty - I agree completely. I\'ve never understood it myself. Why do teams always go after trades involving picks for proven players? Assuming age isn\'t a big factor, which it isn\'t with Howard, that just doesn\'t make sense to me. People on this board prefer a draft pick to Buchannon or Woodson. Why? The Saints might draft another CB of the quality of about McKenzie in the 2nd. Or they might draft another JeRod Cherry. The only reasons I can come up with are money and New England. Money becomes an issue because every 4 year starter in the NFL now thinks he deserves huge money, and fights for it. You just can\'t keep signing guys like that. Maybe you could sign 22 guys, but your depth would be horrendous. It also doesn\'t make sense for an owner. Pay a few stars to put butts in the seats, and then try to surround those stars with guys good enough to make your team look decent. The New England factor is something that I think has subtly effected the whole league. Teams now seem to like \"role\" players. Guys who are good, not great, who can play their part real well. I think New England has done this better than anyone since the FA era. Now the idea seems to be - why pay an A player A money when you can pay two or three B to C players half as much total to fill three spots and maybe one of them develops into an A player (at which time you let him leave through FA b/c he will have become too expensive and you go and find another B or C player to replace him). I\'m not sure whether it\'s a good strategy or not. I think it has failed in New Orleans because in the past, the Saints could have significantly upgaded the overall play of the team by adding a few stud players, instead of adding depth through youth across the board. [Edited on 15/4/2005 by WhoDat] Howard is precisely the kind of player you were just talking about. He wants big money, and deserves it. However it doesn\'t make sense to pay for 3 first round caliber players when only two of them can play on the field at any given time. It\'s inefficient spending to pay a guy $7.8 mil and have him rotating. For a change, I think the Saints are doing the right thing. Since we already have someone in-house who is younger, cheaper, and has more potential than Howard, I think it\'s time to send him on his way. And I am of the belief that they intend to get rid of him no matter what, and it\'s been that way since they drafted Will Smith. In our unique case, it makes sense to part ways with him and build on other areas that are not as strong as the DE spot. Why fortify an already strong area when we are so weak in others??? [Edited on 15/4/2005 by GoldenTomb]
GoldenTomb 500th Post Join Date: Jan 2004 Posts: 591

04-15-2005, 10:19 AM	#29
saintswhodi 5000 POSTS! + Join Date: Oct 2004 Location: San Antonio, TX Posts: 6,941	oakland ups ante for howard Exactly GT. Exactly. How many times must the same thing be said? :casstet: Howard has to go, we are not gonna get a first for him, so a high second seems just fine. Terrell Owens was traded for a 5th and Brandon Whiting. Is Howard a better player than Owens? James can\'t get a first rounder, Alexander can\'t fet a first rounder, hell Travis Henry went to the Pro Bowl a year or two ago and he isn\'t going for a first rounder. The Dolphins were talking about trading Surtain for a 4th rounder, same withthe Texans and Jamie Sharper. How is Howard more valuable than any of those players? Must be cause he wears the black and gold. We have two starting DEs. let\'s tie most of our cap up in keeping a third cause we want to get more for him than teams are getting for better players. Nice plan.

04-15-2005, 10:31 AM	#30
ScottyRo 1000 Posts + Join Date: Jun 2002 Location: Williamsburg, VA (ugh, the food here) Posts: 1,704	oakland ups ante for howard Terrell Owens was traded for a 5th and Brandon Whiting. Is Howard a better player than Owens? This isn\'t an applicable situation by contrast. I\'m sure you realize that the NFL essentially stole Owens from the Ravens or 49ers in order to get him to Philli. It\'s a completely different situation. James can\'t get a first rounder, Alexander can\'t fet a first rounder, hell Travis Henry went to the Pro Bowl a year or two ago and he isn\'t going for a first rounder We don\'t know what these players\' values are until they\'re actually traded. I think this is unprecedented where RBs like Alexander and James aren\'t worth 1st round picks. I can see how James\' injury a while back might diminish his value, but Alexander? He\'s worth a 1st everday - especially to a team outside the top 15 in the draft. Certainly there are finances that play into why we might take a second and feel good about it because we were able to free up space and all. I still say, however, if he\'s not worth a 1st, he is worth a 2nd and some additional compensation.