oakland ups ante for howard

JKool · 04-15-2005, 07:34 PM

Billy,

Maybe you should tell the Titans how \"the cap can always be made to work in the short run\".

The simple fact of the matter is that that is not the case. The cap is a very real problem for us right now. The only way it can be \"made to work\" is if (1) Howard signs with us for much much less than he wants AND doesn\'t get paid his tender amount of 7.8 mil, or (2) we restructure enough OTHER contracts to free up another 3 mil (that should make us pretty popular).

Now, (2) is possible, but I don\'t think it is any where near as simple as you make it sound. Furthermore, it won\'t be better for us next year when those contracts, like Bentley\'s, are up next year and we still have Howard - we only have one franchise tag after all. Trade Howard now or risk losing more players and getting nothing for him.

I\'m still on board for the player for player trade, BUT we do need to move Howard.

GumboBC · 04-15-2005, 08:02 PM

JKool --

We\'ve got some players like Deuce and Bentley that are under contract but they need to be extended.

But, they\'re under contract this year and they just might have to wait. I could give a damn less if their feelings get hurt. All I can tell \'em is \"welcome\" tothe real world.\"

And in the real world things don\'t always happen exactly like you want them to.

Are Deuce and Le Charles going to sit out the year? Are they only going to give 50%? I don\'t think that will be the case but if they do then we really didn\'t need them to begin with.

I\'m no cap expert, but if I were in charge I would do what\'s best for the team and if some contracts had to wait, then I\'d make the tough, if unpopular, decision.

What would the Patriots do?

JKool · 04-15-2005, 09:40 PM

I don\'t think that Duece or Bentley will sit out. That wasn\'t my point. Next year, Howard will again by a UFA, but so will Bentley. Only one of them can be franchized, so one will have to get a contract before next year or we could lose one with NO COMPENSATION. I just don\'t see what is so confusing about this: we don\'t have the money to sign our rookies and keep Howard, unless we cut a bunch of guys salaries, take a risk at losing Howard next year with no compensation, and don\'t extend McAllister, McKenzie, and Bentley (among others).

Too high a price to pay to keep a 3rd DE when we need LBs and DTs.

As far as I\'m concerned, they can all suck it up in terms of what they get paid next year, it is the future that matters more to me. I know you are very concerned for what is best for the team - what is best for the team is dealing Howard while we can still get some value for him, locking in our other skilled players for a few more years, and getting a freakin\' LB.

Rsanders24 · 04-15-2005, 11:49 PM

I think that we should trade Howard for what ever 2nd round pick (early to mid) that we can get. I will even take a 3rd. round this year and a conditional pick next year if we can get it. The older he get the less value he will have and with him sharing time with Smith team will feel that he is less valuable to us because he is not the main guy so his value will drop in that way also. I would accept a player for player trade but it has to be a player that will have the same impact that Howard has. I don\'t see us being able to trade to the Raiders before the draft next week unless they move Woodson first because they do not have the cap room to take on Howard even if we got PB.

Jimnthetwins · 04-16-2005, 12:49 AM

Forget the Raiders trading their second round pick to the saints this year. They are already without a first rounder and for some reason, teams are enamored with draft picks in this league. Although, if you come away with Randy Moss and Darren Howard with your two first round picks....you did pretty good.

FireVenturi · 04-16-2005, 02:05 AM

Gumbo, the only reason a 2nd rdr is risky is because we are the ones doing the picking!!!!!

saintswhodi · 04-16-2005, 03:32 PM

Fully on board with JKool on this one, or is Kool on board with me? Whatever the case, unless Howard is the missing ingredient in us getting to the Superbowl, which he ain\'t, we gotta trade him. Or let him walk next year for NOTHING. So to me, getting a second this year is much more desirable than getting NOTHING next year when he walks, and we still aren\'t in the Superbowl. Player for player trade is ideal, but although I like Buchanon, he ain\'t exactly setting the league on fire. And Woodson was moved to safety cause of his injuries and faltering ability at corner last year. Yeah, that sounds equal to Howard. Plus his agents are the Postons. In case you don\'t know, that is a headache you do not want for your team. IF you need an example, look at Orlando Pace. Cause of the Postons, he had to be franchised 3-4 years in a row. Soon as he fired them, he signs a long term deal. Coincidence? Look at Julius Peterson. The Postons had him asking for a contract with a bonus similar to Peyton MAnning\'s. WTF?? For a LB?? So how either of those options look better than an extra second rounder that we could use to move up, or look better than letting Howard walk for nothing next year is really beyond me. Howard has to go, and a high second is damn fine to make that happen. If we get more, all the better. But I am not holding my breath.

GumboBC · 04-16-2005, 03:38 PM

If we take a 2nd for Howard, then chances are it doesn\'t help very much. And that\'s the bottom line. That is ... unless we get very lucky.

Okay fellas ... what if we can only get a 3rd? Do we take that?

Or what about a 4th? Do we take that?

We gotta get rid of Howard, right?

saintswhodi · 04-16-2005, 03:55 PM

I thought we were talking about a second. I don\'t see what a 3rd or 4th has to do with anything. Howard for a second is a good idea. That\'s the argument. Makes anything less than a second a bad idea no? So we can go on down the line to a 7th rounder for Howard, but the argument it taking a second for Howard is a good idea. Let\'s stay there.

GumboBC · 04-16-2005, 03:58 PM

I thought we were talking about a second. I don\'t see what a 3rd or 4th has to do with anything. Howard for a second is a good idea. That\'s the argument. Makes anything less than a second a bad idea no? So we can go on down the line to a 7th rounder for Howard, but the argument it taking a second for Howard is a good idea. Let\'s stay there.

No ... let\'s not stay with a 2nd.

What JKool has suggested, and you agreed with, is that Howard must go so we can free up cap space for other purposes.

Right? Of course that\'s right. That\'s exactly what JKool said.

If that\'s the case then we should take whatever a team gives us?

Right?

How can we possibly keep Darren Howard? Let\'s just take a 3rd or 4th if that\'s the best we can do.

Right?

Right?

Hmmmmmmmm...........

04-15-2005, 07:34 PM	#41
JKool 1000 Posts + Join Date: Nov 2003 Location: Madison, WI Posts: 2,423	oakland ups ante for howard Billy, Maybe you should tell the Titans how \"the cap can always be made to work in the short run\". The simple fact of the matter is that that is not the case. The cap is a very real problem for us right now. The only way it can be \"made to work\" is if (1) Howard signs with us for much much less than he wants AND doesn\'t get paid his tender amount of 7.8 mil, or (2) we restructure enough OTHER contracts to free up another 3 mil (that should make us pretty popular). Now, (2) is possible, but I don\'t think it is any where near as simple as you make it sound. Furthermore, it won\'t be better for us next year when those contracts, like Bentley\'s, are up next year and we still have Howard - we only have one franchise tag after all. Trade Howard now or risk losing more players and getting nothing for him. I\'m still on board for the player for player trade, BUT we do need to move Howard.
	"... I was beating them with my eyes the whole game..." - Aaron Brooks

04-15-2005, 08:02 PM	#42
GumboBC Banned Join Date: May 2004 Posts: 2,616	oakland ups ante for howard JKool -- We\'ve got some players like Deuce and Bentley that are under contract but they need to be extended. But, they\'re under contract this year and they just might have to wait. I could give a damn less if their feelings get hurt. All I can tell \'em is \"welcome\" tothe real world.\" And in the real world things don\'t always happen exactly like you want them to. Are Deuce and Le Charles going to sit out the year? Are they only going to give 50%? I don\'t think that will be the case but if they do then we really didn\'t need them to begin with. I\'m no cap expert, but if I were in charge I would do what\'s best for the team and if some contracts had to wait, then I\'d make the tough, if unpopular, decision. What would the Patriots do?
GumboBC Banned Join Date: May 2004 Posts: 2,616

04-15-2005, 09:40 PM	#43
JKool 1000 Posts + Join Date: Nov 2003 Location: Madison, WI Posts: 2,423	oakland ups ante for howard I don\'t think that Duece or Bentley will sit out. That wasn\'t my point. Next year, Howard will again by a UFA, but so will Bentley. Only one of them can be franchized, so one will have to get a contract before next year or we could lose one with NO COMPENSATION. I just don\'t see what is so confusing about this: we don\'t have the money to sign our rookies and keep Howard, unless we cut a bunch of guys salaries, take a risk at losing Howard next year with no compensation, and don\'t extend McAllister, McKenzie, and Bentley (among others). Too high a price to pay to keep a 3rd DE when we need LBs and DTs. As far as I\'m concerned, they can all suck it up in terms of what they get paid next year, it is the future that matters more to me. I know you are very concerned for what is best for the team - what is best for the team is dealing Howard while we can still get some value for him, locking in our other skilled players for a few more years, and getting a freakin\' LB.
	"... I was beating them with my eyes the whole game..." - Aaron Brooks

04-15-2005, 11:49 PM	#44
Rsanders24 1000 Posts + Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: Baton Rouge, LA. Posts: 1,482	oakland ups ante for howard I think that we should trade Howard for what ever 2nd round pick (early to mid) that we can get. I will even take a 3rd. round this year and a conditional pick next year if we can get it. The older he get the less value he will have and with him sharing time with Smith team will feel that he is less valuable to us because he is not the main guy so his value will drop in that way also. I would accept a player for player trade but it has to be a player that will have the same impact that Howard has. I don\'t see us being able to trade to the Raiders before the draft next week unless they move Woodson first because they do not have the cap room to take on Howard even if we got PB.

04-16-2005, 12:49 AM	#45
Jimnthetwins Rookie Join Date: Apr 2005 Posts: 15	oakland ups ante for howard Forget the Raiders trading their second round pick to the saints this year. They are already without a first rounder and for some reason, teams are enamored with draft picks in this league. Although, if you come away with Randy Moss and Darren Howard with your two first round picks....you did pretty good.
Jimnthetwins Rookie Join Date: Apr 2005 Posts: 15

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

04-16-2005, 02:05 AM	#46
FireVenturi Cold as Ice! Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Da Big Easy Posts: 2,978	oakland ups ante for howard Gumbo, the only reason a 2nd rdr is risky is because we are the ones doing the picking!!!!!

04-16-2005, 03:32 PM	#47
saintswhodi 5000 POSTS! + Join Date: Oct 2004 Location: San Antonio, TX Posts: 6,941	oakland ups ante for howard Fully on board with JKool on this one, or is Kool on board with me? Whatever the case, unless Howard is the missing ingredient in us getting to the Superbowl, which he ain\'t, we gotta trade him. Or let him walk next year for NOTHING. So to me, getting a second this year is much more desirable than getting NOTHING next year when he walks, and we still aren\'t in the Superbowl. Player for player trade is ideal, but although I like Buchanon, he ain\'t exactly setting the league on fire. And Woodson was moved to safety cause of his injuries and faltering ability at corner last year. Yeah, that sounds equal to Howard. Plus his agents are the Postons. In case you don\'t know, that is a headache you do not want for your team. IF you need an example, look at Orlando Pace. Cause of the Postons, he had to be franchised 3-4 years in a row. Soon as he fired them, he signs a long term deal. Coincidence? Look at Julius Peterson. The Postons had him asking for a contract with a bonus similar to Peyton MAnning\'s. WTF?? For a LB?? So how either of those options look better than an extra second rounder that we could use to move up, or look better than letting Howard walk for nothing next year is really beyond me. Howard has to go, and a high second is damn fine to make that happen. If we get more, all the better. But I am not holding my breath.

04-16-2005, 03:38 PM	#48
GumboBC Banned Join Date: May 2004 Posts: 2,616	oakland ups ante for howard If we take a 2nd for Howard, then chances are it doesn\'t help very much. And that\'s the bottom line. That is ... unless we get very lucky. Okay fellas ... what if we can only get a 3rd? Do we take that? Or what about a 4th? Do we take that? We gotta get rid of Howard, right?
GumboBC Banned Join Date: May 2004 Posts: 2,616

04-16-2005, 03:55 PM	#49
saintswhodi 5000 POSTS! + Join Date: Oct 2004 Location: San Antonio, TX Posts: 6,941	oakland ups ante for howard I thought we were talking about a second. I don\'t see what a 3rd or 4th has to do with anything. Howard for a second is a good idea. That\'s the argument. Makes anything less than a second a bad idea no? So we can go on down the line to a 7th rounder for Howard, but the argument it taking a second for Howard is a good idea. Let\'s stay there.

04-16-2005, 03:58 PM	#50
GumboBC Banned Join Date: May 2004 Posts: 2,616	oakland ups ante for howard I thought we were talking about a second. I don\'t see what a 3rd or 4th has to do with anything. Howard for a second is a good idea. That\'s the argument. Makes anything less than a second a bad idea no? So we can go on down the line to a 7th rounder for Howard, but the argument it taking a second for Howard is a good idea. Let\'s stay there. No ... let\'s not stay with a 2nd. What JKool has suggested, and you agreed with, is that Howard must go so we can free up cap space for other purposes. Right? Of course that\'s right. That\'s exactly what JKool said. If that\'s the case then we should take whatever a team gives us? Right? How can we possibly keep Darren Howard? Let\'s just take a 3rd or 4th if that\'s the best we can do. Right? Right? Hmmmmmmmm...........
GumboBC Banned Join Date: May 2004 Posts: 2,616