oakland ups ante for howard

ssmitty · 04-18-2005, 02:14 PM

aaahhhhhhh, but with trades we don\'t take the hit at all, do we? who can we get or how much do we have to give to say bye bye to brooks?

JKool · 04-18-2005, 02:22 PM

Actually, in a trade there is still a cap hit for the value of the signing bonus (though there is some special rule that I don\'t quite understand). However, you are correct in your assessment that we would deal away his contract amount (that would help us about 3-4 mil, which would allow us to sign our rookies).

However, if this falls under the \"we will find away to accomodate Howard\'s contract\", I think it is misguided. We\'re not going to be trading Brooks so we can keep Howard. Unless it is a pretty damn good trade for us, I don\'t see trading our starting QB so we can keep a 3rd DE - you think people are laughing at us now?

If you can come up with a trade where we get a starting QB of roughly equal value (in terms of quality on the field) and whose contract is only 1-2.5 mil (and whom we\'re not going to give a signing bonus), then a trade is perfectly acceptable to me. Otherwise, I don\'t think that trading Brooks is an option with respect to keeping Howard.

saintswhodi · 04-18-2005, 02:23 PM

If you trade a player, you still take the hit for their bonus, just like cutting them. If they have no bonus, as in the case of Howard, no worries. That\'s also why there is a timeline for a player agreeing to a deal for a new team, and being traded as we were trying to do with Dallas. We could have signed him to the deal for Dallas, and traded him within 24 hours without the bonus hit. But that deadline has passed. so any team that trades for him now has to hope he lives up to signing a long term deal, or he is their 7.8 mil headache. Not as simple as we\'d like to say just trade so and so. But getting something in return usually makes it more attractive.

ssmitty · 04-18-2005, 02:55 PM

who said anything about getting rid of brooks to keep howard? (just get rid of him) now, had howard not signed the franchise agreement, we would have been entitled to two first round picks by a team that wanted him or compensation agreed on by both teams, is that correct?

saintswhodi · 04-18-2005, 03:07 PM

had howard not signed the franchise agreement, we would have been entitled to two first round picks by a team that wanted him or compensation agreed on by both teams, is that correct?

We are still entitled to compensation agreed upon by both teams, regardless to if Howard has signed or not. John Abraham has not signed with the Jets for his franchise offer and they are still shopping him. No player in the NFL outside of Peyton Manning would bring two firsts in a trade, but any compensation for trading Howard still has to be agreed upon by us. That\'s why we haven\'t traded him yet.

JKool · 04-18-2005, 04:36 PM

My bad ssmitty.

I thought you were making proposals that might help our cap space to make plausible your claim that we could \"make keeping Howard\" possible.

I don\'t see much value in discussing trading Brooks for several reasons:
1. It\'s been hashed out a dozen times already.
2. It won\'t happen with Haz and Loomis in charge (at least not this year)
3. Given Brooks signing bonus, moving him will merely create a cap monstrosity.

ssmitty · 04-19-2005, 04:39 AM

you may have come up with the solution jk...........
trade brooks back to g.b. for jt...........smitty

JKool · 04-19-2005, 09:21 AM

:hallucine:

Puddinhead · 04-19-2005, 02:20 PM

they have showed the chutzpah to move up before. LB is an incredible glaring need and there is only one sure-thing strong playmaker. we have heard nada even from the rumor mill to indicate this might be a possibility tho.

Keep in mind that some \"pundits\" are questioning whether that \"sure-thing strong playmaker\" is even a first round talent....after realizing that the one game he played against NFL-size and -caliber blocking (Michigan), he tallyed 1 1/2 tackles for the game.

baronm · 04-19-2005, 02:35 PM

they have showed the chutzpah to move up before. LB is an incredible glaring need and there is only one sure-thing strong playmaker. we have heard nada even from the rumor mill to indicate this might be a possibility tho.

Keep in mind that some \"pundits\" are questioning whether that \"sure-thing strong playmaker\" is even a first round talent....after realizing that the one game he played against NFL-size and -caliber blocking (Michigan), he tallyed 1 1/2 tackles for the game.

that is so very true and another reason that I think we wil move up--to make ourselves look smarter but instead we look dumber.

04-18-2005, 02:14 PM	#81
ssmitty 1000 Posts + Join Date: Mar 2003 Posts: 1,879	oakland ups ante for howard aaahhhhhhh, but with trades we don\'t take the hit at all, do we? who can we get or how much do we have to give to say bye bye to brooks?
ssmitty 1000 Posts + Join Date: Mar 2003 Posts: 1,879

04-18-2005, 02:22 PM	#82
JKool 1000 Posts + Join Date: Nov 2003 Location: Madison, WI Posts: 2,423	oakland ups ante for howard Actually, in a trade there is still a cap hit for the value of the signing bonus (though there is some special rule that I don\'t quite understand). However, you are correct in your assessment that we would deal away his contract amount (that would help us about 3-4 mil, which would allow us to sign our rookies). However, if this falls under the \"we will find away to accomodate Howard\'s contract\", I think it is misguided. We\'re not going to be trading Brooks so we can keep Howard. Unless it is a pretty damn good trade for us, I don\'t see trading our starting QB so we can keep a 3rd DE - you think people are laughing at us now? If you can come up with a trade where we get a starting QB of roughly equal value (in terms of quality on the field) and whose contract is only 1-2.5 mil (and whom we\'re not going to give a signing bonus), then a trade is perfectly acceptable to me. Otherwise, I don\'t think that trading Brooks is an option with respect to keeping Howard.
	"... I was beating them with my eyes the whole game..." - Aaron Brooks

04-18-2005, 02:23 PM	#83
saintswhodi 5000 POSTS! + Join Date: Oct 2004 Location: San Antonio, TX Posts: 6,941	oakland ups ante for howard If you trade a player, you still take the hit for their bonus, just like cutting them. If they have no bonus, as in the case of Howard, no worries. That\'s also why there is a timeline for a player agreeing to a deal for a new team, and being traded as we were trying to do with Dallas. We could have signed him to the deal for Dallas, and traded him within 24 hours without the bonus hit. But that deadline has passed. so any team that trades for him now has to hope he lives up to signing a long term deal, or he is their 7.8 mil headache. Not as simple as we\'d like to say just trade so and so. But getting something in return usually makes it more attractive.

04-18-2005, 02:55 PM	#84
ssmitty 1000 Posts + Join Date: Mar 2003 Posts: 1,879	oakland ups ante for howard who said anything about getting rid of brooks to keep howard? (just get rid of him) now, had howard not signed the franchise agreement, we would have been entitled to two first round picks by a team that wanted him or compensation agreed on by both teams, is that correct?
ssmitty 1000 Posts + Join Date: Mar 2003 Posts: 1,879

04-18-2005, 03:07 PM	#85
saintswhodi 5000 POSTS! + Join Date: Oct 2004 Location: San Antonio, TX Posts: 6,941	oakland ups ante for howard had howard not signed the franchise agreement, we would have been entitled to two first round picks by a team that wanted him or compensation agreed on by both teams, is that correct? We are still entitled to compensation agreed upon by both teams, regardless to if Howard has signed or not. John Abraham has not signed with the Jets for his franchise offer and they are still shopping him. No player in the NFL outside of Peyton Manning would bring two firsts in a trade, but any compensation for trading Howard still has to be agreed upon by us. That\'s why we haven\'t traded him yet.

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

04-18-2005, 04:36 PM	#86
JKool 1000 Posts + Join Date: Nov 2003 Location: Madison, WI Posts: 2,423	oakland ups ante for howard My bad ssmitty. I thought you were making proposals that might help our cap space to make plausible your claim that we could \"make keeping Howard\" possible. I don\'t see much value in discussing trading Brooks for several reasons: 1. It\'s been hashed out a dozen times already. 2. It won\'t happen with Haz and Loomis in charge (at least not this year) 3. Given Brooks signing bonus, moving him will merely create a cap monstrosity.

04-19-2005, 04:39 AM	#87
ssmitty 1000 Posts + Join Date: Mar 2003 Posts: 1,879	oakland ups ante for howard you may have come up with the solution jk........... trade brooks back to g.b. for jt...........smitty
ssmitty 1000 Posts + Join Date: Mar 2003 Posts: 1,879

04-19-2005, 09:21 AM	#88
JKool 1000 Posts + Join Date: Nov 2003 Location: Madison, WI Posts: 2,423	oakland ups ante for howard :hallucine:

04-19-2005, 02:20 PM	#89
Puddinhead 100th Post Join Date: Jul 2002 Posts: 102	oakland ups ante for howard they have showed the chutzpah to move up before. LB is an incredible glaring need and there is only one sure-thing strong playmaker. we have heard nada even from the rumor mill to indicate this might be a possibility tho. Keep in mind that some \"pundits\" are questioning whether that \"sure-thing strong playmaker\" is even a first round talent....after realizing that the one game he played against NFL-size and -caliber blocking (Michigan), he tallyed 1 1/2 tackles for the game.
Puddinhead 100th Post Join Date: Jul 2002 Posts: 102

04-19-2005, 02:35 PM	#90
baronm 500th Post Join Date: Jan 2005 Posts: 954	oakland ups ante for howard they have showed the chutzpah to move up before. LB is an incredible glaring need and there is only one sure-thing strong playmaker. we have heard nada even from the rumor mill to indicate this might be a possibility tho. Keep in mind that some \"pundits\" are questioning whether that \"sure-thing strong playmaker\" is even a first round talent....after realizing that the one game he played against NFL-size and -caliber blocking (Michigan), he tallyed 1 1/2 tackles for the game. that is so very true and another reason that I think we wil move up--to make ourselves look smarter but instead we look dumber.
baronm 500th Post Join Date: Jan 2005 Posts: 954