Sean Payton speaks about losing Mike Bell & did the Eagles use a "poison pill?"
Head coach of the New Orleans Saints Sean Payton spoke to the media today at the NFC coaches' breakfast and addressed the departure of RB Mike Bell to the Eagles.
"It's tough, and we were still discussing at 8 last night, but overall we looked at organization and this puzzle is bigger than just one part, which makes it hard. It's always a difficult decision with a player who meant so much the year before. [General manager Mickey Loomis] and I spent a lot of time on that decision," Payton said. "One of challenges of free agency -- Philadelphia is getting a real good football player -- is you begin to deal with your own economics and dollars. When Mike came to New Orleans we were able to get a young talented back that helped us in a lot of ways."
Honestly I thought the Saints would have let him walk without much thought. It's interesting that they labored so hard over it. Certainly makes it seem like they felt Bell's contribution to the team last year was important. Not important enough to fork over $1.7 million however...
As to whether the Eagles used a poison pill... I've noticed this report making the rounds today and I wanted to point out the facts. The Eagles placed a no trade clause in the contract Bell signed. The clause basically prevented the Saints from matching the offer and then trying to trade Bell to the Eagles or some other team later in the offseason. So, while the clause certainly did provide the Saints with some disincentive to match the offer, it can hardly be described as a poison pill. All it really did was eliminate the Saints' option to trade Bell.
The most famous "poison pill" was the clause put in Steve Hutchinson's contract by the Vikings that would have guaranteed his entire deal if he played a certain amount of his games in the state of Washington, which he would have if the Seattle Seahawks had matched the offer. Update: Got this backwards. Hutchinson had to be the highest paid lineman on his team and Burleson would have been guaranteed because of the geography thing.
13 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
calling a NTC a poison pill is absurd. If it stated “Bell has a no trade clause if his coach weighs less than 300 lbs”, that would be another story
Not sure your story is correct on Hutchinson, just for the record. IIRC the deal offered to Hutchinson stipulated that his entire $49 million would be guaranteed if he weren’t the highest-paid lineman on his team, and Seattle had just franchised Walter Jones. Seattle’s retaliation then was to offer Nate Burleson the poison pill you’re talking about: entire contract guaranteed if he played a certain number of games in Minnesota.
Someone correct me if I’m wrong, and I know this isn’t the point of the post, but just thought I’d point it out.
that was much more a move out of spite than it was a smart move like the Vikes stealing Hutchinson.
by Clyde Simmons on Mar 24, 2010 2:37 PM EDT up reply actions
Did you expect Payton to say “thank God we’re rid of him” or “we don’t need him that badly. He’s an okay player, but we can get anyone to do his job” It’s coach speak, no news either way, really.
I don’t really agree. The Eagles said they wouldn’t match the Babin offer the day after he signed it. The Saints waited until the last minute to inform Bell that they wouldn’t match. That doesn’t seem like they could care less about losing him.
He did lead that team in carries year.
I didn’t mean to suggest they care less about losing him. I’m tired and not particularly well focused today. Just meant that in terms of Coach Payton talking about it, I wouldn’t expect him to say anything other than what he said, even if they had felt like the loss wasn’t huge.
It’s interesting that they labored so hard over it.
I doubt he would say “we could of caredless” I think any team will say the politically correct thing, regardless.
In life, as in a football game, the principle to follow is: Hit the line hard.
-Theodore Roosevelt

by 























