It wouldnt be 4-5 million freed up. We're still liable for a bunch of money for Samuels, then wed have to pay a ten million dollar signing bonus to Gallery. And what makes anyone think that the Raiders will get Samuels to agree to a restructure to make the trade work. The only benefit to the Raiders is if we gave them Samuels and Gardner and our pick and they get Samuels to renegioate. I think our best bet is hoping all the trade talks make Samuels renegioate his contract becuase he comes out and says i want to be a Redskin. Infact I think the rumors are just tactics to get him to do so.

Gallery would be good. I'd give up our 2nd rounder next yr and Samuels.

Gallery is just going to be another Pace or Samuels, wileding an impossible cap number in a few years.

From what I can tell Samuels' cap hits are as follows:
2004: $8.750M
2005: $9.643M
2006: $11.320M

Included in the above is $8.797M of deferred signing bonus ($2.932M in 2004-2006).

So the dead-money cap hits if the Skins were to cut/trade Samuels would be as follows:

1. Cut/trade Samuels before June 1st
2004 dead money: $8.797M
2005 dead money: $0

2. Cut/trade Samuels after June 1st
2004 dead money: $2.932
2005 dead money: $5.865

Okay, I questioned the Brunell trade, but this Samuels + our #5 pick for the #2 pick is absolutely crazy.

Granted, Samuels didn't have his best season last year. But Samuels for 3 spots!!!!???!!!??? And to select a OT when we've got the former #3 overall pick from 2000 at LT?

We need D-line, not O-line help Mr. Gibbs.

I agree RF, just seems like way too much to give up to move up 3 lousy spots.

Something like Gardner and Samuels for the #2 overall sounds like plenty to me, maybe throw in a future pick if necessary, but Samuels and the #5 for just the #2 just doesn't sit well with me.

I'm hoping there's something else going on that we don't know about, some other motive for letting our "interest" for Gallery be known at this point.

Samuels was a top-3 pick, and he's a "proven" player with a couple pro bowl
appearances (somehow ;)). Plus the team that trades for him would resign
him to a new deal that fits their own cap constraints. He should command at
least a top-3 pick in return (ie Gallery), and more IMO.

I would love Samuels for Gallery straight up, but anything more doesn't make sense.

[QUOTE=CrazyCanuck]Samuels was a top-3 pick, and he's a "proven" player with a couple pro bowl
appearances (somehow ;)). Plus the team that trades for him would resign
him to a new deal that fits their own cap constraints. He should command at
least a top-3 pick in return (ie Gallery), and more IMO.

I would love Samuels for Gallery straight up, but anything more doesn't make sense.[/QUOTE]
That [i][b]should[/b][/i] be the case. It would be truly assinine of the FO to allow themselves to be talked into sacrificing Samuels AND their #5 pick to acquire a replacement for Samuels with the #2 pick.

As others have said, if the Skins are able to acquire Gallery, but retain the #5 pick, then I'm all for it. But as Canuck said, if the Skins have to deal anything more than Samuels for Gallery straight up, then it's a bad deal on the Skins' part. It would be further evidence of how the Skins' irresponsible cap management has had a destructive effect on the roster.

Of course, all of this is likely moot if the Giants are able to pull off a trade with the Chargers to move up to the #1 spot.

Samuels to Oakland?
 

[url]http://sports.yahoo.com/nfl/news?slug=draftdishraidersandredsk&prov=tsn&type=lgns[/url]

What areas does this trade and subsequent draft pick actually address? Maybe drafting Gallery and/or grabbing said draft spot is simply a ploy. Either to expediate the process of re-working Samuel's contract or a possible trading down with the Giants who are infatuated with Gallery. Notwithstanding, do we really need an inexperienced O-lineman and does this preference superseed our problems on D-line and throughout the secondary?

Rob Gallery Talks
 

[url]http://nflplayers.com/news/news_release.asp?id=2083[/url]

Any news on holdman yet, that probably has a lot to do with any trades we make becuase of the cap room he'll take up. Granted we'll have more money when Trotter is gone but until then we wont have any money left.

Fox new's is speculating that we may have a draft day deal in place with the raider's, If we give up our #5 and samuel's for the #2 pick were nut's, essentially all we get is nothing but a little bit of cap relief, replacing a pro-bowl caliber tackle with a potential pro-bowl tackle, we have to get something more than just Gallery, I like the kid a lot and would prefer him over samuels, but it's to much to give up, samuel's gardner and our#1 next year? OK I would probably do that, I just don't want us to do what we did when we picked desmond howard, we didn't need a WR at the time we needed D-line help and we gave up 2 #1's to move up and take him and the rest is history, this move is not a neccessity type move, I just don't like what I have been hearing, especially after we threw in a #2 for portis, as if denver was going to find a better player to deal him for other than champ.

I've got to think this is merely innuendo stirred up to help push Samuels to redo his deal. It probably won't work though. But I've got to believe the front office is not dumb enough to give up Samuels AND the #5 pick just for the #2 pick. It would essentially be like giving two players for one (Samuels and #5) for one, and the one is an unproven college player. We're not going to give up a probowler and a top 5 pick for someone unproven, no matter how great the potential. This is one rumor I'm not going to burn alot of energy worrying about. If they wish to trade the #2 pick straight up for Samuels, I could live with that. But what is being discussed now is heavily in the Raiders favor and I don't see it happening.

What about
1) Trading any (and all) combination(s) of Gardner, Betts, Ohalete, Trotter and a future pick for the #2 spot.

2) Using the #2 to select Fitzgerald - he will be an amazing 1a receiver opposite Coles. And, in time, he will help immensely with Ramsey's development. Not to mention he is a great receiver in all senses of the word.

3) Then using the #5 pick to select Taylor. No need to explain this one.

In the end, we upgrade our offense AND defense. We don't need to trade Samuels. All he wants is a fair shake in Gibbs' run-oriented/max protect offense and some love from the Front Office. I'm sure he will renegotiate for next year given the opportunity to prove himself.

[QUOTE=SKINSnCANES]Any news on holdman yet, that probably has a lot to do with any trades we make becuase of the cap room he'll take up. Granted we'll have more money when Trotter is gone but until then we wont have any money left.[/QUOTE]

From what I can tell we only have about $500K of 2004 cap room right now. I can't see them making any more moves unless they dump Samuels, Trotter, Moore, etc.

[QUOTE=Showtime]2) Using the #2 to select Fitzgerald - he will be an amazing 1a receiver opposite Coles. And, in time, he will help immensely with Ramsey's development. Not to mention he is a great receiver in all senses of the word.[/QUOTE]

even if the skins were even remotely thinking about drafting a WR, it shouldn't be Fitzgerald. If we had a spot to fill with any of the top 3 wr's in the draft,which we don't, Roy Williams is the best Wr in the draft.

The more I hear about this deal with oakland the more I'm hating it cuz we in no way shape or form trade BOTH Samuels and the #5 overall pick for a rookie, even a rookie that has as much potential as Gallery. If this trade can go through without losing our pick so we could then select taylor or trade down and all we lose is samuels and his enormous cap #, thats a deal that makes more sense than practically giving up two high 1st round picks.

[quote]From what I can tell we only have about $500K of 2004 cap room right now. I can't see them making any more moves unless they dump Samuels, Trotter, Moore, etc.[/quote]

Crazy, you are definitly the cap expert around these parts, but once the June cuts come we should have quite a bit left over in cap space, correct? With Trotter, Trung, and more likely to get the knife, shouldn't we expect to get upwards of 1 mil in cap space free, or am I being too optimisitic.

As far as the above poster said, Roy Williams is THE WR to pick in this draft. Fitzgerald is a talented guy, and he's slated at #3 because he has a personal relationship with Denny Green. I don't really like this trade, especially if it includes our #5. If it is something like a Gardner or Trotter and Samuels for Gallery fine, but I'd rather do it to light a fire under Samuels ass to restructure. That could be the purpose for this, who knows!

Either way, I wanna see Winslow or Taylor in our boat come April 24th. 8)

When I asked about Holdman I meant did he sign out offer sheet. I know we dont have much money but we already presented him with a new offer last week. We'll have the money once Trotter, Candidate(mabye), Larry Moore, and some D-linemen get the boot.

If for some reason trading Gardner, Trotter, Ife and Trung got us the second pick without giving up Samuels, or the number five pick, I think we should then trade the second pick to the brown, then mabye down again and recoup a bunch of picks. If we could get rid of people we dotn need(no offence Gardner, who id love ot keep but atleast has trade value), free up cap space and get more picks that would be awesome. The Raiders have a very old team and do need a bunch of people to step in, and Norv has worked with some of them here, so just mabye this could work out for us.

As far as the three receivers, I cant help but think Larry Fitzgerald is the best one. Hes by far the smartest and the best with the ball, mabye the best since Jerry Rice. Hes not the fastest but seeing the types of plays he makes is incredible. Roy Williams may be better right now becuase he has four years of college under his belt. But I think the upside definitly goes to Fitzgerald. Roy is one of those guys thats the best in this years draft becuase of expereince. Larry is one of those peopel that comes around every ten years and happened to be the first that is allowed to come out early. If Larry had another year of college, which up until this year he would have had to, he would easily be the first pick in the draft.

Samuels may have angered Snyder by refusing to re-work his deal, but I have a feeling the motives for drafting Gallery and moving Samuels would be more salary cap-related than anything personal against Samuels. Though Gallery would certainly demand a huge contract, the numbers of the first 3-4 years would likely be rather cap-friendly-- certainly nowhere near as damaging as Samuels' numbers over the same timeframe.

I think your right! I really wouldn't care to much if Samule got traded. We could really use that kind of cap space!

i think this would make the most sense
1st- trade #5 overall and rod gardner and or trotter for the #1 or #2 overall and select Gallery. If they dont want that, throw in a pick from next year
2nd- trade Samuels to Browns for #7 overall, that seems fair to me seeing as how hes at least a 2 time pro bowler and 26 years old, 3rd overall pick not long ago...

Anyone agree with me? that way we can still get D-Line help in Tommie Harris, or get either winslow or taylor if theyre there

The browns wouldn't give up their draft pick where they could get an allstar in Taylor or Winslow for Samuels.
\

i dont know, maybe samuels and a 3rd rounder next year, that would be pretty fair it seems to me. the browns need o-line more than anything, they would probably consider it

Gardner AND Trotter would never get the first or second pick in the draft. Trotter will be free in two months anyways and they coudl draft a better receiver with the pick.

[QUOTE=Daseal]Crazy, you are definitly the cap expert around these parts, but once the June cuts come we should have quite a bit left over in cap space, correct? With Trotter, Trung, and more likely to get the knife, shouldn't we expect to get upwards of 1 mil in cap space free, or am I being too optimisitic.[/QUOTE]

Here's a list of potential cap savings for 2004:

Samuels $5.8M *
Trotter $2.7M *
Wynn $2M *
Moore $1.3M
Fiore $1.1M *
Noble $1M *
Upshaw $1M *
Canidate $915K
Bowen $850K *
Chamberlain $710K
Haley $615K *

* - player must be cut/traded after June 1st for the savings to take effect.

I'm not saying all these players will/should be cut, but these are the main choices.

[QUOTE=Daseal]The browns wouldn't give up their draft pick where they could get an allstar in Taylor or Winslow for Samuels.
\[/QUOTE]

plus then we'd have a huge hole on our oline. the only way we get rid of Samuels this season is if its in reasonable trade with the Raiders and that's if Gallery's still available. I think the Giants be trying to play people by leaking out that they want to trade up and get Manning when they really r gonna try and grab Gallery.

And about Fitzgerald vs Williams, its not only about expirience but also talent. Roy is faster, stronger, I believe taller, and makes amazing plays after the catch whether it be just hauling tail away from the defenders or running them over. I think Fitzgerald has tons of talent and I've seen some of the miraculous catches he's had, but it's not like Williams is a slouch at catching the ball either. Those extra things he can do after the catch with his speed and size is what seperates him from Fitzgerald. And too be honest I'm just glad it's not gonna be an in-division foe who drafts either of them. I'm more worried about Dallas moving up to get Stephen Jackson or Kevin Jones.

Thanks for the cap list, thats awesome. I never understood why we paid Wynn so much money. Hes one of the first players I cut on Madden becaue of his high salary. Him and Moore. Wynn is solid but nothing special. Not that we can afford to let more peopel go off our line, but he should rework his deal. Im surprises his name never came up.

OH, as a side note, the problem with Roy is that he doesnt always make the miraculous catches, hes known for making drops more than that. When he does catch it, which is most of the time still, he is a great after the play receiver.

The latest from the WT today where they say the Gallery/Samuels rumor is more media rumor than real possibility.

[url]http://www.washtimes.com/sports/20040412-114406-4198r.htm[/url]

[quote]Meanwhile, it remains unclear whether Washington is considering a move up to No. 2 to grab Iowa offensive tackle Robert Gallery. Vice president of football operations Vinny Cerrato denied an ESPN.com report that the team is eager to pull off such a deal, but Washington did have Gallery in for a visit last week.

One official with another NFL club characterized that scenario as more of a media rumor than a real possibility. And a number of sources familiar with the situation believe the Redskins do not possess the ammunition to move up from No. 5 to No. 2.

One scenario would have the Redskins trading offensive tackle Chris Samuels and the No. 5 pick to Oakland for the No. 2 pick and something else of value, perhaps later selections. However, the Raiders will field draft-day offers that include selections, most likely from the New York Giants and Cleveland Browns. Also, there is some skepticism that Oakland is as eager to drop back as is generally assumed.

At the foundation of the Samuels-Gallery rumors seems to be at least one shaky premise, that Washington is fed up with Samuels for failing to redo his contract.

According to a source close to the situation, Samuels has been willing to restructure the remainder of his deal for 2004 cap room or to consider a long-term extension next year, when he has just one year left on his deal.

The only scenario Samuels will not consider is one in which he negotiates a new extension now, while he still has two lucrative years remaining, as linebacker LaVar Arrington did in December. [/quote]

I hope this is just rumor/smoke screen before the draft.

[QUOTE=skinsfanthru&thru]

And about Fitzgerald vs Williams, its not only about expirience but also talent. Roy is faster, stronger, I believe taller, and makes amazing plays after the catch whether it be just hauling tail away from the defenders or running them over. I think Fitzgerald has tons of talent and I've seen some of the miraculous catches he's had, but it's not like Williams is a slouch at catching the ball either. Those extra things he can do after the catch with his speed and size is what seperates him from Fitzgerald. And too be honest I'm just glad it's not gonna be an in-division foe who drafts either of them. I'm more worried about Dallas moving up to get Stephen Jackson or Kevin Jones.[/QUOTE]
Roy Williams has more speed than Fitzgerald. Thats about it. Fitzgerald has better hands, route-running abilities, understanding of the game, and work ethic. Fitzgerald posted better numbers than Roy Williams in the 2 years he played in D-1. With Fitzgerald, teams knew he was getting teh ball most of teh time, yet still couldn't stop him. Plus, bottom line is that he scores touchdowns, like Cris Carter. He set the NCAA record for most consecutive games with a TD catch. His production on the field far outweighs Roy William' combine numbers. Don't get me wrong, Roy Williams is an incredible talent, but I just think Fitz is better.

I've been serving overseas for the last 5 years and didn't get a chance to see either williams or fitzgerald play. Was Fitz a gamebreakeror did he just have a nose for the endzone? How was he after the catch? Everything I hear about Williams makes me think he was talented but unreliable.

[QUOTE=BleedBurgundy]I've been serving overseas for the last 5 years and didn't get a chance to see either williams or fitzgerald play. Was Fitz a gamebreakeror did he just have a nose for the endzone? How was he after the catch? Everything I hear about Williams makes me think he was talented but unreliable.[/QUOTE]

I've seen a lot of Big East games (thats all they pretty much show in this area with ACC games) and Fitzgerald was pretty much the only reciever Pitt had, so that meant he was targeted with the play most of the time. He did seem to find a way most of the time to get up and catch the ball even when double covered, but like skinsncanes said in an earlier post, Fitzgerald played well except when against near-pro level talent like Miami.
I honestly never saw Williams have the dropsies like it's been said. All I know is that I always seemed to see him getting 7 to 8 catches a game. I think both guys have more than a good chance to be incredible recievers, but if I wanted the best reciever right now it'd be Williams.

Well, im sure this talk could go on for a long time, both are great players. While its tempting we would be stupid to draft a receiver. We have a ton of young receivers that are continuing to grow. If we had two picks wed be better off taking Winslow, who has the ability to be a receiver but playing as an H-back will make a greater impact. I kinda want the skins to just use their fifth pick, take Taylor and acutlaly have picks next year.