Next years QB

[Schneed10]

Originally Posted by skinsnut

If we pick up the option, what is the impact of our ability to trade him for the option year?....I mean...does this mean his final year is 16M?
If so, even if he plays great, we wont be able to trade him, right?

Or does this give us the ability to trade him next year with this 16M in case of full year injury clause with a different salary?

Can someone please explain?

No impact on our ability to trade him.

If a team wanted to trade for him in the last year of his contract they would likely have an extension in mind. They would only trade with the Skins if Griffin were amenable to the new contract terms they had in mind.

We have the same ability to trade him in his final season as we would with any other player in his final season.

[Schneed10]

Originally Posted by CRedskinsRule

Just curious, suppose we pick up the option, at what point does it hit the cap. For example, if you put a franchise tag on a player that hits the cap the day you tag him, regardless of whether the player signs the franchise tag or not. Is it the same with the option? If they exercise it on May 2nd, does that mean at the start of next year's league year, that hit counts against our cap? And when does the guarantee convert from injury only to for the year? Again, I would think it would be day one of next year's league year.

As soon as we pick up the option $16M goes against our 2016 cap. 2016 cap, not 2015 cap.

But if we exercise the option and then either trade or cut him, then all $16M comes back off the cap.

[CRedskinsRule]

Originally Posted by Schneed10

As soon as we pick up the option $16M goes against our 2016 cap. 2016 cap, not 2015 cap.

But if we exercise the option and then either trade or cut him, then all $16M comes back off the cap.

Thanks

[irish]

Originally Posted by CRedskinsRule

Thanks

The only way the $ is guaranteed is for an injury.

[NC_Skins]

Originally Posted by irish

The only way the $ is guaranteed is for an injury.

He's had 2 major injuries the past 2 years, and other numerous smaller ones as well. Why take that gamble? Haven't we gambled enough with RGIII? It's like they are doubling down on stupidity. If he weren't injury prone, I wouldn't have an issue with the option year since it's only guaranteed for injury.

[53Fan]

Pretty much a done deal.
McCloughan announces Redskins will pick up RGIII's 2016 option

[Redskins247]

This just screams of Snyder being the same old Snyder. It makes no sense at all to do this. What is one positive thing that comes from this as an organization? All it does is benefit RGIII. I'd be really surprised if Scot Mc was ok with this because my gut feeling is that Snyder went to him and said..."I am going to pick up the option on RGIII. Period. Now go announce it."

[irish]

Originally Posted by Redskins247

This just screams of Snyder being the same old Snyder. It makes no sense at all to do this. What is one positive thing that comes from this as an organization? All it does is benefit RGIII. I'd be really surprised if Scot Mc was ok with this because my gut feeling is that Snyder went to him and said..."I am going to pick up the option on RGIII. Period. Now go announce it."

Its not like because they took this option they cant cut RG, they can. I think RG has to come right out of the box playing well because if he doesnt then they will bench him to avoid the injury and possibly cut him.

[Redskins247]

Originally Posted by irish

Its not like because they took this option they cant cut RG, they can. I think RG has to come right out of the box playing well because if he doesnt then they will bench him to avoid the injury and possibly cut him.

I understand that...but they could have done that WITHOUT this contract and being at risk! That's why it makes no sense to do it. In the first game Suh could put him out with one hit...and the $16 million would be his. Just makes no sense.

[Paintrain]

Originally Posted by Redskins247

I understand that...but they could have done that WITHOUT this contract and being at risk! That's why it makes no sense to do it. In the first game Suh could put him out with one hit...and the $16 million would be his. Just makes no sense.

Wrong. If Suh puts him out with a hit that sidelines him for 2015 AND 2016 then the guarantee kicks in. From what I understand it all comes down to the year end physical and if he passes it then the option is not guaranteed. If he fails then it's guaranteed. There's really minimal risk, even with his injury history.

[Paintrain]

Originally Posted by Redskins247

I understand that...but they could have done that WITHOUT this contract and being at risk! That's why it makes no sense to do it. In the first game Suh could put him out with one hit...and the $16 million would be his. Just makes no sense.

Wrong. If Suh puts him out with a hit that sidelines him for 2015 and he fails a physical in January, then the guarantee kicks in. From what I understand it all comes down to the year end physical and if he passes it then the option is not guaranteed. If he fails then it's guaranteed. There's really minimal risk, even with his injury history.

[Alvin Walton]

And if he plays decent enough all year and doesnt leave his spleen on the field then its a good thing.
Who has a better crystal ball?

[CRedskinsRule]

Originally Posted by Redskins247

This just screams of Snyder being the same old Snyder. It makes no sense at all to do this. What is one positive thing that comes from this as an organization? All it does is benefit RGIII. I'd be really surprised if Scot Mc was ok with this because my gut feeling is that Snyder went to him and said..."I am going to pick up the option on RGIII. Period. Now go announce it."

Wrong, it gives the Redskins options. It also puts Griffin on a short leash. If he isn't learning, you pull him, and say your goodbye's at the end of the year. If we don't know by the bye that he's the guy, you pull him, and he's done here. If the light goes on, and he gets it, then we get him for 3million less than franchise tag price and have leverage to negotiate a long term contract. If you are too worried about his injury risk, you have no reason to try to make him the starter this year, you should already be moving on.

[Defensewins]

Someone in another thread mentioned "we should do this because we have invested so much to get him"
IMO, as an organization and we need to get over what we invested to get him. That is in the past. We need to be careful not to make a big $16M decisions based what we invested in him and the past.
I understand the potential value and desire to keep his rights as long as we can just in case he has a miracle come back year in 2015.
However my fear is he plays just good enough to where we are enticed to keep him and pay him $16M, but he never plays well enough to meets that $16m value.......a la Orakpo.

[calia]

What I don't understand is the timing of this. Haven't we just significantly affected our ability to trade the #5 pick if a team is interested in trading up to get Mariota? Teams won't believe we might otherwise take him (despite our protests that it doesn't change our draft strategy), and thus if that is the motivation for someone to move up to #5, didn't we just remove that incentive? As we didn't need to make a decision on RGIII until May 3 (I believe), this doesn't make sense to me.

To be clear, I have no problem with it assuming we weren't targeting a QB with that pick anyway. But it just seems premature to have done this now.