No progress in Derrick Dockery Negotiations....

[Schneed10]

Originally Posted by skinsfan69

They are not going to revolt. What are they not going to show up for work and cash their large paychecks? Boycott becasue Dock didn't get paid? I don't think so. I'm sure they will be disappointed but they realize that this is business. Guys come and go all the time. Look at the guy that left Seattle for Minn? It's all about who's going to pay me the most money. If Dock can't get the deal he wants here, and someone overpays for him, then let him walk. He's a good player buy not the best and he should not be paid like the best.

Not a revolt in the sense that they'll boycott practice and all that kind of crap. But a revolt in the sense that they'll get all pissed off at the front office, and we'll have guys complaining anonymously to Tom Friend about how the front office just pays lip service to retaining "Core Redskins."

If Gibbs is going to toss around this "Core Redskin" stuff, he better make sure that the players feel like it means something to be a "Core Redskin." The perception is growing amongst the players that the front office values outside free agents over home grown players - and I can't blame them for it. It's hard to run through a wall for your coach when you are feeling like you're not valued as much as an equal guy out on the market.

Player perceptions of your coaching structure should not be discounted, they have an impact on the locker room. The trouble we have is that Gibbs is GM and coach all wrapped into one. So if the players have a problem with how the 'Skins are valuing their homegrown talent, they have a problem with Gibbs. (Probably the biggest reason why the coach needs to stick to coaching, and GMs need to stick to contract negotiation. We could use a separate GM.)

Gibbs may have to make a tough decision. Overpay a little bit for Dockery, or risk losing standing in the minds of the offensive line - probably the most valuable and most respected unit on the team. Plenty of players are already frustrated at him for letting Clark go and signing crappy Archuleta for a pile of money. Same with Antonio Pierce. Let's not repeat the same mistakes.

[skinsfan69]

Originally Posted by Schneed10

Not a revolt in the sense that they'll boycott practice and all that kind of crap. But a revolt in the sense that they'll get all pissed off at the front office, and we'll have guys complaining anonymously to Tom Friend about how the front office just pays lip service to retaining "Core Redskins."

If Gibbs is going to toss around this "Core Redskin" stuff, he better make sure that the players feel like it means something to be a "Core Redskin." The perception is growing amongst the players that the front office values outside free agents over home grown players - and I can't blame them for it. It's hard to run through a wall for your coach when you are feeling like you're not valued as much as an equal guy out on the market.

Player perceptions of your coaching structure should not be discounted, they have an impact on the locker room. The trouble we have is that Gibbs is GM and coach all wrapped into one. So if the players have a problem with how the 'Skins are valuing their homegrown talent, they have a problem with Gibbs. (Probably the biggest reason why the coach needs to stick to coaching, and GMs need to stick to contract negotiation. We could use a separate GM.)

Gibbs may have to make a tough decision. Overpay a little bit for Dockery, or risk losing standing in the minds of the offensive line - probably the most valuable and most respected unit on the team. Plenty of players are already frustrated at him for letting Clark go and signing crappy Archuleta for a pile of money. Same with Antonio Pierce. Let's not repeat the same mistakes.

So what your saying is we should possibly overpay for him for the sake of the locker room? I would agree with you if we were 10 or 20 million under the cap. But is this team in a position to possibly overpay for someone when so many big bonuses have already been paid out? I think at this point we are three milllion over the cap. It looks like we are going to have to do a lot of slashing and restructuring. I hope he stays but at the right price.

[Schneed10]

Originally Posted by skinsfan69

So what your saying is we should possibly overpay for him for the sake of the locker room? I would agree with you if we were 10 or 20 million under the cap. But is this team in a position to possibly overpay for someone when so many big bonuses have already been paid out? I think at this point we are three milllion over the cap. It looks like we are going to have to do a lot of slashing and restructuring. I hope he stays but at the right price.

Three million over is a high estimate. I think the actual number is about $2 or $3 million under.

Secondly there is lots of room for restructuring. Players are due high base salaries this season which are easily renogotiated into lump sum signing bonuses. Win for the team (frees up space), win for the player (gets paid what the contract states, except gets it in one lump sum instead of spread out in game checks).

Even if we signed Dockery to a 6 year, $35 million deal, with a $10 million signing bonus, they would structure it so that he'd only cost us $2.5 million against the cap in 2007.

PS I'm not saying we should pay him that, but this is just to illustrate that whatever we sign him for, his 2007 cap hit should not be a problem for us.

[Bill B]

Originally Posted by Schneed10

Three million over is a high estimate. I think the actual number is about $2 or $3 million under.

Secondly there is lots of room for restructuring. Players are due high base salaries this season which are easily renogotiated into lump sum signing bonuses. Win for the team (frees up space), win for the player (gets paid what the contract states, except gets it in one lump sum instead of spread out in game checks).

Even if we signed Dockery to a 6 year, $35 million deal, with a $10 million signing bonus, they would structure it so that he'd only cost us $2.5 million against the cap in 2007.

Schneed - I know you say win for the team but what about the dead cap hit in the future - wouldn't that be considered a "loss for the team" at some point in the future? At some point won't the team have to pay the piper for all the dead cap space on salary renegotiations - if I am correct isn't this what happened to the Titans and they had to basically release a bunch of good players like Samare Rolle and they had a dismal season?

I guess you can say that the cap will keep going up so we can keep renegotiating and Synder has the ATM machine cranking with bonuses to keep doing this, but if you were the GM wouldn't it be an issue to contain/minimize dead cap space as far as long range planning goes to avoid what happened to the Titans? Especially since the NFL has shortened the amount of years you can spread the bonus over (I believe it was 6 or 7 and it is now 4).