2009 Skins Off Season Plans Ideas, Draft and FA plus cuts

[GMScud]

Originally Posted by SBXVII

I Also found this one to be interesting. It was written just after our 2008 draft. Interesting points about our picks. I loved how they were totally wrong about Horton. LOL.

Scout.com: Washington Redskins - NFC East

They hit the nail on the head with the Rinehart assessment. What a waste.

Xavier Adibi, Tashard Choice, and Tim Hightower were all available when we took Rinehart. I know we needed OL, but we also are looking for LBs and a compliment to Portis not named Betts...

[dmek25]

Tampa Bay added 6-foot-5, 243-pound WR Anthony Mix to its roster this week (Getty Images)

The Tampa Bay Buccaneers have signed another wide receiver, but no, it's not Antonio Bryant or Michael Clayton, who are scheduled to become free agents on February 27. PewterReport.com is reporting the Bucs signed former Auburn WR/TE Anthony Mix, who played with RB Cadillac Williams in college, to a two-year contract.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
now what the hell are we going to do?

[SBXVII]

Thank You dmek, unfortunatly that's old news. Some just didn't care for him as much as I did which is why the topic got brushed over so quickly.

[ChickenMonkey]

Trade down and add a 3rd take 1st round Max Unger ..He can play OT/C

Add Free Agent OT..Kalif Barnes,or Vernon Carey, Max Starks all could play RT
Add FA OLB Leroy Hill...or Angelo Crowell

3. Marcus Freeman OLB
3. Robert Ayers DE
5. Jeremiah Jhonson RBC
6. Clinton McDonald DT

[gaudiomatt]

Originally Posted by ChickenMonkey

Trade down and add a 3rd take 1st round Max Unger ..He can play OT/C

Add Free Agent OT..Kalif Barnes,or Vernon Carey, Max Starks all could play RT
Add FA OLB Leroy Hill...or Angelo Crowell

3. Marcus Freeman OLB
3. Robert Ayers DE
5. Jeremiah Jhonson RBC
6. Clinton McDonald DT

this could happen and would be really good

[Defensewins]

The ultimate measure of keeping a player is his level of play on the field and his cap number. Do they meet up?
The only guys I have a problem with are the guy that are not producing like they used to and are collecting a big check, thus over paid. In other words they making way more than they currently are worth:
Over priced
Jason Taylor $8.5M
Marcus Washignton $6.5M
Randle-El $6.1M
Fred Smoot $4.1M (2009), $5.4M (2010) and a whopping $6.9M (2011)
Jon Jansen $3.4M (2009) and $6.4M (2010)

You can not cut Smoot and Jansen in 09 because the cap hit is too big. So if you cut the first three in 2009 and cut Jansen & Smoot in 2010 you would eventually save $26m on just 5 playes that are no longer producing and some of them are actually liabilities on the field.

Here is a list of guys that are a relative bargain, some of their salaries surprised me at how low they are in comparison to the above list:

Bargains

Carlos Rogers $2.4M (2009), $2.1M (2010) and $1M (2011) Big mistake to trade him!
Ladell Betts $1.9M (09), $2.7M(10), $1.7M(11), $1.6M(12), $1.6M(13). Cheap!
Rock Cartwright $1M(09), $1.6M(10)
Phillip Daniels $2.6M(09) and $2.6M(10)
Phillip Daniels is as old as they get, but when healthy the guy is a still a force. One of the strongest playes on the team. I thought his cap number was much higher. He might be worth keeping around if he can stay healthy. Big if.

[44ever]

Why can't these contracts be drawn up according to stats. Another words if Smoot gets 1 tackle in 2011 he makes 7mil?? What garantee does the team have that a player will produce according to his contract $$$. It seems like the players are the only one with the garantee. There should be some sort of incentive system with a smaller base

[SBXVII]

I doubt the team will do it or call it, but "if" the team was truely about getting younger and decided to call it "Rebuild" time then I've seen some posts on other sites that make some sense.

dad23hogjrs
newbie


Joined: 24 Jan 2009
Posts: 8
Location: Richmond, Va.
Posted: Sat Jan 31, 2009 11:00 am Post subject:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Blow it up?

Sure, here are some guys that would be a part of the "destruction"

ARE - moving him would increase our # against the cap 600k, we are already 3-4 M over, depending on where you get your info

Jansen - I've seen people coming for his head...great, that will cost you 2.78 million against the cap

Portis - YEAH, LETS GET CRAZY...crazy will cost you 7.7 M against the cap

Some other guys that not everyone is pointing pitch forks at, but would fit into blowing it up...

R. Thomas - costs you 4.5 M to move him; Moss - 464k against the cap to move; everyone on the "Trade Rogers" bandwagon - check this out - 1.43 M against the cap to pull that trigger

and my personal favorite:
"Trade cooley for a #2 OR 3" - that will cost you 8.1 M against the cap

We found a gem....so now you want to trade him so we can maybe do it again...but most likely not...makes sense.


You can't "Blow it Up" completely

why? because we laced the place with plutonium...


guys you can get rid of - more of a wittling

Springs - Saves 6M
Taylor - Saves 8.5M
M. Washington - Saves 4.5M
Griffin - Saves 3.62M
Rabach - Saves 2.35M
Daniels - Saves 2.3M

Sorry to say, everyone else costs you against the cap, or is worth more than what they save you against the cap.


Then someone came up with this nice idea.

DarthMonk
Hog


Joined: 16 Nov 2005
Posts: 295

Posted: Sun Feb 01, 2009 12:54 pm Post subject:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Below is the post that laid out cap implications. It's great info. Let's assume they are good data. 2 things:

1) All the cap hits just last one year. Massive cap room results in 1 year.

2) We have yet to discuss compensatory picks.

"Under the NFL's collective bargaining agreement, teams that lose more or better "compensatory" free agents than they acquire in a year are eligible to receive compensatory draft choices. No team can receive more than four."

Now although it looks painful (and may be) if we let go of say Jansen, Portis, Taylor, and Washington we save a net of 3 million immediately and are well on our way to 4 compensatory picks as well as a quick extra 23 million in cap space a year down the road. Three of those players (Jansen, Taylor, Washington) figure to not really help us next year (based on age and the last couple of years) and Portis (already locker room poison?) can be replaced. He's not Jim Brown and even Brown was probably replaceable to a certain extent by Bobby Mitchell (ask Welch).

I say get rid of these guys and a few more (Springs and Daniels?) and get

1) 13 million of immediate relief

2) 30 million in space in 1 year

3) 4 more draft picks

4) younger

We might even get better immediately and certainly will long term - especially if we finish the blow up in one more year.

Cooley is an example of what we want to do. Draft wisely and pay a homegrown star. He's a keeper.

We should mostly let the remaining linemen play out their contracts and draft replacements. My personal favorite for the #13 is Alex Mack, a center. Most mock drafts put him around #20 so a trade down while getting an extra pick along with Mack could be a possibility. He is generally thought of as a potential all-pro and many say "the best lineman in the draft, period." Check this out:

Alex Mack, 2009 NFL Draft Prospect

DarthMonk



Maybe it's possible maybe not I leave that up to you CAP guys but it seemed sound. I kinda liked the idea if we are going to say we are in rebuild mode.

[44ever]

Trading Cooley is a perfect example of what makes our team org. Constantly chaising it's tail. Why the heck would anyone in there right mind even consider trading Cooley. Like states. He is what we are trying to do. You don't trade Cooley you try to build a whole team of Cooley. I hate this trade mentality. That's why I opened the thread who you keep not who you sign. If we were to ever trade Cooley not that i think we would. I'm definatly done.

[ChickenMonkey]

NEWS UPDATE>>>>>The Lions will mimic the Falcons this year and take LT at #1
and after a trade with Washington at #13 they get thier QB

Lions First round #1 & #13 after trade
Redskins First round #20 & 3rd Round #80

[wilsowilso]

Originally Posted by ChickenMonkey

NEWS UPDATE>>>>>The Lions will mimic the Falcons this year and take LT at #1
and after a trade with Washington at #13 they get thier QB

Lions First round #1 & #13 after trade
Redskins First round #20 & 3rd Round #80

People really need to have a nice long look at a draft value chart before posting trades that make no sense. If you move back from 13 to 20 in the first round you get a late second round pick. There have been teams that moved back one and two picks in the first round and recieved a second round pick as compensation. That is all.

[ChickenMonkey]

Originally Posted by wilsowilso

People really need to have a nice long look at a draft value chart before posting trades that make no sense. If you move back from 13 to 20 in the first round you get a late second round pick. There have been teams that moved back one and two picks in the first round and recieved a second round pick as compensation. That is all.

Whats with all the whinning..This isnt Junior ALL American guys...
"You gotta know when to hold em., And Know when to hold um kids

1st round #13 =1150 points
1st round #20= 850 points

PLUS

3rd round #65= 265 points

You do the math.....the best youre going to get is an additional 6th worth
25 points.....Thats more than fair as trades go...Plus we are talking about Vinny and Dan come on.......

[wilsowilso]

Originally Posted by ChickenMonkey

1st round #13 =1150 points
1st round #20= 850 points

PLUS

3rd round #65= 265 points

You do the math.....the best youre going to get is an additional 6th worth
25 points.....Thats more than fair as trades go...Plus we are talking about Vinny and Dan come on.......

I did the math. The problem with this post is that you actually didn't. Somebody mentioned a trade that moved us back seven picks to #20 and netted us the #80 overall pick in the third round. The numbers didn't add up was my point. I said the value would be a late second round pick and the chart says #60 would be equal value. Teams that trade up in the draft usually have to pay greater value than the chart indicates even if they are dealing with an idiot like Vinny so you are looking at giving us a mid to late second round pick if you wanted to move from 20 up to 13 in the first round. Not a mid third rounder at #80 was my original point and not #65 and a 6th rounder which was your value of the pick which was an undervaluation as well.

[GTripp0012]

Originally Posted by wilsowilso

I did the math. The problem with this post is that you actually didn't. Somebody mentioned a trade that moved us back seven picks to #20 and netted us the #80 overall pick in the third round. The numbers didn't add up was my point. I said the value would be a late second round pick and the chart says #60 would be equal value. Teams that trade up in the draft usually have to pay greater value than the chart indicates even if they are dealing with an idiot like Vinny so you are looking at giving us a mid to late second round pick if you wanted to move from 20 up to 13 in the first round. Not a mid third rounder at #80 was my original point and not #65 and a 6th rounder which was your value of the pick which was an undervaluation as well.

A lot of successful teams do think that the popular chart is outdated, and very much overvalues the higher end picks. Obviously, no one wants those higher end picks, and that's why you don't have any top ten trades anymore.

I can't think of any draft day trade in the last four years in which the team trading up paid a higher premium than the outdated chart suggested. The very last trade that did that I can remember was the Manning-Rivers trade from 2004. Not a single pick in the top five has been dealt since then, so I'm guessing the Jimmy Johnson chart will be totally revised within two years.

Or they will cap the slot payouts and we'll have to come up with an entirely new system for valuing picks altogether.

Bottom line: I don't see any issue with chicken monkey's trade in terms of value for either side. Whether or not it actually makes sense for the Redskins is an entirely separate issue.

[T.O.Killa]

Looks like the Skins are not very active yet. The only thing they have done is sign a kicker and a punter.