Redskins rookie signing thread

[Monksdown]

Originally Posted by HailGreen28

If teams are waiting around for each other to hold fast or bend, on letting players make more money on their own in endorsements and such, is it wrong to think: "Danny can afford it. Let's give the other team owners the middle finger for Capgate."

Supposedly the reason most owners were mad at Snyder and Jerrah Jones, is not just that the Skins and Cows were using the uncapped year to dump salary. It was because 1.) The Skins and Cows were in essence paying their players more than most teams were willing to or could, by opening their checkbooks the uncapped year and still spending as much as they could in cap years. And 2.) The big money that Wash and Dallass were paying out, made contract negotiations between other teams and their players at that time harder to reach. In effect, the Skins and Cows were shaking their wealth at other teams' faces.

Well, since the league gave us the middle finger with the cap penalty, with an overwhelming majority of owners voting to screw us, I'd like to see the Skins sign Griffin to a deal where not only do they not restrict Griffin making extra money, they help all our players to get more appearances and more advertising deals to help themselves and sometimes the Skins outside of NFL business.

Jerrah Jones did this to some extent with his Pepsi deal back in the mid '90s. Let's do it with outside-the-nfl endorsements to give our players more money, make our team more attractive to free agents, and shoot back a middle finger at the owners that screwed us.

Yes it's another reason for other owners to hate us, and some owners may really be going through tough times. But after Capgate, I'd say those owners have some apologizing to do to Snyder and Jones, for breaking their own rules over Mara's screwjob. And if push comes to shove, the league would be just as good with say 28 teams rather than 32 teams if some of those teams go under.

Does this make sense? Is it petty? Would it backfire?

The other owners may have seen it that way. However, our approach to the uncapped year wasnt done out of spite to the other owners. It was the first big pill needed to 'correct' the ship. It enabled current management(Allen) to move the organization forward while being fiscally responsible. IMO, Allen represents a focus on long term wins, not ticket sales. We're still obviously feeling the side effects of that medicine, but it is more likely to work than the previous model.

In that light, i cant see Allen deciding to make poor business decisions just to shake their collective burgundy fists at other owners. He's smarter than that. (minus the Garcon contract)