RI: What Moves Will Offseason Bring?

[Big C]

id like to keep taylor for this season, id like to see him at 100% health plus his contract is done after the season anyways. I would be up for trading Rogers, he has done well in locking up receivers at times but corners need to make plays in terms of interceptions and he is lacking there. re-sign hall, keep springs, cut griffin and marcus washington. i hope we dont go after a high priced OT in free agency, the draft is top heavy with OTs and id rather draft one. Go after Karlos Dansby as the "big name free agent" if we do only have one. Dunta Robinson is also an interesting one, he can make plays at cornerback, not sure of the contract he would be asking for.

[BigHairedAristocrat]

Originally Posted by Big C

id like to keep taylor for this season, id like to see him at 100% health plus his contract is done after the season anyways. I would be up for trading Rogers, he has done well in locking up receivers at times but corners need to make plays in terms of interceptions and he is lacking there. re-sign hall, keep springs, cut griffin and marcus washington. i hope we dont go after a high priced OT in free agency, the draft is top heavy with OTs and id rather draft one. Go after Karlos Dansby as the "big name free agent" if we do only have one. Dunta Robinson is also an interesting one, he can make plays at cornerback, not sure of the contract he would be asking for.

I agree with all your points except keeping Taylor. If we can get him to stay at a lower salary, sure, but not for 8.5M. When a team is rebuilding (like ours is), we cant afford to pay 8.5M to a 35year old DE who is coming off the worst year of his career and has an eye on hollywood... its just stupid, especially if the teams top priority is saving money.

Ideally, i'd like to get Taylor to sign a 1-year extension so he would cost 10M over the next 2 years... then if another team that thinks it has a chance for a superbowl run in 2009 loses a starting DE in training camp, trade Taylor to them for a 2010 draft pick. If we cant trade him, then keep him at his reduced rate. In the event we have to keep him, the bonus is it lets us put off addressing the DE position for one more year, allowing us to focus solely on OL, DT, and LB in the 2009draft.

[44ever]

Originally Posted by BigHairedAristocrat

I agree with all your points except keeping Taylor. If we can get him to stay at a lower salary, sure, but not for 8.5M. When a team is rebuilding (like ours is), we cant afford to pay 8.5M to a 35year old DE who is coming off the worst year of his career and has an eye on hollywood... its just stupid, especially if the teams top priority is saving money.

Ideally, i'd like to get Taylor to sign a 1-year extension so he would cost 10M over the next 2 years... then if another team that thinks it has a chance for a superbowl run in 2009 loses a starting DE in training camp, trade Taylor to them for a 2010 draft pick. If we cant trade him, then keep him at his reduced rate. In the event we have to keep him, the bonus is it lets us put off addressing the DE position for one more year, allowing us to focus solely on OL, DT, and LB in the 2009draft.

What happens if Taylor decides not to return?

[BigHairedAristocrat]

Originally Posted by 44ever

What happens if Taylor decides not to return?

If Taylor retires then we don't have anything to worry about - we save the 8.5M and if he wants to unretire and play for someone else, then that team must give us compensation.

[Skinny Tee]

Originally Posted by BigHairedAristocrat

I agree with all your points except keeping Taylor. If we can get him to stay at a lower salary, sure, but not for 8.5M. When a team is rebuilding (like ours is), we cant afford to pay 8.5M to a 35year old DE who is coming off the worst year of his career and has an eye on hollywood... its just stupid, especially if the teams top priority is saving money.

Ideally, i'd like to get Taylor to sign a 1-year extension so he would cost 10M over the next 2 years... then if another team that thinks it has a chance for a superbowl run in 2009 loses a starting DE in training camp, trade Taylor to them for a 2010 draft pick. If we cant trade him, then keep him at his reduced rate. In the event we have to keep him, the bonus is it lets us put off addressing the DE position for one more year, allowing us to focus solely on OL, DT, and LB in the 2009draft.

What incentive does Taylor have to restructure at a reduced rate?

Shawn Springs, who has been a Redskin for more than 4 years now, has no interest in restructuring at a reduced wage and he has more Redskin tenure than Taylor. Springs has basically told the team to release him if they don't want to pay his salary.

I'm not seeing Taylor entertaining ANY idea of signing a new contract for less money. When both parties signed (or received) that contract they usually expect the terms to be upheld. A player can use holding out as leverage to get a new deal in his favor. Teams have no leverage against a player other than cutting him from the team...which might be advantageous to the player anyway.


...in short, any forecasting of Taylor restructuring for less puts the ass in asinine.

[CRedskinsRule]

Originally Posted by Skinny Tee

What incentive does Taylor have to restructure at a reduced rate?

Shawn Springs, who has been a Redskin for more than 4 years now, has no interest in restructuring at a reduced wage and he has more Redskin tenure than Taylor. Springs has basically told the team to release him if they don't want to pay his salary.

I'm not seeing Taylor entertaining ANY idea of signing a new contract for less money. When both parties signed (or received) that contract they usually expect the terms to be upheld. A player can use holding out as leverage to get a new deal in his favor. Teams have no leverage against a player other than cutting him from the team...which might be advantageous to the player anyway.


...in short, any forecasting of Taylor restructuring for less puts the *** in asinine.

I think Taylor opened the door to this when he commented on his own view of his value. I think that the team does have leverage with the threat of cutting him, as his stock definitely went down after last year's outing. I sure hope JT stays on the team, but that should only happen if he restructures.

[SmootSmack]

Originally Posted by Big C

id like to keep taylor for this season, id like to see him at 100% health plus his contract is done after the season anyways. I would be up for trading Rogers, he has done well in locking up receivers at times but corners need to make plays in terms of interceptions and he is lacking there. re-sign hall, keep springs, cut griffin and marcus washington. i hope we dont go after a high priced OT in free agency, the draft is top heavy with OTs and id rather draft one. Go after Karlos Dansby as the "big name free agent" if we do only have one. Dunta Robinson is also an interesting one, he can make plays at cornerback, not sure of the contract he would be asking for.

Robinson is a solid CB, but he's only played about 10 games in each of the past two seasons. So why would we want to go after that when we complain about getting that out of Springs anyway right now?

[Ruhskins]

I'm definitely on the Jordan Gross bandwagon. He's 28 (not old....'though not young), I know this may sound crazy, but we could put him at LT and move Samuels to RT. This would be huge in protecting JC from pass rushing DEs in both sides. Also, this big of a signing would show the team's commitment to vastly improving the offensive line.

On the defensive side of the ball, if the cap permits, I would sign Rocky Bernard and possibly Karlos Dansby (although Dansby could become expensive if AZ goes to the SB). If not Dansby, then we may have some options...Bart Scott or maybe Eric Barton...although those two have played in the 3-4 defense. I"m sure we could find a serviceable LB to replace Washington.

There has been talks on this site about possible trades...JLC seems to be talking up a Rogers trade, in our fantasy world we are talking about Moss. I think getting a second rounder would be pretty big. I think best case scenario would be to trade down 13th for a low 1st round and a 3rd rounder. This would give us a low 1st, 2nd rounder, and two 3rd rounders. We could use these to look at inside lineman (Center/Guards) and defensive linemen.

Once again, I'm not going to say that this WILL and MUST happen, this is just my ideal situation. There are many questions about who will be cut, what cap implications this will have and what will the team do to get under the cap. There is also the big question of if these trades can happen. I think one big FA signing, and two regular FA signings would not be bad for this team. I do hope they do something to get more than the 4 picks they have now.

[BigHairedAristocrat]

Originally Posted by Ruhskins

I'm definitely on the Jordan Gross bandwagon. He's 28 (not old....'though not young), I know this may sound crazy, but we could put him at LT and move Samuels to RT. This would be huge in protecting JC from pass rushing DEs in both sides. Also, this big of a signing would show the team's commitment to vastly improving the offensive line.

On the defensive side of the ball, if the cap permits, I would sign Rocky Bernard and possibly Karlos Dansby (although Dansby could become expensive if AZ goes to the SB). If not Dansby, then we may have some options...Bart Scott or maybe Eric Barton...although those two have played in the 3-4 defense. I"m sure we could find a serviceable LB to replace Washington.

There has been talks on this site about possible trades...JLC seems to be talking up a Rogers trade, in our fantasy world we are talking about Moss. I think getting a second rounder would be pretty big. I think best case scenario would be to trade down 13th for a low 1st round and a 3rd rounder. This would give us a low 1st, 2nd rounder, and two 3rd rounders. We could use these to look at inside lineman (Center/Guards) and defensive linemen.

Once again, I'm not going to say that this WILL and MUST happen, this is just my ideal situation. There are many questions about who will be cut, what cap implications this will have and what will the team do to get under the cap. There is also the big question of if these trades can happen. I think one big FA signing, and two regular FA signings would not be bad for this team. I do hope they do something to get more than the 4 picks they have now.

I think we definitely have the cap room to sign Gross, Dansby, and Bernard if we make the "no-brainer" cuts amongst the old vets... depending on what the market sets their price at. At the very least, we would have the room to sign 2 of 3. However it seems like Snyder is wanting to be frugal and not spend money. Of those 3, I think its most realistic to sign one of those guys (probably Bernard - he will be the cheapest by far and we have the Seahawk connection)

[Big C]

addressing the rogers issue, i understand why some would say that he is young and has done pretty well, but he is going to be 28 years old starting the season, that is usually the peak age of a corner and imo he is as good as he is ever going to be. a 2nd rounder would be good value imo, we got 4 years out of him, none spectactular. imo we would be lucky to get a 2nd rounder

[Ruhskins]

Since I've been talking a lot about trading down from our #13, I found this piece of info that may serve useful. I am not sure how accurate or reliable this is...but I still think it is interesting:

Draft Countdown - Trade Value Chart

[BigHairedAristocrat]

Originally Posted by Ruhskins

Since I've been talking a lot about trading down from our #13, I found this piece of info that may serve useful. I am not sure how accurate or reliable this is...but I still think it is interesting:

Draft Countdown - Trade Value Chart

Interesting... a move from 13 to 26 would result in our receiving that teams 1st, 2nd, and 3rd round picks for roughly equal compensation (we would still owe 10pts).... i doubt any team would give their 1st 3 picks to move up 13 spots, although stranger things have happened.

We are definitely in a good position to move down though. There always seems to be alot of moves with teams who have picks in this part of the draft.... good for us.

In the hypothetical trade above, if we made the trade to move back 13 spots, and also traded Moss for a 2nd, we would end up with a 1st, two 2nds, and two 3rd round picks... not bad.

In the end, I think our biggest offseason move (and the hardest one) is going to be resigning DeAngelo Hall.

[Ruhskins]

Originally Posted by BigHairedAristocrat

Interesting... a move from 13 to 26 would result in our receiving that teams 1st, 2nd, and 3rd round picks for roughly equal compensation (we would still owe 10pts).... i doubt any team would give their 1st 3 picks to move up 13 spots, although stranger things have happened.

We are definitely in a good position to move down though. There always seems to be alot of moves with teams who have picks in this part of the draft.... good for us.

In the hypothetical trade above, if we made the trade to move back 13 spots, and also traded Moss for a 2nd, we would end up with a 1st, two 2nds, and two 3rd round picks... not bad.

In the end, I think our biggest offseason move (and the hardest one) is going to be resigning DeAngelo Hall.

I'd be happy with a low 1st, a 2nd, and two 3rd round picks (we'd be getting the low 1st and 3rd from trading down).

[BigHairedAristocrat]

Originally Posted by Ruhskins

I'd be happy with a low 1st, a 2nd, and two 3rd round picks (we'd be getting the low 1st and 3rd from trading down).

according to the trade chart, our pick is worth 1150 points. Assuming the chart was followed, the only situation where we would ONLY get a lower 1st rounder and an additional 3rd is if we traded back from 13 to 16. If we go back any further, we're talking about getting a 1st and a 2nd or a 1st, 3rd and 4th.

In all likelyhood, we will attempt to trade back multiple times unless there is a specific player in the top 20 we are targeting. I think our goal is to accumulate as many 2nd and 3rd round picks as we can. Beyond that, the draft is a total crap shoot. Youre not looking for 1st year starter, so think theres much difference than a 4th round pick and a 7th round pick IMO. The big thing becomes not what a player did in college, but how coachable he is. The future of players taken in rounds 4-7 is more dependant on the quality of the teams coaching staff than anything else. Of course, there are always exceptions, but i think its a rule that generally proves true.

[backrow]

Originally Posted by BigHairedAristocrat

according to the trade chart, our pick is worth 1150 points. Assuming the chart was followed, the only situation where we would ONLY get a lower 1st rounder and an additional 3rd is if we traded back from 13 to 16. If we go back any further, we're talking about getting a 1st and a 2nd or a 1st, 3rd and 4th.

In all likelyhood, we will attempt to trade back multiple times unless there is a specific player in the top 20 we are targeting. I think our goal is to accumulate as many 2nd and 3rd round picks as we can. Beyond that, the draft is a total crap shoot. Youre not looking for 1st year starter, so think theres much difference than a 4th round pick and a 7th round pick IMO. The big thing becomes not what a player did in college, but how coachable he is. The future of players taken in rounds 4-7 is more dependant on the quality of the teams coaching staff than anything else. Of course, there are always exceptions, but i think its a rule that generally proves true.

I like the way you think, except we all know what VC did with three 2nd rounders last year!