Redskins 2015 Signings (and Re-Signings) Thread

[Evilgrin]

Skins dont overpay anymore, so no worries.

[Schneed10]

As with any other position, you decide what your next best option is and set a value on the player based on that. Taylor Mays is out there, no sign that he's a great player, but if the cost on Jeron Johnson gets to a certain point you simply pass and try Mays.

Nothing is black and white, that's where teams get into trouble and overpay. If after reading what I wrote above you're finding yourself thinking "but Jeron Johnson has promise to be an answer, Mays doesn't," then your thinking is still stuck in the Cerrato days of locking onto one player and overpaying to get him.

The approach should be the same as what McC has been doing, negotiate slowly. If the player gets your offer and immediately jumps to take it, you've offered too much. The offer should be one that he has to sleep on it and shop around. Then when he takes it, you know its a good deal. And if he doesn't take it then you move onto the next target. No paying A money for C players.

We passed on right tackles for this reason and for this reason landed two defensive lineman and a corner at favorable contracts.

Make a push for Johnson but be OK with it if he passes. There are other fish in the sea.

[Alvin Walton]

Ok, I'm really nervous about this Culliver signing now after reading this because of the cap money he got and all this other legal crap.
FFS!

Culliver gets $16 million fully guaranteed at signing | ProFootballTalk

[Schneed10]

Originally Posted by Alvin Walton

Ok, I'm really nervous about this Culliver signing now after reading this because of the cap money he got and all this other legal crap.
FFS!

Culliver gets $16 million fully guaranteed at signing | ProFootballTalk

Keep in mind though:

The signing bonus is only $5M, so if he gets cut thats a low payment to hit as dead money.

The rest of the guarantees are in the form of guaranteed base salary. But if he is suspended he won't get the base salary, guaranteed or not.

So potential cap disaster is mitigated. But I hear you, if he's not on the field he's not helping us, even if there won't be terrible damage to the cap.

[That Guy]

Originally Posted by Alvin Walton

Ok, I'm really nervous about this Culliver signing now after reading this because of the cap money he got and all this other legal crap.
FFS!

Culliver gets $16 million fully guaranteed at signing | ProFootballTalk

if he can't play due to off field issues, his guarantees are voided and he has to pay back part of the signing bonus, so it's really important (for him) that he remains available to play. if he goes to jail tomorrow, the skins are out basically nothing (financially).

if he can stay on the field, it's basically a 2 year guaranteed contract w/ 2 team option years, which is pretty favorable.

[warriorzpath]

Originally Posted by Alvin Walton

Ok, I'm really nervous about this Culliver signing now after reading this because of the cap money he got and all this other legal crap.
FFS!

Culliver gets $16 million fully guaranteed at signing | ProFootballTalk

Risky, but sometimes you gotta roll the dice. To hedge that bet, the Redskins may draft another corner in Rounds 1 - 4. No blue chipper corners in the draft this year, but it seems pretty deep with good talent.

[That Guy]

Originally Posted by warriorzpath

Risky, but sometimes you gotta roll the dice. To hedge that bet, the Redskins may draft another corner in Rounds 1 - 4. No blue chipper corners in the draft this year, but it seems pretty deep with good talent.

it's not really risky. if he is unable to play due to legal issues or suspension, that guaranteed money is all voided and at least part of the signing bonus is coming back. maximum exposure is under $5m for the skins if he's suspended tomorrow, though we would be short a CB.

[JoeRedskin]

Originally Posted by Schneed10

As with any other position, you decide what your next best option is and set a value on the player based on that. Taylor Mays is out there, no sign that he's a great player, but if the cost on Jeron Johnson gets to a certain point you simply pass and try Mays.

Nothing is black and white, that's where teams get into trouble and overpay. If after reading what I wrote above you're finding yourself thinking "but Jeron Johnson has promise to be an answer, Mays doesn't," then your thinking is still stuck in the Cerrato days of locking onto one player and overpaying to get him.

The approach should be the same as what McC has been doing, negotiate slowly. If the player gets your offer and immediately jumps to take it, you've offered too much. The offer should be one that he has to sleep on it and shop around. Then when he takes it, you know its a good deal. And if he doesn't take it then you move onto the next target. No paying A money for C players.

We passed on right tackles for this reason and for this reason landed two defensive lineman and a corner at favorable contracts.

Make a push for Johnson but be OK with it if he passes. There are other fish in the sea.

I basically agree. Particularly with the "if a player jumps at the offer deal you have paid to much." At the same time, I would suggest your example of setting the price based on next best option does have a caveat. This type of benchmarking only works for players of relatively comparable talent - after factoring proven abilities versus potential. If the gap in adjusted talent between a targeted player and the next best option is such that the next best option is a significant downgrade, the offer has to reflect the "talent premium." Teams have the choice of paying the talent premium or accepting significantly lesser quality play at a position.

For example, as you say, T. Mays is available. If he were truly the only "next best option" (I don't believe he is, not by a long shot), the Redskins would be faced with signing a player with potential talent to be a regular, solid starter who appears to have some market demand (Johnson) versus a player who has demonstratively proved he cannot hold a starting job with little to no market demand (Mays). If those are truly the only two options, then any offer to the Johnson must reflect the talent gap and market demand for such a player or the willingness to accept significantly sub-par play.

It's still a choice - what price is too much for the gap in talent? How important is it to improve the position? Can we be successful enough in other areas to overcome the talent gap resulting from a refusal to pay for the talent gap?

IMHO, based on the salaries currently be paid to safeties, the "next-best-option" after Johnson will cost in the $2M/year range - which appears to be the going rate for Joe Average starters. So, if McC thinks Johnson can be a solid starter in the NFL, an offer of $2-3M seems to me to be the reasonable price point.

I like the guy and, from all I have been reading, I think he would be a significant upgrade from anything currently on the roster. While I really hope that something can be worked out, I have confidence that Scot McC is not going to overpay for him given the way he has conducted his FA acquisition so far.

[Schneed10]

Originally Posted by JoeRedskin

I basically agree. Particularly with the "if a player jumps at the offer deal you have paid to much." At the same time, I would suggest your example of setting the price based on next best option does have a caveat. This type of benchmarking only works for players of relatively comparable talent - after factoring proven abilities versus potential. If the gap in adjusted talent between a targeted player and the next best option is such that the next best option is a significant downgrade, the offer has to reflect the "talent premium." Teams have the choice of paying the talent premium or accepting significantly lesser quality play at a position.

For example, as you say, T. Mays is available. If he were truly the only "next best option" (I don't believe he is, not by a long shot), the Redskins would be faced with signing a player with potential talent to be a regular, solid starter who appears to have some market demand (Johnson) versus a player who has demonstratively proved he cannot hold a starting job with little to no market demand (Mays). If those are truly the only two options, then any offer to the Johnson must reflect the talent gap and market demand for such a player or the willingness to accept significantly sub-par play.

It's still a choice - what price is too much for the gap in talent? How important is it to improve the position? Can we be successful enough in other areas to overcome the talent gap resulting from a refusal to pay for the talent gap?

IMHO, based on the salaries currently be paid to safeties, the "next-best-option" after Johnson will cost in the $2M/year range - which appears to be the going rate for Joe Average starters. So, if McC thinks Johnson can be a solid starter in the NFL, an offer of $2-3M seems to me to be the reasonable price point.

I like the guy and, from all I have been reading, I think he would be a significant upgrade from anything currently on the roster. While I really hope that something can be worked out, I have confidence that Scot McC is not going to overpay for him given the way he has conducted his FA acquisition so far.

Yes agree one hundred percent, we are saying the exact same thing. The value you place on a player is a function of their skill set and the scarcity of similar skill sets.

And you don't deviate from that valuation, you patiently apply it to all negotiations.

[JoeRedskin]

Originally Posted by Schneed10

Yes agree one hundred percent, we are saying the exact same thing. The value you place on a player is a function of their skill set and the scarcity of similar skill sets.

And you don't deviate from that valuation, you patiently apply it to all negotiations.

Which is, of course, NOT what we have done in the past.

[KI Skins Fan]

We're apparently interested in WR Michael Crabtree, according to NFL Trade Rumors. Culliver, Cox, and now Crabtree. Is Scot looking for character or characters?

[SFREDSKIN]

Originally Posted by KI Skins Fan

We're apparently interested in WR Michael Crabtree, according to NFL Trade Rumors. Culliver, Cox, and now Crabtree. Is Scot looking for character or characters?

Why not? All 3 can play, I've seen them for all their years here and Scot drafted the Crabster.

[JoeRedskin]

Crabtree would be either the 3rd or 4th WR. I am okay with that.

Again ... at the right price. Crabtree should not get starter money from us. Probably will from somebody else.

[SFREDSKIN]

Originally Posted by JoeRedskin

Crabtree would be either the 3rd or 4th WR. I am okay with that.

Again ... at the right price. Crabtree should not get starter money from us. Probably will from somebody else.

They could sign Crabtree and trade Garçon? Get some cap space for Williams, Kerrigan. Anything is possible with Scot.

[DynamiteRave]

Originally Posted by SFREDSKIN

They could sign Crabtree and trade Garçon? Get some cap space for Williams, Kerrigan. Anything is possible with Scot.

I will have to go punch Scot right in the taint if he made that kind of move.