overthecap.com - Best & Worst Contracts by Team

[RGIII]

Never say never.

[Carnage]

I am fascinated with how the penalties have brought us to discipline and success. Maybe Goodell will turn this whole franchise around. The Ass*&^%.

[GTripp0012]

Originally Posted by JoeRedskin

I get that, when looked at objectively, Fletcher's contract is bad from a business standpoint. On the other hand, however, an objective market analysis does not account for his specific value to the Redskins. Just b/c he didn't have an high objective value on the market, it doesn't mean his subjective value to us is the same (If driving down the road your car breaks down b/c a $3 widget breaks and a guy stops and says "Why I have an extra widget: $20 or walk on down the road"). Given all the factors (plus and minus): the objective market cost of ILB's, the Skin's cap situation, Fletcher's play on teh field, his age, his leadership and "coach on the field" qualities - Fletch is the neccessary and all but irreplaceable $3.00 widget.

In response to the "Where's he going to walk?" question, I respond with the question "Who we going to get to replace him?" Could we afford a replacement on FA this past year? S.Tulloch and D'qwell Jackson got in the 6-7M/year range this past offseason. Unless you think K. Robinson is going to step up or that Fletch could be replaced by a 2nd (or 3rd) tier ILB from the free agency market, it is simply wrong to look at Fletch's contract value from an objective standpoint.

There are lots of guys who are plug n' play. Fletch is not one of them. He has a high specific value for this team and the contract he got reflects that reality.

It's not realistic for any number of reasons, but if instead of Fletcher @ $5 million, if we instead had Brian Urlacher at $3.5 million, I don't think you are going to be sounding the alarm about how void of leadership our defense is. On the contrary, I think you'd be talking about how great of a job the front office does at finding value.

Here's the real issue with the Redskins linebackers: it's not Fletcher's contract. It's that we're paying Fletcher at the level of performance that we need (which I think is what you are defending) and hoping that that level of performance is still there at age 38.

I agree that we really need that frontline starter so that we don't stretch the expectations of Riley and Robinson too early, but I also don't think that the wear and tear on Fletcher's body is increasing linearly at this poiint. I think it's increasing exponentially. There will be a point in the near term future where Fletcher simply can't get his body prepared for the rigors of the MLB position in the NFL on a week to week basis.

I'd take him in a playoff run over just about anyone else, but it's the 16 games leading up to it I'm worried about. Fletcher's spot is the most obvious weakness on the roster simply because plan B isn't very well defined, so we're heavily leveraged in a 38 year old. That, I think, is directly a result of the cap penalty, but it is a problem.

[GTripp0012]

Originally Posted by Mattyk

Thing is where was he going to walk to? At his age his market value was pretty limited. The Skins had the upper hand and probably could have gotten him to come back for a lot less $$ if he was serious about playing. I get that he's valuable to the D and well respected within the locker room, so you kinda toss out concern over his contract. It is what it is though, not a good contract for the team when you look at it from a pure business standpoint considering his age and declining play.

I thought it may have been a "pay me or retire" situation. Pretty much exactly what the Bears went through with Urlacher, but the front offices of the Bears and Redskins just made two different decisions.

I agree that the Urlacher case shows the market for over-the-hill star MLB just wasn't there.