No progress in Derrick Dockery Negotiations....

[skinsfan69]

Originally Posted by Schneed10

I smell trouble on this one, a whole heap of trouble.

Gibbs has a way of digging in his heels, insisting that Marcus Washington was better than Antonio Pierce, so Pierce should not have been paid more than Marcus. I'm guessing they're thinking along those lines for Randy Thomas and Dock. I'll bet Dock is asking for Randy T money, and Gibbs/Snyder and company won't budge.

Doesn't bode well, IMO. The line will revolt if they don't sign Dockery.

They are not going to revolt. What are they not going to show up for work and cash their large paychecks? Boycott becasue Dock didn't get paid? I don't think so. I'm sure they will be disappointed but they realize that this is business. Guys come and go all the time. Look at the guy that left Seattle for Minn? It's all about who's going to pay me the most money. If Dock can't get the deal he wants here, and someone overpays for him, then let him walk. He's a good player buy not the best and he should not be paid like the best.

[Schneed10]

Originally Posted by skinsfan69

They are not going to revolt. What are they not going to show up for work and cash their large paychecks? Boycott becasue Dock didn't get paid? I don't think so. I'm sure they will be disappointed but they realize that this is business. Guys come and go all the time. Look at the guy that left Seattle for Minn? It's all about who's going to pay me the most money. If Dock can't get the deal he wants here, and someone overpays for him, then let him walk. He's a good player buy not the best and he should not be paid like the best.

Not a revolt in the sense that they'll boycott practice and all that kind of crap. But a revolt in the sense that they'll get all pissed off at the front office, and we'll have guys complaining anonymously to Tom Friend about how the front office just pays lip service to retaining "Core Redskins."

If Gibbs is going to toss around this "Core Redskin" stuff, he better make sure that the players feel like it means something to be a "Core Redskin." The perception is growing amongst the players that the front office values outside free agents over home grown players - and I can't blame them for it. It's hard to run through a wall for your coach when you are feeling like you're not valued as much as an equal guy out on the market.

Player perceptions of your coaching structure should not be discounted, they have an impact on the locker room. The trouble we have is that Gibbs is GM and coach all wrapped into one. So if the players have a problem with how the 'Skins are valuing their homegrown talent, they have a problem with Gibbs. (Probably the biggest reason why the coach needs to stick to coaching, and GMs need to stick to contract negotiation. We could use a separate GM.)

Gibbs may have to make a tough decision. Overpay a little bit for Dockery, or risk losing standing in the minds of the offensive line - probably the most valuable and most respected unit on the team. Plenty of players are already frustrated at him for letting Clark go and signing crappy Archuleta for a pile of money. Same with Antonio Pierce. Let's not repeat the same mistakes.

[skinsfan69]

Originally Posted by Schneed10

Not a revolt in the sense that they'll boycott practice and all that kind of crap. But a revolt in the sense that they'll get all pissed off at the front office, and we'll have guys complaining anonymously to Tom Friend about how the front office just pays lip service to retaining "Core Redskins."

If Gibbs is going to toss around this "Core Redskin" stuff, he better make sure that the players feel like it means something to be a "Core Redskin." The perception is growing amongst the players that the front office values outside free agents over home grown players - and I can't blame them for it. It's hard to run through a wall for your coach when you are feeling like you're not valued as much as an equal guy out on the market.

Player perceptions of your coaching structure should not be discounted, they have an impact on the locker room. The trouble we have is that Gibbs is GM and coach all wrapped into one. So if the players have a problem with how the 'Skins are valuing their homegrown talent, they have a problem with Gibbs. (Probably the biggest reason why the coach needs to stick to coaching, and GMs need to stick to contract negotiation. We could use a separate GM.)

Gibbs may have to make a tough decision. Overpay a little bit for Dockery, or risk losing standing in the minds of the offensive line - probably the most valuable and most respected unit on the team. Plenty of players are already frustrated at him for letting Clark go and signing crappy Archuleta for a pile of money. Same with Antonio Pierce. Let's not repeat the same mistakes.

So what your saying is we should possibly overpay for him for the sake of the locker room? I would agree with you if we were 10 or 20 million under the cap. But is this team in a position to possibly overpay for someone when so many big bonuses have already been paid out? I think at this point we are three milllion over the cap. It looks like we are going to have to do a lot of slashing and restructuring. I hope he stays but at the right price.

[Schneed10]

Originally Posted by skinsfan69

So what your saying is we should possibly overpay for him for the sake of the locker room? I would agree with you if we were 10 or 20 million under the cap. But is this team in a position to possibly overpay for someone when so many big bonuses have already been paid out? I think at this point we are three milllion over the cap. It looks like we are going to have to do a lot of slashing and restructuring. I hope he stays but at the right price.

Three million over is a high estimate. I think the actual number is about $2 or $3 million under.

Secondly there is lots of room for restructuring. Players are due high base salaries this season which are easily renogotiated into lump sum signing bonuses. Win for the team (frees up space), win for the player (gets paid what the contract states, except gets it in one lump sum instead of spread out in game checks).

Even if we signed Dockery to a 6 year, $35 million deal, with a $10 million signing bonus, they would structure it so that he'd only cost us $2.5 million against the cap in 2007.

PS I'm not saying we should pay him that, but this is just to illustrate that whatever we sign him for, his 2007 cap hit should not be a problem for us.

[SouperMeister]

Originally Posted by Schneed10

I smell trouble on this one, a whole heap of trouble.

Gibbs has a way of digging in his heels, insisting that Marcus Washington was better than Antonio Pierce, so Pierce should not have been paid more than Marcus. I'm guessing they're thinking along those lines for Randy Thomas and Dock. I'll bet Dock is asking for Randy T money, and Gibbs/Snyder and company won't budge.

...

Using that logic, I suppose that Gibbs thought Archuleta would be a better player than Sean Taylor.

[Schneed10]

Originally Posted by SouperMeister

Using that logic, I suppose that Gibbs thought Archuleta would be a better player than Sean Taylor.

That's exactly what annoyed the players so much. The 'Skins apply that relative salary logic to their homegrown players, but they'll blow open the pay scale for outside free agents.

[freddyg12]

I hate to hear "far apart", but it is early. Let's just hope that they haven't already offended him like they did w/champ & Ryan Clark by telling him he's never going to get the deal he wants.
I'm gonna say Dock is worth $10 mil. in signing bonus, but only if a third is incentive laden.

[Schneed10]

Originally Posted by freddyg12

I hate to hear "far apart", but it is early. Let's just hope that they haven't already offended him like they did w/champ & Ryan Clark by telling him he's never going to get the deal he wants.
I'm gonna say Dock is worth $10 mil. in signing bonus, but only if a third is incentive laden.

An incentive-laden signing bonus is an oxymoron. Signing bonuses are guaranteed money. You're probably thinking a $7 million signing bonus and a $3 million club option somewhere down the line.

Anal salary cap brigade out.

[redsk1]

The problem with this situation and more situations to come is that the Skins FO has now overpaid for players that haven't performed. It would be easy for Dock or anyone else to remind the skins how much they paid for other players that don't even play.

It's hard for the organization to start being frugal w/ contracts when they haven't been.

[SmootSmack]

Originally Posted by redsk1

The problem with this situation and more situations to come is that the Skins FO has now overpaid for players that haven't performed. It would be easy for Dock or anyone else to remind the skins how much they paid for other players that don't even play.

It's hard for the organization to start being frugal w/ contracts when they haven't been.

The Redskins could also remind Dock how many times a Pro-Bowler like Chris Samuels (who saved Dock's ass more often than not his first year, I'm not a huge Samuels fan but I'll give him that) has restructured his contract to help keep guys like Dockery.

[Schneed10]

Originally Posted by TAFKAS

The Redskins could also remind Dock how many times a Pro-Bowler like Chris Samuels (who saved Dock's ass more often than not his first year, I'm not a huge Samuels fan but I'll give him that) has restructured his contract to help keep guys like Dockery.

Those restructures shouldn't be passed off as some noble gesture, though. In fact, the players like a restructured deal better. They don't take paycuts on those restructures, they get the same amount of money their contract calls for, except instead of getting it in game checks, they get it in a lump sum payment upon signing.

Besides, Samuels gave the 'Skins hell when he went through his renegotiations. Walter Jones had just signed for a ridiculous sum, Samuels knew the 'Skins needed salary cap relief from him, and they gave in and made him the 3rd highest paid T in the league (at the time). So it's not like Samuels specifically has helped the team out much.

When players restructure their deals, they're not sacrificing ANYTHING for the team at all. They still get every bit of money coming to them. It just comes in different forms: lump sum vs spread out over game checks.

[SmootSmack]

Originally Posted by Schneed10

Those restructures shouldn't be passed off as some noble gesture, though. In fact, the players like a restructured deal better. They don't take paycuts on those restructures, they get the same amount of money their contract calls for, except instead of getting it in game checks, they get it in a lump sum payment upon signing.

Besides, Samuels gave the 'Skins hell when he went through his renegotiations. Walter Jones had just signed for a ridiculous sum, Samuels knew the 'Skins needed salary cap relief from him, and they gave in and made him the 3rd highest paid T in the league (at the time). So it's not like Samuels specifically has helped the team out much.

When players restructure their deals, they're not sacrificing ANYTHING for the team at all. They still get every bit of money coming to them. It just comes in different forms: lump sum vs spread out over game checks.

Good points. I think the bigger question is if we lose Dockery, will God just create another offensive lineman or will one evolve?
(cross promotion of threads!)

[Schneed10]

Originally Posted by TAFKAS

Good points. I think the bigger question is if we lose Dockery, will God just create another offensive lineman or will one evolve?
(cross promotion of threads!)

LOL

We'll regenerate another Dockery.

[Hog1]

Originally Posted by TAFKAS

Good points. I think the bigger question is if we lose Dockery, will God just create another offensive lineman or will one evolve?
(cross promotion of threads!)

THAT'S humor!!!
#1311

[Schneed10]

One problem I have is the 'Skins will say things like "Marcus Washington makes x, so we can't pay Antonio Pierce more than that."

In a league where the salary cap goes up 7-10% per season, the team has to realize that there is an inflation factor built in. Washington was signed in 2004. Pierce wanted like 3% more than Washington was making, but he wanted it in 2005, one year later than Marcus signed for. The salary cap went up by 7% that year, so since 7% is greater than 3%, on an inflation adjusted basis, Washington woulda been making more.

But the Skins used that angle as the crux of their argument, and no wonder it alienated Pierce, and pissed off a good portion of the locker room. The 'Skins are totally willing to follow the rising cap for free agents, but when it comes to their own players, they pay them based on what their teammates signed for one, two, three years ago.

It's bullsh*t. Pay up for Dockery goddammit. I don't care if it's $35 million over six years with a $10 million signing bonus. He deserves it, and if you don't pay it, you're REALLY going to piss off the 'Skins locker room.

Sometimes I admire the salary cap management and ingenuity of Snyder and Schaffer. But then, I see the team potentially alienating the players with retarded moves like this, and I lose all faith in their understanding of human nature.