Did We Shoot Ourselves In The Foot??

firstdown · 03-07-2005, 03:50 PM

Maybe someone can help me with this. Why are we going to pay the remaining 5 mil of his signing bonus. I understand it was a signing bonus but he wants out of his contract not us. I understanding the cap hit regardless of if we pay him I just don't understand why we are paying it.

Riggo44 · 03-07-2005, 03:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by firstdown

Maybe someone can help me with this. Why are we going to pay the remaining 5 mil of his signing bonus. I understand it was a signing bonus but he wants out of his contract not us. I understanding the cap hit regardless of if we pay him I just don't understand why we are paying it.

Who knows. We gave D. Sanders all his money too. :vomit-smi

firstdown · 03-07-2005, 04:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Riggo44

Who knows. We gave D. Sanders all his money too. :vomit-smi

So what your saying we could have negotiated with him and not paid the 5mil.

offiss · 03-07-2005, 04:13 PM

It's a good move if we can get our #1 signed we won't have a prob finding the room for the rest of our pick's they won't be high priced after the #1, and we clear Cole's contract for next year when we will be in a more realistic position [hopefully] to make a serious push at a SB.

I am more than willing to go into this season without Smoot, and at this point I don't want him for the money he's asking, I believe it's to much, nobody else has so much as come close to anything we have offered for Smoot, I wonder why?

joecrisp · 03-07-2005, 04:29 PM

Wow, there's some really good points being made on both sides of this debate. Like most fans, I'm incredibly frustrated with this whole situation, and Laveranues Coles is now officially on my "least favorite athlete" list, and would probably be at the top of that list-- if it weren't for the fact that Terrell Owens plays for the Eagles.

I agree with the sentiment that this was pretty much a lose-lose situation, and the only person you can really put any blame on is Coles himself. He bears the sole responsibility and culpability for this mess. His yards-per-catch have been on a downhill slide since he injured his toe, he refuses to get the toe surgically repaired, and now he blames Gibbs' conservative approach to his statistical decline. While Gibbs certainly-- and voluntarily-- bears some of the blame for the offense's failures, the poor performances of the players within that offense are equally accountable for the overall ineptitude, and Coles is just as guilty for his inability to seperate from defenders as Brunell is for failing to throw catchable passes, and Gardner is for dropping half the passes that were catchable.

Coles decided to take the Redskins hostage this offseason, blame Gibbs for his problems, and force the team to lose valuable cap space to grant him his wish of leaving only two seasons after Snyder generously gave him a huge signing bonus-- a bonus the Redskins will honor, despite his refusal to honor the terms of the contract which brought him that bonus.

Yes, the Redskins got screwed cap-wise for 2005. But the silver lining is that removing Coles from the books for 2006 definitely eases the burden of that cumbersome cap year, and the Redskins were able to get a valuable player in exchange for Coles. Most importantly, they rid themselves of a player that would have been a distraction and a potential locker room cancer. You might argue that he kept quiet last season, but the fact is, there are players who heard or otherwise sensed his disgruntlement throughout the season. Maybe that's why guys like Randy Thomas were so quick to say they'd rather not have a player like that around.

sportscurmudgeon · 03-08-2005, 09:43 PM

celts32:

You hit it on the head. They could have released him and saved that $5M bonus money back in February. That is the deal Coles thought he had struck but then "things changed". Gibbs called it a misunderstanding; Coles said the Skins "reneged". But the chance for an outright release with a savings of that bonus money was on the table and the Skins' FO fumbled the ball.

Regarding the jump in the salary cap and the "Skins already planning for it", I'm afraid that all they Skins have done is spend money in that year based on the increased cap they expect to be there. They will NOT be 20M under the new cap. And by the way, think about this scenario:

The cap goes up in 2007.
The players know this.
The players know that Danny Boy did not do will with players who made big demands on him (Coles, Bailey, Smoot...)
So what stops an already signed player from asking for his release or a fat new deal as 2007 arrives? Based on what has happened here this year, what does he have to lose?

Oh yeah, I know. They'll all be "true Redskins" by then and wouldn't think of doing something like that... Maybe the Easter Bunny will be the Offensive Coordinator by then too. Remember last season when everyone here deluded themselves into believing that Smoot was such a "true Redskin" he would play here at a discount just for the honor of being with a Hall of Fame coach and a team with such a proud heritage. Don't say it didn't happen; the threads are still here.

Please factor in a sizeable contract for Santana Moss sometime soon. If the Skins don't do that, odds are he'll get lowballed by the FO next January and decide to go FA shopping. If you were he, wouldn't you?

Please remember that Sean Taylor thinks he got screwed by the contract he signed as a rookie last year and his new agent is Drew Rosenhaus. It's only a matter of time until Taylor seeks a newer and bigger deal. Don't be angry wehn it happens because it's gonna happen. Given the cap trouble the team has this year, Rosenhaus will probably not make a big deal about this just yet, but sometime next January might be when he begins to grumble just a bit...

Please remember that Patrick Ramsey's deal is done soon and they will either have to sign him to a comfortable deal or lose him and go find another "experienced QB" who will not come here cheaply.

BrudLee · 03-07-2005, 04:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by firstdown

Maybe someone can help me with this. Why are we going to pay the remaining 5 mil of his signing bonus. I understand it was a signing bonus but he wants out of his contract not us. I understanding the cap hit regardless of if we pay him I just don't understand why we are paying it.

Because we were contractually obliged to. Why didn't we fight it? Because it isn't a big free agency selling point to race like mad to avoid paying players already on the roster.

Put it another way. We can get another $5 million. We can't get back our reputation if we screw someone out of $5 million.

firstdown · 03-07-2005, 04:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BrudLee

Because we were contractually obliged to. Why didn't we fight it? Because it isn't a big free agency selling point to race like mad to avoid paying players already on the roster.

Put it another way. We can get another $5 million. We can't get back our reputation if we screw someone out of $5 million.

He was the one who signed the seven year deal and now wants out. How would we be screwing him out of money if we made the deal contingent on him waving the 5mil

Redskins_P · 03-07-2005, 04:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by firstdown

He was the one who signed the seven year deal and now wants out. How would we be screwing him out of money if we made the deal contingent on him waving the 5mil

Because it's guaranteed money....

BossHog · 03-07-2005, 04:13 PM

It appears to be a big mess. Arrington's and Sean Taylor's contract are issues too.

bedlamVR · 03-07-2005, 04:20 PM

Yes. I hated this deal from day 1 and now finnally so do the press .

We didn't get a Scrub? Word out of NY Moss was on the way to the bench and McCarrins would have a new starter friend. He is injury prone and becoming hit shy ... but hey at least we got something he will go well with our outher No.3. recievers like Thrash and Givens.

We couldn't have made Coles play ? No? When was the last player to hold out for an entire year?

He would have been locker room cancer ? If we won who would listen ? If he was locked out he would have cost us 3.2 million this year. Instested he cost us 9.2 million andhe gets to play for someone else . How does that make sence finicially or football way ? And for all of those relived we have saved the cap room remember we still need to replace him .

Did we shoot ourselves in the foot ... Damn yes. Did we move into the Basement oh god yes.....

There is one thing that bothers me though . The trade cap hit isn't 9.2 million but 6 million. I thought we had more than 8 million under the cap after the Nobel, Harris restructures and ecent signings.

Redskins_P · 03-07-2005, 04:26 PM

bedlamVR, Noble and Harris haven't re-signed or restructured. They barely take any cap space.

The last player to hold out for an entire year was Keenan McCardell last year until he got traded.

Schneed10 · 03-07-2005, 04:30 PM

First, we had to pay Coles the $5 million in bonus because we were contractually obligated to do so. That $5 million wasn't a roster bonus, it was guaranteed to him for signing with the 'Skins. They just deferred the payment until now. When you cut or trade a guy, that releases you from all liability regarding the annual base salaries. But there is no getting around the guaranteed portion, and we guaranteed him we'd pay $5 million this spring.

I agree that Moss is a step down from Coles in terms of talent, and it sure does suck that our cap room is gone. But Coles forced our hand on this one. We would have made a bigger mess if we kept him against his will, and used the extra cap room to sign more free agents. This year, we would have stuffed more talent under our salary cap for sure. But next year, in 2006, we'd have a disaster of Tennessee Titan proportions and we DEFINITELY would have had to blow the whole thing up. Now that we traded Coles, restructured some contracts, and refrained from signing any big-name free agents, we have a fighting chance to keep the team together in 2006 and beyond.

Those complaining about the NFL and how it's so hard to keep your players for the long-haul should be rejoicing on this one. The downside to this deal is our team suffers talent-wise this year. The plus side is we have a much better chance at building something that will last and gradually improve.

I think the front office made the best of a bad situation. I'm glad to see the team making a philosophical switch to doing things the right way.

Gmanc711 · 03-07-2005, 06:55 PM

I think we shot ourselves in the foot here. I know its a matter of getting somthing for Coles; but in all seriousness, I would have rather released Coles and not taken that hit. You cant trade a guy for lesser value and take that hit, in my opinion. I think we should have either kept Coles on the bench, or just flat out released him, which yeah woudl have sucked. However taking this cap hit for this crap is rediculous.

TheMalcolmConnection · 03-07-2005, 07:27 PM

Do the Skins play the Jets this year?

03-07-2005, 04:13 PM	#4
offiss Registered User Join Date: Feb 2004 Location: sparta, new jersey [ northern jersey ] Age: 61 Posts: 3,097	Re: Did We Shoot Ourselves In The Foot?? It's a good move if we can get our #1 signed we won't have a prob finding the room for the rest of our pick's they won't be high priced after the #1, and we clear Cole's contract for next year when we will be in a more realistic position [hopefully] to make a serious push at a SB. I am more than willing to go into this season without Smoot, and at this point I don't want him for the money he's asking, I believe it's to much, nobody else has so much as come close to anything we have offered for Smoot, I wonder why?

03-07-2005, 04:29 PM	#5
joecrisp The Starter Join Date: Feb 2004 Location: Charlottesville, VA Age: 50 Posts: 1,501	Re: Did We Shoot Ourselves In The Foot?? Wow, there's some really good points being made on both sides of this debate. Like most fans, I'm incredibly frustrated with this whole situation, and Laveranues Coles is now officially on my "least favorite athlete" list, and would probably be at the top of that list-- if it weren't for the fact that Terrell Owens plays for the Eagles. I agree with the sentiment that this was pretty much a lose-lose situation, and the only person you can really put any blame on is Coles himself. He bears the sole responsibility and culpability for this mess. His yards-per-catch have been on a downhill slide since he injured his toe, he refuses to get the toe surgically repaired, and now he blames Gibbs' conservative approach to his statistical decline. While Gibbs certainly-- and voluntarily-- bears some of the blame for the offense's failures, the poor performances of the players within that offense are equally accountable for the overall ineptitude, and Coles is just as guilty for his inability to seperate from defenders as Brunell is for failing to throw catchable passes, and Gardner is for dropping half the passes that were catchable. Coles decided to take the Redskins hostage this offseason, blame Gibbs for his problems, and force the team to lose valuable cap space to grant him his wish of leaving only two seasons after Snyder generously gave him a huge signing bonus-- a bonus the Redskins will honor, despite his refusal to honor the terms of the contract which brought him that bonus. Yes, the Redskins got screwed cap-wise for 2005. But the silver lining is that removing Coles from the books for 2006 definitely eases the burden of that cumbersome cap year, and the Redskins were able to get a valuable player in exchange for Coles. Most importantly, they rid themselves of a player that would have been a distraction and a potential locker room cancer. You might argue that he kept quiet last season, but the fact is, there are players who heard or otherwise sensed his disgruntlement throughout the season. Maybe that's why guys like Randy Thomas were so quick to say they'd rather not have a player like that around.

03-08-2005, 09:43 PM	#6
sportscurmudgeon Playmaker Join Date: Feb 2004 Posts: 3,159	Re: Did We Shoot Ourselves In The Foot?? celts32: You hit it on the head. They could have released him and saved that $5M bonus money back in February. That is the deal Coles thought he had struck but then "things changed". Gibbs called it a misunderstanding; Coles said the Skins "reneged". But the chance for an outright release with a savings of that bonus money was on the table and the Skins' FO fumbled the ball. Regarding the jump in the salary cap and the "Skins already planning for it", I'm afraid that all they Skins have done is spend money in that year based on the increased cap they expect to be there. They will NOT be 20M under the new cap. And by the way, think about this scenario: The cap goes up in 2007. The players know this. The players know that Danny Boy did not do will with players who made big demands on him (Coles, Bailey, Smoot...) So what stops an already signed player from asking for his release or a fat new deal as 2007 arrives? Based on what has happened here this year, what does he have to lose? Oh yeah, I know. They'll all be "true Redskins" by then and wouldn't think of doing something like that... Maybe the Easter Bunny will be the Offensive Coordinator by then too. Remember last season when everyone here deluded themselves into believing that Smoot was such a "true Redskin" he would play here at a discount just for the honor of being with a Hall of Fame coach and a team with such a proud heritage. Don't say it didn't happen; the threads are still here. Please factor in a sizeable contract for Santana Moss sometime soon. If the Skins don't do that, odds are he'll get lowballed by the FO next January and decide to go FA shopping. If you were he, wouldn't you? Please remember that Sean Taylor thinks he got screwed by the contract he signed as a rookie last year and his new agent is Drew Rosenhaus. It's only a matter of time until Taylor seeks a newer and bigger deal. Don't be angry wehn it happens because it's gonna happen. Given the cap trouble the team has this year, Rosenhaus will probably not make a big deal about this just yet, but sometime next January might be when he begins to grumble just a bit... Please remember that Patrick Ramsey's deal is done soon and they will either have to sign him to a comfortable deal or lose him and go find another "experienced QB" who will not come here cheaply. __________________ The Sports Curmudgeon www.sportscurmudgeon.com But don't get me wrong, I love sports...

03-07-2005, 04:13 PM	#10
BossHog Registered User Join Date: Feb 2004 Location: Norfolk, Va Posts: 665	Re: Did We Shoot Ourselves In The Foot?? It appears to be a big mess. Arrington's and Sean Taylor's contract are issues too.

03-07-2005, 04:20 PM	#11
bedlamVR Special Teams Join Date: Apr 2004 Posts: 389	Re: Did We Shoot Ourselves In The Foot?? Yes. I hated this deal from day 1 and now finnally so do the press . We didn't get a Scrub? Word out of NY Moss was on the way to the bench and McCarrins would have a new starter friend. He is injury prone and becoming hit shy ... but hey at least we got something he will go well with our outher No.3. recievers like Thrash and Givens. We couldn't have made Coles play ? No? When was the last player to hold out for an entire year? He would have been locker room cancer ? If we won who would listen ? If he was locked out he would have cost us 3.2 million this year. Instested he cost us 9.2 million andhe gets to play for someone else . How does that make sence finicially or football way ? And for all of those relived we have saved the cap room remember we still need to replace him . Did we shoot ourselves in the foot ... Damn yes. Did we move into the Basement oh god yes..... There is one thing that bothers me though . The trade cap hit isn't 9.2 million but 6 million. I thought we had more than 8 million under the cap after the Nobel, Harris restructures and ecent signings.

03-07-2005, 03:50 PM	#1
firstdown Living Legend Join Date: Oct 2004 Location: chesapeake, va Age: 62 Posts: 15,817	Re: Did We Shoot Ourselves In The Foot?? Maybe someone can help me with this. Why are we going to pay the remaining 5 mil of his signing bonus. I understand it was a signing bonus but he wants out of his contract not us. I understanding the cap hit regardless of if we pay him I just don't understand why we are paying it.

03-07-2005, 04:26 PM	#12
Redskins_P Fight for old DC! Join Date: Feb 2004 Location: Aldie, VA Age: 47 Posts: 4,101	Re: Did We Shoot Ourselves In The Foot?? bedlamVR, Noble and Harris haven't re-signed or restructured. They barely take any cap space. The last player to hold out for an entire year was Keenan McCardell last year until he got traded.

03-07-2005, 04:30 PM	#13
Schneed10 A Dude Join Date: Feb 2005 Location: Newtown Square, PA Age: 46 Posts: 12,458	Re: Did We Shoot Ourselves In The Foot?? First, we had to pay Coles the $5 million in bonus because we were contractually obligated to do so. That $5 million wasn't a roster bonus, it was guaranteed to him for signing with the 'Skins. They just deferred the payment until now. When you cut or trade a guy, that releases you from all liability regarding the annual base salaries. But there is no getting around the guaranteed portion, and we guaranteed him we'd pay $5 million this spring. I agree that Moss is a step down from Coles in terms of talent, and it sure does suck that our cap room is gone. But Coles forced our hand on this one. We would have made a bigger mess if we kept him against his will, and used the extra cap room to sign more free agents. This year, we would have stuffed more talent under our salary cap for sure. But next year, in 2006, we'd have a disaster of Tennessee Titan proportions and we DEFINITELY would have had to blow the whole thing up. Now that we traded Coles, restructured some contracts, and refrained from signing any big-name free agents, we have a fighting chance to keep the team together in 2006 and beyond. Those complaining about the NFL and how it's so hard to keep your players for the long-haul should be rejoicing on this one. The downside to this deal is our team suffers talent-wise this year. The plus side is we have a much better chance at building something that will last and gradually improve. I think the front office made the best of a bad situation. I'm glad to see the team making a philosophical switch to doing things the right way.

03-07-2005, 06:55 PM	#14
Gmanc711 Thank You, Sean. Join Date: Feb 2004 Location: Gaithersburg, MD Age: 40 Posts: 7,506	Re: Did We Shoot Ourselves In The Foot?? I think we shot ourselves in the foot here. I know its a matter of getting somthing for Coles; but in all seriousness, I would have rather released Coles and not taken that hit. You cant trade a guy for lesser value and take that hit, in my opinion. I think we should have either kept Coles on the bench, or just flat out released him, which yeah woudl have sucked. However taking this cap hit for this crap is rediculous. __________________ #21

03-07-2005, 07:27 PM	#15
TheMalcolmConnection I like big (_\|_)s. Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Charlottesville, Virginia Age: 44 Posts: 19,264	Re: Did We Shoot Ourselves In The Foot?? Do the Skins play the Jets this year? __________________ Regret nothing. At one time it was exactly what you wanted.

Did We Shoot Ourselves In The Foot??

Locker Room Main Forum