Did We Shoot Ourselves In The Foot??

Tahoe Skin · 03-07-2005, 04:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Redskins_P

What other 2, 3 or 4 players were we going to sign? It's not like we were going on a FA shopping spree.

Perhaps we're not going on a spending spree cause we now have $9 million LESS to do so because of the Coles trade. I can think of several people we could have gotten, beginning with one named Fred Smoot.

celts32 · 03-07-2005, 05:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tahoe Skin

Oh My God! Please let Coles fail his toe test, so we can undo this stupid trade!

Jets are not going to fail his toe. Even with a bad toe he is better than Moss. this trade is a done deal...

Redskins_P · 03-07-2005, 05:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tahoe Skin

Perhaps we're not going on a spending spree cause we now have $9 million LESS to do so because of the Coles trade. I can think of several people we could have gotten, beginning with one named Fred Smoot.

We weren't going on spending spree anyway (read the Washtimes article titled "Skins done in Free agency") even before the Coles trade. And as for Smoot, we made our offer, and we weren't going to budge (read the WPost).

I really don't know why you think we were better off keeping a guy who doesn't want to be here. Sometimes you gotta bite the bullet and cut your losses. Coach Gibbs has said over and over again that he wants players who want to be "real Redskins". Coles doesn't fit that criteria.

BrudLee · 03-07-2005, 05:04 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, 05:05 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.

BossHog · 03-07-2005, 05:13 PM

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

offiss · 03-07-2005, 05:13 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?

bedlamVR · 03-07-2005, 05:20 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, 05:26 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.

joecrisp · 03-07-2005, 05:29 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.

Schneed10 · 03-07-2005, 05:30 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.

firstdown · 03-07-2005, 05:31 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, 05:35 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....

Gmanc711 · 03-07-2005, 07:55 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.

RedskinPete · 03-07-2005, 08:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by calia

I agree -- this was bungled and badly. Does anyone else think Cerrato is struglling with the concept of walking upright? He must have a picture of The Danny with a goat or something, because he's ruining the team. Without more $$, Smoot is gone, which is a shame given that the guy plays with real heart (recall him playing with a busted sternum -- that's as tough as it gets).

Separately, does anyone know what the story is with Mike Barrow? If he's back and healthy (two big ifs), that will make the loss of Pierce a bit easier.

You are SO RIGHT ABOUT Cerrato. He did SF in

and when he is through here the same will be said. If anyone needs to go it is VINNY!!!! Trade him to the jets please Danny!!!! As for Coles I think he will not be right for the rest of his NFL days. Yes he plays hurt but he is not the player he thinks he is. Is Moss better only time will tell. One thing that looks to be true is Moss was a better Jet in the locker room and a real Jet then Coles ever was or would be after what he said! I Can't wait to see Taylor taking him out someday!!!! But Unless Vinny and Danny gets Smoot back as a Redskin I think we are no better off then we were a week ago!

03-07-2005, 05:13 PM	#36
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, 05:13 PM	#37
offiss Registered User Join Date: Feb 2004 Location: sparta, new jersey [ northern jersey ] Age: 60 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, 05:20 PM	#38
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, 05:26 PM	#39
Redskins_P Fight for old DC! Join Date: Feb 2004 Location: Aldie, VA Age: 46 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, 05:29 PM	#40
joecrisp The Starter Join Date: Feb 2004 Location: Charlottesville, VA Age: 48 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.

03-07-2005, 05:30 PM	#41
Schneed10 A Dude Join Date: Feb 2005 Location: Newtown Square, PA Age: 45 Posts: 12,422	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, 07:55 PM	#44
Gmanc711 Thank You, Sean. Join Date: Feb 2004 Location: Gaithersburg, MD Age: 39 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

Did We Shoot Ourselves In The Foot??

Locker Room Main Forum