Skins interested in Gallery?/Samuels trade talks *Merged*

[MTK]

I agree RF, just seems like way too much to give up to move up 3 lousy spots.

Something like Gardner and Samuels for the #2 overall sounds like plenty to me, maybe throw in a future pick if necessary, but Samuels and the #5 for just the #2 just doesn't sit well with me.

I'm hoping there's something else going on that we don't know about, some other motive for letting our "interest" for Gallery be known at this point.

[CrazyCanuck]

Samuels was a top-3 pick, and he's a "proven" player with a couple pro bowl
appearances (somehow ). Plus the team that trades for him would resign
him to a new deal that fits their own cap constraints. He should command at
least a top-3 pick in return (ie Gallery), and more IMO.

I would love Samuels for Gallery straight up, but anything more doesn't make sense.

[joecrisp]

Originally Posted by CrazyCanuck

Samuels was a top-3 pick, and he's a "proven" player with a couple pro bowl
appearances (somehow ). Plus the team that trades for him would resign
him to a new deal that fits their own cap constraints. He should command at
least a top-3 pick in return (ie Gallery), and more IMO.

I would love Samuels for Gallery straight up, but anything more doesn't make sense.

That should be the case. It would be truly assinine of the FO to allow themselves to be talked into sacrificing Samuels AND their #5 pick to acquire a replacement for Samuels with the #2 pick.

As others have said, if the Skins are able to acquire Gallery, but retain the #5 pick, then I'm all for it. But as Canuck said, if the Skins have to deal anything more than Samuels for Gallery straight up, then it's a bad deal on the Skins' part. It would be further evidence of how the Skins' irresponsible cap management has had a destructive effect on the roster.

Of course, all of this is likely moot if the Giants are able to pull off a trade with the Chargers to move up to the #1 spot.

[Davnpurt]

http://sports.yahoo.com/nfl/news?slu...=tsn&type=lgns

What areas does this trade and subsequent draft pick actually address? Maybe drafting Gallery and/or grabbing said draft spot is simply a ploy. Either to expediate the process of re-working Samuel's contract or a possible trading down with the Giants who are infatuated with Gallery. Notwithstanding, do we really need an inexperienced O-lineman and does this preference superseed our problems on D-line and throughout the secondary?

[Jamaican'Skin]

http://nflplayers.com/news/news_release.asp?id=2083

[SKINSnCANES]

Any news on holdman yet, that probably has a lot to do with any trades we make becuase of the cap room he'll take up. Granted we'll have more money when Trotter is gone but until then we wont have any money left.

[offiss]

Fox new's is speculating that we may have a draft day deal in place with the raider's, If we give up our #5 and samuel's for the #2 pick were nut's, essentially all we get is nothing but a little bit of cap relief, replacing a pro-bowl caliber tackle with a potential pro-bowl tackle, we have to get something more than just Gallery, I like the kid a lot and would prefer him over samuels, but it's to much to give up, samuel's gardner and our#1 next year? OK I would probably do that, I just don't want us to do what we did when we picked desmond howard, we didn't need a WR at the time we needed D-line help and we gave up 2 #1's to move up and take him and the rest is history, this move is not a neccessity type move, I just don't like what I have been hearing, especially after we threw in a #2 for portis, as if denver was going to find a better player to deal him for other than champ.

[raleighskinsfan]

I've got to think this is merely innuendo stirred up to help push Samuels to redo his deal. It probably won't work though. But I've got to believe the front office is not dumb enough to give up Samuels AND the #5 pick just for the #2 pick. It would essentially be like giving two players for one (Samuels and #5) for one, and the one is an unproven college player. We're not going to give up a probowler and a top 5 pick for someone unproven, no matter how great the potential. This is one rumor I'm not going to burn alot of energy worrying about. If they wish to trade the #2 pick straight up for Samuels, I could live with that. But what is being discussed now is heavily in the Raiders favor and I don't see it happening.

[Showtime]

What about
1) Trading any (and all) combination(s) of Gardner, Betts, Ohalete, Trotter and a future pick for the #2 spot.

2) Using the #2 to select Fitzgerald - he will be an amazing 1a receiver opposite Coles. And, in time, he will help immensely with Ramsey's development. Not to mention he is a great receiver in all senses of the word.

3) Then using the #5 pick to select Taylor. No need to explain this one.

In the end, we upgrade our offense AND defense. We don't need to trade Samuels. All he wants is a fair shake in Gibbs' run-oriented/max protect offense and some love from the Front Office. I'm sure he will renegotiate for next year given the opportunity to prove himself.

[CrazyCanuck]

Originally Posted by SKINSnCANES

Any news on holdman yet, that probably has a lot to do with any trades we make becuase of the cap room he'll take up. Granted we'll have more money when Trotter is gone but until then we wont have any money left.

From what I can tell we only have about $500K of 2004 cap room right now. I can't see them making any more moves unless they dump Samuels, Trotter, Moore, etc.

[skinsfanthru&thru]

Originally Posted by Showtime

2) Using the #2 to select Fitzgerald - he will be an amazing 1a receiver opposite Coles. And, in time, he will help immensely with Ramsey's development. Not to mention he is a great receiver in all senses of the word.

even if the skins were even remotely thinking about drafting a WR, it shouldn't be Fitzgerald. If we had a spot to fill with any of the top 3 wr's in the draft,which we don't, Roy Williams is the best Wr in the draft.

The more I hear about this deal with oakland the more I'm hating it cuz we in no way shape or form trade BOTH Samuels and the #5 overall pick for a rookie, even a rookie that has as much potential as Gallery. If this trade can go through without losing our pick so we could then select taylor or trade down and all we lose is samuels and his enormous cap #, thats a deal that makes more sense than practically giving up two high 1st round picks.

[Daseal]

From what I can tell we only have about $500K of 2004 cap room right now. I can't see them making any more moves unless they dump Samuels, Trotter, Moore, etc.

Crazy, you are definitly the cap expert around these parts, but once the June cuts come we should have quite a bit left over in cap space, correct? With Trotter, Trung, and more likely to get the knife, shouldn't we expect to get upwards of 1 mil in cap space free, or am I being too optimisitic.

As far as the above poster said, Roy Williams is THE WR to pick in this draft. Fitzgerald is a talented guy, and he's slated at #3 because he has a personal relationship with Denny Green. I don't really like this trade, especially if it includes our #5. If it is something like a Gardner or Trotter and Samuels for Gallery fine, but I'd rather do it to light a fire under Samuels ass to restructure. That could be the purpose for this, who knows!

Either way, I wanna see Winslow or Taylor in our boat come April 24th. 8)

[SKINSnCANES]

When I asked about Holdman I meant did he sign out offer sheet. I know we dont have much money but we already presented him with a new offer last week. We'll have the money once Trotter, Candidate(mabye), Larry Moore, and some D-linemen get the boot.

If for some reason trading Gardner, Trotter, Ife and Trung got us the second pick without giving up Samuels, or the number five pick, I think we should then trade the second pick to the brown, then mabye down again and recoup a bunch of picks. If we could get rid of people we dotn need(no offence Gardner, who id love ot keep but atleast has trade value), free up cap space and get more picks that would be awesome. The Raiders have a very old team and do need a bunch of people to step in, and Norv has worked with some of them here, so just mabye this could work out for us.

[SKINSnCANES]

As far as the three receivers, I cant help but think Larry Fitzgerald is the best one. Hes by far the smartest and the best with the ball, mabye the best since Jerry Rice. Hes not the fastest but seeing the types of plays he makes is incredible. Roy Williams may be better right now becuase he has four years of college under his belt. But I think the upside definitly goes to Fitzgerald. Roy is one of those guys thats the best in this years draft becuase of expereince. Larry is one of those peopel that comes around every ten years and happened to be the first that is allowed to come out early. If Larry had another year of college, which up until this year he would have had to, he would easily be the first pick in the draft.

[Riggo44]

Samuels may have angered Snyder by refusing to re-work his deal, but I have a feeling the motives for drafting Gallery and moving Samuels would be more salary cap-related than anything personal against Samuels. Though Gallery would certainly demand a huge contract, the numbers of the first 3-4 years would likely be rather cap-friendly-- certainly nowhere near as damaging as Samuels' numbers over the same timeframe.

I think your right! I really wouldn't care to much if Samule got traded. We could really use that kind of cap space!