2018 Free Agency Database - (Signed: WILLIAMS - McPhee - Scandrick - P-Rich) - (Lauvao, Bergstrom, Nsehke, Taylor, Z. Brown and Quick re-signed)

[NickyJ]

Nick Rose just got cut by the Jets, who claimed him off waivers from the Charges a month ago. Rose come home!

[RWJ]

1 hour ago, NickyJ said:

Nick Rose just got cut by the Jets, who claimed him off waivers from the Charges a month ago. Rose come home!

Loved the guy too but Hop got signed to a multi year deal so I doubt it happens.

[CTskin]

On 5/10/2018 at 4:16 PM, MisterPinstripe said:

I wouldn't call him a garbage ass player, but I definitely wouldn't call him good enough to be an NFL starter. I would feel much better if he was 3rd string on the depth chart.

 

Well, he is the 3rd string on the depth chart... so, feel better. I don't think there's any question that this is Guice's job to lose. CT is #2.

 

If it weren't for injuries, I'd prefer Kelley to Samaje. Samaje runs like a bowling ball but lacks the ability to bowl and also lacks vision and elusiveness. His rookie year showing was far below expectations, but given Kelley's injury issues and Samaje's potential for improvement, I see Kelley getting cut.

 

[UK Skins]

I loved Rose. Mind you, after Hopkins missed that winner in London I would have rooted for anyone who replaced him!

[justice98]

22 hours ago, NickyJ said:

Nick Rose just got cut by the Jets, who claimed him off waivers from the Charges a month ago. Rose come home!

 

Hopkins will be perfect and drilling everything right down the middle.....right up until Rose gets signed by somebody.  Then he'll get the yips and the wheels will come off.  Book it.  

[HigSkin]

 

[CTskin]

1 hour ago, HigSkin said:

 

 

Well I hate to dig up the grave of the compensatory pick talk, but I believe I read that the comp pick period has ended. If so, would that mean that if he signed a significant contract, the pick wouldn't be awarded until 2020?

[HTTRDynasty]

1 hour ago, CTskin said:

 

Well I hate to dig up the grave of the compensatory pick talk, but I believe I read that the comp pick period has ended. If so, would that mean that if he signed a significant contract, the pick wouldn't be awarded until 2020?

 

It would mean there is no pick awarded at all, IIRC.

[Jericho]

8 minutes ago, HTTRDynasty said:

 

It would mean there is no pick awarded at all, IIRC.

 

 

Correct, no pick. The team had to tender Breeland to retain a compensatory pick. Even though the tender was minuscule and Breeland would have never signed it, the team opted not to tender him. Not really sure why. Like I said, there's no way Breeland would have taken it. So it was basically a no lose scenario.

[CTskin]

16 hours ago, HTTRDynasty said:

 

It would mean there is no pick awarded at all, IIRC.

 

Wow, that's nonsense... Instead of a 4th and 5th (or 5th and 6th) for Bree and Grant, I believe we'll get a 7th for Grant. I guess I'll save the bitterness for next offseason.

 

And for everyone who discounted the importance of comp picks, go check out the draft thread... there's potential in all of our picks.

[OVCChairman]

16 hours ago, Jericho said:

 

 

Correct, no pick. The team had to tender Breeland to retain a compensatory pick. Even though the tender was minuscule and Breeland would have never signed it, the team opted not to tender him. Not really sure why. Like I said, there's no way Breeland would have taken it. So it was basically a no lose scenario.

 

 

Unless he was unable to pass a physical prior to the deadline, had that happened, he would not have been able to negotiate with anyone other than us, or he would have to sit out the season.  We essentially would have been holding him hostage.  

[goskins10]

17 hours ago, Jericho said:

 

 

Correct, no pick. The team had to tender Breeland to retain a compensatory pick. Even though the tender was minuscule and Breeland would have never signed it, the team opted not to tender him. Not really sure why. Like I said, there's no way Breeland would have taken it. So it was basically a no lose scenario.

 

With all due respect this is not entirely correct. The tender is not minuscule. It has to be 110% of his last years salary - in this case about $2M. 

 

Also, we were already at the limit of 4 comp picks. So we were never going to get an additional comp pick anyway. In terms of position, he would have to sign for more than $6M/yr to replace the 6th for Pryor and make it a 5th. The likely hood of him getting signed for more than $6M is just not there. At this point in FA and him still not being signed and add the injury issue, he will be lucky at this point to get $4M/yr - which is less than Pryor so no change in position.  

 

So, as I have said repeatedly, giving Breeland the tender after the Ravens deal fell through really would do nothing but be a dick move that would with virtually no benefit to the team. And if he signed the tender i am pretty certain it becomes fully guaranteed. So $2M for a guy we don't want.

 

That's why they didn't do it. 

[Jericho]

5 hours ago, goskins10 said:

 

With all due respect this is not entirely correct. The tender is not minuscule. It has to be 110% of his last years salary - in this case about $2M. 

 

Also, we were already at the limit of 4 comp picks. So we were never going to get an additional comp pick anyway. In terms of position, he would have to sign for more than $6M/yr to replace the 6th for Pryor and make it a 5th. The likely hood of him getting signed for more than $6M is just not there. At this point in FA and him still not being signed and add the injury issue, he will be lucky at this point to get $4M/yr - which is less than Pryor so no change in position.  

 

So, as I have said repeatedly, giving Breeland the tender after the Ravens deal fell through really would do nothing but be a dick move that would with virtually no benefit to the team. And if he signed the tender i am pretty certain it becomes fully guaranteed. So $2M for a guy we don't want.

 

That's why they didn't do it. 

 

With all due respect this is not entirely correct. As Breeland was coming off a rookie deal, the tender was only 100% of his prior year's salary (the 110% only applies to veterans). His tender would have been $1.797 million, his 2017 salary.

 

Yes, the Redskins are currently maxed out on compensatory picks. So it would not have "gained" the team another pick. But it could have elevated a pick the team already has coming to it. Yes, Breeland would have to sign for enough money to elevate the Grant/Pryor picks (currently projected as 6th rounders) . But the idea that there is/was no chance of that seems misguided. Breeland's original deal was for $8 per year over multiple years, so there's certainly a chance a team gives him a one year prove it deal for a least six million. To dismiss the possibility seems completely erroneous.

 

The idea that it would be a "dick" move also makes no sense. It essentially costs the team nothing. Breeland will never sign such a cheap tender, so the team is at worst in the same position it was before. At best, it helps gain the team a higher pick. And if you really want to play devil's advocate and say Breeland would sign, it means the team gets Breeland for less than 1/4 his original contract cost (which was $8 million per year). That's good asset management to acquire players at 1/4 their market rate. It puts Breeland in no different a position either. He was free to negotiate with every team once he became a free agent. He still is. He would have counted as a compensatory pick had he signed earlier. He still would. Nothing has changed.

 

So, the information you have been "repeatedly" saying seems erroneous and misguided. There's basically zero risk to the team. Yes, Breeland may end up with a worse contract than Pryor so it wouldn't have improved anything. But why not wait and see? It's virtually risk free

[goskins10]

14 minutes ago, Jericho said:

 

With all due respect this is not entirely correct. As Breeland was coming off a rookie deal, the tender was only 100% of his prior year's salary (the 110% only applies to veterans). His tender would have been $1.797 million, his 2017 salary.

 

Yes, the Redskins are currently maxed out on compensatory picks. So it would not have "gained" the team another pick. But it could have elevated a pick the team already has coming to it. Yes, Breeland would have to sign for enough money to elevate the Grant/Pryor picks (currently projected as 6th rounders) . But the idea that there is/was no chance of that seems misguided. Breeland's original deal was for $8 per year over multiple years, so there's certainly a chance a team gives him a one year prove it deal for a least six million. To dismiss the possibility seems completely erroneous.

 

The idea that it would be a "dick" move also makes no sense. It essentially costs the team nothing. Breeland will never sign such a cheap tender, so the team is at worst in the same position it was before. At best, it helps gain the team a higher pick. And if you really want to play devil's advocate and say Breeland would sign, it means the team gets Breeland for less than 1/4 his original contract cost (which was $8 million per year). That's good asset management to acquire players at 1/4 their market rate. It puts Breeland in no different a position either. He was free to negotiate with every team once he became a free agent. He still is. He would have counted as a compensatory pick had he signed earlier. He still would. Nothing has changed.

 

So, the information you have been "repeatedly" saying seems erroneous and misguided. There's basically zero risk to the team. Yes, Breeland may end up with a worse contract than Pryor so it wouldn't have improved anything. But why not wait and see? It's virtually risk free

 

First, you sound a bit salty. I was not trying to be antagonistic just pointing out facts. I thought I was polite. If I wasn't, that was not my intent.

 

Once you complete your rookie contract you are veteran which is why he was an unrestricted FA - 4 yrs of service. So it was $2M. And it becomes fully guaranteed once he signs it. Saying there is no risk is factually incorrect. 

 

So it's your belief that there is a good chance that someone signs him for >$6M/yr after having a contract cancelled due to injury and it being this late in FA? Colts could give him a one yr prove it deal I guess. They have plenty of CAP. AZ not so much. They have $16M in CAP. But if they really want him I guess they could do it.  I do not see it but I guess we will see. To me it's not worth the hassle of jerking a guy around for a late 5th vs a late 6th rd draft pick for next year.

 

And yes I believe it's a dick move to tender a player a contract with zero intention of signing him. Why do that to a player you clearly do not want when there is so little chance at this point it would even benefit the team? If all he needed to do was be signed for $2M or so and you get a pick? Maybe. But he needs to be signed for $6M after having an $8M/yr contract cancelled for injury. Again, not sure who is giving up that money for a guy still on the market in mid May and had a contract cancelled for injury - admittedly a jerk move by the Panthers. Who knows, dumber **** has happened.

 

 

 

[skinny21]

@JerichoYeah, that’s where I was at too.  It really comes down to - did the team want him back?

 

Now, I don’t know the answer to that.  I do know that 1) he’s played pretty well for the Skins (well above his contract), 2) he can play inside or outside (we have some uncertainty regarding slot corner and are lacking depth on the outside), and 3) we haven’t really heard anything negative about him from his coaches or teammates.  We didn’t try to re-sign him, but if he was a poor fit/a problem, you’d think they would have benched him (beyond 1 game or whatever) or cut him

 

I know most most of us would have been happy to have him back (especially after trading away Fuller), but knew our cap situation wasn’t in his favor.  To be able to sign him for under 2 mil?  That’s a great deal for us, with the added bonus of a potential higher comp pick.  

 

Some might say the fact we didn’t tender him means we didn’t want him back (even at a really good value), but IMO that’s assuming this FO can’t make mistakes.  Would love to hear their explanation.  

[BatteredFanSyndrome]

10 hours ago, skinny21 said:

Some might say the fact we didn’t tender him means we didn’t want him back (even at a really good value), but IMO that’s assuming this FO can’t make mistakes.  Would love to hear their explanation.  

I think the fact that we didn't tender him means they didn't want him back.  My question is why would we not want him back at under 2M?  Aren't we paying Scandrick that much?  Of whom I expect to be on the other end of the highlight reels?

[skinny21]

20 minutes ago, BatteredFanSyndrome said:

I think the fact that we didn't tender him means they didn't want him back.  My question is why would we not want him back at under 2M?  Aren't we paying Scandrick that much?  Of whom I expect to be on the other end of the highlight reels?

Could be.  It’s just tough to reconcile this idea; if they think so poorly of Breeland that they refused to even try to get him back at very good value... why was he starting for them last year?

 

I get not pursuing him prior to, or during FA - they felt like most of us did - he was probably going to get paid 8-10 mil.  Once they had the tender option though... as you said, I’d take him over Scandrick in a heartbeat.  

 

I hope one of the beat guys asks about this.  Anyone on twitter wanna ask Keim or Finlay?

[Koolblue13]

On 5/10/2018 at 4:09 PM, beachboy757 said:

Maybe I'm too sensitive about this but I don't know why a guy like Robert Kelley is being refered to as a "garbage ass player"??

 

He was an undrafted free agent that worked hard to get a shot to start. He is obviously nothing special but has shown flashes to be considered a NFL starter. 

 

Why do players like him and Ryan Grant get trashed while other players that were picked higher in the draft and play average and/or inconsistent get all type of excuses about being placed in the wrong position, wrong team, wrong FO structure, injuries, etc?? /endrant

 

Because most people are imbeciles and live off highlight reels alone,  without acknowledging how much work other people have to do. 

[carex]

1 hour ago, skinny21 said:

Could be.  It’s just tough to reconcile this idea; if they think so poorly of Breeland that they refused to even try to get him back at very good value... why was he starting for them last year?

 

I get not pursuing him prior to, or during FA - they felt like most of us did - he was probably going to get paid 8-10 mil.  Once they had the tender option though... as you said, I’d take him over Scandrick in a heartbeat.  

 

I hope one of the beat guys asks about this.  Anyone on twitter wanna ask Keim or Finlay?

 

because he played well?  Think about it.  There are teams that actually cut starters after last year.  We're just not bringing one back

[Skinsinparadise]

1 hour ago, BatteredFanSyndrome said:

I think the fact that we didn't tender him means they didn't want him back.  My question is why would we not want him back at under 2M?  Aren't we paying Scandrick that much?  Of whom I expect to be on the other end of the highlight reels?

 

Yeah if Breeland is healthy and ends up getting similar money to Scandrick elsewhere -- yuck IMO from the Redskins standpoint. Breeland might not be great but he's at least good and still in his prime.   I get Breeland is a personality but I hear Scandrick is arguably even a bigger personality who likewise isn't afraid to ruffle some feathers.  I like the Richardson and McPhee signings.  But to me I think the best hope for Scandrick is he's just a guy and worst case scenario he remains who he has been the last two seasons -- in other words a bad 30 something corner whose last stand was 3 years ago.

 

Granted its just one play but I saw the one in practice where Trey Quinn just totally fooled Moreau by moving in and then jutting out and got wide open.  It didn't make me feel warm and fuzzy about Moreau.  I am not down on Moreau but to me him, Dunbar, Holsey are total wild cards.  And IMO Scandrick will end up one of those "bargain" deal busts FAs that have become common here for years. 

[skinny21]

1 hour ago, carex said:

 

because he played well?  Think about it.  There are teams that actually cut starters after last year.  We're just not bringing one back

If I understand you right...

 

Teams cut starters to help their finances and/or because they had promising players behind that starter.  Those two things don’t really apply here.  They did apply when we let him hit FA (and didn’t try to re-sign him), but once it became a situation involving 1)  a position of questionable depth and 2) a small tender amount, it became a whole different ball of wax IMO

 

I would highly doubt those teams would have cut an inexpensive starter if they didn’t need to.  

 

So for me, it boils down to two explanations - 1) they just really didn’t want him at the team (and cost wasn’t the motive), or 2) they dropped the ball.   To essentially refuse a player of his caliber at an incredibly reasonable price (at a position with some questions and Scandrick on the roster), is odd to me since we didn’t hear any real issues with him.  Yes, he complained about Norman’s signing and doesn’t do himself any favors on social media, and yes, he struggled at times, but he played quite well when our dline was healthy, and was at least decent when they weren’t.  The cherry on top is that he can play inside and out, and probably kicks Scandrick off the team.  

 

I mean, it’s water under the bridge at this point... I just would be curious to hear the FO’s rationale.  

 

@SkinsinparadiseAgree with that.  I wouldn’t say Dunbar is a total wildcard, but I get your point.  Regarding Breeland, yeah, adding him would have made me feel much more comfortable with the corner position... including slot corner.  

 

Honestly, if we had done that, LG is literally the only real weak spot I see on the team (among starters and rotational guys - safety depth and interior oline depth are fairly weak as of now.  

[goskins10]

12 hours ago, skinny21 said:

@JerichoYeah, that’s where I was at too.  It really comes down to - did the team want him back?

 

Now, I don’t know the answer to that.  I do know that 1) he’s played pretty well for the Skins (well above his contract), 2) he can play inside or outside (we have some uncertainty regarding slot corner and are lacking depth on the outside), and 3) we haven’t really heard anything negative about him from his coaches or teammates.  We didn’t try to re-sign him, but if he was a poor fit/a problem, you’d think they would have benched him (beyond 1 game or whatever) or cut him

 

I know most most of us would have been happy to have him back (especially after trading away Fuller), but knew our cap situation wasn’t in his favor.  To be able to sign him for under 2 mil?  That’s a great deal for us, with the added bonus of a potential higher comp pick.  

 

Some might say the fact we didn’t tender him means we didn’t want him back (even at a really good value), but IMO that’s assuming this FO can’t make mistakes.  Would love to hear their explanation.  

 

I am kind of surprised at why this is getting so much attention. Regardless of what we think or feel - there it is clear beyond reason that the team did not want Baushad Breeland back on the Washington Redskins even if he is free. 

 

I am not sure how seeing that they do not want him back at any price is making the assumption that the FO cannot make mistakes. Where does that come from? Of course they can make mistakes. And this may very well be one of them. That has zero to do with the clear fact that they have made the decision. Just because that fact is being pointed out is not a defense of the decision. It's also not a condemnation of the decision. It is simply the decision the team clearly made that many do not want to consider. 

 

As for him starting last year - maybe they had not decided for sure at that time. Maybe they were still hopeful he could turn things around. And why embarrass the guy. After the season teams review their players and determine who they want to keep and who they want to let go. They decided not to even offer Breeland a contract. It's pretty obvious that it's more than about money - especially when they did not change their minds after trading Fuller. 

 

Not saying you @skinny21  but I do remember an awful lot of people wanting Breeland go on game days - and that was no different at the end of last year. He was a bum. He should not even be on the field. Why didn't they just release him! But as soon as the Redskins let him go, he is suddenly at least a pretty good player. 

 

 

[BatteredFanSyndrome]

1 hour ago, carex said:

 

because he played well?  Think about it.  There are teams that actually cut starters after last year.  We're just not bringing one back

Typically teams cut starters that weren't playing well, or at least up to their salary.  It made sense to not to get involved with contract talks at 8M but to not be interested at 2M, particularly given how we look at CB, the question needs to be answered as to why.  Even if all we get is the 'we like our guys' response.

[nonniey]

21 hours ago, goskins10 said:

 

With all due respect this is not entirely correct. The tender is not minuscule. It has to be 110% of his last years salary - in this case about $2M. 

 

Also, we were already at the limit of 4 comp picks. So we were never going to get an additional comp pick anyway. In terms of position, he would have to sign for more than $6M/yr to replace the 6th for Pryor and make it a 5th. The likely hood of him getting signed for more than $6M is just not there. At this point in FA and him still not being signed and add the injury issue, he will be lucky at this point to get $4M/yr - which is less than Pryor so no change in position.  

 

So, as I have said repeatedly, giving Breeland the tender after the Ravens deal fell through really would do nothing but be a dick move that would with virtually no benefit to the team. And if he signed the tender i am pretty certain it becomes fully guaranteed. So $2M for a guy we don't want.

 

That's why they didn't do it. 

There was no risk as the salary was not guaranteed. If he signed it we could have then traded him or cut him and got that cap space back. It was stupid not to tender him.

[bird_1972]

3 hours ago, Skinsinparadise said:

Granted its just one play but I saw the one in practice where Trey Quinn just totally fooled Moreau by moving in and then jutting out and got wide open.  It didn't make me feel warm and fuzzy about Moreau.  I am not down on Moreau but to me him, Dunbar, Holsey are total wild cards.  And IMO Scandrick will end up one of those "bargain" deal busts FAs that have become common here for years. 

 

I know what clip you're talking about but recall that it was a rookie-only practice. I think many were fooled by the fact that some off the street scrub was assigned Moreau's number but I'm almost certain that clip is not Moreau getting juked. 

 

Still doesn't invalidate your reservations about the CB position, however.