newskinsowner Posted June 16, 2005 Share Posted June 16, 2005 Just another sign Gardner leaving Redskins By Len Pasquarelli ESPN.com Moving closer to the divorce both sides have acknowledged is imminent, the Washington Redskins and Rod Gardner have mutually agreed that the veteran wide receiver will not attend the team's mandatory minicamp this weekend. The absence of Gardner at the minicamp, which begins on Friday, is hardly surprising. Given that his four-year tenure in Washington has all but ended, the team essentially excused Gardner from all offseason activities. The agreement that Gardner will skip the minicamp, however, further confirms his pending departure. Early in the offseason, Washington afforded Gardner and agent Joel Segal permission to seek potential trade scenarios with other NFL teams. Despite discussions with several franchises — Minnesota, Seattle and Cleveland, among them — a deal never developed. That is in part, likely, because teams knew that Gardner would eventually be released and they could then sign him as an unrestricted free agent. That scenario, with the Redskins officially cutting ties to their 2001 first-round draft choice, will come in the next few weeks. By releasing Gardner, the Redskins will recoup $2.096 million in cap space, the full amount of his scheduled 2005 base salary. Washington will need that salary cap room to help sign its draft picks and possibly tinker slightly with the roster before camp begins. Gardner's base salary is currently the highest on the team. In four seasons, Gardner has 227 receptions for 2,997 yards and 22 touchdowns. The former Clemson star, selected with the 15th overall choice in 2001, posted a career-best 71 catches for 1,006 yards and eight touchdowns in 2002. But what many felt would be a breakout season was followed by two years in which Gardner averaged 55 catches, 625 yards and five touchdowns. Gardner, 27, suffered through stretches of inconsistency in 2004, dropped too many passes, and had just 51 receptions for 650 yards. His problems in 2004 aside, some teams still feel Gardner can be a solid No. 2 receiver, and that he can be acquired with a palatable contract, perhaps a one-year deal that would provide him the chance to re-establish himself and then go back into the free agent market next spring. Washington has dramatically revamped its wide receiver corps in the offseason. The Redskins traded starter Laveranues Coles to the New York Jets for Santana Moss. The club also signed veteran free agents David Patten, Kevin Dyson and Jimmy Farris. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hooper Posted June 16, 2005 Share Posted June 16, 2005 Wow. A completely objective article from Lenny P. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mark327 Posted June 16, 2005 Share Posted June 16, 2005 and something of which everyone knows Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zoony Posted June 16, 2005 Share Posted June 16, 2005 I'm surprised Gardner isn't howling to be let go. I would be. Could it be that he's enjoying sitting around doing nothing rather than working out with another team? If anyone has a better explanation I'm all ears. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
budski Posted June 16, 2005 Share Posted June 16, 2005 nobody wants this guy and Gibbs aint going to let him know any of the secrets. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Evil Genius Posted June 16, 2005 Share Posted June 16, 2005 Gardner's base salary is currently the highest on the team. Fatty - don't you mean the highest WR base salary on the team? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dead Money Posted June 16, 2005 Share Posted June 16, 2005 Gibbs is making an example out of him after we got screwed by LC. (A nice move I might add) If he wasn't - he would have been released already. Nobody's giving us a warm can of diet rite cola for him. Oh and let me add that I would support Gibbs if he restructured others to get under the cap just to let gardner sit on the bench all season. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skinshog Posted June 16, 2005 Share Posted June 16, 2005 I was waiting for the negativity out of Lenny, but was surprised none came. I feel, awkward, somethings not right here... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zoony Posted June 16, 2005 Share Posted June 16, 2005 Originally posted by skinshog I was waiting for the negativity out of Lenny, but was surprised none came. I feel, awkward, somethings not right here... Lenny got laid. :puke: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skinshog Posted June 16, 2005 Share Posted June 16, 2005 Originally posted by zoony Lenny got laid. :puke: Now that, is not right, let alone probably not possible. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doozinbrah Posted June 16, 2005 Share Posted June 16, 2005 Originally posted by newskinsowner Just another sign Gardner leaving Redskins By Len Pasquarelli ESPN.com Moving closer to the divorce both sides have acknowledged is imminent, the Washington Redskins and Rod Gardner have mutually agreed that the veteran wide receiver will not attend the team's mandatory minicamp this weekend. The absence of Gardner at the minicamp, which begins on Friday, is hardly surprising. Given that his four-year tenure in Washington has all but ended, the team essentially excused Gardner from all offseason activities. The agreement that Gardner will skip the minicamp, however, further confirms his pending departure. Early in the offseason, Washington afforded Gardner and agent Joel Segal permission to seek potential trade scenarios with other NFL teams. Despite discussions with several franchises — Minnesota, Seattle and Cleveland, among them — a deal never developed. That is in part, likely, because teams knew that Gardner would eventually be released and they could then sign him as an unrestricted free agent. That scenario, with the Redskins officially cutting ties to their 2001 first-round draft choice, will come in the next few weeks. By releasing Gardner, the Redskins will recoup $2.096 million in cap space, the full amount of his scheduled 2005 base salary. Washington will need that salary cap room to help sign its draft picks and possibly tinker slightly with the roster before camp begins. Gardner's base salary is currently the highest on the team. In four seasons, Gardner has 227 receptions for 2,997 yards and 22 touchdowns. The former Clemson star, selected with the 15th overall choice in 2001, posted a career-best 71 catches for 1,006 yards and eight touchdowns in 2002. But what many felt would be a breakout season was followed by two years in which Gardner averaged 55 catches, 625 yards and five touchdowns. Gardner, 27, suffered through stretches of inconsistency in 2004, dropped too many passes, and had just 51 receptions for 650 yards. His problems in 2004 aside, some teams still feel Gardner can be a solid No. 2 receiver, and that he can be acquired with a palatable contract, perhaps a one-year deal that would provide him the chance to re-establish himself and then go back into the free agent market next spring. Washington has dramatically revamped its wide receiver corps in the offseason. The Redskins traded starter Laveranues Coles to the New York Jets for Santana Moss. The club also signed veteran free agents David Patten, Kevin Dyson and Jimmy Farris. What would make this article better would be a link.:cool: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wskin44 Posted June 16, 2005 Share Posted June 16, 2005 Lenny is predicting a modest one year contract. We heard that Gardner refused trade offers that did not give him a long term deal. It wouldn't make sense that Gardner would agree now to a one year deal when he could have taken his current one year $2 mil contract with him in a trade. Something doesn't add up here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Goaldeje Posted June 16, 2005 Share Posted June 16, 2005 Originally posted by skinshog Now that, is not right, let alone probably not possible. umm, yeah, laws of physics or something. Lets never speak of it again, in any case. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
E-Dog Night Posted June 16, 2005 Share Posted June 16, 2005 Breaking news Lenny! In a related story, this guy is old, too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TK Posted June 16, 2005 Share Posted June 16, 2005 Originally posted by zoony Lenny got laid. :puke: Originally posted by skinshog Now that, is not right, let alone probably not possible. Actually, Hutts are hermaphroditic, containing both male and female sex organs. Hutts are generally considered male unless they are pregnant, at which point they are referred to as female. Meaning, If you told Jabba the Len to go eff himself, well...... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bubba9497 Posted June 16, 2005 Share Posted June 16, 2005 Originally posted by Doozinbrah What would make this article better would be a link.:cool: bingo! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VaBeachSkinzFan Posted June 16, 2005 Share Posted June 16, 2005 Originally posted by Kevin B. Gibbs is making an example out of him after we got screwed by LC. (A nice move I might add) If he wasn't - he would have been released already. That has to be right. I can't believe anyone would want to trade for him at this point. My friend (who is an Eagles fan) told me that the Skins were going to release him and the Eagles would pick him up and he will make the pro bowl, just like Trotter did. I really hope we beat the crap out of them at least once this year. :eaglesuck Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Goaldeje Posted June 16, 2005 Share Posted June 16, 2005 Originally posted by Doozinbrah What would make this article better would be a link.:cool: And LESS talking about Lenny's sexual activities and organs and such. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chachie Posted June 16, 2005 Share Posted June 16, 2005 Originally posted by TK-IV II I Actually, Hutts are hermaphroditic, containing both male and female sex organs. Hutts are generally considered male unless they are pregnant, at which point they are referred to as female. TK- You must be one HECK of a Star Wars freak to know the biological gender info of an imaginary species. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TK Posted June 16, 2005 Share Posted June 16, 2005 Originally posted by Chachie TK- You must be one HECK of a Star Wars freak to know the biological gender info of an imaginary species. Star Wars? Can't stand that mess. Give me James T. Kirk anyday. Now, I do however know where to find & how to use the Star Wars databank. How's Joanie? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
iheartskins Posted June 16, 2005 Share Posted June 16, 2005 Ye asketh, and ye shall receiveth: http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/columns/story?columnist=pasquarelli_len&id=2087512 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
newskinsowner Posted June 16, 2005 Author Share Posted June 16, 2005 You know i used to do links but i would get a bunch of people whining saying "they cant open the link" or blah blah blah or "can someone post the link?" so yes i just did the simple copy and paste. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TK Posted June 16, 2005 Share Posted June 16, 2005 Originally posted by newskinsowner You know i used to do links but i would get a bunch of people whining saying "they cant open the link" or blah blah blah or "can someone post the link?" so yes i just did the simple copy and paste. ALWAYS post the link. It's in our Rules & Guidelines. But you know that, beacause you've taken the time to read them & make yourself familiar with them, right? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Monte51Coleman Posted June 16, 2005 Share Posted June 16, 2005 Originally posted by Chachie TK- You must be one HECK of a Star Wars freak to know the biological gender info of an imaginary species. Huh? Imaginary? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HeHateMe Posted June 16, 2005 Share Posted June 16, 2005 I said it before, and I'll say it again. I would love for Dallas to make a run at him if and when hes 86'ed in DC. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.