Burgold Posted March 10, 2006 Share Posted March 10, 2006 No, the Redskins didn't get market value on the Cole's deal. Santana for Coles was a win for the Jets on paper before the season started. We wound up with the better player, but on rep and statistics, the Jets should have paid a draft pick plus Moss. Still, very happy with the way it worked out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheLongshot Posted March 10, 2006 Share Posted March 10, 2006 Fact is, once it is viewed that a player under contract is on the outs with a team, the value is already hurt. It isn't just a Gibbs thing, but NFL wide as well. Sure, sometimes sucker deals can be made, like AJ Feeley or Sean Gilbert. For the most part, tho, people don't get fooled all that often, particularly since a big mistake could hurt you for years. Trading in general hasn't been nearly as rich as it has in the past. Writers were saying at the time of the Bailey-Portis deal, blockbusters with prime players rarely happen anymore. Jason Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
redman Posted March 10, 2006 Share Posted March 10, 2006 With the Gibbs staff is this ability to lower the value of current players value before they trade/cut them...Ramsey is a prime example and Coles as well. We also have cut a few players that may have been able to be traded for lesser draft picks had everyone in the world not known the SKINS were unhappy with that player. It just seems they let the cat out of the bag on wanting to get rid of a player and lowers that players value to be traded.? Does anyone else see this as an issue at all?:dallasuck Of course, we got into the playoffs because Ramsey was able to come in in relief of Brunell to win the Giants game for us, so . . . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheLongshot Posted March 10, 2006 Share Posted March 10, 2006 No, the Redskins didn't get market value on the Cole's deal. Santana for Coles was a win for the Jets on paper before the season started. We wound up with the better player, but on rep and statistics, the Jets should have paid a draft pick plus Moss. It isn't the value at the time that counts, but the results afterwards. Yes, it was viewed by the general public that we were getting the worse end of the deal, but the staff knew that Coles wasn't what he used to be, and liked what they saw in Moss. We definitly got the better end of that deal. Jason Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheLongshot Posted March 10, 2006 Share Posted March 10, 2006 Of course, we got into the playoffs because Ramsey was able to come in in relief of Brunell to win the Giants game for us, so . . . Um.. We were leading at that point in the game. All he did was make sure it was put away. (And Moss and Portis had something to do with that as well.) Jason Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Butz65 Posted March 10, 2006 Share Posted March 10, 2006 With the Gibbs staff is this ability to lower the value of current players value before they trade/cut them...Ramsey is a prime example and Coles as well. We also have cut a few players that may have been able to be traded for lesser draft picks had everyone in the world not known the SKINS were unhappy with that player. :doh: Huh? By virtue of releasing a player or offering him in a trade we are letting the other teams know we're not happy with him. Other teams have plenty of film on Ramsey to determine his market value. Perhaps a lower level draft pick being offered by other teams confirms the current staff's value of him (opposite of your theory)? Besides, if other teams truly felt he was a bum they'd offer nothing. As for Coles, I think we got the better end of that deal - again confirming the insight Gibbs and his staff have of the true value of their players. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FullbackIsKey Posted March 10, 2006 Share Posted March 10, 2006 Have you ever considered that the players agents play a part in that? yeah, I was gonna say that, you can't keep an unhappy player out of the media. And if you tell the player that you want to trade him, he'll take it to the media, and if you just trade a player without him knowing first, he hits the media with his anger, and then it looks like your team doesn't take care of its players, so it harder to sign FAs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dadirtbags Posted March 10, 2006 Share Posted March 10, 2006 Ramsey or any other player for that matter holds the key to there own value......If Ramsey is impressive during his workouts ....and lets say a team like the Jets vision him as there man (starter)...they will offer us a good deal.....now...if Ramsey does so so...or below average.....we will be offered less...bottom line is.....if numerous teams want him ..and they fight it out for him to be on there team...we will get a great deal. The Coles thing was a bit different....Coles wanted out.....everyone stayed away from him because of the money he was due....not to mention...Coles was also being picky who he wanted to go to....Gibbs went out of his way to make it into a win win situation IMO Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.