Rufus T Firefly Posted March 8, 2007 Share Posted March 8, 2007 The rumor is that McGahee will be shipped to the Ravens for a 2nd and 5th. If true, it at least ends the talk about RBs "being worth a max of a 3rd rounder", after the T. Jones deal. Of course, Baltimore's 2nd is late, but the 5th adds value. Because of contract status, I still think Betts may carry more value than Willis. No idea if we will trade him, but I think this (if true) at least changes the parameters on trade value a little. Just sayin..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kappaluvacee Posted March 8, 2007 Share Posted March 8, 2007 Betts isn't going anywhere. That would leave our team at a weakness at the RB position. Our feature back is returning from injury and the thrid back is a special teamer. Won't happen dude! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JoeGibbsThickandthin Posted March 8, 2007 Share Posted March 8, 2007 Betts was a second rounder himself. And he has played above that. So why would they trade him now that he is signed? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bigyim Posted March 8, 2007 Share Posted March 8, 2007 The question you have to ask yourself is this: with the draft such a hit-and-miss proposition, why are proven players not reaping #1 draft choices in trades anymore? It's because of the salary cap...draft choices have become more valuable than current veterans, because they bring cheaper players. In this case, however, that's why Betts is such a hot property to other teams...he is a starting caliber running back, who has a very affordable contract. He'll get paid less than any of the unproven RB commodities that will come out of the first 2 rounds in this year's draft. That's worth gold...and it's why the Redskins shouldn't trade him for merely a 2nd rounder. There are other reasons I can think of as to why we shouldn't trade him at all, but that's the main one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
D-Day Posted March 8, 2007 Share Posted March 8, 2007 I just wonder what his trade value could be if he gets 1000 yards rushing and 500 yds receiving this year. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
drjim94 Posted March 8, 2007 Share Posted March 8, 2007 We do not!!! Let me repeat do not trade Betts!!! He has done everything we want him to do as a core redskin. He Keeps his mouth shut, plays hard, had a huge season, and signed for low money to remain a Redskin. You do not trade that kind of core redskin away. Plus, in todays nfl you need two good running backs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
D-Day Posted March 8, 2007 Share Posted March 8, 2007 Well since this thread is pretty much on his value due to his contract. If we were to trade him here are the numbers Cost to trade him this year for us = 4.305 mil extra cap hit. What the inheriting team will have to pay this year = .595 Salary and .100 Roster = .695 cap hit 08 = .605 Salary and cap hit 09 = .900 Salary + .100 Roster Bonus = 1 mil cap hit 10 = 1.4 mil Salary + .100 roster Bonus = 1.5 mil Cap hit 11 = 1.4 mil + .100 Roster = 1.5 mil cap hit 12 = 1.4 mil + .100 roster = 1.5 Cap hit That folks is worth a 1st round pick. THAT SAID DO NOT TRADE BETTS Look at those numbers. DO NOT TRADE BETTS Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
taylor362183 Posted March 8, 2007 Share Posted March 8, 2007 Betts isnt going anywhere and I dont want him to go any where. Betts and Portis in the backfield....WOW:eaglesuck :eaglesuck :eaglesuck Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rufus T Firefly Posted March 8, 2007 Author Share Posted March 8, 2007 Well since this thread is pretty much on his value due to his contract. If we were to trade him here are the numbersCost to trade him this year for us = 4.305 mil extra cap hit. What the inheriting team will have to pay this year = .595 Salary and .100 Roster = .695 cap hit 08 = .605 Salary and cap hit 09 = .900 Salary + .100 Roster Bonus = 1 mil cap hit 10 = 1.4 mil Salary + .100 roster Bonus = 1.5 mil Cap hit 11 = 1.4 mil + .100 Roster = 1.5 mil cap hit 12 = 1.4 mil + .100 roster = 1.5 Cap hit That folks is worth a 1st round pick. THAT SAID DO NOT TRADE BETTS Look at those numbers. DO NOT TRADE BETTS As I said to you earlier, he is due a $2 mil bonus this year, which an acquiring team will have to pay (which adds a whopping 400K to his cap figures every year), which would make the net hit to us around 1 mil. Secondly, I am grateful that none of the myriad people posting "Don't trade him. Period!"-type of things don't actually work in our front office. That would be just a horrendously bad mind-set for them to take. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
D-Day Posted March 8, 2007 Share Posted March 8, 2007 that 2 mil isn't guaranteed already? I thought it would be one of those split Guaranteed Signing bonus things the skins are famous for. http://www.skinsfans.com/pcinoz/Salaries%20-%20Detail.htm this says the 2.1 mil bonus is due in 08. He got a 3.5 mil SB and he is due a .100k bonus later this year. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/12/08/AR2006120800804.html Washington's five-year contract extension offer. Sources said it included a $3.5 million signing bonus and $5.5 million in guaranteed money, $100,000 workout bonuses and could be worth up to $11 million in total http://www.rotoworld.com/content/playerpages/player_previousnews.aspx?sport=NFL&id=138 Redskins signed Ladell Betts to a five-year, $11 million extension, with $5.5 million guaranteed in the first year of the contract. Here is where you are getting your info from I guess. http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=2691260 He got $3.5 million in signing bonus money this year and a $2 million roster bonus in 2007. With half of the money going to him early, Betts figured it was the best of all worlds. It looks like PC has the bonus on the wrong year and it should be on this year, but all the other articles but the ESPN one shows it at a guaranteed bonus. I tend to believe PC on these issues as he hasn't been wrong, maybe a bit behind some days on updating, and his insider released the Smoot and Fletcher contracts exactly a day before the press did. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Genghis Khan Posted March 8, 2007 Share Posted March 8, 2007 We made the mistake of trading to get Duckett lets not make another mistake by trading away betts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rufus T Firefly Posted March 8, 2007 Author Share Posted March 8, 2007 that 2 mil isn't guaranteed already? I thought it would be one of those split Guaranteed Signing bonus things the skins are famous for.http://www.skinsfans.com/pcinoz/Salaries%20-%20Detail.htm this says the 2.1 mil bonus is due in 08. He got a 2.8 mil SB and he is due a .100k bonus later this year. It is guaranteed, but it isn't due yet. I'm not sure why people assume a guaranteed bonus due later wouldn't automatically be transferred to the new team, but I haven't seen any reason or proof to think that. It would be the same as if his salary was guaranteed for 08, and that would certainly be paid by the trading team. Just like in baseball or basketball. Or, to look at it another way, the cap relief we looked for on Springs' contract in a trade was to delay a payment on a guaranteed bonus until after the trade. Same thing was discussed with the Coles deal. Don't see any reason this would be different. But if someone has proof that I'm wrong, I'm open to it. And, even were that the case, it would be easy to change the language in the contract to facilitate that. Just throw Betts an extra 100K, if necessary. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
D-Day Posted March 8, 2007 Share Posted March 8, 2007 I edited my original, I think the guaranteed bonus part makes it kind of in the same realm as already paid. I wonder if betts would change the language but I also wonder if that would affect his compensation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RDSKNfaithfull Posted March 8, 2007 Share Posted March 8, 2007 Didn't the Bears give up there 2nd rounder as well? Also Mcgahee >>>>> Betts Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rufus T Firefly Posted March 8, 2007 Author Share Posted March 8, 2007 I edited my original, I think the guaranteed bonus part makes it kind of in the same realm as already paid. I wonder if betts would change the language but I also wonder if that would affect his compensation. Again, you're making that assumption, but I haven't found any reason to think that. While the evidence I sited at least suggests the opposite is the case. And no, I don't think that affects compensation much. He is still basically going to cost 1 mil a year for a couple, and maxing out at 1.9. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
D-Day Posted March 8, 2007 Share Posted March 8, 2007 Didn't the Bears give up there 2nd rounder as well?Also Mcgahee >>>>> Betts Yes he did and no he is not. someone posted in another thread the stats and Betts is actually better and he has less wear and tear on his body. His fumbles could be improved. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rufus T Firefly Posted March 8, 2007 Author Share Posted March 8, 2007 Didn't the Bears give up there 2nd rounder as well?Also Mcgahee >>>>> Betts Yes, they traded up in the 2nd, which was considered 3rd round value. Which is what I mentioned in the first post, that Clayton and others have said that 3rd round value was basically max for a vet RB. And McGahee may be better than Betts (though many think Betts started to become a top-notch guy this year), but he has an injury history and is 1 year from a huge FA payday, while Betts is signed long-term for cheap. Tarde value wise, Betts should be worth more. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mi6 Posted March 8, 2007 Share Posted March 8, 2007 Betts was a second rounder himself. And he has played above that.So why would they trade him now that he is signed? Still not convinced that Betts is the real deal. When it counted he was ineffective in getting the tough 1st down yards or the end zone. He is a fumbler... The holes the o-line opened for him were huge. Someone's grandma could run thru them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
D-Day Posted March 8, 2007 Share Posted March 8, 2007 I just googled my ass off and I can't find any infor either way if it is counted for us or against us, so no one really knows either way. With the cap room we have available it is not really a problem though. Not signing NC may have done wonders for this team. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Seabee1973 Posted March 8, 2007 Share Posted March 8, 2007 Betts was a second rounder himself. And he has played above that.So why would they trade him now that he is signed? Portis was a second rounder and has played above that. Betts defiantly hasnt played like a seconder rounder Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LoudMouth12thMan Posted March 8, 2007 Share Posted March 8, 2007 Betts isn't going anywhere. That would leave our team at a weakness at the RB position. Our feature back is returning from injury and the thrid back is a special teamer. Won't happen dude! :applause: :1stplace: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oldskool Posted March 8, 2007 Share Posted March 8, 2007 Portis was a second rounder and has played above that. Betts defiantly hasnt played like a seconder rounder Up to last year, people were rightfully saying that he was a waste of a 2nd round pick (myself included). One good year out of 6 doesn't instantly make up for the other 5 that he just floundered on the bench or on IR. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
XxSpearheadxX Posted March 8, 2007 Share Posted March 8, 2007 The question you have to ask yourself is this: with the draft such a hit-and-miss proposition, why are proven players not reaping #1 draft choices in trades anymore?It's because of the salary cap...draft choices have become more valuable than current veterans, because they bring cheaper players. In this case, however, that's why Betts is such a hot property to other teams...he is a starting caliber running back, who has a very affordable contract. He'll get paid less than any of the unproven RB commodities that will come out of the first 2 rounds in this year's draft. That's worth gold...and it's why the Redskins shouldn't trade him for merely a 2nd rounder. There are other reasons I can think of as to why we shouldn't trade him at all, but that's the main one. This is a great great post. Plus the lockeroom would probably be a little upset if we traded a semi-stud RB who signed a hometown discount contract. It would be very upsetting, and at this point it isn't going to happen, once LB signed that contract, all this talk is over. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HoyaSkins28 Posted March 8, 2007 Share Posted March 8, 2007 only trade him if we can get a stellar deal for him Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ClintonINFORSIX26 Posted March 8, 2007 Share Posted March 8, 2007 The Ravens blow Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.