Will Landry get paid more than Taylor?

[illone]

This is simply not true. There are many instances of the Redskins not signing players for cost reasons. I am more than happy to provide examples.

I suppose Dockerry is a decent example. I was more referring to FA's, though, unfortunately. My post is assuming the team is learning it's lesson and is going to start extending it's own players rather than make other team's players rich overnight.

The only downside is it might cost us players we also want to include in our future plans. Hence the disadvantage of the Salary Cap -- you cannot have anyone and everyone you want. Tough decisions are required and made every year by the Washington Redskins, just as they are by the other 31 teams in the league. We have the mistaken impression that such decisions aren't made since the Redskins are active in FA.

Looking at the Redskins for 2007 I don't think there are any cap caualties or guys we missed on due to cost. 2008 might prove another situation all together, though, which is why I mentioned Wynn and Brunell. Daniels is another name that can be thrown in. However, losing those players is not the toughest decision because all of them will be backsups/role players in 2008, if they even make the team. Again, Dockerry is a guy who you could say the team will miss, and passed on re-signing due to cost. But, waiting until the last possible opportunity to sign a guy when he's about to hit free agency is not wise. Precisely why we need to extend Taylor and Cooley now, before some other team offers them $50 mil.

[Skin Patrol]

Looking at the Redskins for 2007 I don't think there are any cap caualties or guys we missed on due to cost. 2008 might prove another situation all together, though, which is why I mentioned Wynn and Brunell. Daniels is another name that can be thrown in. However, losing those players is not the toughest decision because all of them will be backsups/role players in 2008, if they even make the team. Again, Dockerry is a guy who you could say the team will miss, and passed on re-signing due to cost. But, waiting until the last possible opportunity to sign a guy when he's about to hit free agency is not wise. Precisely why we need to extend Taylor and Cooley now, before some other team offers them $50 mil.

Like you said, I would include Dockery as a casualty. Mark Brunell took a paycut which, had he wanted to, he could have made a stink about. Asking your players to take a paycut reflects poorly on you in future contracts and will force larger guaranteed moneys from veterans. I view that as a consequence of our spending. Same deal with the restructuring of Chris Samuels and Renaldo Wynn contracts, which haunts us in later years.

David Patten was also a casualty. Ditto John Hall. TJ Duckett walked out without a contract, etc.

I totally agree about signing players earlier rather than later, given the rising cost of signing players. Dollars spent today are cheaper than dollars spent tomorrow.

[dfbovey]

I agree! That is why you have to apply the same principle to Smoot and Pierce since they were set to sign their FA contracts 2 years after Washington and Springs signed theirs. I thought the party line trumped out was pretty ridiculous and don't bypass any opportunity to mock it. Does anyone even agree with it now, years later? Pretty ridiculous to try to pass that off on a whole fan base as a legitimate excuse.

We didn't sign either of those guys due to the 9 million dollar cap hit we took for trading Coles back to the Jets. Bottom line.

[aqq]

Is Sean Taylor at the OTA's this yr???....He really should get his ass to these things this yr...I'm tired of him only doing the minimum. He could be one of the best safties to ever play the game if he dedicated himself a little more.

[illone]

Asking your players to take a paycut reflects poorly on you in future contracts and will force larger guaranteed moneys from veterans. I view that as a consequence of our spending. Same deal with the restructuring of Chris Samuels and Renaldo Wynn contracts, which haunts us in later years.

It depends on the player and their future worth. If Brunell had not been overpaid it wouldn't be an issue. Imagine if he had been paid actual market value for his services. His price tag should have been $5 up front/$15 Million over 5 years MAX. Samuels isn't such an issue because of his current and future value with the team. He'll continue to start unlike Brunell. I'm not certain of this, but I would assume the team is protected if a player retires, in which case re-doing the deal isn't a bad thing for anyone. A guy like Springs who had a temultuous year in 2006 who doesn't have much trade value is a huge concern.

Luckily for the Redskins, for every Springs or Wynn we currently have on the roster, there is also a Portis or Samuels who is willing to help the team out. If not for that the Redskins would be in much worse shape heading into 2007 and beyond.

[redskinsfan1201]

We will restructure contracts so that we can sign Landry and give Taylor a big money extension, plus Taylor isnt about the money, he loves the game.

[illone]

plus Taylor isnt about the money

:laugh:

I found this funny. You know who his agent is, right?

[Skin Patrol]

It depends on the player and their future worth. If Brunell had not been overpaid it wouldn't be an issue. Imagine if he had been paid actual market value for his services. His price tag should have been $5 up front/$15 Million over 5 years MAX. Samuels isn't such an issue because of his current and future value with the team. He'll continue to start unlike Brunell. I'm not certain of this, but I would assume the team is protected if a player retires, in which case re-doing the deal isn't a bad thing for anyone. A guy like Springs who had a temultuous year in 2006 who doesn't have much trade value is a huge concern.

Luckily for the Redskins, for every Springs or Wynn we currently have on the roster, there is also a Portis or Samuels who is willing to help the team out. If not for that the Redskins would be in much worse shape heading into 2007 and beyond.

One of the hazards of overpaying players is that everyone knows they are overpaid. Thus their (sometimes) savvy agents will demand more of that money in guaranteed bonuses so as to protect the player.

Samuels is a huge issue. He's currently the 2nd highest paid player on the team though I would definitely argue with anyone claiming he was the 2nd most valuable. He currently has 8M in bonuses protecting his monstrous cap hit, which balloons to 8.25M next year (which will have over 6M protecting it). He has so much remaining SB -- because we keep restructuring his contract -- that it's a virtual certainty that we're going to end up with millions in dead cap hit because of him at some point. I really doubt Samuels will be worth 8.5M come 2010, meaning we'll swallow 1.2M over the course of 2010-2011 in dead space. He might not be worht 8.75M in 2009... meaning we'll swallow 2.6M. Hopefully I am wrong and he continues to play at a high level of competition throughout his contract.

We agree that Springs is a problem.

I disagree that we have an abundance of players "willing to help us out". What we have are players who are "willing to help themselves out" financially through restructures. What I applaud are people willing to take paycuts, which is not the same as a restructure.

[onnie007]

.......plus Taylor isnt about the money, he loves the game.

I was watching America's Game last night on the 1966 Green Bay Packers and Jim Taylor and Paul Hornung were upset because of money back then because younger players were being paid more. Now, if they were fighting over the peanuts players that they were paid back then, then they are certainly concerned with it now. Its about respect sometimes and I have faith the FO will pay ST whatever it will take to keep him. Plus Drew Rosenhaus is his agent and well...let's just say ST will be well informed as to what his value is.

[illone]

I disagree that we have an abundance of players "willing to help us out". What we have are players who are "willing to help themselves out" financially through restructures. What I applaud are people willing to take paycuts, which is not the same as a restructure.

Yea, I worded that one wrong:laugh:

Who wouldn't want to take $8 Mil today instead of tomorrow? It's pretty much a no brainer for the player.

The only reason why I question Samuels contract being an issue is because of retirement. I'm almost positive the team is protected from monstrous hits to the cap if the player retires. Could be wrong, though.

[Skin Patrol]

My understanding is that retirement is treated just like a cut per the CBA. Remaining bonuses accelerate either a) to that year if the player retires prior to June 1st or prorated (kind of) over that year and the next if they retire after June 1st.

The relevant portions of the CBA relating to acceleration of Signing Bonuses can be found here in Section 7.b.ii.(1) and (2):

(1) For any player removed from the Team's roster, or whose Contract is assigned to another Club via waivers or trade, on or before June 1 in any League Year prior... bla bla bla

(2) For any player removed from the Team's roster or whose Contract is assigned via waivers or trade after June 1... bla bla bla

Retirement would certainly qualify as removal from a team's roster. There is no exemption listed for retired players in this section, so I'm presuming they are covered under those two subsections.

[Guest RideorDieChic]

Landry probably would get paid more. The larger contract does not imply that Landry is a better player than Taylor, is just the nature of the business, salary caps increase yearly allowing for more negotiable $$$.

I hope management does right by Taylor when his turn comes around.

[ChampSkinsFanatic]

It would be some BULL**** if they pay Landry more. ST was way better than Landry coming out of college, there was no iffyness about it. Sean Taylor was the sure thing. I dont mind us paying Landry more as long as it doesnt cost us losing ST in the long run, I hope it doesnt effect the play of Sean Taylor either.