Taco John Posted January 4, 2003 Share Posted January 4, 2003 Hey fellas... I was surfing around and I ran across this news, where the 'Skins are in cap hell with Samuels and Arrington... So what's going to go down here? Surely you're not going to pay them... Redskins | Samuels Hits A Higher Number Too - posted at KFFL (http://nfl.kffl.com) 5:41 PT: The Washington Times reports Washington Redskins LT Chris Samuels, also has boosted his 2003 cap figure to enormous levels — between $7.2 and $7.4 million. His number is about 10 percent of the team's 2003 cap allocation. Redskins | Arrington Hits Big Pay Day - posted at KFFL (http://nfl.kffl.com) 5:39 PT: The Washington Times reports Washington Redskins LB LaVar Arrington met a significant trigger in his contract this season that escalates his 2003 salary cap figure to $9.7 million plus a $3 million incentive. The incentive counts against the team's cap. Arrington accounts for about 17 percent of the team's 2003 cap. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bulldog Posted January 4, 2003 Share Posted January 4, 2003 no, the Redskins are going to cut both of them just after June 1 and save enough money under the cap to sign Brian Griese and Chester McGlockton Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eagles_Legendz Posted January 4, 2003 Share Posted January 4, 2003 Nah you don't want Brian Griese. We'll take that $$ load off your hands. The Eagles will give you AJ Feeley for Arrington. Sound good? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MikeB Posted January 4, 2003 Share Posted January 4, 2003 AJ couldn't hold Lavar's jock bro... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Taco John Posted January 4, 2003 Author Share Posted January 4, 2003 Just what the hell is this thing: :jerkoff: Oh... It's what I thought it was... Anyway... Samuels must not be everything he was cracked up to be huh? I see some people on this board looking at other LTs (Steinbach). What's the good word on Samuels? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Sir Posted January 4, 2003 Share Posted January 4, 2003 You do realize what position steinbach plays, right? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Taco John Posted January 4, 2003 Author Share Posted January 4, 2003 My bad... I was just browsing... Anyway... that doesn't answer my question on Samuels... What's the story on this guy? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Art Posted January 4, 2003 Share Posted January 4, 2003 TJ, Steinbach is a guard, not a tackle. We're set at tackle. Samuels injured is a problem. Samuels healthy is breathtaking. We saw both players this year. And the story on the guy is he's been in the league three years and he's been in the Pro Bowl twice. That's a nice story. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eagles_Legendz Posted January 4, 2003 Share Posted January 4, 2003 Originally posted by MikeB AJ couldn't hold Lavar's jock bro... Sarcasim? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Riggo-toni Posted January 4, 2003 Share Posted January 4, 2003 Remember, Mendes negotiated both these contracts. I've been a Mendes supporter, but if there's any substance to this, he really does need to go.:asta: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bulldog Posted January 4, 2003 Share Posted January 4, 2003 you are really going to blame Mendes for those contracts? :laugh: the fact remains that the reason these deals had to be done this way is because the Skins wanted to squeeze every dime out of the cap in 2000 so they could afford Deion, Bruce and Jeff George. we just seem to keep paying for these mistakes don't we? well, don't worry. the Redskins are the most profitable team in the NFL and Snyder will just have to restructure these deals and give both players more bonus money to stretch them out. hopefully neither will get a career ending injury that will end up forcing us to blow up half the team Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Soliloquy Posted January 4, 2003 Share Posted January 4, 2003 Originally posted by Taco John The Washington Times reports ... The Washington Times reports ... 'Nuff said. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Taco John Posted January 4, 2003 Author Share Posted January 4, 2003 In other words, my coveteous *** needs to look elsewhere for a left tackle, huh? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bulldog Posted January 4, 2003 Share Posted January 4, 2003 hey, Kipp Vickers is going to be a free agent when one door closes, another opens, eh? :laugh: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Art Posted January 4, 2003 Share Posted January 4, 2003 RT, I doubt the report in the Times has a great deal of truth to it. But, whether it does or it does not is less important than remembering what Mendes was doing in 2000. He was a functionary at that time. He designed contracts based upon the team's plan at that time. At that time we were in a very aggressive spending mode. We were signing big bonus contracts and timing them for cap hits at specific times. I suspect Mendes probably did precisely what he needed to do at the time and I suspect he's doing something entirely different at THIS time when he's actually the one making and administering the plan rather than the functionary who's told to do something he may not agree with, and when he's finished, he quits from being exhausted . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OrangeSkin Posted January 4, 2003 Share Posted January 4, 2003 Hopefully this won't be reported in the Post tomorrow, because if it is, then there is some substance to it. Fortunately I think this is a workable situation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ignatius J. Posted January 4, 2003 Share Posted January 4, 2003 When you pick two guys in the top 3 of a draft, this happens. While the situation was probably aggravated by a desire to fit extra free agents in the budget, there can be no doubting that these guys have been major parts of our team over the last few years. Thier contracts are reflecting the fact that both of them turned into exactly the players we wanted them to be. We can work around this. -DB Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.