The Artist Posted March 12, 2003 Share Posted March 12, 2003 I was listening to a sports radio show just minutes ago and they said that the Washington Post was reporting that an "NFL" source said that the Jets will match the Coles offer. Take if for what it's worth. The WP has nothing on it at their site. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fury44 Posted March 12, 2003 Share Posted March 12, 2003 heard the same report on the radio, & the WP says an nfl insider with ties to the Jets front office say there is a good chance the Jets will match the offer to Coles. Have to wait and see. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
taryl69 Posted March 12, 2003 Share Posted March 12, 2003 Maybe they messed his name up with Morton's Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ian Posted March 12, 2003 Share Posted March 12, 2003 I think its called covering all bases, the majority of that WP article talks about Coles saying goodbye, parting on amicable terms with the Jets but with a week to match when the offer sheet is signed there is room and time in theory for the Jets to change their mind (and not only once) before making an actual decision. You can spin this one both ways until that week's up. I get the impression that they are favouring him moving on due to the size of the signing bonus and the implication that Chad Pennington as their Starting QB next year will want considerably more. They haven't however really said that and may be waiting to match once they realise that there are no better or even similar wide receivers on offer. A realisation that to be frank if they have any football knowledge they know already. It then comes back to the bottom line and money Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rat_Boy Posted March 12, 2003 Share Posted March 12, 2003 http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A10991-2003Mar11.html An NFL source with strong ties to the Jets' front office said he believes there is a good chance that the team will match the Redskins' offer to Coles. That is what they are talking about. Of course, if the Times is right, we don't even have the cap space to sign Coles to the contract we offered. And, if the Times is right, and we restructure Arrington, then he may be a cap casualty in the 2004-2005 time frame, much like Stephen Davis was this year. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. Redskin Posted March 12, 2003 Share Posted March 12, 2003 Good, we don't need that cap hit. Especially if it means losing Arrington in a few years. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rat_Boy Posted March 12, 2003 Share Posted March 12, 2003 We don't need which cap hit? IMHO, Arrington's cap hits are the ones that are out of hand and unreasonable. I don't want Arrington if he is gonna cost 1/10th of the cap. He aint no Franchise QB. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steve Y Posted March 12, 2003 Share Posted March 12, 2003 He is the franchise defender though. I'd take Arrington over any one offensive player. It doesn't take a great offense to win championships...It does take a great defense. The Ravens proved that. As far as Coles goes, I'd love to have him, but he isn't worth any more than we've offered. Hell he isn't worth what we offered, but I'm willing to over pay for that much of a step up in talent at WR. He's twice the receiver that Rod Gardner is, and he's our best so far. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
@DCGoldPants Posted March 12, 2003 Share Posted March 12, 2003 this is insane. dollars to doughnuts say that Arrington is going nowhere. He'll get a new deal soon enough and hopefully it won't be such a cap trasher. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Art Posted March 12, 2003 Share Posted March 12, 2003 The only way Arrington is released is if we play a scheme that doesn't require a fast, monster linebacker . It won't happen unless Arrington's play deteriorates. Unlike Davis, it's harder to envision Arrington not "fitting" whatever defensive scheme we want to employ. He didn't fit with the Lewis scheme and he still had 100 tackles and double digit sacks and that was while playing injured and slugishly much of the year. Arrington's cap number this year was about $6 million, excluding his signing bonus number. Next year his base salary was to be 6.5 million or so and up from there. He was clearly a player we were going to NEED to restructure at some point. Just as with Samuels. Both players still need to be redone. Both players are possible casualties, but ONLY at a point they are unwilling to restructure their deals, or, in five to six seasons when the team no longer wishes to do the same. Arrington having a lower shelf life on that than Samuels, but, you can pretty much rest easy that he isn't going anywhere until he's about 30, if he ever does. As for Coles, we'll see. I would be surprised if the Jets let him go, but, given the tenor of his comments, it seems he wants to be let go, and the Jets can't like that. I suspect since no official offer sheet has been submitted, perhaps the Jets are privately releasing some info that suggests they will keep him and perhaps the Redskins will alter the terms of the deal. Who knows. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. Redskin Posted March 12, 2003 Share Posted March 12, 2003 Well, take a look at this article from the nfl.com site, and tell me coles is worth 3mil a year more than Stallworth, and he's 4yrs older. IMO, I don't think so. I also don't know if this article been posted already, but IMO(again), we are paying way to much for Coles. Especially if it means major cap problems in the future. Shucks:coach: we already have huge contracts with Lavar, Trotter, and players on our OL, and we haven't locked down champ yet for the future. Just say no to Coles man! Just say no! Heres the articleCOLES Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Art Posted March 12, 2003 Share Posted March 12, 2003 The Coles deal IS too big. The Coles deal will very likely cause, in three or four years, some hard choices in terms of who we can keep. It'll be almost impossible to retain Rod Gardner, as an example, in a couple of years because assuming he benefits and grows, he could be worth $15 million or more in a bonus to some teams. Though, one thing to consider is that cash solves cap. As long as we are willing to pay out cash, we won't have a cap problem. Cap problems arise out of this practice when you give the cash to older players who you know won't be around in two years or longer. It happens when you give it to a player who suffers a career-ending injury. It happens when you sign a high draft pick who doesn't work out. It doesn't generally happen when signing 25-year-old Pro Bowl level players. The Coles deal does alter some of where we project ourselves to be as a team as it's so much larger than most of us were figuring in the planning. It probably does mean that there will be a sacrifice made somewhere. Smoot or Gardner would be the earliest players lost I would imagine as they would come up for a contract we couldn't handle. We'll see about that though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
2cents Posted March 12, 2003 Share Posted March 12, 2003 Didn't the team say this group of guys was going to be together for three years? Money problems in four years sounds OK to me. That is how it works in today's NFL. People need to relax and understand that unless you want to be the Cards or Bengals, you will often have looming cap problems. Everything I have seen this off season makes it sound like we have thought of all these things......stop worrying so much. :high: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Art Posted March 12, 2003 Share Posted March 12, 2003 It is very likely the entire starting roster will be held together for at least three years. Smoot comes free before then, but will be restricted if we want to restrict him. Ohalete comes free, but, again, we have some rights to him initially if we want them. The key, really, is Bailey. If you get Arrington to lower his cap number from $7.5 million to around $3 million, you have to then go get Bailey taken care of. After the 2005 season the team will very likely have to make several moves of some consequence. But, even at that, let's remember, that after the 2000 season we were looking at a future problem. Marty lived tight, spent little on signing bonus dollars in 2001, took a major hit in Stubby and we were fine. Now, if the plan goes as it appears, the Redskins should be almost whisper quiet in the offseason next year. We should do very, very little in terms of free agency. Perhaps correcting mistakes from this year, but, it'll be a very quiet offseason. If that's the case, as per the plan, and it's the case the following year too, then after the 2005 season, we will have had enough time between major deals that the major moves of 2005s offseason should be mitigated. And, if there is ever an uncapped year, we're set for life . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. Redskin Posted March 12, 2003 Share Posted March 12, 2003 I want our Core defensive players to stay together, Lavar, Champ, Smoot and even Trotter. Also, we need to keep our OL in tact as well. What about Ramsey if he is the real deal? I just think we can find a deep threat receiver else where, or even in-house or through the draft. I don't think Coles was ever projected 1st round material, he was mooded and worked into the player he may be now. Shucks, Peter Warricks not that fast and he was always projected a better player than Coles. I'm just not with it, and may be the only one, or few against it. But this deals comes back to hunt us if it happens, mark my words. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rdsknbill Posted March 12, 2003 Share Posted March 12, 2003 The thing that really burns me about this situation with Arrington is that we shouldn't have wasted the money on Trotter. Kevin Mitchell is every bit the MLB that Trotter is. We had Mitchell under contract, he played well in 2001, then the FO cap screws us by signing an overated MLB, so that the Danny can "stick it" to the Eagles? Great move. :shootinth :doh: :doh: If we stick with Mitchell, we don't have these cap questions regarding signing Coles and retaining Arrington and Champ. Or at least it wouldn't be as much of an issue. I hope that Arrington's agent is reasonable enough to realize that the FO will do what they can to keep him happy, within reason. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eparadox Posted March 12, 2003 Share Posted March 12, 2003 C'mon guys, this is modern day free agency, we can't keep everybody. The only thing that matters is that these guys will be together for 3 years, and if Ramsey is the real deal, he and a good OL can go out and win with anybody. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Griff Posted March 12, 2003 Share Posted March 12, 2003 As far as Coles is concerned when it is all said and done I can't see the Jets matching this offer. First off the contract is overpaying Coles that is the largest signing bonus to a WR in the history of the NFL. Secondly why would you want a player who openly says he does not want to play for your team, the fans have already turned on him, for the Jets to keep him would be a disaster for them. I feel they are just toying with Snyder & Coles making the think they will match the offer, making us sweat it out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Art Posted March 12, 2003 Share Posted March 12, 2003 Kevin Mitchell is not half the player Trotter is. Trotter's deal isn't one that has impacted Arrington or Champ. Trotter was signed cheaply for a two-time Pro Bowl player. He'd have gotten over $12 million this year had he been free given the Brookings and Lewis deals. No matter though. Arrington and Samuels, under any circumstance you can imagine, were going to be asked to restructure before they came due because they hit every damn incentive written into their rookie deals and THANK THEM FOR IT. People need to step back and take a deep breath. The Coles contract is too big. It surprises me that we're trying to add that, though, we apparently planned on adding a contract like that with Rogers or Johnson and a Top 7 draft pick in a trade, so it seems like that big a deal was in the works. I suspect too many of you are still far to swayed by what you read in the Times. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Sisko Posted March 12, 2003 Share Posted March 12, 2003 As mentioned previously I think the (potential) signings of Coles will probably mean Gardner will be the odd man out in a few years. However, finding #2 WR's is never as much of an issue as finding true #1 WR's. Besides, DMAC will be very much capable of filling Gardner's shoes around the time we'd lose him anyway. In short, I'm not really worried about losing Gardner to another team. The Arrington/Samuels situation well..........no comment. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DaRock Posted March 12, 2003 Share Posted March 12, 2003 Maybe timewarner will buy out directv's right to the nfl ticket and up the cap space a couple mil. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rabblerouser Posted March 12, 2003 Share Posted March 12, 2003 Art, What impact does all this have on resigning Mitchell? Is the Jet LB we're supposedly interested in cheaper than he'll be? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Skins Trumpet-Man Posted March 12, 2003 Share Posted March 12, 2003 i hope we can get coles.....that would be money!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
W&M Posted March 12, 2003 Share Posted March 12, 2003 Art, you mentioned the possibility of getting Lavar to take a new contract that would lower his cap number to $3mil. How is this possible? Are you referring solely to his base, or the whole cap impact? The way I see it, LaVar knows he has us over a barrell, and they will exploit that. We can't cut him b/c of his huge bonus and b/c of his franchise talent. And even if we had to cut him in 2 a year or two, that woudl be a windfall for him, as teams would line-up to make free agency history. Unless Synder allows the team to implode adn rebuild (which synder would never be able to stomach) LaVar knows we have to open the vault, and in my mind, he'll snag a bonus that greatly eclipses Ray Lewis #20 mil. I'll bet we are looking at atleast a $25 mil bonus to keep him ... which will work out to almost $4mil per year in pro-rated bonus, not to mention his base salary. In my mind, if we offer Lavar a new contract, it will be the type that makes cutting him impossible, and will cause his cap figure to range from $5-$10 million a year for the next 7 years. But from what I've heard, we will have to make these tough decisions next off-season, because if he hits his threshold criteria again, as he is projected to do, another set of escalators will kick in, raising his base to over $10 million, plus another big bonus will kick in. These escalator provisions are absolutely ridiculous if they dont' cap out. I can't believe the team was so foolish to include unrestrained escalator provisions that allow the base salaries to explode to $10 million, after 3 seasons. He has played at pro-bowl level, but he has not, but any stretch, played to LT or Derek Thomas level, so he has been more then paid to do what was expected. This was a bad contract. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Art Posted March 12, 2003 Share Posted March 12, 2003 RR, Mitchell is likely to sign a special veteran minimum contract that gives him $25K in signing bonus and $300,000 in salary that won't actually count against the cap. If he decides not to take that, and he may not, it will have nothing to do with Coles or anyone else. That's the only deal Kevin Mitchell SHOULD get. If he doesn't like it, we'll be ok with Darling. I like Mitchell as a backup though and hope that goes through. W&M, Lavar's prorated cap hit per his rookie bonus is $1.5 million. His contract, this year, is $5.96 million. That includes all the incentives he met LAST year. That number was boosted over a million around Christmas time, accounting for his made incentives. Anyway, Lavar is in a no lose situation. His contract cap number this year is around $7.5 million, despite the mysterious $3 million uncapped, team capped, unmentioned, unseen, magical bonus the Times talks about. If Lavar pulls around $5.5 million of that base and turns it into a bonus, it means that $5.5 million will extend over the next five years. Some may argue it's four, but, the team holds an option for a fifth year and can prorate for that duration if it wishes. But, let's say it's JUST four years. That means Lavar's cap hit would be $1.5 million from his first bonus, $500,000 or so for base salary this year, and 1/4th of $5.5 million, or $1.375 million. Lavar can play at a cap hit some $4 million plus LESS than he is currently costing us. And he has no reason not to do so. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.