Soup Posted June 3, 2009 Share Posted June 3, 2009 Who cares what he looks like (it's a blog) and he's already reproduced...thanks for viewing his page. Is that you Mike? I'm a HUGE Fan:silly: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bu7ch Posted June 3, 2009 Share Posted June 3, 2009 Is that you Mike? I'm a HUGE Fan:silly: Absolutely...you and kobe can hang from my (already fertile) nuts Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hitecr Posted June 3, 2009 Share Posted June 3, 2009 Either a big trade for an OL is coming or Greg Ellis signing or Marcus Washington is coming back.I know this offsets the Jansen deal but it makes you wonder what else this cap wizard has his sleeve. I'm not referring to Vinny ethier Boldin? that'd be a big trade... and we all know he wants one Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SkinsTribeVA Posted June 3, 2009 Share Posted June 3, 2009 I don't like the idea of Moss getting paid all that money up front. What incentive does he have to go all out for the next two years Santana has never showed much of a greedy or lazy side, he's always been a pretty hard worker and is definitely not a diva (as I've said before, it's a good sign when the worst sin you've ever committed as a Skin is wiping your shoes with a rag for like five seconds after a TD). I'm not worried. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bubba9497 Posted June 3, 2009 Share Posted June 3, 2009 Can someone please try and explain to me in simple terms how his contract is extended for 3 seasons yet becomes void after 2010?I'm by no means a salary cap whiz but I would love an explanation so I can better understand a legal loophole to extend his guaranteed bonus over more years. Lowering the cap hit this year the un-guaranteed monies of the contract can be voided, because if the Cap ends in 2010 the Skins will redo his contract, to wipe the slate if a new CBA cap starts again. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Haynesworth_Mancrush Posted June 3, 2009 Share Posted June 3, 2009 I don't think Jansen's future was decided until we got Jeremy Bridges and Mike Williams signed and the FO felt like one of the three RTs we've got (Heyer included) would do at least as good at the position as Jansen would. After that there was no reason to keep him around, we've got younger (a little) and healthier guys that can't be worse. Why hold onto him after that? I definintely wouldn't say Jansen's future was decided before Bridges signed. I agree with this line of reasoning. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
illone Posted June 3, 2009 Share Posted June 3, 2009 I don't mind Moss sticking around for the long haul. Always liked him. It's not like he is being paid 8M per year I mean the guy is playing for $3-4M per, which is a bargain in today's NFL with top receivers making $6-10M per. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
uncleelroy89 Posted June 3, 2009 Share Posted June 3, 2009 If you really think about it ARE got a new deal to similar to this plus I dont think we are going after Boldin Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jumbo Posted June 3, 2009 Share Posted June 3, 2009 Absolutely...you and kobe can hang from my (already fertile) nuts Actually, you can take a week off. And I suggest for your benefit that you take more awareness of all "Read Me" sticky-threads that have been up for months in the various forums. http://extremeskins.com/showthread.php?t=277470 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scruffylookin Posted June 3, 2009 Share Posted June 3, 2009 We need to quit doing this shoving money into tthe future It all depends on who it is. Moss is a borderline call. I'm not sure given what his greatest strength is (speed) how many more productive years he's going to have, but I can see justifying the extention with him. The dumbass moves this front office has made is extending people like Jon Jansen a few years ago when anyone who was paying attention could see that the man was not very good and wasn't going to get any better. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DCDiesel44 Posted June 3, 2009 Share Posted June 3, 2009 Santana is about to have himself a stellar season if Thomas and/or Kelly step up this year. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popeman38 Posted June 3, 2009 Share Posted June 3, 2009 We need to quit doing this shoving money into tthe futureWe aren't shoving any money into the future. We paid Moss his 2009 and 2010 money, less base salary, now($6.28 million) by converting it to a bonus. We add 3 years at close to base for a player with his tenure, and get to spread the cap hit over 5 years instead of 2 ($1.256M/yr). His 3 new years are voidable after the 2010 season so if there is no cap, we can wipe it away and start fresh. And even if there is a new CBA, and we decide to cut Moss after the 2010 season, it will only be a hit of $3.8M. Really is a cap smart deal, and doesn't hamstring us with the cap down the road. And no one can seriously claim that Moss will give less than 100% now that he got paid. :doh: This is the same guy who benched himself in Green Bay because he was killing us on the field. Moss has never been a cancer, me first player, and you think he is gonna start now? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Santana_89 Posted June 3, 2009 Share Posted June 3, 2009 And no one can seriously claim that Moss will give less than 100% now that he got paid. :doh: This is the same guy who benched himself in Green Bay because he was killing us on the field. Moss has never been a cancer, me first player, and you think he is gonna start now? Santana Moss is one of the last Redskins player I'm worried about becoming slack after "getting paid". He has shown so much pride and integrity his whole career.The off season sucks...seriously. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peregrine Posted June 3, 2009 Share Posted June 3, 2009 My question is, why in the world do we need to push cap hits to the future, when we were fine as is? The Jansen charge wasn't a big deal, we still had plenty of space available to use in an emergency, so why are we pushing it off onto future years, instead of just using it this year? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
santana_4_prez Posted June 3, 2009 Share Posted June 3, 2009 I love it! Santana's my boy, sounds like he ain't going anywhere for a long, long time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fifty Gut Posted June 3, 2009 Share Posted June 3, 2009 I don't like the idea of Moss getting paid all that money up front. What incentive does he have to go all out for the next two years oh please man, like we've ever had a reason to question Tana's motivation or dedication to this team Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bulldog Posted June 3, 2009 Share Posted June 3, 2009 The Redskins should never have resigned Jansen at age 31 to a new contract. That was the mistake that has taken the past 2 years to work out of the wash. Once guys hit 30 and have a recent history of a serious injury or two, as Jansen did in 2004, you have to cut bait, use the draft or FA and start over at that position. The Redskins have still not learned when to release players. That is something that New England and Baltimore do quite well. These teams get the peak years out of their players and then jettison them when their trendline of performance and age are starting to crest and then fall. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fifty Gut Posted June 3, 2009 Share Posted June 3, 2009 The Redskins should never have resigned Jansen at age 31 to a new contract. I hear ya, problem was they had promised Jansen an extension, and it's usually a good thing when a team stands by their word Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WinSkins Posted June 3, 2009 Share Posted June 3, 2009 We need to quit doing this shoving money into tthe future Why? All successful businesses defer taxes and manage debt to their advantage. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bulldog Posted June 3, 2009 Share Posted June 3, 2009 Gfunk, again you have to look at the teams that are winning, the Patriots/Ravens, etc. These teams don't resign the Chris McAlisters and Mike Vrabels once they are 32, they unload them via trade or the waiver wire to other teams. Jansen was having problems in pass protection from the word go in 2005. That needed to be seen and acted upon by the front office and coaching staff. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mad Mike Posted June 3, 2009 Share Posted June 3, 2009 Pretty interesting, but nothing completely unusual from our FO. So, it's safe to say the decision against Jansen was decided long ago and was not listed as a priority until after our big business was done (FA's Draft ect.) and they take a gamble on Moss by paying him completely now without seeing his future performance. I guess you could say he earned it. I think the Jansen issue was exactly what they said it was. I think they had concerns following last season but out of respect and gratitude for his long time here, they gave him a chance to show he was improving. That's why he wasn't cut earlier. However, once they saw that he wasn't showing enough improvement the cut him in time to save some money AND still give him a good shot at making another team. I think it was handled correctly every step of the way. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fifty Gut Posted June 3, 2009 Share Posted June 3, 2009 Gfunk, again you have to look at the teams that are winning, the Patriots/Ravens, etc.These teams don't resign the Chris McAlisters and Mike Vrabels once they are 32, they unload them via trade or the waiver wire to other teams. our organization is not Indy or NE, so let's not even pretend to go there Jansen was having problems in pass protection from the word go in 2005. That needed to be seen and acted upon by the front office and coaching staff. true, but then he had a great '06 season, especially in run blocking, playing through those broken thumbs. and considering we were a Joe Gibbs run first offense then (screw Poppa Al), I can't say it didn't make some sense to keep him around again you're right though, good organizations (which we are not, we are average at best), cut veterans a year early instead of a year late Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
[[ghost]] Posted June 3, 2009 Share Posted June 3, 2009 does this also mean Moss just became the next Jansen? Meaning, he's now expendable Not yet. He will be though, because his contract makes him easier to cut in a the next year or two. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dick Edds Posted June 3, 2009 Share Posted June 3, 2009 I feel confident that Moss still has a good 3-5 years left in him, provided one of the young buck WR's step their game up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Est.1974 Posted June 3, 2009 Share Posted June 3, 2009 http://www.profootballtalk.com/category/rumor-mill/New Santana Moss Deal Offsets Jansen Cap Charge Per the source, the Redskins converted his base salary of $3.7 million in 2009 and $4.3 million in 2010 into a signing bonus, less salaries of $745,000 this year and $968,500 next year. The difference is a guaranteed payment of $6.28 million. The new deal adds three additional seasons beyond 2010, at base salaries of $1.192 million in 2011, $1.4155 million in 2012, and $1.639 million in 2013. But we’re told that the three new years automatically void at the end of the 2010 season. So why were the new years added? To allow the guaranteed payment to be spread over five years. This is a very good move. I found a few interesting things to note from this. Firstly, Santana was reportedly due salaries of something like $4.5m (2011) $5m (2012) & $6m (2013) in his old contract. I believe the new numbers are much lower because the 30% rule associated with the expiry of the CBA. This means newly negotiated contracts this year can't contain salaries that increase by more than 30%. So, all the new salaries must comply with this & do. So, it is obvious those years, on this contract, will never be seen & this in essence is a 2 year deal paying him the ~$8m he was due anyway. Secondly, with this, Santana joins Carter & ARE who have restructured this offseason, and by the quoted terms of the deals, may become FA's after the 2010 season. They will all also be ~32 years old. That gives us good options over the next 12-18 months to assess their individual contributions, and subsequent value going forward post 2010. Finally, Perhaps the intention is that by then their starting positions will be filled by Thomas, Kelly & Orakpo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.