On BDW: so this means the FO screwed the pooch?

[SkinsNorth]

There has got to be some sort of plan in place, but really none of us know for sure.

Maybe they bring back BDW at a lower price ........

Maybe they sign a vet like Grady Jackson or Ted Wasinhgton....

Or maybe they give a young guy like Scott or Jackson a shot at starting........

[Om]

EM, you equate the suggestion that it’s premature and speculative to make flat statements that the team “has no plan” with having blind faith that they do. That is not what I’ve done here and you know it.

You say yourself that the Skins “have not shown any signs that they have a plan in place,” and to you, this seems to mean that they therefore do not, period. What I am saying is that their not having “shown” those signs to the press and public merely means that, well, they have not shown their hand to the press and public. That may frustrate those of us out here in said public ... but we can at least try to appreciate the concept.

Then you answer my charge that you’re the classic example of a fan who seems to believe he knows more than the FO by simply calling me a fan who blindly believes. Not only does that no answer the charge .... it’s also wrong. I’ve not come close to suggesting I blindly believe, and you know that too.

We can make this simple, lest this turn into another 50 post argument over the definition of a term. Two questions:

1) I do not claim to know more than the FO. In fact, I am pretty sure I know considerably less, not only in the BDW situation, but across the board. How about you?

2) I do not blindly believe everything the FO tells me. In fact, I don’t generally believe anything anybody tells me at first blush. I tend to wait until all available evidence is in, and then make up my mind one way or another. In this particular instance, I choose to reserve judgement for at least a couple of weeks, and we see how this plays out, on whether 1) there is a plan in place, and 2) we will ever really know what “plan” may or not have been in place in the teams’ decision to let BDW go,

How about you?

[The Evil Genius]

Originally posted by Flowtrain

I'm surprised the Skins weren't deterred by the acceleration of BDW's muliple overlapping restructured bonuses. $3.5M in unpaid salary is freed up now, but since the bonus is amortized over 1 year less, a large chunk is given back in increased dead money next year.

I haven't been following too closely, but this looks to create a dead money hit in 2004 of around $4M-$5M. The hit would've been $2M and the remainder in 2005 had BDW been cut post 6/1/4.

Does anyone know the details on this?

Flow...from what I can tell BDW will have a 4 mil dead money hit next year.

The savings of 3.5 mil this year (5.2 total cap hit vs a 1.7 sb hit now that he is cut)...is huge though.

It might mean that the Skins can afford to extend Champ's contract without having to renogotiate/extend Lavar's contract 1st.

The Skins are already operating on 12 mil or so dead money this year. Even with Davis's and BDW's (and Smiths too) dead money next year...they will still see some cap room free up.

I think this was a productive future looking move...something they haven't always done.

[codeorama]

But wait, we have the greatest corners to ever play the game, the greatest linebackers ever to play the game, so what if the DL is not quite up to snuff...

No one will ever complete a pass against Champ and only 1 or 2 vs. Smoot... Lavar will tackle anyone with anyhopes of running the ball... why worry?

Sorry... my sarcasm got the best of me.

[Bang]

There will be about a 4 mil hit next year.

OK< this whole thing has smelled bad since the start. They put the squeeze on at the wrong time, the negotiations went nowhere because BDW somehow felt that 17 tackles last year gave him the right to be the highest paid player on the team.

the Agent gets fired, Owens comes in, there's stories reporting that the redskins "told big daddy to not bother suiting up" for practices, and reporting that 'he could not suit up because the redskins were waiting on approval of Owens by the NFL to begin negotiations."

So then all of a sudden the boom comes down today, with the cap implications seemingly ignored.

Weird.

I listened to Vinny Bugeye on John Thompson about an hour ago, and he said Champ Bailey's name about 4 times in the course of the interview. i have more than a sneaking suspicion that his agent has much to do with this... maybe an ultimatum?

After Vinny BDW came on and used words like "funny business' and 'playing around' with negotiations. He whined that 'this is the way it's been around here for five years'.. He then said that he felt that the Redskins never intended to keep him this year because, now get this, DARYL GARDENER told him so. He said Gardener told him that the FO told HIM that they intended to release Wilkinson during his negotiations.

According to Vinny, the Redskins offered him a 2 million base, with incentives based on playing time to earn the other 1.5. He said that it was predicated on BDW playing in 80% of the defensive snaps.

Considering that BDW has played in about 90% of the snaps in every year but last (wrist injury) I think that offer is VERY fair. He's been a rock, and PT based incetives like that could be easily made if he stays healthy.

Oh well. Something about spilled milk and tears.

~Bang

[Dirk Diggler]

Om

I think you may suffer from the same blind faith in the Front Office that the front office has for the waiver wire. They obviously believe that another Daryl Gardener is going to magically fall in our laps just like last year. But I ain't holding my breath. I am one worried Skins fan right now.

The bottom line is that an inconsistent defensive line has gotten worse since December. We can talk about depth until we're blue in the face but no one can convince me we are a better all around defense up the middle than we were last season. And again, we weren't even world beaters there in 02 so...now what?

[inmate running the asylum]

Hmm. Lets see I have my notes here from March somewhere, but you guys never listen to me. Oops... dropped them...... :pooh: .... ugh got em back.

It says here not to worry about Big Daddy, cuz we are either going to trade for Graddy Jackson with New Orleans or with Detroit for Shaun Rogers. Thats the plan, Om.

[redman]

I believe I posted in another BDW thread (insert joke here) that "our FO is not the type to jump without knowing where they're going to land." They have a plan in place to be sure. Whether it works and is acceptable to us may be another story, but there's a plan.

[flashback]

Well, regarding BDW, I'm on record saying that you guys were going to find out that he was your 3rd best DT this year anyway, so as much as I would love to jump up and down and scream about what a hit your DL just took, I just can't.

However, I do think what we're seeing here is a little bit of the "Cap Heck" (can't call it hell, its not close to what the Niners, Ravens and Cowboys went through) that people have been predicting. Sure, Danny went out and spent a bunch of money this off-season, but lets not forget the 4 starters who have gone out the door so far. Every acquisition has more than 1 cost. You guys got Coles, but lost Thompson, and wasn't he your leading receiver the last 4 weeks (y'know, when Ramsey took over?). You got Canidate, but had to let Davis walk. You got Noble and Upshaw, but there went Gardener and Wilkinson. You brought in Bowen, there went Shade.

I think its going to get worse. You've got next to no rookies added in the past 2 years, and big signing bonuses to all these UFAs and RFAs, with escalating salaries every year. There already planning to keep Lavar, but lose Champ. Pretty soon, you'll be choosing between Samuels and Thomas. And what happens when Gardner asks for his $13M bonus?

Sure, Danny has a plan. Its just a bad one.

[thinker]

I think if there was a reasonably priced plan, then the FO would have put it into place before cutting BDW to exert the most possible pressure on him. As far as seeing how things work out and who's smarter - the thing is everything is too subject to change. BDW could have resigned, then torn up his knee OR had a monster year. Someone on the bench could step up OR not. One thing that we do know is that every year some players unexpectantly play better and some worse. The D Gardener type of thing probably only happens once every few years. Don't forget we signed him partly to fill the place of Sanatan Dotson who never played a down for us. So that can't be a plan. Injury prone players tend to keep getting injured. Look at Sehorn. How happy would we be if we had resigned Gardener and he got into a fight here and couldn't play until October?

In the end all a FO can do is to try to put peices into place that increase the odds of success. We certainly know there is NEVER a sure thing. The same with coaches - Gibbs used to say he just tried to prepare his players to be in a position to be great.

[Even Madder]

What I am saying is that their not having “shown” those signs to the press and public merely means that, well, they have not shown their hand to the press and public

OM, maybe so. Maybe the FO has a secret plan, maybe a trade in the works, that will surprise and delight all of us.

But based on the information available today, this doesn't look planned. It looks haphazard. The Skins knew several months ago that Big Daddy was overpaid and that they lost Gardener. They didn't work particularly hard to replace him either through free agency or the draft, and they waited until the first day of camp to try this brinksmanship strategy ("Sign here or we'll cut you!").

Because camp has started and their aren't a lot of good DTs sitting at home waiting for jobs, it doesn't look like they have many options. Waiting for a veteran to get cut isn't a plan. If they have a trade planned, fine, that's a plan and I'm wrong. That seems odd though -- why not complete the trade and then cut him? Whoever your trading with just increased their price when you cut him. We'll see.

From the evidence so far, including Cerrato's comments, it doesn't look like the plan includes filling his spot with a real starter. Maybe you're right -- maybe he's just playing his cards real close to his vest.

Or maybe I'm right. Maybe the "plan" is to extend Champ's contract and play with the DL we've got. What's wrong with that? Can it be much worse than playing with Big Daddy?

[Art]

Flashback,

We have 8 of 10 rookie draft picks still on the roster from the last draft. We have three more still from this draft. We've got three of five from the 2001 draft. We very well could end up entering the season with 14 of our last 18 draft picks on the roster.

And that doesn't factor in the surprise guys like Pierce, Ohalete, Smith, Jackson, etc., who are young free agent pickups at draft time who are still on the roster at this time. We are among the most youthful teams in football. The oldest starter on offense is 28. Only two starters on defense are 30 or older.

The team most certainly doesn't plan on losing Champ. I may grant you that it plans on losing Gardner in a couple of years, but, we'll see on that too I suppose. Importantly, obviously every player you add means you've lost a player. That's how it works. We lost Loverne and added Thomas as an example. It is the same 1 for 1 equation on every football team in every city in the whole world. In fact, it's that same equation in every sport in the whole world.

So, other than the stunning lack of meaning the assessment brings, it also doesn't even brush against the key factor in determining whether an offseason has been successful or not. That key factor is whether you've improved your team. It's that simple. Other than Gardener, it's hard to argue that any single loss made the team worse in the trade of players. Even Canidate for Davis isn't an easy nod to Davis because Davis was such a ill-fit for the offense and whether Canidate is successful or not, he already fits better and brings a dimension Davis can't, and we don't cater to the dimension that Davis can bring, but Canidate can't.

The release of Wilkinson has absolutely nothing to do with cap heck going on. The team was $2 million under the cap BEFORE cutting Wilkinson. The team offered Wilkinson a $2 million base contract and reasonably easy incentives of $1.5 million. So easy, in fact, they would be categorized as likely to be earned meaning the team would actually save nothing against the cap this year because that money would count against the cap. It just wouldn't go to Wilkinson until he earned it.

Danny's plan was simple. Fill out crucial areas around Ramsey with the speed and up front protection necessary to allow him an easier path to success. Then, do little to nothing the next year or two in free agency, going primarily through the draft. We've crunched the numbers for you before, but, again, we are UNDER the projected caps with almost the entire starting roster under contract or restricted in both the next two seasons.

If we are a team that follows the plan and uses the draft next year and the following, just when you have to release Noble, Upshaw, Fiore and perhaps even Thomas, you have a batch of young guys you've had playing behind them. It's a well conceived plan that brings in proven players -- or otherwise young, NFL quality players -- into key roles now while current young players develop and the next two years the signing bonus dollars diminish.

If we cut everyone we signed this offseason except Coles after three seasons our total dead cap hit is not too terribly much more than it was just for Wilkinson. You may want to understand the situation before you speak on it. The plan will ultimately be judged on whether Ramsey can play or not because if he can it'll be beautiful but if he can't it'll look ugly. In the end, that's unfortunate because the plan itself was highly successful and well budgeted with heavy drafts and limited free agency forays planned.

[redman]

The test of a well-managed team under the salary cap is not whether they have to cut players, it's whether they are maintaining a talented roster over time with money weighted towards the most talented players.

The closest we ever came to wholesale cuts was two years ago under Marty, but most of those made a huge amount of sense to us from a talent perspective too - no one was crying over dumping Stubblefield, or Deion, or Carrier.

Unlike the Cowboys and 49'ers and Ravens, we haven't had to gut our roster to manage cap space. Gardener was a surprise signing last year for us, but few of us thought he'd be around for more than one year.

Wilkinson's a good player, but he's nowhere near the best player on our team - or even on defense - and so I can see the team drawing the proverbial line in the sand where they did on renogitating, especially if they have some good younger players waiting in the wings, or a FA lined up. Heck, we may even end up with BDW back here for all we know.

In the FA and salary cap era, good players like Rod Gardner for example may well come and go. The key is that we'll be able to keep replacing them and competing over time, rather than clinging on to them far past when we should like your team did with Aikman and Emmitt.

[Even Madder]

The best thing about the new plan is that it's built for longevity. In the past it always looked like Snyder was building a home-run hitter to make a run at the Superbowl and then fall apart. This time they've focused on youth and built a roster that will have its key parts playing together for years to come.

It's possible that Coles, Ramsey, Jacobs and the entire OL will play together for the next five years. That's phenomenal -- imagine how dangerous that offense will be when they've played together for a few years. On defense it's conceivable that Lavar, Champ, and Smoot will be too. That's a pretty good young foundation to build on.

It looks like Snyder learned from his mistakes. I like what I see.

[Flowtrain]

If BDW's incentives were "likely to be earned" as you say, cutting him makes NO sense whatsoever since the cap charge is still felt in 2003. A poster in the radio show recap thread said BDW hit the snap total every year EXCEPT last year. This would make more sense, because it would make the $1.5M NLTBE and delay the hit until 2004.

Though it may look like a fair offer, this 70% snap-based incentive wouldn't sit well with me as a player. If BDW didn't hit that last year, how much more likely is he to hit it this year on a line that has added new DTs into the rotation? Even less appealing to BDW is the fact that he's older, presumably slower and more injury-prone.

Also, regardless of BDW's play, his snap count rests upon the whim of the coaching staff. If the season doesn't go as well as planned for the Skins, down the stretch, it makes sense for the coaching staff to give the new DT acquisitions increased snaps in preparation for the phase-out of BDW next year. All he'd have is the FO's goodwill to rely on to let him reach that 70% snap benchmark, and how much trust should he have in them after they waited until July to threaten to cut him?

So as fair as the Skins offer to BDW may appear at first glance, to him and his agent, it represents nothing more than $1.5M paycut with a bow on top to dress up the presentation. Now whether he can get a better deal elsewhere is a different issue.

[Yomar]

This team is not built to last, its built for a three year window and then at least a third of this yound talent is going to walk. Until this team improves its ability to evaluate college talent it will never have any sort of long-term window.

[Even Madder]

Not built to last? The entire OL is signed through 2005. So's the QB, Coles, and Jacobs. That's a pretty good start. The contracts that balloon sharply, like Lavars, will be reworked. Three years is a long time in the NFL.

That said, if this is still an 8-8 team in three years, they should all be cut.

[RiggoDrill]

Originally posted by Flowtrain

If BDW's incentives were "likely to be earned" as you say, cutting him makes NO sense whatsoever since the cap charge is still felt in 2003. A poster in the radio show recap thread said BDW hit the snap total every year EXCEPT last year. This would make more sense, because it would make the $1.5M NLTBE and delay the hit until 2004.

Though it may look like a fair offer, this 70% snap-based incentive wouldn't sit well with me as a player. If BDW didn't hit that last year, how much more likely is he to hit it this year on a line that has added new DTs into the rotation? Even less appealing to BDW is the fact that he's older, presumably slower and more injury-prone.

Also, regardless of BDW's play, his snap count rests upon the whim of the coaching staff. If the season doesn't go as well as planned for the Skins, down the stretch, it makes sense for the coaching staff to give the new DT acquisitions increased snaps in preparation for the phase-out of BDW next year. All he'd have is the FO's goodwill to rely on to let him reach that 70% snap benchmark, and how much trust should he have in them after they waited until July to threaten to cut him?

So as fair as the Skins offer to BDW may appear at first glance, to him and his agent, it represents nothing more than $1.5M paycut with a bow on top to dress up the presentation. Now whether he can get a better deal elsewhere is a different issue.

That seems logical. If the incentives were easily reached, there would be no real reason to negotiate.

[Art]

Originally posted by Flowtrain

If BDW's incentives were "likely to be earned" as you say, cutting him makes NO sense whatsoever since the cap charge is still felt in 2003. A poster in the radio show recap thread said BDW hit the snap total every year EXCEPT last year. This would make more sense, because it would make the $1.5M NLTBE and delay the hit until 2004.

Though it may look like a fair offer, this 70% snap-based incentive wouldn't sit well with me as a player. If BDW didn't hit that last year, how much more likely is he to hit it this year on a line that has added new DTs into the rotation? Even less appealing to BDW is the fact that he's older, presumably slower and more injury-prone.

Also, regardless of BDW's play, his snap count rests upon the whim of the coaching staff. If the season doesn't go as well as planned for the Skins, down the stretch, it makes sense for the coaching staff to give the new DT acquisitions increased snaps in preparation for the phase-out of BDW next year. All he'd have is the FO's goodwill to rely on to let him reach that 70% snap benchmark, and how much trust should he have in them after they waited until July to threaten to cut him?

So as fair as the Skins offer to BDW may appear at first glance, to him and his agent, it represents nothing more than $1.5M paycut with a bow on top to dress up the presentation. Now whether he can get a better deal elsewhere is a different issue.

Flow,

You must have misunderstood. Wilkinson was slated to earn $3.5 million in base salary this year. The contract we offered him today was that he'd get $2 million in base salary and $1.5 million in likely to be reached incentives. The point was that he wasn't released because of the cap and in fact the contract he was offered would have counted the same amount against the cap. It merely would have deferred how much he'd get now and forced him to hustle for that last $1.5 million.

As for the rest, Big Daddy didn't hit it last year because he missed five games with injury. Perhaps knowing there's $1.5 million out there for making your presence felt would make him more motivated to play through pain and perform better would be the thinking. Even IF he couldn't hit that incentive, he was STILL offered a $2 million base which I seriously doubt he'll touch on the open market.

[flashback]

Art:

Noble for Gardener is not an upgrade. Haley for Wilkinson is not an upgrade. Canidate for Davis is not an upgrade. Bowen for Shade is not an upgrade.

Coles for Thompson is an upgrade. Thomas for Stai, or Moore, or whoever the he11 was playing there last year is an upgrade.

We don't know how all these moves are going to turn out, but you're right, it largely depends on Ramsey.

And I'm sorry, but keeping 14 rookies from 3 draft classes doesn't impress me at all. And that's assuming you hang on to Gibran Hamdan.

Also, I'd like to point out that you can put 53 guys under contract for the year 2021, but if the cap figure is $875,000,000.00, you're probably going to have to cut or restructure some of those.

I respect your right to be optimistic, but paying players with limited or no starting experience over market value and giving up draft picks at the same time doesn't look to me like a long-term, sustainable plan. I guess I'm not too bright:dunce:

[Flowtrain]

Originally posted by Art

Flow,

You must have misunderstood. Wilkinson was slated to earn $3.5 million in base salary this year. The contract we offered him today was that he'd get $2 million in base salary and $1.5 million in likely to be reached incentives. The point was that he wasn't released because of the cap and in fact the contract he was offered would have counted the same amount against the cap. It merely would have deferred how much he'd get now and forced him to hustle for that last $1.5 million.

As for the rest, Big Daddy didn't hit it last year because he missed five games with injury. Perhaps knowing there's $1.5 million out there for making your presence felt would make him more motivated to play through pain and perform better would be the thinking. Even IF he couldn't hit that incentive, he was STILL offered a $2 million base which I seriously doubt he'll touch on the open market.

Art - this is what I understood the situation to be. But it seems the purpose for restructuring BDW was not solely to "motivate" him with incentives that he can't even control (snaps rely on health, the late-season phase-out by coaches). The purpose was to free up cash to ink Bailey.

You say BDW's incentives were "likely to be earned" and therefore the proposed restructured offer would have the same 2003 effect on the cap. This is not accurate. The CBA views an incentive as "likely to be earned" only if a player hit that benchmark in the preceding season. Thus, if BDW didn't play 70% of the snaps in 2002 (which I don't believe he did), the incentive is deemed "NOT likely to be earned" (even if he hit that number in 2000 and 2001).

Since the incentive is NLTBE, it would allow the Skins to defer the $1.5M hit until 2004. This makes sense, since this $1.5M would go to resign Champ.

If clearing space was not a benefit of the restructure, the Skins would've let BDW play out the existing deal. Even if he's overpaid and unmotivated, he's still far superior than a DT who is cast off from another team's training camp due to poor performance.

[Awesome]

Originally posted by Cskin

"Hey... by the way, did the Post yesterday not comment on Ramsey getting flushed out of the pocket a number of times and rushing his throws? Who do you think was responsible for that.... Al-Qaeda?

:rotflmao:

This just in...Al-Qaeda network has possibly infiltrated Washington Redskins training camp.

But maybe there is something to the reports from yesterday that Ramsey was getting pressured. Anybody notice where the pressure was coming from??? That'd be nice to know.

[Awesome]

Originally posted by Bang

He whined that 'this is the way it's been around here for five years'..

~Bang

What a fat *****! At least take it like a man.

[Flowtrain]

From Pasquarelli:

Washington officials wanted Wilkinson to lower his base salary to $2 million, but with a chance to earn back the $1.5 million difference through incentives. Sources said that, if he had played about 60 percent of the snaps, Wilkinson would have recouped the pay cut. But the player and his agent wanted to craft a deal in which Wilkinson would have had to log just 60 percent of the non-"nickel" defense snaps.

Plus, the more the Redskins scrutinized Wilkinson's performance in 2002, the more club officials became convinced they could live without him. The former Ohio State standout participated in only 48.7 percent of the snaps in 2002, his lowest ratio since being traded to the Redskins in 1998, and the team ranked 12th against the run.

Washington will gain $3.5 million in additional cap room and will carry a cap charge of $1.67 million for Wilkinson in 2003. Because of prorated signing bonus segments, the team will be charged $3.94 million in "dead money" for Wilkinson in 2004.

[Art]

Flashback,

I hate to break it to you but Shade isn't being replaced by Bowen. Ohalete did that last year and was better than Shade on the field. Bowen, in extremely limited time was ALSO better than Shade in Green Bay. Bowen remains a question mark, but simply having him is an upgrade, even if he doesn't play, over Shade last year.

You don't have to get it but you need to understand anyone in this system was an upgrade over Davis. I like Davis a great deal and think in another system that statement isn't so true. But, simply put, any running back who fits the system, as Canidate does, is a better option to Davis. Watson and Betts both proved to be better options than Davis even last year. Davis is a classic addition by subtraction. But that's ONLY the case in the type of offense we run where his style is ill-suited and his production would always drag the offense down.

Indeed you may not be bright if you think surrendering a first for Coles, a fourth for Canidate, a fifth for Morton, a sixth for Bowen and a seventh for Haley is not intelligent. In fact, it appears remarkably intelligent. In fact, if that was our draft class three years ago we'd be calling it one fine draft class.

The point though remains. The Redskins are, as a team, younger than the Cowboys. It's not our future you need to worry about. It's also not our cap future you need to worry about. Apparently the part you missed was we have these players under contract and we're under the projected cap. Perhaps the bold stroke to accomplish this confuses you. I can't help that confusion.

I can simply say when you don't know something, ask me first. I'll help you out.