drowland Posted January 9, 2015 Share Posted January 9, 2015 Calling DeSean Jackson a one trick pony is ridiculous. He has great hands and can make big plays happen on slants, wide receiver screens, or deep. He can play in the slot or on the edge and has been known to return kicks pretty well when needed. He's not a good blocker and he's not a huge target. No need to pretend the only thing the guy can do is run straight down the field. Jackson has had issues but he's not been kicked off of this team because he's not the walking disaster that Percy Harvin is. Also, you said Harvin was traded because he didn't fit in terms of talent, that was wrong. Don't move the goal posts. I said Harvin didn't fit the identity of their team. It's not just about finding talent (Harvin's got tons of it), it's about finding talent that fits. Maybe I was too harsh on the one trick pony comment about Desean. But we can agree to disagree on what he means for the Skins. I view him as a luxury not a need. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Voice_of_Reason Posted January 9, 2015 Share Posted January 9, 2015 I think the salary cap hit might make this prohibitive, even if it is something they wanted to do. Also note that last off-season, he was coming off of a remarkable 2013, and not 1 team stepped up to trade for him when he was being jettisoned from the Eagles. Not even a conditional 7th round pick in 2028 was offered. His 2013 was better than 2014. So, I'm going to go with the theory that he probably isn't the most trade-able guy. And a final though, whoever the QB is, I'd REALLY like them to be in the best possible situation to succeed. That means as many good weapons as you can find. Whether it's Kirk, Colt, Griffin, or a mystery guy... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HTTRDynasty Posted January 9, 2015 Share Posted January 9, 2015 I'm all for it. But if we did it, it would need to be done quietly. The last thing we need is a situation where DJax hears we're looking to trade him and he starts becoming a cancer on the field and in the locker room. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HTTRDynasty Posted January 9, 2015 Share Posted January 9, 2015 We aren't getting a 1st for D Jackson - we'd be lucky to get a single 2nd for all of the reasons you want to trade him. Other teams have thought about that too....team's in our situation would be like us wanting to dump, and teams ready to win aren't mortgaging a lot for him - they aren't built with those philosophies. Then the cap hit. Won't even get close to value for him. If teams like the Seahawks were willing to trade a 2013 first and seventh round pick, along with a 2014 3rd round pick for Percy Harvin, who isn't anywhere near as good as DJax and has even worse attitude problems, you can bet there will be a team who's "close" willing to trade a 1st for DJax. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dark Acre Posted January 9, 2015 Share Posted January 9, 2015 I'm all for it. But if we did it, it would need to be done quietly. The last thing we need is a situation where DJax hears we're looking to trade him and he starts becoming a cancer on the field and in the locker room. He'd only go to a playoff team needing that home run threat to win it all. Why would he complain about that? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dcdiscokid Posted January 9, 2015 Share Posted January 9, 2015 No, just no. Our offense is our only strength atm and djax is a big part of that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rufus T Firefly Posted January 9, 2015 Share Posted January 9, 2015 There is just no question he should be on the market. - He is signed for two more years and the chance this team is any kind of a serious contender in that time frame is minute, at best. - He will then be 31 as a tiny speed player with a history of at least minor leg issues and commanding big money. In other words, a horrible investment. - Trading him should bring cap space and draft picks. The team needs to be looking at what makes the team better by the time a real contending team can be in place. To that end, the team should be checking the trade value of several players, including Jackson, Garcon and Morris. The OP's idea of his value, though, is ridiculous. If we could get a 2 for him, that would be a huge win. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Butters20 Posted January 9, 2015 Share Posted January 9, 2015 The only team i can see trading for him would be the Pats. They enjoy taking chances on "malcontents" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheLongshot Posted January 9, 2015 Share Posted January 9, 2015 - Trading him should bring cap space and draft picks. Again, trading him is a $9m cap hit. His money this year is guaranteed. Do people here just not read the thread? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rufus T Firefly Posted January 9, 2015 Share Posted January 9, 2015 Again, trading him is a $9m cap hit. His money this year is guaranteed. Do people here just not read the thread? I read it, but you're wrong. If you trade a player, the trading team is responsible for his salary. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HTTRDynasty Posted January 9, 2015 Share Posted January 9, 2015 He'd only go to a playoff team needing that home run threat to win it all. Why would he complain about that? He's clearly a guy who wants to be wanted. If it got out that we were trying to trade him, but it never happens, how do you think he'd act in the 2015 season? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheLongshot Posted January 9, 2015 Share Posted January 9, 2015 I read it, but you're wrong. If you trade a player, the trading team is responsible for his salary. That's because salary is normally not guaranteed in NFL contracts. Go look at the link above I posted on his contract. Instead of a signing bonus, they guaranteed his salary and bonuses for the first two years. Year three is similar to 2, but not guaranteed. Year 4 is voidable. Edit: wrong about the signing bonus. He got 5m. So next year, we certainly can talk about trading him. But this year it would be a massive cap hit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TouchdownSkin Posted January 9, 2015 Share Posted January 9, 2015 Desean Jackson has never blocked a day in his life. Not sure why people would expect differently here in DC. He's the best playmaker we've had on our roster in probably decades. I don't care if he pouts, taunts the opponent, etc. Dude can flat out play and when the ball is in his hands, he PRODUCES. Simple as that. I'd MUCH rather keep him and try to find a taker for Garcon. This x infinity!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Butters20 Posted January 9, 2015 Share Posted January 9, 2015 I read it, but you're wrong. If you trade a player, the trading team is responsible for his salary Bing Bang Boom That's because salary is normally not guaranteed in NFL contracts. Go look at the link above I posted on his contract. Instead of a signing bonus, they guaranteed his salary and bonuses for the first two years. Year three is similar to 2, but not guaranteed. Year 4 is voidable. Edit: wrong about the signing bonus. He got 5m. So next year, we certainly can talk about trading him. But this year it would be a massive cap hit. Isn't this his third year and thus not guaranteed? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rufus T Firefly Posted January 9, 2015 Share Posted January 9, 2015 That's because salary is normally not guaranteed in NFL contracts. Go look at the link above I posted on his contract. Instead of a signing bonus, they guaranteed his salary and bonuses for the first two years. Year three is similar to 2, but not guaranteed. Year 4 is voidable. So next year, we certainly can talk about trading him. But this year it would be a massive cap hit. I know exactly how his contract is structured, but that has nothing to do with anything. If he's traded, the new team picks up his salary and thus it's not a "massive" hit for us. If you actually need proof of that, here's an article about the Bears trading Cutler to save his guaranteed salary. http://espn.go.com/chicago/nfl/story/_/id/11885317/chicago-bears-save-cap-money-jay-cutler-trade Here's another about the whole topic, including how the Eagles traded Isaac Sopoaga so they didn't have to pay his guaranteed salary. http://overthecap.com/trading-dead-money-nfl-expiring-contract/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheLongshot Posted January 9, 2015 Share Posted January 9, 2015 Ah, it is a new thing from the last CBA. My apologies In any case, tho, you still need to find someone who not only will give you value, but is also willing to take the cap hit. Personally, I think he has more value here, particularly when we are seriously lacking in offensive weapons. Edit: Also proves that Florio is an idiot. Also, it looks like more a method to dump bad players. That doesn't seem to apply here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rufus T Firefly Posted January 9, 2015 Share Posted January 9, 2015 Ah, it is a new thing from the last CBA. My apologies In any case, tho, you still need to find someone who not only will give you value, but is also willing to take the cap hit. Personally, I think he has more value here, particularly when we are seriously lacking in offensive weapons. Edit: Also proves that Florio is an idiot. The idea that a trading team would take on a player's salary, guaranteed or not, isn't a result of a new CBA. It's always been that way. Just there is more guaranteed salary in contracts after the new CBA. Again, the idea of trading Jackson is about trying to finally build a real contender here and setting our sights on doing that, and not bypassing such an opportunity for the sake of propping up a bad team in the short run. I really hope our new FO wouldn't dismiss such a thing by essentially saying "he's good, let's keep him". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wrong Direction Posted January 9, 2015 Share Posted January 9, 2015 No, I think it is a 4 year deal. His contract is guaranteed for 2 years. http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2014/04/02/the-full-desean-jackson-contract-details/ I didn't know that. I thought he was almost certainly gone after this year. I wonder what the terms are to void after 3 years? Knowing that he's relatively cheap for a couple of years, I'm definitely not inclined to move him now absent a) either a personality meltdown or a great trade offer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rufus T Firefly Posted January 9, 2015 Share Posted January 9, 2015 I didn't know that. I thought he was almost certainly gone after this year. I wonder what the terms are to void after 3 years? The terms are it voids after 3 years. Nothing else. It's a 3 year deal with a dummy 4th year that voids automatically. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HtownRocks111 Posted January 9, 2015 Share Posted January 9, 2015 If we can all agree that we won't be contending for a title in the next year or two, then let's get some pieces that will be here contributing when we do. Let's trade Djax for picks that we can turn into solid NFL players for the next 9-12 years. Djax won't have the same production in the next 3-5 years. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hitman#21 Posted January 9, 2015 Share Posted January 9, 2015 Horrible Idea. Just a horrible off season idea. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ThomasRoane Posted January 9, 2015 Share Posted January 9, 2015 I'm all for it. I absolutely loved the trade when it happened, he was by far the best player this year but they won't be competing for anything any time soon. If he can get them a solid pick back go for it. There is nothing on this team that isn't worth selling right now. Agreed. And I'd include Trent Williams (who seems to break down a lot), Garcon (send him to a winning team though - good guy), Reed (injury prone and can't block), Morris (McCGloughan likes bigger backs), Amerson (doesn't study nor love the game enough), Young (good guy but won't be around for the winning), Steiger (O-line needs to get bigger), Roberts (he's a number 4 receiver anyways), and Niles Paul. QBs need to stay though because I think they need to build up the rest of the team. Then see how competition goes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peregrine Posted January 9, 2015 Share Posted January 9, 2015 As much as I disliked the Jackson signing when it first happened, feeling like we should have addressed the offensive line and defense first, I cant see that being a good idea. With a new GM comes an emphasis on the draft, and on improving the offensive and defensive lines. One of the biggest struggles for the Redskins was getting enough time in the pocket to go down field. With better blocking, DeSean Jackson will take the top off of defenses and open up a LOT of space underneath for even average receivers. Without an offensive line DeSean jackson isnt worth much. But with one? Oh man, worth his weight in gold for an offense. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rufus T Firefly Posted January 9, 2015 Share Posted January 9, 2015 Agreed. And I'd include Trent Williams (who seems to break down a lot), Garcon (send him to a winning team though - good guy), Reed (injury prone and can't block), Morris (McCGloughan likes bigger backs), Amerson (doesn't study nor love the game enough), Young (good guy but won't be around for the winning), Steiger (O-line needs to get bigger), Roberts (he's a number 4 receiver anyways), and Niles Paul. QBs need to stay though because I think they need to build up the rest of the team. Then see how competition goes. Absolutely not on Williams,our best player, 26 years old and by all accounts a leader. He's a player you build around. Trading him is about the worst idea around (unless he brings something ridiculous back. Lichtensteiger I'd hold onto because he's good and I'd want to keep good linemen while I develop QBs. At 30 next year might still have a lot of tread left anyway. Paul is a FA so can't be traded. But he's also a guy who's likely to cost less than his value if signed long-term and only 26 next year. I'd keep him around if I deal Reed. The rest of your list I'd be fine with dealing, though I don't know that you'd get much, if anything, for Young and Roberts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lovemaskins Posted January 9, 2015 Share Posted January 9, 2015 While we're at it, I say trade Ryan Kerrigan as well. He didn't really benefit us much either as far as wins and he's going to be far too expensive to keep as well. We'd probably be able to get a first or second for him too and draft his replacement. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.