WFC Posted January 9, 2015 Share Posted January 9, 2015 So the key to winning a Super Bowl is to trade your best players for draft picks who may not pan out? So that's how all these perennial winners like the Pats, Packers, Broncos, Colts, Steelers, etc. have done it. The guy has played his butt off for us, has been getting it done with not much around him, and been one of the few bright spots on our team. We reward him by trading him? Who the heck would want to come play for a team who craps on players who produce? Hey if you play for the Skins and do well they don't take care of you instead they trade you. So all you greats come on over. In order to build a winning organization you have to have players who want to fight for you and not just get a paycheck. One of the ways to do that is to be known as a place that takes care of players, not one that craps on them. I guess my short answer is ABSOLUTELY NOT! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheLongshot Posted January 9, 2015 Share Posted January 9, 2015 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". Well, something changed with the new CBA, otherwise it wouldn't be structured this way. Reading the article, it looks like that structure is more for being able to more easily dump a player. I don't know what happens with guaranteed roster bonuses when players don't make the roster that they are traded to. Does the trading team still take that hit, or does the team that traded for the player? In any case, my philosophy on trading is that you only trade the players you either have replacements for or no longer have use for. If I was able to look at the roster and see that there were some good young talent ready to take over for Jackson, maybe I could be behind this. But, I don't. Roberts had a mediocre season and still held onto the #3 position. Hankerson barely saw the field after getting healthy for most of the season. Ryan Grant has decent potental, but he's not remotly going to do what Jackson does on the field. So no, I'm not in favor of trading him unless someone gives us a sweetheart deal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wit33 Posted January 9, 2015 Share Posted January 9, 2015 A team of all player 25 or younger is not realistic and wouldn't imagine it be good for a team. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rufus T Firefly Posted January 9, 2015 Share Posted January 9, 2015 So that's how all these perennial winners like the Pats, Packers, Broncos, Colts, Steelers, etc. have done it. Deion Branch, Richard Seymour, Logan Mankins, Brett Favre, Jay Cutler, Brandon Marshall, Santonio Holmes and several others would like to know when it would be convenient to say hi to you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bonez3 Posted January 10, 2015 Share Posted January 10, 2015 I don't know who was the first to bring this up, but I was one of them. I have vacillated in the interim. Usually based on his good games But really, yea, a lottery ticket is worth more right now. We're not 1-2 years away. Might as well... Personally, if give him the respect deserved as a player. I'd call him into office, ask him if he's ok and try to assure it would only be a team that is contending. Yea- a 2nd rounder is worthwhile right now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rufus T Firefly Posted January 10, 2015 Share Posted January 10, 2015 Well, something changed with the new CBA, otherwise it wouldn't be structured this way. Lots of things change with every CBA. And the trends on how teams structure contracts, much like how they draft and trade and a million other things, are constantly evolving. I don't believe the new trend of guaranteeing salary in the early years of contracts even has much to do with the new CBA, at least directly (i.e. there's no specific clause in it that makes you guarantee more salary, it's more of an offshoot of teams having more cap space available). But none of that really has anything to do with what we're talking about. If you trade for a player, you are responsible for his salary (lacking some other special arrangement) . That is as it's always been in every sport since their inception. Reading the article, it looks like that structure is more for being able to more easily dump a player. Kind of. It makes it slightly easier to trade a player, assuming you can find someone willing to take on the salary. Really, though, it's more of a trend that teams are adopting towards more long-term flexibility. If I give a player a $25 mil signing bonus, and salaries of 5 mil per year, then if I cut or trade him after two years I am on the hook for a 15 mil dead cap hit. If I instead give hime a 10 mil bonus and guaranteed salaries the first two years of 12.5 per, then I can get rid of him after two years with a hit of only 6 mil. The player gets the same amount either way. The difference for the team is bigger hits for those two years, more flexibility afterwards. But while it's then more possible to trade that player after one year, there's no question you're signing that player believing there's no way he's going anywhere for the two seasons (i.e. Cutler). It is, again, I believe, a trend that's happening mostly because teams have so much cap space now. The cap rose by about 10 mil last year, probably a similar amount this year, and will likely continue in the future. This after so many teams had cleared space in the uncapped year. Therefore, teams have been loaded with cap space. And they're using it to keep future hits low and give themselves maximum cap freedom down the road. It's an attitude that is the antithesis of the Snyder (and frankly Bruce Allen) approach of giving signing bonuses to push cap hits out into future years to give yourself extra room right now. In any case, my philosophy on trading is that you only trade the players you either have replacements for or no longer have use for. If I was able to look at the roster and see that there were some good young talent ready to take over for Jackson, maybe I could be behind this. But, I don't. Roberts had a mediocre season and still held onto the #3 position. Hankerson barely saw the field after getting healthy for most of the season. Ryan Grant has decent potental, but he's not remotly going to do what Jackson does on the field. So no, I'm not in favor of trading him unless someone gives us a sweetheart deal. Again, I and others have explained the rationale we have for trading him. It's about building for the long term when we might have a chance to really contend. If you would rather concentrate on winning as many games now at the expense of that, that's fine. But telling me we'd be worse in 2015 if we trade Jackson just couldn't be less relevant to what I'm saying. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skinpride1 Posted January 10, 2015 Share Posted January 10, 2015 If you listened to the presser with Bruce and Scot then you would kind of have your answer from Scot...The Eagles broke one of Scot's rules in letting Jackson go..The eagles drafted Jackson and you keep your core players from the draft.so.that is what Scot likes..did the eagles screw up in letting Jackson go?? I would say probably so and no playoffs this year either to show for it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ThomasRoane Posted January 10, 2015 Share Posted January 10, 2015 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. The only reason I mention Trent is he seems to be breaking down quite a bit the last two years (Bad shoulder, knee and ankles). Plays thru a lot of injuries so there's no doubt he's a tough guy. I'd hate to sell low. Steiger is a good player but McCloughan said he likes bigger O-line and Jay mentioned that as well last season. It really shows up vs a big team because our guys can't pass set well against some of the behemoths in the league. I'm hoping that Shanny gets a job and maybe we can do some deals with him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rufus T Firefly Posted January 10, 2015 Share Posted January 10, 2015 The only reason I mention Trent is he seems to be breaking down quite a bit the last two years (Bad shoulder, knee and ankles). Plays thru a lot of injuries so there's no doubt he's a tough guy. I'd hate to sell low. Steiger is a good player but McCloughan said he likes bigger O-line and Jay mentioned that as well last season. It really shows up vs a big team because our guys can't pass set well against some of the behemoths in the league. I'm hoping that Shanny gets a job and maybe we can do some deals with him. Williams had a lot of injuries this year, but none were major and I don't recall anything in 13. Apart from the pot suspension, he's missed 5 games in 5 years. I'm not worried. Now, if someone offered some huge deal for him (say two 1s and one of them in the top half this year) and we fall in love with some LT in this year's draft, I could see it. But all that is unlikely and not even a slam-dunk if it happened. Lich is listed at 296. As comparison, the 8 starting Cs in this weekend's games average out at 305.5. So he's not tiny. And I would hope we don't have a GM who's dumping good players because they are not exactly what he envisions. Now, if the team can find a bigger C in the draft who's going to be a stud in the future and then eventually Kory is pushed out, fine. But again, my bigger concern would be with significantly weakening an already weak OL at the same time you are trying to develop QBs, That's just a terrible idea, even if you think Kory isn't the long-term C. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
paloosa Posted January 10, 2015 Share Posted January 10, 2015 I feel it is a possibility but very unlikely that we trade him. I feel he is going to be here becaue he wants to win and works hard the things that the new GM says he likes. I feel that we will have some new players at almost every position next year. I feel that the WR position will be upgraded also but I feel that the Oline is going to be upgraded a lot. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kiingspadee Posted January 10, 2015 Share Posted January 10, 2015 But he DID improve our offense #2 in avg yards with more than 20 catches top 15 in yards per game top 15 in yards top 16 in 20+ #1 in 40+ 0 fumbles You are crazy if you do not think he helped Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WFC Posted January 10, 2015 Share Posted January 10, 2015 Deion Branch, Richard Seymour, Logan Mankins, Brett Favre, Jay Cutler, Brandon Marshall, Santonio Holmes and several others would like to know when it would be convenient to say hi to you. Before you just type a whole bunch of names, Brett Farve being the funniest as they thought he was done and didn't get rid of him until he won a SB and was old, how many Super Bowls were won with them and/or winning seasons before they thought they could afford to part with said player. I think that might be an important factor you seem to be leaving out there. We can all twist information to fit our point but facts are facts. To win you need playmakers and we shouldn't even be considering something like this unless we are SURE we can do just as well or better without him. The answer is we can't and it makes no sense. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ewmartin7776 Posted January 10, 2015 Author Share Posted January 10, 2015 OK, I'm no GM (not in football, anyway ) Anyway, I started this thread for several reasons: 1. We have a new GM who has a fantastic track record and has a philosophy in what kind of team we are going to be (we don't yet know if DJax fits into that kind of team he wants to build - if he does fit, then this is all moot. If he does not, then a valid question to ask). 2. With this new philosophy (whatever it is), we have an opportunity to get the kind of guys that fit into our system and we can cultivate over a long period. 3. We will not be heading to the NFC title game next year and we are only a "DJax" away. That being the case, let's get some value for him while he still has value. 4. He is more marketable this year than he was a year ago (virtually proving that Chip Kelly was wrong in letting him go). I think we can get something for him now (even a 2nd and a 3rd). 5. We did not draft DJax, so he is not someone who we have raised since rookie year. In general, I'm looking at this from a perspective of how many more picks can we get over the next 2-3 years (where we would not necessarily be serious contenders) and do we have people we could move now to help us 2-3 years down the road. Also, keep in mind that we will likely keep Griffin and Cousins for another year, but then I believe Cousins is a free agent and then we'll have another year option on Griffin (we may have to select a QB next year too). Someone else indicated that everyone is up for grabs, so here is how I would treat the following: 1. Morris: I would consider trading him (not fast enough but he is durable). 2. I would NOT consider trading Williams. RBs grow on trees, great LT do not and he is still very young and in his prime. 3. Steiger: keep him as starter or quality backup 4. Paul: I would keep him. He provides great ST and also some mismatches in the passing game 5. Jordan Reed: would lean to keep him, but would be open to trading him, too many injuries in his young career. 6. Jason Hatcher: would trade him. Good but not the impact we had hoped for. A lot of these positions we can address in the draft. We can't think of next year and that's all. We have to look 2-4 years down the road. That's all. As you were Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HAILSKINSNYC Posted January 10, 2015 Share Posted January 10, 2015 11 mil dead money if we get rid of him this year...maybe trade him next year Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LD0506 Posted January 10, 2015 Share Posted January 10, 2015 So I'm assuming that trading DJax for 1&2 somehow involves raising Al Davis from the dead? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rufus T Firefly Posted January 10, 2015 Share Posted January 10, 2015 Before you just type a whole bunch of names, Brett Farve being the funniest as they thought he was done and didn't get rid of him until he won a SB and was old, how many Super Bowls were won with them and/or winning seasons before they thought they could afford to part with said player. I think that might be an important factor you seem to be leaving out there. We can all twist information to fit our point but facts are facts. To win you need playmakers and we shouldn't even be considering something like this unless we are SURE we can do just as well or better without him. The answer is we can't and it makes no sense. Well, certainly it appears that "we" can indeed twist things to fit our points. You listed teams who wouldn't think of trading away star vets for picks. I pointed out that those teams indeed did just that, and you point out, for some reason, that some of them won Super Bowls first. As if that irrelevant factoid makes your wrong statement any less wrong. The idea that they could "afford" to get rid of those players because they had winning seasons first is just kind of gibberish. The difference, in fact, is that those teams traded away star players as they were still trying to contend for titles every year. If they dealt players away then, they would be... wait for it... MORE likely to deal them if they were dealing with a 4-12 train wreck of a team. The Patriots, the most successful football franchise of our era, have made their reign last this long in fact largely by letting veteran players go, either trading them for draft picks, or letting free agents go and taking compensatory picks in exchange. They did that to avoid paying big salaries to players as they age, and to constantly replenish their team with young players. If they did that while trying to win the Super Bowl every year, how do you think they would have acted when coming off 3-13 and 4-12 seasons and needing a flu-scale rebuild? Do you think they would have weighed the very idea of getting draft picks vs two years of DeSean Jackson while they build and say: ABSOLUTELY NOT! ? My guess would be no. Absolutely not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zCommander Posted January 10, 2015 Share Posted January 10, 2015 What is in ones hand is not better than what one can get instead. hmmm... I think this sounds better though What is in ones hand is better than what is in the bushes. There is no guarantee that the draft picks you get for DJax are going to be good. With Morris, DJax, Garcon, and RG3 you still have something better than nothing to build around. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rufus T Firefly Posted January 10, 2015 Share Posted January 10, 2015 11 mil dead money if we get rid of him this year...maybe trade him next year This has already been discussed and dispelled. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rufus T Firefly Posted January 10, 2015 Share Posted January 10, 2015 What is in ones hand is not better than what one can get instead. hmmm... I think this sounds better though What is in ones hand is better than what is in the bushes. There is no guarantee that the draft picks you get for DJax are going to be good. With Morris, DJax, Garcon, and RG3 you still have something better than nothing to build around. I don't know when the words "no guarantee" became the substitute for an actual argument, but it seems to often be the case. There is no guarantee we will ever win anything with the players you listed, either. So, you know, take that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheLongshot Posted January 10, 2015 Share Posted January 10, 2015 Deion Branch, Richard Seymour, Logan Mankins, Brett Favre, Jay Cutler, Brandon Marshall, Santonio Holmes and several others would like to know when it would be convenient to say hi to you. So, you have the Patriots, who always seem to be ready with the next guy up, Green Bay ready to put Favre out to pasture, and the Steelers getting rid of a problem child. Then you have Denver and Josh McDaniel getting rid of his two best offensive players. How did that work out for him? Oh yeah, he was fired. So, the common thread with the teams above is that those players were decided to be expendable. Other teams valued those players higher than the home team. That becomes easier to do when you are able to draft well and you have young players coming in behind them that can give similar production. If you don't have that player, you are kinda rolling the dice that you will at some point. Given that the Redskins haven't drafted a good WR since Art Monk, it is a bit of a stretch that you'd find a comporable player. In general, I don't think it is a good idea to trade a good player that you have no problem with and no ready replacement for draft picks that may or may not turn into good players. Now, if you were going to trade him, I think this year he's not quite as attractive as he would be next offseason, because of all the guaranteed money he's owed. Also, the cap savings is greater next year. But, for the many years I have been on this board, I've always been frustrated with the people here and their quick trigger to trade any good players we have in some vague argument in improving this team. You need players who can play so that the players who you are bringing in to learn have people who know what they are doing out there. As I said before, if I thought we had an Odell Beckham back there that was ready to blow up, I'd be for it. But right now, I think we are fortunate that for once in the past twenty years that we have two WRs who can play. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rufus T Firefly Posted January 10, 2015 Share Posted January 10, 2015 As I said before, if I thought we had an Odell Beckham back there that was ready to blow up, I'd be for it. But right now, I think we are fortunate that for once in the past twenty years that we have two WRs who can play. I have explained multiple times now that my, and others, rationale for trading Jackson is long-term and that your talking about what it does to the Redskins in 2015 is completely irrelevant to that point. And you insist on telling me the Redskins will be worse in 2015 if he's traded. So there is quite clearly no point in addressing you further. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WFC Posted January 10, 2015 Share Posted January 10, 2015 My guess would be no. Absolutely not. How about we ask the Eagles how this way of thinking pans out. Remind me how improved their team got when they got rid of their most dynamic player, LeSean McCoy might have some words as well as his season took a dive after he left. Unlike a lot on here I think we are a couple pieces away on offense to be pretty dang good so I prefer to keep the best pieces in place. It's how you win. But there is one sure fire way to see which way of thinking is best. We now have one of the best personnel guys in the game running the show for us. If he trades Jackson then I guess I will have to eat crow and apologize for my lack of knowledge concerning the game and team we love so much. If he doesn't trade him away, well then....I guess your up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rufus T Firefly Posted January 10, 2015 Share Posted January 10, 2015 Wow. I'm pretty optimistic about our new GM McLovin, but I didn't realize all hypothetical discussions must now be stopped and we can just wait to see if he does it or not as the final word on our worthiness as people. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WFC Posted January 10, 2015 Share Posted January 10, 2015 Wow. I'm pretty optimistic about our new GM McLovin, but I didn't realize all hypothetical discussions must now be stopped and we can just wait to see if he does it or not as the final word on our worthiness as people. Wow, our worthiness as people? Little over dramatic don't you think? McLovin? My aren't we the witty one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SteveFromYellowstone Posted January 10, 2015 Share Posted January 10, 2015 lol you are crazy if you think he will go for a first. He is on a very manageable contract and he is worth much more to us than the 2nd or 3rd we would get for him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.