2018 Free Agency Database - (Signed: WILLIAMS - McPhee - Scandrick - P-Rich) - (Lauvao, Bergstrom, Nsehke, Taylor, Z. Brown and Quick re-signed)

[Est.1974]

4 minutes ago, Skinsinparadise said:

 

Yeah Cooley wasn't even suggesting he had any inside take on Hankins.  But he's basically described Bruce's negotiation tactics using a real estate analogy of going with a shocking low bid just to see if it works.  I recall one of the narratives on the Kirk contract was a story I read that Kirk got an offer while he was in London from the team and the number was so surprisingly low it put him in a sour mood.

 

Cooley talked about the same drill with his own situation but he patted himself on the back by suggesting he's so laid back and he gets its just a gambit via Bruce that he took it in stride but he could see other players might not.

 

As for Hankins, agree Poston's rep is to just milk it for as much money as possible so he likes patiently waits for the most money his player can get.

 

Id also add about Hankins that his deal with the Colts was 'only' paying him 8.5mil in 2018 and the same in 2019 I think. So he may have demands greater than that, but perhaps when Logan is getting into region of 4mil, mabe Hankins value at present really is in the 7-8mil range max. 

 

What the chances we've offered a one year 5mil base deal with another max 3 mil on top for high end incentives.

[Skinsinparadise]

35 minutes ago, UK SKINS FAN '74 said:

 

Id also add about Hankins that his deal with the Colts was 'only' paying him 8.5mil in 2018 and the same in 2019 I think. So he may have demands greater than that, but perhaps when Logan is getting into region of 4mil, mabe Hankins value at present really is in the 7-8mil range max. 

 

What the chances we've offered a one year 5mil base deal with another max 3 mil on top for high end incentives.

 

The one thing Cooley said that was specific is that no way they offered him more than a one year deal or if it was a multiple year offer its one where you can get out of it after one year.  And on that specific point it sounded like he heard something.  Keim also mentioned a 1 year deal. 

[bobandweave]

1 hour ago, Skinsinparadise said:

Cooley who has actually been in a negotiation with Bruce defines Bruce's style that way.  Mike Lombardi (who worked with Bruce) in a different way alluded to the same thing.

 

If so, I think that approach can be good or bad depending on context/player.

 

 

 

Thanks for posting that, never knew how Bruce negotiated. I can see that turning a bunch of people off. "Hey we really like you, and we like you so much we want to low ball the hell out of you"...can't see that working out too well. Explains a lot

[Skinsinparadise]

15 minutes ago, bobandweave said:

 

Thanks for posting that, never knew how Bruce negotiated. I can see that turning a bunch of people off. "Hey we really like you, and we like you so much we want to low ball the hell out of you"...can't see that working out too well. Explains a lot

 

From Lombardi who worked with him in Oakland.

https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2017/jun/19/michael-lombardi-former-nfl-executive-says-bruce-a/

“Bruce thinks sometimes he’s smarter than the agents,” Lombardi said. “And the agents called his bluff every time."

[PF Chang]

2 hours ago, Califan007 said:

 

His exact words:

 

"...a reasonable guess of their next year with a record better than 8-8 is 2021. Digest 2021. Could be even worse. "

 

That prediction in no way, shape or form should EVER be considered "reasonable" in today's free-agency NFL...for ANY team. He predicted one winning season in 12 years. There is ZERO way of predicting a losing stretch like that, because waaaaaaay too much can occur over that long of a timespan. It's an asinine way to make a prediction about the number of winning seasons for a team over the next 7 years.

 

 

 

We haven't won 11+ in a season since 1991. 9 times in this nearly 3 decades of suck, we've had a winning record, and it's painful to count 8-7-1 twice as "winning seasons" in that stretch. 

 

The Rams didn't have a winning record from 2004-2017. The Raiders didn't from 2003-2016. The Browns didn't from 2008-present. Lions 2001-2010. Jags 2008-2016. The Bills once (9-7) from 2005-2016...

 

Is it likely a team will suck for a decade? No. However we have first hand experience with sucking for almost 3 decades, but it's completely unreasonable to predict that for any team? 

[RWJ]

15 minutes ago, Skinsinparadise said:

 

From Lombardi who worked with him in Oakland.

https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2017/jun/19/michael-lombardi-former-nfl-executive-says-bruce-a/

“Bruce thinks sometimes he’s smarter than the agents,” Lombardi said. “And the agents called his bluff every time."

So smart that he might be jobless in 2019.  

[Skinsinparadise]

11 minutes ago, RWJ said:

So smart that he might be jobless in 2019.  

 

Could be so, that's why I've decided to chill about this off season.  If the team has a big year, great.  If they slip and it brings changes to the FO, that has an upside too. 

[Califan007 The Constipated]

31 minutes ago, PF Chang said:

 

We haven't won 11+ in a season since 1991. 9 times in this nearly 3 decades of suck, we've had a winning record, and it's painful to count 8-7-1 twice as "winning seasons" in that stretch. 

 

The Rams didn't have a winning record from 2004-2017. The Raiders didn't from 2003-2016. The Browns didn't from 2008-present. Lions 2001-2010. Jags 2008-2016. The Bills once (9-7) from 2005-2016...

 

Is it likely a team will suck for a decade? No. However we have first hand experience with sucking for almost 3 decades, but it's completely unreasonable to predict that for any team? 

1

 

1) Ok...and?....Boswell's claim was that the Skins wouldn't win 9 games for another 7 years at least, not that they wouldn't win 11 games

 

2) Just because it has occurred before doesn't mean it can be predicted to occur again.

[Burgold]

42 minutes ago, Skinsinparadise said:

 

From Lombardi who worked with him in Oakland.

https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2017/jun/19/michael-lombardi-former-nfl-executive-says-bruce-a/

“Bruce thinks sometimes he’s smarter than the agents,” Lombardi said. “And the agents called his bluff every time."

There are two basic business philosophies I've dealt with as a freelancer/contractor. Bruce seems to slide into category A.

 

Category A: The company begs poverty no matter how rich they are and tries to go on the super cheap. They view negotiations as a winner/loser proposition. If you get a good deal they lost/if they get you on the cheap they win. They don't really care how good a job you do or how qualified and well referred you are... they just want to win the negotiation. Som of these gigs end up okay, but obviously it starts out rough. I actually don't mind short prove-it deals, but if you've proven it then that needs to be factored in.

 

Category B: I call this the Jim Henson approach: Jim wanted both sides to win and prosper. The negotiation starts with a low, but reasonable deal and can be nudged up a bit because they really are offering you a deal that's fair or they let you negotiate with yourself. I don't love the latter because I tend to lowball/undervalue myself. 

 

I'd rather work with a Category B guy, but Category A guys can be okay if they recognize good work, beaten deadlines, etc.

[Skinsinparadise]

28 minutes ago, Burgold said:

 

Category A: The company begs poverty no matter how rich they are and tries to go on the super cheap. They view negotiations as a winner/loser proposition. If you get a good deal they lost/if they get you on the cheap they win. They don't really care how good a job you do or how qualified and well referred you are... they just want to win the negotiation. Som of these gigs end up okay, but obviously it starts out rough. I actually don't mind short prove-it deals, but if you've proven it then that needs to be factored in.

 

I've heard multiple people say this about Bruce.  I recall Albert Breer last summer said from what he was told it was very important for Bruce to win the deal as for the Kirk negotiation and in his mind that stalled some of the negotiations the whole time.  Cooley flat out said that from what he gathered (Russell echoed this too) when they initially approached the Kirk negotiation the idea was to get him at a bargain and Kirk (being a nice guy) would be so grateful to get a 3 year or so contract that he'd take their below market offer.  But essentially Bruce lost a starring contest with Kirk's agent.  That brings it back to Lombardi's point about Bruce. 

 

But yeah some like Finlay who cover the team have said Bruce's approach to FA is to set targets with set prices and take the guys that he won the deal for.  

 

I agree it could have a good value and an upside see the Zach Brown deals -- both of them.  But I think it takes you out of the running for the prime real estate because you rarely get a deal when you are working through the A list prospects.

 

It's not always this way with Bruce see the Josh Norman contract, etc.  But its not hard to see that it seems to be his typical approach.

 

[Burgold]

23 minutes ago, Skinsinparadise said:

 

 

I agree it could have a good value and an upside see the Zach Brown deals -- both of them.  But I think it takes you out of the running for the prime real estate because you rarely get a deal when you are working through the A list prospects.

 

It's not always this way with Bruce see the Josh Norman contract, etc.  But its not hard to see that it seems to be his typical approach.

 

His way is good for the team initially, but ultimately it's best if both sides are happy. The other side to think about in deals like this is that while he does win his deals is he winnowing his pool in a way that impacts the team's on field success rate. I suspect it does. It's not that you have to over pay or have to get the free agent super star, but if you are running off all the in demand players before negotiations even get started then your quality ceiling and floor are impacted.

 

That said, you certainly don't want to go back to the Vinny philosophy where the player not only wins every negotiation but robs the team blind. Again, my ideal is a win-win where both player and team feel good about the deal struck or perhaps the opposite where both sides feel okay, but that they gave in a bit too much. Of course, it probably also depends on the player. Different players probably do warrant different approaches. Plus, you do have to think about next year's cap in addition to this one's.

[Califan007 The Constipated]

I'm just guessing, but I'd say Bruce didn't go insultingly low on Josh Norman, DeSean Jackson, Terrell McClain, Terrelle Pryor, Paul Richardson, Vernon Davis, Pierre Garcon, D.J. Swearinger, Stacy McGee, Jason Hatcher, David Bruton Jr, Chris Culliver, Shawn Lauvao, Andre Roberts....

 

He may have gone insultingly low with Cooley, although to be fair Cooley was on his last legs and Shanahan was already prepared to move on from him. And this was with Cooley acting as his own agent, I believe, which I'm sure played a role in things.

 

I have no doubt that he's also started off wayyyyy low on certain free agents, but I also doubt it's a blanket approach to all free agent players. While I understand going low with someone like Cooley, I wouldn't understand it with Hankins. But I also don't understand why Hankins isn't having 5 visits a week or is being offered a decent contract from anyone (I'm assuming).

 

And just to counter-point Lombardi's perspective:

 

"...among NFL players’ agents and fellow executives, Allen is warmly regarded.

 

“Bruce is very bright, very well-informed, and his personality is so charming and ingratiating — I don’t think I’ve ever met anybody who doesn’t like Bruce Allen,” said Leigh Steinberg, a veteran NFL agent. According to Steinberg, Allen’s “all-star sense of humor” in his days handling player contracts as an Oakland Raiders executive leavened a particularly tough negotiation over terms for defensive tackle Darrell Russell.

 

“Each offer he emailed he had a different name in the subject line: The ‘Double-Scoop’ offer, the ‘Take-It-Or-You’ll-Die Offer’ or the ‘Two-Minutes-to-Midnight’ offer,” Steinberg recalled, laughing. “Then it would be followed by a droll or funny introduction that had me laughing. Bruce was able to defuse what normally would be a tense moment. His people skills are off the map.”

 

These days, according to agent Peter Schaffer, Allen’s Redskins contracts include performance incentives he names for the team’s greats. A quarterback’s contract might include “the Billy Kilmer clause;” a running back’s deal, “the Larry Brown incentive.”

 

I also saw where, way back in 1991, Allen apparently said to USA Today "Short-term deals offer the best solution." Can't find the complete article so I don't know the exact context...plus at the time he was an agent--which may also need to be remembered when trying to decipher his negotiating style...he's been on both sides of the table. That could play a role in things, too.

[carex]

2 hours ago, Burgold said:

There are two basic business philosophies I've dealt with as a freelancer/contractor. Bruce seems to slide into category A.

 

Category A: The company begs poverty no matter how rich they are and tries to go on the super cheap. They view negotiations as a winner/loser proposition. If you get a good deal they lost/if they get you on the cheap they win. They don't really care how good a job you do or how qualified and well referred you are... they just want to win the negotiation. Som of these gigs end up okay, but obviously it starts out rough. I actually don't mind short prove-it deals, but if you've proven it then that needs to be factored in.

 

Category B: I call this the Jim Henson approach: Jim wanted both sides to win and prosper. The negotiation starts with a low, but reasonable deal and can be nudged up a bit because they really are offering you a deal that's fair or they let you negotiate with yourself. I don't love the latter because I tend to lowball/undervalue myself. 

 

I'd rather work with a Category B guy, but Category A guys can be okay if they recognize good work, beaten deadlines, etc.

 

problem is in the NFL it doesn't matter how much money the "company" has it matters how much the NFL will let them spend, so this can be perfectly legitimate, and it also ignores the other side of the coin; the players and agents

[Skins199021]

6 hours ago, DC9 said:

 

It goes to the laziness of the journalism in DC.  Pound on the Redskins.  Who do their fair share of deserving it, but it's easy to write puff pieces with a couple of stats and hand it in because we have guys with names like "Battered Fan Syndrome" (No offense, dude, I'm just using you as an example) and the like who will click on the articles and help them put food on their families table.

 

Yet, teams like the Nats - who are mentally weak and usually have the same problems year in and year out, get a pass.  They win the division but we all know what that means. 

 

The Caps.  They win the division, but don't get past the second round because they're mentally weak.

 

The Wizards are an abortion.  They usually sneak into the playoffs because half the teams in the conference make it (just like the NHL) and fail because they don't have a good core.

 

NOTE:  Both of Ted's teams make HORRENDOUS trades.  Yet they get a pass.  Cause no one really cares unless you are a die hard, like many of us are, but the average cat isn't.

 

Go look at the write-ups about the Redskins after they lost to the Packers in the playoffs.  We went from "This team sucks and they don't have the goods," to "Well the coach clearly sucks because he made some bad choices here with these players that anyone could win with."

 

It's why the seasoned Redskin fan usually only reads a few dudes who are pretty center-mass on their reporting. 

 

Report facts, not opinions.  I'll make my own opinions, thanks.

 

Ehh I very much disagree here.

 

The Redskins are just ****, haven't had direction, and havn't had success in about 30 years to deserve any kind of "Pass"

 

Nationals are extremely well run, and Rizzo is a great GM. Baseball playoffs are a crapshoot, but they are very well positioned for now and the future to win for a while.

 

Caps - yeah mentally weak, but much better run than the Skins... no contest

 

Wizards ... Grunfield is dumb I hate him... yet still better run than the Skins. At the very least I know they will be competitive for the next 5 years.

 

Skins are just dumbasses, they are the Browns, if that Browns weren't around. Yeah the other DC teams aren't perfect (no team is), but the Redskins are perfectly bad

[SkinsGuy]

3 minutes ago, Skins199021 said:

Skins are just dumbasses, they are the Browns, if that Browns weren't around. Yeah the other DC teams aren't perfect (no team is), but the Redskins are perfectly bad

 

The Redskins were 7-9 last season.

 

The Browns were 0-16.

 

The Redskins are not the Browns.

[Skins199021]

5 minutes ago, SkinsGuy said:

 

The Redskins were 7-9 last season.

 

The Browns were 0-16.

 

The Redskins are not the Browns.

Yeah hence, we would be the Browns of the NFL if i werent for the real Browns.

 

Since Gibbs retired Browns have been to the playoffs three less times than the Skins, and they didn't even have a team for 4 seasons mixed in that time.

 

I can never comprehend how so many skins fans don't think the organization is run like a dumpster. 

[SkinsGuy]

5 minutes ago, Skins199021 said:

Yeah hence, we would be the Browns of the NFL if i werent for the real Browns.

 

Since Gibbs retired Browns have been to the playoffs three less times than the Skins, and they didn't even have a team for 4 seasons mixed in that time.

 

I can never comprehend how so many skins fans don't think the organization is run like a dumpster. 

 

Somebody "runs" dumpsters? 

 

The Redskins have their problems, which is why they have been treading water at around .500 for a while.

 

But that doesn't make them the worst team in the NFL. Or even the second worst, for that matter.  

[bobandweave]

43 minutes ago, Skins199021 said:

Yeah hence, we would be the Browns of the NFL if i werent for the real Browns.

 

Since Gibbs retired Browns have been to the playoffs three less times than the Skins, and they didn't even have a team for 4 seasons mixed in that time.

 

I can never comprehend how so many skins fans don't think the organization is run like a dumpster. 

 

Cooley on the fourth hour today (listened to the podcast) went into detail about how the team’s facilities were so busted. Saying when he was there they had only one basketball court and two racquet courts that’s it. Going so far as to say it’s so bad the appearance would be an eye sore to the player visiting. Dilapidated by football standards today.

Apparently they don’t even have a basketball court anymore. I’ve never seen it but I guess your right.

 

How is a guy supposed to be expected to play in November games where it’s 35 degrees outside and they can’t even get a basketball court? These are professional athletes. Bruce should know that appearances like that matter if he’s such a people person. It’s 2018 

[LadySkinsFan]

Shabby facilities, shabby treatment of talent

[DC9]

1 hour ago, Skins199021 said:

 

Ehh I very much disagree here.

 

The Redskins are just ****, haven't had direction, and havn't had success in about 30 years to deserve any kind of "Pass"

 

Nationals are extremely well run, and Rizzo is a great GM. Baseball playoffs are a crapshoot, but they are very well positioned for now and the future to win for a while.

 

Caps - yeah mentally weak, but much better run than the Skins... no contest

 

Wizards ... Grunfield is dumb I hate him... yet still better run than the Skins. At the very least I know they will be competitive for the next 5 years.

 

Skins are just dumbasses, they are the Browns, if that Browns weren't around. Yeah the other DC teams aren't perfect (no team is), but the Redskins are perfectly bad

 

 

So help me here... 

 

If the Redskins lucked into the best touchdown scorer of his generation and failed to build a team around him until he was 30.... Oh, and the owner literally got into a fight with a fan at a game.... how would the press treat them?

 

If the Redskins sucked royally for years so that they could luck into not one, but TWO GENERATIONAL talents - one with a golden arm, when that could score when he wanted and graduated college when he was 18 so that he could play in the majors - and didn't build a good enough team around them  to even make it out of the first round FOUR times - and are now on the verge of losing said 18 year old to a rival and have had all kinds of clubhouse problems that aren't well publicized because credentials get pulled from the press members who report them.... how would the press treat them?

 

The Wizards are full on stupid, and I don't really pay attention to basketball, but they're a Ted team and I'm sure you could have an example...

 

Point is, these dudes are still bringing up **** from like 10-20 years ago in their pieces.  Yeah?  Ted assaulted a fan AT Verizon Center in like 2004.  That was barely covered.  Ted didn't fire McPhee (Who was GM for almost 20 years and won nothing) until he traded Forsberg for "being slow" for a dude who played 8 games for the Caps.  Ted doesn't hire coaches who know more than him or his GMs (Same with the Nats and Rizzo) until the most recent hires.  All kinds of passes and the same problems year in and year out with those teams.

 

Your post is perfectly bad.  Miss me with the next one.

[Mr.Will]

1 hour ago, Skins199021 said:

 

Ehh I very much disagree here.

 

The Redskins are just ****, haven't had direction, and havn't had success in about 30 years to deserve any kind of "Pass"

 

Nationals are extremely well run, and Rizzo is a great GM. Baseball playoffs are a crapshoot, but they are very well positioned for now and the future to win for a while.

 

Caps - yeah mentally weak, but much better run than the Skins... no contest

 

Wizards ... Grunfield is dumb I hate him... yet still better run than the Skins. At the very least I know they will be competitive for the next 5 years.

 

Skins are just dumbasses, they are the Browns, if that Browns weren't around. Yeah the other DC teams aren't perfect (no team is), but the Redskins are perfectly bad

No WE ain’t perfect,nor been that way for quite a while..To me that’s not the point over your post,and since nobody else is gonna say it-I WILL..this page is for Skins Fans,and although how frustrating this team is..We on here are clearly still very much fans-And since you are Obviously Not,and want to mention the Browns in every other sentence-Why don’t you carry your ass on over to their page and root for them..don’t nobody want to continuously hear how bad we are,and how this teams better or that teams better..No ****,we sit here all day and discuss and hope that the team we pull for gets better,does better,plays better-just so we ain’t gotta hear from **** heads like yourself about the stuff we already know!!!..The Browns have a ton of picks and signed a ton of players so I’m sure there’s plenty of room on their bandwagon so why don’t ya go on and squeeze ur ass a seat over there..Hope ya do,cause it’ll be a whole lot quieter on this page so the rest of us can sit on here and do what we like to do and that’s Root For Ol’ DC..HTTR!!!!!!

[SkinsFTW]

2 hours ago, SkinsGuy said:

 

 

The Redskins have their problems, which is why they have been treading water at around .500 for a while.

 

But that doesn't make them the worst team in the NFL. Or even the second worst, for that matter.  

 

The problem isn't the "treading around .500". The problem is that treading around .500 for the Redskins is always the good times. When they have 1 Qb start every game for 3 years for the first time in 30 years. Or when they have a HOF coach for 4 years. Those average .500 type seasons are the Redskins SB.

 

The rest of the time are the  3-13 or 5-11 years where the Redskins are comparable to the Browns and Jags and Lions and Rams. (All of which either already have or will soon pass up the Redskins)

[SkinsGuy]

1 minute ago, SkinsFTW said:

 

The problem isn't the "treading around .500". The problem is that treading around .500 for the Redskins is always the good times. When they have 1 Qb start every game for 3 years for the first time in 30 years. Or when they have a HOF coach for 4 years. Those average .500 type seasons are the Redskins SB.

 

The rest of the time are the  3-13 or 5-11 years where the Redskins are comparable to the Browns and Jags and Lions and Rams. (All of which either already have or will soon pass up the Redskins)

 

So says the Viking fan.   

 

Massive injuries was also a big reason for the .500 record last year as well. When the ENTIRE starting o-line (except for the RT who was playing on two bad ankles) is out for a good number of games, you aren't going very far.

 

We'll just have to see how the season goes this year for us Redskins fans.   

[Califan007 The Constipated]

2 hours ago, Skins199021 said:

Yeah hence, we would be the Browns of the NFL if i werent for the real Browns.

2

 

True...the next step down from 24-23-1 is 1-31....

[HardcoreZorn]

18 minutes ago, SkinsFTW said:

 

The problem isn't the "treading around .500". The problem is that treading around .500 for the Redskins is always the good times. When they have 1 Qb start every game for 3 years for the first time in 30 years. Or when they have a HOF coach for 4 years. Those average .500 type seasons are the Redskins SB.

 

The rest of the time are the  3-13 or 5-11 years where the Redskins are comparable to the Browns and Jags and Lions and Rams. (All of which either already have or will soon pass up the Redskins)

It’s funny because half the teams you just listed are teams that are now considered Super Bowl contenders. And a year ago there were probably just as big of curmudgeons as you running around saying how crappy their franchises were. Now, not saying that’s guaranteed to be the case for us in the near future. But you quite literally just illustrated how franchises with a decade plus of mediocre to terrible seasons can emerge and become legitimate threats to contend. And should the redskins do that, it will be quite annoying to see you parade around taking part in any of the success that comes with it.