!!!!0mgz!!!! Trent Williams finally showed up

[Est.1974]

1 hour ago, Warhead36 said:

We don't need Clowney. We're building our DL the right way and we're not in the position the Bears were last year where they needed that one stud on D to put them over the top.

 

I'd rather just get a 1st for him. Or maybe work out some kind of 3 team deal, where we trade Williams to Houston, they trade Clowney to....someone, and that team sends us a 1st.

 

Maybe the Bucs involved if the want to ship Evans out.

[CommanderDOOM]

2 hours ago, Warhead36 said:

We don't need Clowney. We're building our DL the right way and we're not in the position the Bears were last year where they needed that one stud on D to put them over the top.

 

I'd rather just get a 1st for him. Or maybe work out some kind of 3 team deal, where we trade Williams to Houston, they trade Clowney to....someone, and that team sends us a 1st.

 

Not saying Clowney is Mack but Mack was the reason the Bears D took off. He made everyone better. Most teams could be 1 piece away if that piece is truly special. Most times its a qb. Look what Zeke did for Dallas....could be a coach like......................****

[sempre_victrix]

1 hour ago, wit33 said:

 

Giving Trent “3 years fully guaranteed” should mend the fences. 

 

Screw that.

 

Play out your contract that you loved 3 years ago.  Show up in time for the beginning of this season and 2019 is guaranteed.

[desertbeagle85]

2 hours ago, Burgold said:

Kirk Cousins' legacy should not shadow every front office decision. On the other hand, not learning from what happened with Kirk and winding up with nothing would be telling both of the Front Office's hubris and incompetence. If the fences can't be mended then get your ham sandwich (hopefully, it's at least a first rounder)

 

Lol Kirk wasn't under contract for 2 and years. He also didn't sit out. He showed up and played. Different situation all together. 

[NewCliche21]

12 minutes ago, desertbeagle85 said:

 

Lol Kirk wasn't under contract for 2 and years. He also didn't sit out. He showed up and played. Different situation all together. 

 

I don't think @Burgoldis referring to Kirk as a holdout.  I think he's talking about our FO's incompetence.  Repeating the lowball offer.  Not being trustworthy as a negotiating partner.  Overestimating leverage.  Being ****y and having it cost the team HUGE over the short- and long-term.

These situations, like others, are exactly the same in those respects.

[desertbeagle85]

20 minutes ago, NewCliche21 said:

 

I don't think @Burgoldis referring to Kirk as a holdout.  I think he's talking about our FO's incompetence.  Repeating the lowball offer.  Not being trustworthy as a negotiating partner.  Overestimating leverage.  Being ****y and having it cost the team HUGE over the short- and long-term.

These situations, like others, are exactly the same in those respects.

 

Disagree what is this situation costing the Skins? They can't force the guy to play. Other than him not being out LT what is this costing the Skins. Nothing

 

Sit on him until you get the best offer possible. The best offer will probably come around trade deadline. So you trade him at that time. 

 

[Skinsinparadise]

Craig Hoffman was on today I missed some of it.  But combining what he said today and a previous segment, he remains maybe the one optimist among the beat guys that Trent ends up staying.  He doesn't think the team wants to trade him.  He more or less is saying if they get blown over by an offer they might pull the trigger otherwise don't be surprised if they roll the dice and don't trade Trent and test Trent's resolve to lose money every week.  In other words, the Redskins FO might think Trent is bluffing and he will relent once he starts losing serious money.

 

[ntotoro]

There has to be something going on inside the park that we don't know about. I mean... duh... but for the FO to be this set on waiting it out, there must be something going on one way or another. Something isn't adding up. This isn't the same circumstance at all as Cousins. The FO and TW are the only ones who really know all the details and the lack of action must mean more than meets the obvious eye.

[Skinsinparadise]

Though we don't know if the FO is set to wait it out.  That is some reporter's take.  Others think they trade him.  Will see. The only thing we know for sure is Trent hasn't wanted to return at least not yet. 

[Est.1974]

Seems to me like we can't secure the trade value we're after just yet, however based on snippets of information/rumor over the last few days, there potentially are a few significant player moves in discussion around the league, and Trent may well just be a card in that deck.

 

For all of the evident FO incompetence, I actually have blind faith here that we fall on the right side of this situation in some capacity.

[Skinsinparadise]

To me it seems like you got three factions as for news about this.

 

A.  Redskins don't want to trade Trent but will have no choice (more have said this as far as I can tell than other things)

B.  Redskins don't want to trade Trent and are willing to have this play out

C.  Redskins are willing to trade Trent but waiting for the right deal

 

For me I have a tough time guessing this.  If I had to pick one here, it would be A.

 

IMO there are 2 things that could run against a deal 

 

A.  Jay and perhaps Bruce would have zero motivation to trade Trent considering it looks like its all or nothing as to the 2019 season so why should they give a rats behind about 2020 draft picks?

 

B.  I got doubts about Bruce's ability to negotiate and I'll couple that with multiple national guys (including Schefter who is no flame thrower) saying he's known for his stubbornness as a negotiator and that might come into play here.  In other words, I wouldn't be shocked if Bruce tries his hand at a stare off with Trent.  

[BleedBNG]

I'll just say that IF we ever get an offer between now and whenever for Trent, and the offer is a 1st (even a low ball), then take it. Getting 2 OLine players in the 1st will help Haskins immensely. Just-do-it.

[SonnySideUp]

Florio and Chris Simms' latest take on the situation. Seems like they now think neither side will budge and TW sits out the year unless some other team has an injury, gets desperate and offers a great trade. Last week, the "trade winds were blowing". Now, no one is willing to move off their position. The truth is that nobody (including TW and the Skins FO) seems to know what is going to happen at this point and one guess is as good as another. It's sounding more and more like the Antonio Brown situation all the time.

 

 

[RandyHolt]

Trying to teach Trent a lesson / call his bluff has to be the worst approach.  The Botch way or the highway.  We have seen NO inkling that Trent is starting to cave.  Every single sign points to it NOT about money.  Seeing Luck retire probably has him even more entrenched to chill and save his body.  Luck retiring was a BIG OLE "Money aka 400M aint everything' stance.  Players see this.

 

Bruce finally has a proper asset to dangle and parlay into assets/picks to support the drafting of Haskins and the youth movement at WR and DL. A retool is happening. Nah, I will teach him a lesson. Good one, Botch.  Having 2 firsts may be a foreign concept to him.

[NoCalMike]

I have a hard time believing teams aren't inquiring about a player of TW's caliber.   Tells me the FO simply doesn't want to trade him unless an offer totally blows them away that they can't pass up.  Otherwise, TW's will be sitting out and losing game checks unless he changes his mind. 

[TradeTheBeal!]

Giving in to Trent and trading him out of weakness or panic sets an untenable precedent going forward. The team can and should hold firm until a substantial offer comes in...or Trent grows up.

 

Trent has no leverage here, none, nada.

[RandyHolt]

19 minutes ago, TryTheBeal! said:

Giving in to Trent and trading him out of weakness or panic sets an untenable precedent going forward. The team can and should hold firm until a substantial offer comes in...or Trent grows up.

 

Trent has no leverage here, none, nada.

 

The season hasn't started yet.  Lets not rush to judgement without seeing how our OL and QB play hold up, before deciding if he has no leverage at all.  This is merely the beginning.

 

You seem to be implying that money IS everything to him.  If he doesn't need money guess what Bruce has even less leverage than Trent.

 

I am not convinced he cares about the money otherwise he would probably just be here half assing and getting paid. The American Way.  Or would just state straight up its about the money, like everyone else holding out for money does.

[amm0409]

Find it hard to believe no one knows whats going on.  

 

Fans get told something different everyday.  IF he doesnt want to be here trade him.  If he does then work out a deal to get him back.  

 

Add to that, saw something that says Clowney wants to go to Eagles.  

 

At some point we have to make moves.

[NewCliche21]

3 hours ago, desertbeagle85 said:

 

Disagree what is this situation costing the Skins? They can't force the guy to play. Other than him not being out LT what is this costing the Skins. Nothing

 

Sit on him until you get the best offer possible. The best offer will probably come around trade deadline. So you trade him at that time. 

 

 

If they lowballed him, then yet again the FO looks incompetent.  Not just with Williams, but any other potential free agent.  I mean, if you're gonna treat your longest-tenured player who's a leader and top-five at his position in his worse year like that, then how would you treat any other player?  And you're stupid enough to pay someone for two years $44 million guaranteed and then he walks?  Whether Kirk should've stayed or not is irrelevant, Bruce handled that with the last benefit and most detriment to us.  Agents don't just have one client, agents talk, and if you're offered equal money between us and a competent FO, you're taking the latter nine times out of eight.

I'm confused as to how it is perceived that there's no obvious cost to the team.  Reputation is indescribably important, and if Bruce is one of 32 and has a perpetual and ongoing history of being untrustworthy and the owner clearly allows it for now eleven years, then do you want to come to this organization?

Sometimes I think that my dislike of Bruce makes me reach when it comes to negative things to find about him.  Then I realize "No, he just really is that awful at his job."

[dyst]

I would take a 1st any 1st in a damn heartbeat. 

 

I can understand wanting to wait it out to get a better offer but I sure as hell don’t understand trying to teach him a lesson.

 

Even if Trent wanted to stay and this situation didn’t happen, but some team came to us wanting to trade their 1st for him. Hell yes, I’d still do it. 

[Stadium-Armory]

Generally it seems like front offices across the league are taking the same approach (i.e. Le'veon Bell, Zeek, Melvin Gordon and now Trent Williams). The "don't negotiate with terrorists" strategy.

[PF Chang]

For once we potentially have a good core of young talent. The OL and WRs need work but the 1st round QB and 2nd round RB are 22 years old, and most of our best players are 25 and under (Haskins, Guice, Allen, Payne, Collins, Sweat, Ioannidis, hopefully McLaurin?) 

 

Trent is 31, has been playing with injuries, and a suspension risk. My favorite player on the team, but now would be a good time to trade him even if this situation had never developed.

 

Nobody wants to hear it with the opener 2 weeks away but we are not going to be good this year. Even if Haskins is good it's unlikely we are competing for a Super Bowl until year 3 and Williams is a free agent that season. What are we doing at that point, signing a 33 year old OL to another big contract? It's unlikely he'd be on the roster in 2 years regardless.

 

Take what you can get. I don't know what the actual market is for TW. Unless he's way more valuable in a trade than I think, I would be very happy with a 1st. If we actually turned that down I am guessing we are in yet another situation where Dan and Bruce are the fish at the table but think they're the shark. 

 

[RandyHolt]

1 hour ago, Stadium-Armory said:

Generally it seems like front offices across the league are taking the same approach (i.e. Le'veon Bell, Zeek, Melvin Gordon and now Trent Williams). The "don't negotiate with terrorists" strategy.

 

It seems a bit ironic that players renegotiate their contracts at the request of the front offices to get that fat cat free agent of the day signed.  No more monies, just paying out more cash sooner or whatever.   Trent did that for us in 2015.  Maybe we gave him a little extra for the hassle. But say Trent wanted no additional monies, just guaranteed money as reciprocation; that doesn't seem totally unreasonable. If you want me to see YOUR doctors just guarantee my contract.

 

Trent is not about money of course but I used him as an example vs the backs trying to get paid heavy now that their short shelf lives are public knowledge.  Players may feel the team owes them a favor at times. The salary structure for rookies could pay more for RBs; perhaps the next CBA reflects that. That may end future strikes sooner than players being afraid of teams playing hardball years before.

 

[dyst]

Why don’t sports just do year to year contracts? Guys would play harder instead of settling and teams wouldn’t have to worry about massively bad contracts.

[The Hangman- C_Hanburger]

7 minutes ago, dyst said:

Why don’t sports just do year to year contracts? Guys would play harder instead of settling and teams wouldn’t have to worry about massively bad contracts.

Why don't them make contracts on BOTH sides BINDING..no "CAP playing" year to year. You live and die by the agreement based on performance metrics. If the player meets the metrics he can't be cut. If the Team PAYS the player can't renegotiate. If BOTH want to renegotiate, Fine. If one doesn't the current contract is executed and penalties ABOVE Game checks are applied if contract is broken (Draft picks or Huge FINES for players)