Owls0325

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

Recommended Posts

5 hours ago, Skinsinparadise said:

Trent is bluffing and he will relent once he starts losing serious money.

Bluffing in terms of what. If he wanted to be here he'd be here. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, The Hangman- C_Hanburger said:

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)

 

 

there's to many positions in football that don't have truly measurable metrics

 

20 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.

 

because not every football player is a multi millionaire and some of them get crippled playing the game

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, PartyPosse said:

Bluffing in terms of what. If he wanted to be here he'd be here. 

 

Bluffing as to the rhetoric coming from his "camp" (if those people are accurate) that if the Redskins don't trade him then he'd sit out the season.  Hoffman's point is the FO might be willing to test that theory.   In other words, Trent might budge when he starts losing big pay checks.  So the idea of him not wanting to be here goes out the window when it starts costing him serious money. 

Edited by Skinsinparadise
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, Skinsinparadise said:

 

Bluffing as to the rhetoric coming from his "camp" (if those people are accurate) that if the Redskins don't trade him then he'd sit out the season.  Hoffman's point is the FO might be willing to test that theory.   In other words, Trent might budge when he starts losing big pay checks.  So the idea of him not wanting to be here goes out the window when it starts costing him serious money. 

Le’Veon Bell sat out all last season and lost out on about 14 million.  I wouldn’t be surprised to see Williams sit the entire season if the Skins don’t move him.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, -JB- said:

Le’Veon Bell sat out all last season and lost out on about 14 million.  I wouldn’t be surprised to see Williams sit the entire season if the Skins don’t move him.

 

Could be.  Trent hasn't said squat yet, ditto his agent.  So all we got is what supposedly his camp leaked to ex-teammates like D. Hall and some within the media.  If those guys are correct, Trent will sit it out and won't play for the Redskins.

 

Then you got the Redskins FO telling the beat guys that Trent is all about money here.

 

My take is I don't see how we can have a firm opinion about Trent and his motives because you have two competing narratives as to his side and what people at Redskins Park are saying.  So if people believe in one spin or another its more about what they are predisposed to believe about the FO and or the medical staff pro or con as opposed to what's really going down since we don't know what's really going down aside from Trent not being here.  

Edited by Skinsinparadise
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, NewCliche21 said:

 

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."

 

Low balled who?

 

As for reputation and being able to sign players because of reputation. I don't know what world you live in, but the only thing these players care about is money. That's why we have Collins. We paid him more than any other team offered. Players sign here all the time and turn around and talk about how our organization is a joke. It happened last year with Swearinger and Collins didn't think anything of it, because he got paid. We all know Bruce is a horrible GM. With that being said Trent is under contract. If he doesn't like the team so be it. Point is you don't trade him for a bag of chips, because the player is upset. You wait until teams get desperate and than you trade him. 

 

Another thing we can all blame Bruce, but let's be clear the real problem is Snyder. 

Edited by desertbeagle85
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, desertbeagle85 said:

 

Low balled who?

 

As for reputation and being able to sign players because of reputation. I don't know what world you live in, but the only thing these players care about is money. That's why we have Collins. We paid him more than any other team offered. Players sign here all the time and turn around and talk about how our organization is a joke. It happened last year with Swearinger and Collins didn't think anything of it, because he got paid. We all know Bruce is a horrible GM. With that being said Trent is under contract. If he doesn't like the team so be it. Point is you don't trade him for a bag of chips, because the player is upset. You wait until teams get desperate and than you trade him. 

 

Another thing we can all blame Bruce, but let's be clear the real problem is Snyder. 

 

Dude.  I feel like this is going to be my last post on the topic as either I'm not articulating it well enough or you just don't want to hear it.  It feels like (earmuffs @TK) telling someone that wrestling isn't real.  Unless your name is Mark, then it's appropriate.

Swearinger called our team/defense and its attitude as too loose (rightly so), and he was cut for criticizing the boss.  He was right, he just shouldn't have said that.  However, that's while being one of the top safeties in the league.  Swearinger didn't sign here for money; he was on his fourth or fifth team at that point.  Collins always wanted to play for us even before he was drafted and we had a huge need at safety that he could fill.  You're managing to find the few examples that don't fit what you're saying.

Anyway, if you don't see what I'm talking about, then enjoy the show.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, NewCliche21 said:

 

Dude.  I feel like this is going to be my last post on the topic as either I'm not articulating it well enough or you just don't want to hear it.  It feels like (earmuffs @TK) telling someone that wrestling isn't real.  Unless your name is Mark, then it's appropriate.

Swearinger called our team/defense and its attitude as too loose (rightly so), and he was cut for criticizing the boss.  He was right, he just shouldn't have said that.  However, that's while being one of the top safeties in the league.  Swearinger didn't sign here for money; he was on his fourth or fifth team at that point.  Collins always wanted to play for us even before he was drafted and we had a huge need at safety that he could fill.  You're managing to find the few examples that don't fit what you're saying.

Anyway, if you don't see what I'm talking about, then enjoy the show.

 

LOL yeah Collins signed here, because he always wanted to play here. Might have something to do with the the Redskins offering him the most money. 🤔

Edited by desertbeagle85
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, dyst said:

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

 

Same here. I've never cared for holding on to players who don't want to be here. You don't want to be here, then good riddance. Unless we can see that the FO is screwing with you, which I don't see happening here. Let's get a trade done and quit holding out for something better that may not happen or could end up worse. Just my opinion (which is worth squat), but I have a feeling he wants to be traded. I think he is fed up and tired of Grudens offense. Hasn't been much to be excited about these past years.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, desertbeagle85 said:

 

LOL yeah Collins signed here, because he always wanted to play here. Might have something to do with the the Redskins offering him the most money. 🤔

He’s literally talked about how playing for the redskins would be a dream come true even before he was drafted.

  • Like 3
  • Thanks 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours 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.

 

I agree with you.  There is a big picture power dynamic at stake here.  You invite future bad faith negotiation like what Trent is doing when you let a player hold you hostage.

 

But if we get an offer of a first round pick... I say take it.  That's adequate compensation for giving Trent what he wants.

 

There is a grievance with the organization here though.  I doubt Trent became a malcontent out of nowhere.  It needs to be addressed to prevent this from happening in the future.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, desertbeagle85 said:

 

LOL yeah Collins signed here, because he always wanted to play here. Might have something to do with the the Redskins offering him the most money. 🤔

 

Hate to pile on, but he talked about the Redskins even before we signed him. ST was his idle.

 

Thank god for that hero. He has single-handedly made this franchise attractive to FAs. I believe Swearinger was another guy who wanted to play here because of ST. 

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
40 minutes ago, stevemcqueen1 said:

 

There is a grievance with the organization here though.  I doubt Trent became a malcontent out of nowhere.  

 

There may be.  But absolutely no evidence of a legitimate grievance has been produced.  And until there is, I find no reason to consider it seriously.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, CTskin said:

 

Thank god for that hero. He has single-handedly made this franchise attractive to FAs. I believe Swearinger was another guy who wanted to play here because of ST. 

No doubt, the only thing attractive about the franchise anymore.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, TryTheBeal! said:

 

There may be.  But absolutely no evidence of a legitimate grievance has been produced.  And until there is, I find no reason to consider it seriously.

 

I don't think Trent has actually aired it publicly.  And it's not the sort of thing the team would discuss publicly.

 

But I think it's there because I don't think Trent would be willing to walk away from big money if he didn't have one.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, TryTheBeal! said:

 

There may be.  But absolutely no evidence of a legitimate grievance has been produced.  And until there is, I find no reason to consider it seriously.

 

So then you cannot take it seriously that it's all about money as nothing legitimate has been produced to define money as the reason he is not in camp. He nor the team has said anything about a new contract. There is nothing factual out there except he is not in camp. The rest is speculation from leaks and personal narratives. Something is true. But at this point we have no idea what it is. 

 

So any conclusions drawn now are premature. 

 

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I could probably search this out and find the answer, but if anyone knows off hand, what's the salary cap ramifications of Trent holding out? Does any of that money become available now or not until this is resolved? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, goskins10 said:

 

So then you cannot take it seriously that it's all about money as nothing legitimate has been produced to define money as the reason he is not in camp. He nor the team has said anything about a new contract. There is nothing factual out there except he is not in camp. The rest is speculation from leaks and personal narratives. Something is true. But at this point we have no idea what it is. 

 

So any conclusions drawn now are premature. 

 

 

 

Fair enough...but 99.9% of holdouts are very much about money.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, TryTheBeal! said:

 

Fair enough...but 99.9% of holdouts are very much about money.

 

Money is a major component and in fairness I agree most holdouts are 100% about money. But i think more of them are not about just money than we think. The problem is 99.9% of holdouts are fixed by money - either with that team or another (a few retire but that's rare). So that leads fans to believe it was all about money when I think more times than we end up knowing about there are other issues that led to the holdout - or at least added to the discontent. 

 

I happen to believe Trent is pissed about how his injuries have been handled and that is part of his issue. Back to your point of is it legitimate? I obviously do not know that. My guess is that like most of these things there is a bit of responsibility on both sides. For example maybe the team could have communicated better but Trent needs to either listen more to his advisers or get better ones if they did not let him know his full rights - like being able to get a second opinion at the teams cost. 

 

All that is just guessing on my part. It's both fascinating and frustrating to watch this unfold. Fascinating because the team keeps finding ways to have drama - regardless of if it's their fault or not. In fairness this could all just be on Trent. I doubt it but either way it will be interesting to see what was really going on once the dust settles. Frustrating as a fan as I wish they would both just stop this pissing contest and find a resolution. 

 

I really thought the one positive of Kirk being gone is the high profile player drama would go with it. Yet here we are with another drama. 

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, PartyPosse said:

He’s literally talked about how playing for the redskins would be a dream come true even before he was drafted.

 

So why did we have to offer him more money than any other team?

  • Confused 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, CTskin said:

 

Hate to pile on, but he talked about the Redskins even before we signed him. ST was his idle.

 

Thank god for that hero. He has single-handedly made this franchise attractive to FAs. I believe Swearinger was another guy who wanted to play here because of ST. 

 

Okay that's all and good, but why would the Skins have to offer him more money than any other team in the NFL. I think some of your guys are blinded by being Skins fans. Lets be clear if the Vikings offered him 45 million guaranteed. Guess what he would've signed with the Vikings. 

3 minutes ago, TD_washingtonredskins said:

Just because we did, doesn't mean we had to. This is the Redskins' front office we are talking about. 

 

LOL the Skins have never had a problem getting any free agent they wanted. Why, because they pay the most when they want that free agent.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, desertbeagle85 said:

 

Okay that's all and good, but why would the Skins have to offer him more money than any other team in the NFL. I think some of your guys are blinded by being Skins fans. Lets be clear if the Vikings offered him 45 million guaranteed. Guess what he would've signed with the Vikings. 

 

Collins provided Skins ultimate leverage in competing with other team’s offers by granting the Skins the opportunity to steer negotiations. This also provided Skins the opportunity to create a deal structure that fits in their longer term window and meets the players demands. 

 

This represents the most leverage a team can possibly have with a player in free agency. 

 

 

8 minutes ago, desertbeagle85 said:

 

LOL the Skins have never had a problem getting any free agent they wanted. Why, because they pay the most when they want that free agent.

 

This is true for every team in the NFL.

 

Rare exceptions exist for veterans at the later stages of career wanting to go into a winning situation— when their motivation is tied to legacy. 

 

Young players are attempting to maximize earnings on their second contract and now attempting to create a third big money contracts at the tail end of their primes. 

 

Other factors exist, but often have little to do with the franchise itself:

 

location

Taxes

Family

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, desertbeagle85 said:

 

Okay that's all and good, but why would the Skins have to offer him more money than any other team in the NFL. I think some of your guys are blinded by being Skins fans. Lets be clear if the Vikings offered him 45 million guaranteed. Guess what he would've signed with the Vikings. 

 

LOL the Skins have never had a problem getting any free agent they wanted. Why, because they pay the most when they want that free agent.

Perhaps but i doubt Minny was offering that. that's a dramatic difference from 30 million guaranteed and I wouldn't have blamed him for taking it. But I do think there were similar offers out there, maybe slightly more (Earl Thomas got 31 mil guaranteed), but Landon chose Washington. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.