Jump to content
Washington Football Team Logo
Extremeskins
Forum Rules and Guidelines

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

Owls0325

By Owls0325
in The Stadium

Recommended Posts

goskins10

goskins10

Posted
Posted
47 minutes ago, Burgold said:

I don't know. I think that Trent's ego will need a way to save face. At the same time, Bruce wants his win.

 

Sounds like a brick vs. a hard place.

 

That's exactly why I think it will be within 2 gms or not at all. I get @Voice_of_Reason point. If Trent really wants to put it to the FO and get out, he makes sure he is here long enough to get a yr in but not really help. I just do not think he would do that. Time will tell. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Califan007 The Constipated

Califan007 The Constipated

Posted
Posted
7 minutes ago, Malapropismic Depository said:

My bold prediction is that sometime in the next week, somebody will claim they talked to somebody who talked to somebody who talked to somebody who talked to Trent, who said that he may, or he may not, come back this season.

 

One guy on here said his source(s) told him Trent would be back week 2 and that AP would be inactive for week 1.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
dballer

dballer

Posted
Posted
15 hours ago, goskins10 said:

 

Not sure I understand the point here since you follow it with the players are meh. I will put my own meaning here. Sorryh butt I could care less if the organization feels disrespected. They could care less about him or any player. They would be very willing to dump his **** if they did not need him.

 

Contracts are renegotiated all the time. I am not sure why people get hung up on this - he signed a contract. I am a corporate manger in Supply Chain (on the quality side) for a lsrge company and we force renegotiate contracts all the time. Just like suppliers try to raise prices on us all the time when they think they have leverage.

 

Contracts are not some sacred bond that some think them to be. Its on a piece of paper and can be reworked any time. He is taking a shot. It' part of the business, period.

 

 

No, I am with you for all of that. For me, it isn't the fact that he wants a new contract, if that is what it is. It is the way he is going about it. If he is letting stuff leak about the medical department in an effort to renegotiate, that is not negotiating on fair terms. And the fact that he is seemingly throwing other people under the bus in an effort to get more money, that is disrespectful to a group of people within the organization. 

 

But again, if there are some legitimate concerns he has about the medical department, and that is indeed what started this whole thing, that would change everything. It is just such a weird situation, and the longer it goes the more it seems it is just about money. But we may never know. 

16 hours ago, TheShredSkinz said:

 

Never know, I haven't seen or heard any statements from them.

 

Early on..

 

http://www.nfl.com/news/story/0ap3000001037606/article/morgan-moses-wears-no-71-to-support-trent-williams

Link to comment
Share on other sites
JSSkinz

JSSkinz

Posted
Posted
17 hours ago, goskins10 said:

Sorry but I could care less if the organization feels disrespected. They could care less about him or any player.

So Trent catches a 4 game suspension for using marijuana and is one more failed test from a 1-year ban and then we sign him to the largest LT contract in the NFL.

 

I think the team was pretty forgiving.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
goskins10

goskins10

Posted
Posted
18 minutes ago, JSSkinz said:

So Trent catches a 4 game suspension for using marijuana and is one more failed test from a 1-year ban and then we sign him to the largest LT contract in the NFL.

 

I think the team was pretty forgiving.

 

Only because he is one of the top players at his position. They are OK with domestic abusers, DUI murderers, and other hideous things if the player has talent. BTW: This is for the entire NFL not just the Redskins. 

 

So yes, they were 'forgiving". But it was not out of the kindness of their heart which is what I said. If it's to their benefit they will be as nice as they can. If it's not, then it will be "don't let the door hit you on the way out." At any time the team sees his value as not worth it they will dump him. Same with any other player. 

 

And hey, no problem with this. It's a business from both sides. Can't support Trent doing what he needs to do and then hold the team accountable to be the "nice" guys. Both are doing what they think they need to do. Have no problem with either. Now I do have a problem with Bruce's apparent incompetence. If they could have gotten even half of what Miami got and he turned it down, he is a ****ing moron. But that is a different conversation. 

 

But definitely not upset with Trent. The only issue is if it was always just about money and he threw some medical/training staff under a bus to get more money, then that is a different story. I believe that this is at least in some part due to his issues with the staff. 

 

We will see. 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Voice_of_Reason

Voice_of_Reason

Posted
Posted
2 minutes ago, goskins10 said:

 

Only because he is one of the top players at his position. They are OK with domestic abusers, DUI murderers, and other hideous things if the player has talent. BTW: This is for the entire NFL not just the Redskins. 

You're right, and it's disgraceful.  Though, the team did go a bit above and beyond to show their support for Trent.  

 

So, can I say that it REALLY bothers me that AP is on this team?  I mean, it really bothers me.  I appreciate the production, and that he's one of the best RBs, and all that.  And I appreciate he probably was the difference between 7 wins and 3 wins last year.  But the dude beat (and by accounts, still does) his children, and I'm not ok with that.  At all.  And IF this is the reason Bruce and Dan were furious at Doug Williams for bringing in AP without telling them, I'm totally down with that.  Not saying it was the reason (it probably was because they didn't like Doug went around their backs), but if it was, I'd understand.  

 

 

 

2 minutes ago, goskins10 said:

So yes, they were 'forgiving". But it was not out of the kindness of their heart which is what I said. If it's to their benefit they will be as nice as they can. If it's not, then it will be "don't let the door hit you on the way out." At any time the team sees his value as not worth it they will dump him. Same with any other player. 

The one thing I would say is that it was a risk for them to sign him to the contract given he was one bust away from a full year suspension.  That's a little different than some other situations.  And it might not have been the smartest thing to do, to be honest.  

 

2 minutes ago, goskins10 said:

And hey, no problem with this. It's a business from both sides. Can't support Trent doing what he needs to do and then hold the team accountable to be the "nice" guys. Both are doing what they think they need to do. Have not problem with either. Now I do have a problem with Bruce's apparent incompetence. If they could have gotten even half of what Miami got and he turned it down, he is a ****ing moron. 

I do have a problem with everything Trent has done.  See, it's contracts law.  (Not that I'm a lawyer, but I do a lot of contracts.).  Trent signed a binding contract which pays him a certain amount.  He knew exactly what he was getting, and he also knew that the average salary for everybody was going to go up during the term of the contract. He also knew how much of the money was guaranteed, and how much he would lose if he was cut.  The team, on the other hand, knew how much they were required to pay Trent and when they could get out of the contract.  

 

I know a lot of people like to say, "well, why should a player honor the contract when the team can cut you at any time."  2 responses to this:  1. If you don't like the terms of the contract which allow the team to do that, then don't sign it. Negotiate different terms.  Also remember, for most players, there is a guaranteed amount which BOTH the team and the player are agreeing to. Even if the team cuts the player, they're on the hook for the guaranteed component of the contract.  If you don't like the last year being mostly non-guaranteed, then suggest other alternatives.  If the player isn't comfortable with that, then they should try to find a different suitor.  2. At a more macro level, if you really don't like the contract situation, get it resolved during the CBA negotiations.  

 

 

 

2 minutes ago, goskins10 said:

But definitely not upset with Trent. The only issue is if it was always just about money and he threw some medical/training staff under a bus to get more money, then that is a different story. I believe that this is at least in some part due to his issues with the staff. 

If he comes back and there's no change to the medical, that's an indication it's all about money.  I don't even care if it was all about money so much, but if it was, to do the whole medical thing was very low rent.  Also, when he did this was troubling.  If he made it known early he wanted out or wanted more money, the 'Skins would have had more time to react in FA, and might have taken a different tactic.  


With Bruce and Jay going into a "must win" type of year, having the best player on the team demand a trade AFTER free agency and the draft really puts them in a tough spot.  Even if they trade him for 2020 picks, that doesn't help them THIS year.  So, if Trent had gone to them before the draft, maybe they trade him for a 2019 draft pick which could help now.  

 

The other question is how much of the salary they would have to absorb by trading him.  I thought (could be wrong) that the signing team was responsible for the entire signing bonus the year of the trade. The receiving team would pick up the salary after that.  So I'm not sure what was left of the signing bonus the 'Skins would have had to pick up even if they traded him.  Which might have made it somewhat impossible to trade him anyway...  

 

2 minutes ago, goskins10 said:

We will see. 

 

 

Yes, we will.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites
NoCalMike

NoCalMike

Posted
Posted

With the speculation that he might return by Week 2, I just hope the situation is resolved by next week one way or another.  (As in he is either back or says definitively he is not returning at all).

 

It is going to be a headache going into the next 10 weeks with a "will he or won't he" narrative every single time.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites
goskins10

goskins10

Posted
Posted
10 minutes ago, Voice_of_Reason said:

You're right, and it's disgraceful.  Though, the team did go a bit above and beyond to show their support for Trent.  

 

So, can I say that it REALLY bothers me that AP is on this team?  I mean, it really bothers me.  I appreciate the production, and that he's one of the best RBs, and all that.  And I appreciate he probably was the difference between 7 wins and 3 wins last year.  But the dude beat (and by accounts, still does) his children, and I'm not ok with that.  At all.  And IF this is the reason Bruce and Dan were furious at Doug Williams for bringing in AP without telling them, I'm totally down with that.  Not saying it was the reason (it probably was because they didn't like Doug went around their backs), but if it was, I'd understand.  

 

I get your point. But I disagree with by all accounts he still does. There is zero indication that i have seen that he still does it. He has been contrite and at least says he now understands why it was so wrong. That he only did this once (or at least only got caught once) is my litmus test. Not excited he is here based him hitting his child like he did. but if he really did learn something and he never does it again, then I can at least live with it. Still nto excited about it but can live with it. 

 

10 minutes ago, Voice_of_Reason said:

 

 

 

The one thing I would say is that it was a risk for them to sign him to the contract given he was one bust away from a full year suspension.  That's a little different than some other situations.  And it might not have been the smartest thing to do, to be honest.  

 

I do have a problem with everything Trent has done.  See, it's contracts law.  (Not that I'm a lawyer, but I do a lot of contracts.).  Trent signed a binding contract which pays him a certain amount.  He knew exactly what he was getting, and he also knew that the average salary for everybody was going to go up during the term of the contract. He also knew how much of the money was guaranteed, and how much he would lose if he was cut.  The team, on the other hand, knew how much they were required to pay Trent and when they could get out of the contract.  

 

I know a lot of people like to say, "well, why should a player honor the contract when the team can cut you at any time."  2 responses to this:  1. If you don't like the terms of the contract which allow the team to do that, then don't sign it. Negotiate different terms.  Also remember, for most players, there is a guaranteed amount which BOTH the team and the player are agreeing to. Even if the team cuts the player, they're on the hook for the guaranteed component of the contract.  If you don't like the last year being mostly non-guaranteed, then suggest other alternatives.  If the player isn't comfortable with that, then they should try to find a different suitor.  2. At a more macro level, if you really don't like the contract situation, get it resolved during the CBA negotiations.  

 

Sorry, but this is the position that most boggle my mind, especially if you do a lot of contracts. AS I said elsewhere, I live in a world of contracts with suppliers. They are constantly being renegotiated depending on who feels they have the advantage. Not all of them get renegotiated. Both sides have to agree. But this idea of "he singed and knew what he was getting" ignores that that is not how it works in real life. Maybe in your world it does - especially if it's specifically contract law where both sides do not want to ever renegotiate. But in the manufacturing and retail worlds contracts are often renegotiated based on market trends changing. 

 

I will add one thing. If the contracts were 100% guaranteed, then I might agree with you. 

 

10 minutes ago, Voice_of_Reason said:

 

If he comes back and there's no change to the medical, that's an indication it's all about money.  I don't even care if it was all about money so much, but if it was, to do the whole medical thing was very low rent.  Also, when he did this was troubling.  If he made it known early he wanted out or wanted more money, the 'Skins would have had more time to react in FA, and might have taken a different tactic.  

 

Agreed that if it was just part of the leverage I don;t agree with it as you are now involving other peoples credibility. That is pretty low class if that happened. But again I do not believe he would do that. 

 

10 minutes ago, Voice_of_Reason said:


With Bruce and Jay going into a "must win" type of year, having the best player on the team demand a trade AFTER free agency and the draft really puts them in a tough spot.  Even if they trade him for 2020 picks, that doesn't help them THIS year.  So, if Trent had gone to them before the draft, maybe they trade him for a 2019 draft pick which could help now.  

 

Don't agree it this at all. It's a business. He did it when he had the best leverage. So yes he did it when the team had the least amount of leverage. Have no problem with this from a business perspective. As a fan it sucks as it makes it less likely we will be as competitive as we might have been. But had the FO done their jobs they would already have a proper replacement for him. Honestly had they just kept Nsyke (who at the time I agreed got too much money) he would have had much less leverage. 

 

Again, it's a business. Both sides are doing what they need to do. 

 

10 minutes ago, Voice_of_Reason said:

 

The other question is how much of the salary they would have to absorb by trading him.  I thought (could be wrong) that the signing team was responsible for the entire signing bonus the year of the trade. The receiving team would pick up the salary after that.  So I'm not sure what was left of the signing bonus the 'Skins would have had to pick up even if they traded him.  Which might have made it somewhat impossible to trade him anyway...  

 

Yes, we will.  

 

$5.5M dead CAP if he is released/traded. with a $2M cap hit. Money not an issue. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Voice_of_Reason

Voice_of_Reason

Posted
Posted
4 minutes ago, goskins10 said:

 

I get your point. But I disagree with by all accounts he still does. There is zero indication that i have seen that he still does it. He has been contrite and at least says he now understands why it was so wrong. That he only did this once (or at least only got caught once) is my litmus test. Not excited he is here based him hitting his child like he did. but if he really did learn something and he never does it again, then I can at least live with it. Still nto excited about it but can live with it. 

There was a story last year during training camp where he said he had to use a belt on his kid.  I can try and go back and find it. He was basically saying he was going to discipline his kids however he wanted and to stay out of it.  Unless my memory is completely wrong on that.  Which is possible.  I just remember it being a thing after they signed him.  In fact, it might have been mid-season last year.  It was definitely after he was on the 'Skins.  Again, unless I dreamed the whole thing. 

 

4 minutes ago, goskins10 said:

 

Sorry, but this is the position that most boggle my mind, especially if you do a lot of contracts. AS I said elsewhere, I live in a world of contracts with suppliers. They are constantly being renegotiated depending on who feels they have the advantage. Not all of them get renegotiated. Both sides have to agree. But this idea of "he singed and knew what he was getting" ignores that that is not how it works in real life. Maybe in your world it does - especially if it's specifically contract law where both sides do not want to ever renegotiate. But in the manufacturing and retail worlds contracts are often renegotiated based on market trends changing. 

Oh, renegotiation happens here and there.  My point is that both sides agreed to the contract.  If you can't have the foresight to know your salary will go from #1 to #9 in 3 years, and that it's going to bother you, that's a bad job negotiating the contract.   Trent is in a bit of a different position than others who hold out who are vastly under-paid.  Trent is not vastly under-paid.  He signed the biggest contract for an OL, and has made over $100m dollars, I believe, over 2 contracts.  

 

If he wants to re-negotiate, then fine.  But he shouldn't be mad about his current contract situation, because he signed it, it was the richest at the time, and it's still top 10.  

 

I'd also have less of an issue if there was only 1 year left on the contract to renegotiate an extension. 

 

In this case, not much has changed in the market conditions or situation.  Except Trent has been hurt a lot the last 2 years.  The market went up somewhat, but that should have been expected. 

 

4 minutes ago, goskins10 said:

I will add one thing. If the contracts were 100% guaranteed, then I might agree with you. 

I actually think this is where things will end up eventually.  At least for the top players.  Somewhat lesser contract value all guaranteed.  After the next CBA.  

 

4 minutes ago, goskins10 said:

Don't agree it this at all. It's a business. He did it when he had the best leverage. So yes he did it when the team had the least amount of leverage. Have no problem with this from a business perspective. As a fan it sucks as it makes it less likely we will be as competitive as we might have been. But had the FO done their jobs they would already have a proper replacement for him. Honestly had they just kept Nsyke (who at the time I agreed got too much money) he would have had much less leverage. 

I have a problem with it as a strategy because the team has one bit of leverage which Trent can't get back: If he doesn't report, he doesn't get paid.  And if he never reports, the year doesn't count and he's still going to have 2 years left on his deal.  By doing what he did when he did it, he basically makes it easy for the team to tell him to sit down and shut up, and lose ~$10M. Which is what Bruce did.  So, now the leverage has actually turned back to the team.  

 

Trent can hold out, but he won't get paid, and the year won't count, and he'll be in the same position next year. 

 

The right thing to do was to work all of this out early so the team wasn't in the position to just let Trent sit there, and come up with something mutually beneficial.  By doing what he did when he did it, there was nothing immediately beneficial the team could do (meaning to help them THIS year), so they had no incentive to do anything but wait it out.  They can still trade him next year if they want to.  

 

4 minutes ago, goskins10 said:

Again, it's a business. Both sides are doing what they need to do. 

I think it was bad strategy from Trent.  Amazingly, I think Bruce played this one pretty well.  Unless the Texans offered a mother load and he turned it down.  But again, the mother load doesn't help Bruce one bit this year.  And he needs to win this year.  

 

4 minutes ago, goskins10 said:

 

$5.5M dead CAP if he is released/traded. with a $2M cap hit. Money not an issue. 

 

Ok.  Good to know.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Go to topic listing

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...