Champ trade pursuit is win-win

[freakofthesouth]

This team has certain glaring weaknesses that need to be addressed this offseason. Mainly the DL, RB, and most recently, the QB situation.

Given the value of Champ as a top CB in the league, many other teams 'may' be willing to give up some hefty picks, etc., in return. We could find ourselves w/ more picks, and overall, more financial leverage dealing w/ cap space and fresh big-time players.

Notice, I said 'may' be willing. Because Champ will most likely be packaged w/ the franchise tag, the Skins, if I'm not mistaken, have the right of rufusal, where if they don't get what they want, they do not have to make any trades. If they have an offer from a team that has nothing to significantly offer in return, then Danny will walk...

This is another genuis move...

Champ may not get what he wants, in terms of contract size. So, there is a possiblity that he will have to stay in WASH, and settle, in a sense, for a less cap-dominating salary.

So, when it's all said and done, if Champ's contract would have been reworked prior to the trade possibility, this team could have lost out in a number of ways.

Now, if he goes, we get a lot in return that we only take if we truly think we need it, or he stays for a more modest asking price.

That's win-win baby! Plus, I want Sean T running this secondary.

[phantom]

Entertaining the thought of trading Champ Bailey is absolute insanity. He is one the best players in the league regardless of position. Everyone in the country knew that overspending for good players would eventually catch up to this team. Now, your only true GREAT player wants his piece of the pie and they tell him to find a trade. (Arrington is very good, not GREAT. He has great "ability".)

[freakofthesouth]

Originally posted by phantom

Entertaining the thought of trading Champ Bailey is absolute insanity.

Hey Phantom...I just gave a solid perspective of how this situation is not 'absolute insanity.' Explain to me otherwise, if you feel this strongly.

No one is overlooking Champ's ability. Just maybe try and comment on what I've posted.

[Art]

I think Freak has a point that is worth considering. While I remain firmly in the Bailey camp in terms of wanting him back and recognizing how good he is, this is an interesting offseason that creates situations that would appear to benefit us no matter what happens with Bailey.

It's a heavy CB market. That will likely drive the price down on Bailey. Or teams may say he's the best young guy there is and go hard at him, leaving other guys with less to get as those will be the guys we can get. In return for losing Bailey you are likely to receive a second Top 10 pick in this draft plus something else.

There is no question that on the football field Bailey was our second best corner last season. So, for Phantom to say he's our only true great player would tend to call into question the fact that he didn't actually perform BETTER than Smoot. And, we went 5-11 with this great shut down corner. It's difficult to say he's proven himself as overly indespensible because NO ONE ON THIS TEAM has done that given our underachieving ways.

Bailey is a guy who helps us if he returns. He's also a guy who assures we are helped if he leaves as well given the return from someone else, and the likely targeting of other corners in a very heavy corner market. In the end, I think Bailey will be retained.

I think the Skins want to give him a $15 or $16 million bonus thinking in a heavy CB market he can't do better outside of this team. I think Bailey thinks he's worth $20 million plus and perhaps he is in a normal market. So, the Redskins lose nothing by telling him to go look at other contracts. We can still retain him if his value rises beyond what we think. And if his value comes in WHERE we think it does, he'll probably sign back here, or be forced to through the tag.

Again, the team is in the driver's seat with Champ. If its wrong on the market for him, it can respond by holding his rights. If its right about the market Champ will sulk all summer and sign in July.

The WORST case scenario is if another team makes a play for Champ AFTER this draft. Not sure that's even possible but if the situation exists where we could LOSE Champ and get NO picks in this draft, then this team will struggle this year to overcome that loss.

[phantom]

freak, I wasn't trying to say that your theory was insane, I just think that trading away a fantastic, young player from an organization that has overpaid for everyone seems like something out of the Twilight Zone.

I agree that the Skins do have holes that need addressed and that can't easily be done if Champ eats up the cap, but CB is one of the most important positions on the field IMO. I understand that you can't change history, but if you know that Champ Bailey needs to be re-upped you have to pass on either Coles or Arrington (even thought they are both very good). I say Arrington only because he plays outside linebacker. There is only one guy in history that has dominated game after game from the OLB spot.

Of course, if some team wants to mortgage their future you obviously listen to offers. But I don't see losing Bailey as a win-win unless you get at least two #1's, and I don't see that happening.

[phantom]

Art,

You make many good points, but you can't possibly be serious about Fred Smoot. I only saw a handful of Redskin games (5 or 6) and you guy's would certainly know better than me, but... WHAT?!?! Also, it's a little easier to cover #2 WR's in this league than #1's.

[freakofthesouth]

Well, Phantom, well put. But to rebuttle, you need only read Art's post, and note that no one on this defense is indespensible. Not one player stood out and made significant, game-changing plays, week-in and week-out.

Also, in repsonse to Art, I do think the Champ controversy will be over come draft day, and we will either have recieved substantial collateral in return, including great picks (another thread cites a RB trade), or will have signed-on to be a part of next year's team.

To quote Art..."this team is in the driver's seat w/ Champ."

There is nothing to lose by opening up trdae discussions.

[Big Easy]

Don't be surprised if the Saints emerge as a major player for Champ. We desperately need help at CB down here, and the sportstalk hacks are already beating the Bailey drum bigtime. Our owner's cheap; George Washington squints at the light when he pulls a dollar out of his pocket. Still, this is one we need to take a hard look at.

[freakofthesouth]

Also...Phantom...Smoot can play the game.

And, IMHO, it doesn't matter if you have 2 Champs at the corners; if you have no big-time DL player to get after the QB, a shut-down corner has no impact.

Look at Carolina's secondary...who were they before this season??? A better question: who would they be if they didn't have Carolina's DL?

I would trade Champ for a DL of equal caliber anytime.

[Art]

Originally posted by phantom

Art,

You make many good points, but you can't possibly be serious about Fred Smoot. I only saw a handful of Redskin games (5 or 6) and you guy's would certainly know better than me, but... WHAT?!?! Also, it's a little easier to cover #2 WR's in this league than #1's.

You shouldn't be surprised by this sentiment as it's one recognized by 90 percent of Redskins fans. Most of that 90 percent agree Champ is a better football talent. But on the field, Smoot WAS the more game-changing, superior player. He went several weeks with a total of three passes even attempted at him.

Smoot was what Champ wasn't -- a legitimate shut down corner for big stretches of the year. Deion Sanders really didn't do a TON of flopping sides as a corner. He generally played a right-handed QBs left side. That's where Smoot plays. We did some flopping, but not as much as two years ago. Smoot lined up frequently against the "No. 1" receiver because we didn't "move" guys based on formation with any consistency -- though we did do it some.

Early in the year teams openly stated they wanted to go at Smoot. New England is an example. They only tried him three times all game despite looking CONSTANTLY at him on first read the entire first half. Brady had to pull the ball down every time he dropped back because he couldn't get the ball out against Smoot.

That game didn't change until the Pats started going against the slot defender and somewhat against Bailey though not a tremendous amount against Bailey. This is just an example. But last year there is no doubt which of our two corners helped us more. Other than a few devoted to Bailey who take this assessment as an affront to his honor, it is generally agreed as observed fact.

[luckydevil]

Smoot outplayed Champ in his rookie season and last year( out of 3 years)

[Art]

Originally posted by luckydevil

Smoot has outplayed Champ 2 out of the 3 years he has been here.

That's true, LD. Though, in Smoot's rookie year, they were constantly flopped so Smoot never got the No. 1 receiver at all. It was ALWAYS Bailey on the best receiver and Smoot on the other. Or, it was so once our defense got good after six games .

Last year Bailey has as fine a season as you'll ever see in coverage. Smoot was very good generally after a rough start with assignments. Once he hurt his back/butt he did get beat toward the end though. This year Smoot probably drew the top receiver around a quarter of the time. He gave up, on memory, no touchdows all year. The biggest pass all year caught against him was a 40-yarder to Muhammad against Carolina in which he went for the INT rather than the breakup.

The only thing keeping Smoot's year from being as good as Bailey's was last year is he didn't draw the top receiver a majority of the time. Much of the time, yes. But not a majority. And, of course, Champ did play well this year. Just not as well as his $20 million asking price.

[Ian]

Originally posted by Art

The WORST case scenario is if another team makes a play for Champ AFTER this draft. Not sure that's even possible but if the situation exists where we could LOSE Champ and get NO picks in this draft, then this team will struggle this year to overcome that loss.

Perhaps the worst case scenario is Champ signs the $6.8 million dollar franchise tag contract and Washington has a lot less $$$ to play with in the free agency market. He then becomes a free agent again next year when the market may be more in his favour. It is not entirely a game that Washington can only Win / Win.

[TheDoyler23]

The sad thing about the Redskins D is that the only person who was CLOSE to a leader was Armstead, who to many people is utterly expendible and old.

LaVar did a lot of talking, but didn't exactly lead the defense.

[Art]

Originally posted by Ian

Perhaps the worst case scenario is Champ signs the $6.8 million dollar franchise tag contract and Washington has a lot less $$$ to play with in the free agency market. He then becomes a free agent again next year when the market may be more in his favour. It is not entirely a game that Washington can only Win / Win.

Why would this be the case, Ian?

We could franchise him again next year as well and fully maximize his value in a weaker market if necessary. And in two seasons we'd have paid him roughly $14 million. Now, TWO seasons from now we'll be in some trouble :0.

[NavyDave]

The thing is fans look at the offer made and then him balking at it like it is minimum wage.

Plus when you meet him in person you get the idea that he isnt a redskin but more like a guy who would be happy in a falcons jersey.

Also I believe with The new coach in town there will be fewer instances of overpaying as well as coddling players.

[Ian]

Originally posted by Art

Why would this be the case, Ian?

We could franchise him again next year as well and fully maximize his value in a weaker market if necessary. And in two seasons we'd have paid him roughly $14 million. Now, TWO seasons from now we'll be in some trouble :0.

Well, Art, in my view, Washington (read Dan Synder) likes to be a big player in the free agency market. $6.8 million in one year on one player not pro-rated like a signing bonus is going to crimp your style.

Bailey could be a real obstruction to Washington's free agent manouerves because franchise players generally take their time to sign that all important multi year contract (either with us or with someone else) and people like Jevon Kearse or other 'popular' marque players will probably be gone by the first week of free agency. Thus, my point is, to reiterate that it is not entirely a Win / Win situation for Washington because the opportunity cost of franchising Champ to entertain trade offers is less cap room to sign other needs.

[tvan]

Originally posted by freakofthenorth

Champ may not get what he wants, in terms of contract size. So, there is a possiblity that he will have to stay in WASH, and settle, in a sense, for a less cap-dominating salary.

. [/b]

If Champ doe not get what he wants he still doesn't have to settle. We end up putting the F-tag on him and in essense lose 6.8 miilion because next year he walks anyway and we get nothing. If he has a great yeAR THE PRICE GOES UP AND HE'S SITTING PRETTY.

Sorry I hit the cap lock...:cool:

[mookie0720]

Yea, really. There's a reason why the rest of the league is in shock about this, as was said on ESPN. It may seem like a possible thing to do for us here in Washington, but around the league people are thinking- how can they let go one of the best athletes/players in the league at a critical position? We will realize this once he's gone, if he leaves.

[Charlie Murphaaay]

Originally posted by Art

Why would this be the case, Ian?

We could franchise him again next year as well and fully maximize his value in a weaker market if necessary. And in two seasons we'd have paid him roughly $14 million. Now, TWO seasons from now we'll be in some trouble :0.

You can't franchise the same player 2 yeras straight? Can you?

[Art]

Yes you can Rellim. Now, in some cases the player agrees to sign the franchise tag for a year under the promise he won't be. But, you can franchise the same guy every year if you want. Like Kleinsassar in Minnesota. He was franchised last year, but the team is saying it won't do it this year, though it has the ability to.

Ian,

Franchised players do take a while to sign the long term deal because there's a timer on it and once the timer is passed you can't do it until July. It's a weird rule, but say it's May 1 until July 28 or whatever, if you sign the franchise player to a deal in that period you can't use the franchise tag for the duration of that players contract. This is why teams and players will frequently sign a new ONE-year contract, and then restructure a longer term deal after.

[atloldskin]

Champ is the best all-round athlete on this team and plays the CB position which is very important. He is young and a perennial Pro-Bowler. He deserves big money, but he can't break the bank. I think our offer was fair for his services; I think we overpaid for LaVar and Champ should not expect a similar deal. Given all of that, the Redskins were wise to allow Champ to pursue a trade--perhaps his market value is so high we will trade him; perhaps his market value is not so high and we negotiate a better contract. The Skins can't lose this year as Art has so nicely chronicled. So lets wait and see what happens.

[Flowtrain]

It was suggested that the Skins decision to hang a "For Sale" sign from Bailey's neck could benefit the team because, in a soft market, Bailey could come to his senses and lower his demands from the Skins. Don't bet on it. That scenario assumes that Champ fears the dirtiest, most potent weapon stuffed inside any GM's briefcase: the F-Bomb, aka, the franchise tag. I think that assumption needs to be reexamined.

It's true that players dislike the tag based because it offers them no security against injury. But the truth is, it's not exactly a bad deal either. Here's why.

If Bailey is tagged this year for $6.8M, he's back on the open market again next year when, in all probability, the market will again stiffen somewhat. Then, he finally obtains that long-term contract, either from the Skins directly, straight up from another team, or through a tag and trade. Let's say for argument's sake that the deal gives him an $18M SB (less than McAlister's current asking price). Tally it up. Under the F-Bomb scenario, Champ gets $25M over two years. This is in contrast to settling for $15M from the Skins in signing bonus this year (as suggested that this new strategy could encourage) plus an additional $1M in the veteran minimum salaries over the next two years (see Arrington).

Do you see what I mean? If Bailey can avoid a career-ending injury and roughly maintain his current level of play, he can pick up about $9M over two years by declining to be lowballed now. Of course, the Skins could try to tag him again in 2005 and not trade him, but a $14M in cap hit over two years for one player is not only unwise, but also inconsistent with everything Snyder has done to date.

That's not to say there's anything wrong with shopping Bailey - there's no downside in seeing whether a team desperate for a Pro Bowl CB will fork over an enticing draft package. But a win-win isn't quite on point.

Also, let's rember this. It wasn't too long ago that Redskins fans were crowing about the genius of signing proven talent over gambling on unknown draft picks who also require bloated, slotted signing bonuses of their own. If a trade does go down and one of the NFL's most proven talents hits the road in return for a blank lottery ticket, what will become of Skins fans' familiar mantra?

[Art]

Uh, Flow, the "mantra" you speak of is one that suggests you MIGHT just get a better deal by spending a sixth round draft pick on a guy who has three years in the league, starting experience on a playoff team and should immediately be a starter here. You might be better off getting a guy who's thought very highly of off his team for a seventh round pick than to take a draft pick.

You do understand the conversation, right? I mean, you KNOW all this and just decided to misrepresent it here out of petty envy over what our franchise is, has been and will be as compared to your franchise?

Obviously losing Bailey even for a prospect like Taylor or Winslow is a risky proposition. But that doesn't alter the win-win scenario as of the moment. You free up money, sign a very solid corner in the process, add elite prospects and you've probably come out ahead of things as of today. If that prospect who is said to be the next Warren Sapp turns out to disappoint and just be the first Dewayne Robertson, then, over time, you can rue the gamble you took.

But, you don't quibble with smart gambles when you make them. I think you know that. And again, I'm in Bailey's court, so in the end, I think he'll be, and I want him to be, back.

[Flowtrain]

Originally posted by Art

Uh, Flow, the "mantra" you speak of is one that suggests you MIGHT just get a better deal by spending a sixth round draft pick on a guy who has three years in the league, starting experience on a playoff team and should immediately be a starter here. You might be better off getting a guy who's thought very highly of off his team for a seventh round pick than to take a draft pick.

You do understand the conversation, right? I mean, you KNOW all this and just decided to misrepresent it here out of petty envy over what our franchise is, has been and will be as compared to your franchise?

I thought that when the Skins surrendered a FIRST ROUND pick for Coles and his accompanying large signing bonus, we heard that the justification for the move was that the franchise favored proven talent over a grab bag selection at #13. Are you playing coy, or do you honestly not remember any of this? This time, if the Skins let Bailey walk in favor of an unknown first-rounder, that seems to contradict the philosophy employed last year. I really don't know what's being misrepresented in drawing that parallel, but it seems to have upset you for some reason.

As for the idea that I mentioned such inconsistent approaches because of envy over what the Skins currently are as compared to the Jets, I'll decline to engage in that discussion out of respect for the board. I'll let the teams' respective records and playoff appearances over the last few years speak on my behalf.

In any event, the focus of my response was the role of the tag in all of this and how it provides Bailey with a comfortable fallback position. If it can be explained why Bailey would forgo this option in favor of significantly lowering his current demands to re-up with the Skins, then perhaps I can better understand the second "win" in this win-win scenario.