dallasfan Posted February 15, 2004 Share Posted February 15, 2004 I'm pretty sure you don't get right of first refusal, so if someone signs him to an offer sheet, it's take it or leave it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Flowtrain Posted February 15, 2004 Share Posted February 15, 2004 The orginal team retains the right of first refusal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brother Redskin Posted February 15, 2004 Share Posted February 15, 2004 Originally posted by BDBuddy23 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. ever since we got jessie every year I say he's too old and we need some young talent in there and every year he makes me swallow my words and gets the job done mentally and physically. I think he got the only safety the redskins got last year. sooooooooooo I agree Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sarge Posted February 15, 2004 Share Posted February 15, 2004 If we luck up, maybe we can find some chumps to give us a Hershel Walker type trade. I didn't get to see many games this year, but I watched Champ almost continuously at the Pro Bowl. I know they have rules that restrict the play of CB's in that game, but he had what I thought an average game. he was burned twice that I saw and let guys get by him at least three more times, but the QB went a different way. If we can get someone to put a good mix of picks and people together See ya Champ! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brother Redskin Posted February 15, 2004 Share Posted February 15, 2004 Originally posted by rellim You can't franchise the same player 2 yeras straight? Can you? I'm drawing on something I heard about the tag acouple of years ago but I think you can not even use the franchise tag two years in a row period. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Montilar Posted February 15, 2004 Share Posted February 15, 2004 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. It's very possible. That's exactly what Carolina did in the gilbert deal. The skins wanted Carolina to deal for a 1 and a 2. But Carolina wanted Gilbert AND to keep their #1. So they waited until days after the draft and then signed Gilbert. Leaving the skins waiting a full year to get the first #1 and 2 years to get the second #1. And I've mention this a time or two as a possible worse case scenario in a thread here and there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dallasfan Posted February 15, 2004 Share Posted February 15, 2004 Originally posted by lookoutforlavar I'm drawing on something I heard about the tag acouple of years ago but I think you can not even use the franchise tag two years in a row period. you can franchise a player in back to back years (see Orlando Pace and Walter Jones, bout to be 3rd go round for each). The only catch, like Art pointed out is, if you sign a long term deal with the player during a certain period, you can't use the tag again for the length of the contract. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KevinMac Posted February 15, 2004 Share Posted February 15, 2004 The deadline for extending an offer to a franchised player is April 16th, so any picks we receiver would be for this year unless we choose to defer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Romberjo Posted February 15, 2004 Share Posted February 15, 2004 Flow's right that a lot of people on this board didn't understand last year that the Coles calculus last year wasn't simply whether Coles was likely better than the 13th pick (not to mention the best receiver at the 13th pick) -- because he obviously was. You had to take into account the fact that Coles's salary would be much bigger, eating into the cap. But it was in fact a good deal, b/c he was somewhat underrated and under-tagged in RFA (and also b/c he fit very well into an essential position in Spurrier's system). Whereas Champ, good as he is, is somewhat overrated, thus his market rate for a long-term contract would be quite high. (Also, Smoot is underrated, so retaining him would be enormously easier w/o all that much of a drop-off.) So in balancing the additional riskiness of a draft pick vs. the additional salary cap hit of a veteran, the reason that signing Coles and shopping Champ makes sense is the gap b/w value and market value. No necessarily contradictory philosophy, Flow, just different data suggesting different outputs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Flowtrain Posted February 15, 2004 Share Posted February 15, 2004 Originally posted by Romberjo So in balancing the additional riskiness of a draft pick vs. the additional salary cap hit of a veteran, the reason that signing Coles and shopping Champ makes sense is the gap b/w value and market value. No necessarily contradictory philosophy, Flow, just different data suggesting different outputs. Thanks Romberjo - it's refreshing to receive a reasoned response to a point raised, rather than have someone dismiss it based upon which team I root for. I'm not sure I agree with what you wrote, but it was reasoned nonetheless. The reason I'd tend to disagree is that your response assumes that the rights to Coles were acquired at a good market rate. The problem is that we know that the Skins understood that they were paying a premium on Coles in order to make it cost prohibitive for the Jets to match. We also know this by looking at Coles' $13M signing bonus as compared to subsequent signing bonuses later dished out, like Holt's $12.5M or Chad Johnson's $10M. Important in factoring in market rate, those teams didn't give up first rounders in addition to the SBs. Again, this doesn't diminish or overlook Coles' great skills or his strong year in 2003, but you indicated that his market value was favorable to others at the position. I'm not sure that was the case, especially when one of the Skins' main objectives was to make the Jets think his price tag didn't support his true market value. This same thinking in relation to market value probably holds true for other RFAs (Morton in particular), but I leave them out of the discussion here because the first rounder offered for Coles is more relevant here. So back to Bailey v. Coles. If a trade goes down, how would we reconcile the decision to forfeit a first rounder and pay top dollar for a "proven" player, while then looking to unload an even more "proven" player for an unknown quantity in the draft? It would seem inconsistent. We remember Cerrato's quotes telling us how, unlike a rookie, a player such as Coles can step right in as a starter and you can't find a player of his caliber at #13. We nodded in agreement. So, it's fair to ask what number pick would allow the Skins to find an instant starter who's a perennial Pro Bowler? The point is, Snyder has traveled so far down this road that I wouldn't turn back now, even with a change at coach. His idea was an intriguing one - damn the draft, acquire talent, spread out cap hits, win now, and deal with the aftermath later. If it happened, a trade of arguably the team's best player would seem to undermine the master plan that Snyder so diligently set forth to carry out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mania Posted February 15, 2004 Share Posted February 15, 2004 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. IMO, next year will be a better year for Champ to enter the FA market due to the availability of top name CB's this year. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yomar Posted February 15, 2004 Share Posted February 15, 2004 The only thing wrong with the trade Bailey scenario is that it is contradictory to the trade for Brunnell philosophy. If you are going to have an effective strategy it has to be cohesive and your activities have to be complimentary. Brunnell signals a short term philosophy, which is fine, but trading a proven AllPro vet like Champ for draft picks does not reinforce that strategy and thats why the Champ Bailey scenario is not really win/win. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.