Chrisbob74 Posted April 10, 2004 Share Posted April 10, 2004 Here's the main problem with Samuels contract: By voiding that last year in 2005 it would accelerate his prorated bonus money currently allocated to 2006 into the 2005 cap, so guess what he ends up counting $11.861m against the 2005 cap. This is why the 'Skins want rid now seeing as he won't restructure. If we trade him this year before his roster bonus is due (July 15) the net effect of accelerated bonus money and Deion Sanders rule cap credits would see him count $6.654m against the 2004 cap and nothing on future caps. And if we can get Gallery as a replacement and somehow keep the number 5 overall ,Gallery, whilst getting a big fat contract, will have a lower cap impact in the next few years than Samuels and we can still go through with our original scenerios regarding the number 5 overall (Taylor, KW II, trade down for DL help). Best case scenerio is we gain Gallery and lessen the impact on our cap for the next few years, as well as adding an impact player at #5. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wskin44 Posted April 10, 2004 Share Posted April 10, 2004 Chris; You have different numbers than I do on Samuels' contract which doesn't surprise me. I have no idea if my source is correct/up to date. I'd be interested to see your numbers. I have: 2004 Pro-rated bonus: $2.66 Other bonus: $0.536 Base: $5.668 2005 Pro-rated bonus: $2.66 Other bonus: ????? Base: $6.561 2006 Pro-rated bonus: $2.66 Other bonus: ????? Base: $8.238 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wskin44 Posted April 10, 2004 Share Posted April 10, 2004 Originally posted by Chrisbob74 By voiding that last year in 2005 it would accelerate his prorated bonus money currently allocated to 2006 into the 2005 cap, so guess what he ends up counting $11.861m against the 2005 cap. Chris; Does Samuels have the right to Void the last (2006) year of his contract prior to the 2005 season?? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chrisbob74 Posted April 10, 2004 Author Share Posted April 10, 2004 Originally posted by wskin44 Chris; Does Samuels have the right to Void the last (2006) year of his contract prior to the 2005 season?? Yes. He signed a 7 year deal originally, same as Lavar, both contracts had the right to void the last year. Of course, Lavar has a new deal in place now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wskin44 Posted April 10, 2004 Share Posted April 10, 2004 Since Samuels can Void his 2006 contract prior to 2005, dumping his entire remaining cap hit into 2005, then his refusal to renegotiate makes more sense. It also makes it more likely that we would trade him right now. Any team getting him now would be guaranteed two years of service at $5.6 and $6.5, plus the inside track to re-sign him for 2006. The right to Void makes him slightly less valuable in a trade, but two years of service isn't too bad. Waiting until next season to trade him would make him much less valuable. Knowing this, I will be surprised if we DON'T trade him now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. S Posted April 10, 2004 Share Posted April 10, 2004 I like the guy, but I guess considering the cap problem that will be coming up, it may be wise to remove him. Didn't we have Brandon Winey in his place last year for a few games who did pretty well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wskin44 Posted April 10, 2004 Share Posted April 10, 2004 Yea, Winey did well, but I think that we either have our eye on Gallery or, if the Raiders take Gallery, then the Raiders current Left OT (name?). One other thing, Raiders new HC Norval Turner is very familiar with Mr. Samuels. Samuels and the fifth pick for the second pick (Gallery) and the Raiders second round pick would solve a lot of future cap issues and give us a franchise Left OT. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CLiNT0N P0RTiS Posted April 10, 2004 Share Posted April 10, 2004 Samuels is a proven player but if we have to get rid of him, then he's gone. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
atloldskin Posted April 10, 2004 Share Posted April 10, 2004 What is his agent thinking? Samuels should re-do his contract. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ECU-ALUM Posted April 10, 2004 Share Posted April 10, 2004 Originally posted by atloldskin What is his agent thinking? Samuels should re-do his contract. This is known as payback...his agent is also Ramsey's agent the same one who has been screaming for a trade. We didn't trade him so now this is his chance for payback. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chrisbob74 Posted April 10, 2004 Author Share Posted April 10, 2004 Originally posted by atloldskin What is his agent thinking? Samuels should re-do his contract. This is the problem but to be fair I can see why Samuels won't re-work. 1, He is a free agent in 2 years, assuming he voids his deal, meaning a new contract and a big bonus. 2, He may not feel he is in a good position to rework his deal, he is coming off an average season and he probably feels under better coaching and a more professional scheme he can get back to his best form, leaving him in better place to strike a big deal. 3, By reworking now, the 'Skins may only be offering to turn salary this year into bonus and lengthen his current deal, meaning he'll only get $4-5M in guaranteed money and a longer wait to be a FA with the prospect of another rework 2 or 3 years down the line. He'd get more guaranteed money as a FA than he will reworking his deal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
galentjm Posted April 10, 2004 Share Posted April 10, 2004 Originally posted by Chrisbob74 Yes. He signed a 7 year deal originally, same as Lavar, both contracts had the right to void the last year. Of course, Lavar has a new deal in place now. From today's post http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A521-2004Apr9.html Last season, Samuels twice declined to restructure his six-year, $30.6 million deal. Samuels originally signed the contract in 2000 after being selected No. 3 overall in the NFL draft. He had a $10 million SB, which prorated over the life of the 6 year deal, would be slightly under $2 million (1.67) each year in SB cap hit. If we were to trade him we would absorb the remainder of his SB money which is around $5 million (1.67 times the number of years remaining on the deal or 3), while saving the amount of his 2004 base salary, which is $5.132 million. So it would essientially be a wash for this season, however we would save over $6 million towards next years cap, and over $7 million towards the 2006 cap. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chrisbob74 Posted April 10, 2004 Author Share Posted April 10, 2004 The Post is flat out wrong, the numbers here are numbers that PCinOZ (CPND's cap guru) gets direct from the NFLPA. Contract Notes : Final year of contract (2006) is voidable Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Art Posted April 10, 2004 Share Posted April 10, 2004 Samuels carries an exceptional cap number. The Post is, for some odd reason, posting the original terms of the contract, instead of the restructured terms. Samuels is the wild card for our cap management going forward. He carries a huge number, but, if he comes down at all, we have tremendous play room for the next several years. As has been pointed out, you can largely move him now at a roughly balanced cap charge, so, if Gallery is an option, Samuels would draw a high return and this is conceivable since Gallery would cost millions less than Samuels over the next few seasons. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Rook Posted April 10, 2004 Share Posted April 10, 2004 Hate to see him go, but you have to consider the health of the franchise sometimes. I think it will come down to if the Coaches Joe (Gibbs and Bugel) are comfortable with a rookie. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kappaluvacee Posted April 10, 2004 Share Posted April 10, 2004 Does Mr. Samuels want to be a "2G Hog" or does he want to play elsewhere? He knows what Bugel can offer him. If he wants to play elsewhere then let's show him the door immediately. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wizskinz Posted April 10, 2004 Share Posted April 10, 2004 Samuals vs. Gallery cap problem vs. no problem good player vs. could be good player older(nfl pounding) vs very young = Gallery Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wskin44 Posted April 12, 2004 Share Posted April 12, 2004 I'm just responding to this thread to push it back to the top of page one, instead of buried on page three. Fans who are concerned about trading Samuels for what appears to be less than he's worth, need to understand his contract and our cap situation. Also remember that if the media reports a possible deal that looks obviously stupid to you, it probably is wrong or incomplete at best. Our front office has not been making stupid deals lately. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nace14 Posted April 12, 2004 Share Posted April 12, 2004 Originally posted by CLiNT0NP0RTiS26 Samuels is a proven player but if we have to get rid of him, then he's gone. samuels is a proven, "i can't count to hut 2" player also. b. winny in '04 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fred Jones Posted April 12, 2004 Share Posted April 12, 2004 I like Winny as a good backup option, but not an everyday starter. I think the option should be Samuels or Gallery. If Samuels does not wish to restructure, and it appears he does not, than move him if the skins can get an acceptable trade deal in the draft. That includes Gallery plus another top pick. This is a business decision. I like Samuels and think he would fit with what Gibbs wants in terms of character and work ethic. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JMac Posted April 12, 2004 Share Posted April 12, 2004 Originally posted by ECU-ALUM This is known as payback...his agent is also Ramsey's agent the same one who has been screaming for a trade. We didn't trade him so now this is his chance for payback. Saying this is Payback from Sexton is way off. Chris Samuels is his own man and if he is gonna let his agent use him as a tool for another mans contract then something is wrong with him. Samuels I heard is very involved in the community. So the question is why wont he re do his deal? I think Chris would redo his deal if it was a new contract not just another restructure. Remember he has already restructured twice. As a player I would throw the flags up to. Simply restructuring is gonna create the same mess next year. I say give Chris a brand new contract and lets keep our draft pick. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wskin44 Posted April 12, 2004 Share Posted April 12, 2004 Originally posted by SkinsFan56 [ I say give Chris a brand new contract and lets keep our draft pick. [/b] SF56; Its probably not feasible to give Samuels a new contract at this time. He has three years left on his current contract and we have three years of bonus money to account for under the cap. It would probably be very difficult to pay him the big free agent type of bonus right now on top of the bonus that he already got for the next three years. The only way that we could keep Samuels is to eat the big cap numbers in 2004 and 2005 and then outbid everyone before the 2006 season. The likelyhood that we could/would outbid everyone is small and Gibbs' determination to build continuity for 3 to 5 years is large. That's why I believe that Samuels will get dealt now. Its not so much that Samuels isnt a good player, its that his contract doesn't fit our needs. So the decision will be to move him while we can get the most value for him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chrisbob74 Posted April 12, 2004 Author Share Posted April 12, 2004 Originally posted by wskin44 SF56; Its probably not feasible to give Samuels a new contract at this time. He has three years left on his current contract and we have three years of bonus money to account for under the cap. It would probably be very difficult to pay him the big free agent type of bonus right now on top of the bonus that he already got for the next three years. The only way that we could keep Samuels is to eat the big cap numbers in 2004 and 2005 and then outbid everyone before the 2006 season. The likelyhood that we could/would outbid everyone is small and Gibbs' determination to build continuity for 3 to 5 years is large. That's why I believe that Samuels will get dealt now. Its not so much that Samuels isnt a good player, its that his contract doesn't fit our needs. So the decision will be to move him while we can get the most value for him. Very true, his cap hit for his bonus is not far off $3M per season, add that would have to be added on to any new deal, so his cap figure would still stay very high even if his new deal was with low salaries for the next few years. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jay Master Jay Posted April 12, 2004 Share Posted April 12, 2004 If Samuels doesn't want to be a Skin and help out the team give him the same thing Champ got.:moon: Then tell him we'll see him later. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.