610 WIP's thoughts on the impedning Trotter deal

[MikeB]

Guys,

I was just listening this morning and some, what I think are valid, points where raised. Keep in mind this is the morning show, where they try to be outrageous.

Heard Tony say that the Redskins are "always after the flavor of the week and thats why they don't win." Also Tony, Al, and Rhia all where baffled over how, with just 2 mil, the Skins could sign Trotter. Rhia pointed out that they where restructuring some contracts. Al chimed in saying that it seems absurd because we don't even have a QB, so why strap yourself when you might not even challenge this year.

What hits home to me is Tony's comment. I tend to agree. Dan likes the big splash and there just doesn't seem to be a long term building plan in place. We've been down this road before (and yes, not with anyone of Trotters quality and youth) and failed miserably. I could be wrong, and if Spurrier can do things with these QB's I will be, but until then, this signing would make me very nervous. Let it be on record.

[9inarow]

Geez Louise,

This sounds like what I said 3 days ago, and got blasted for it. Sheesh.

I'm not bashing the move, I simply question the logic.

But then again, in this Defensive league, a DNFU (Do Not F*ck Up) QB is more than enough...

[PCinOz]

So whats their point?

We can restructure two major contracts right now without question - Davis and Coleman - that could free up around $5m right away.

We could cut Greer, Barker, Albright and Mitchell (if Trotter signed - I don't necessarily agree with this one though) and that would free up a further $1.5m under the Rule of 51.

There you go - there's a further $6.5m (making it $8.6m in total based on current figures).

Trotter's first three years on the contract will be very friendly.

So we ain't close to cap hell in the future.

[@DCGoldPants]

Lets put it this way. What player out there is worth more than Trotter right now? If restructing a few contracts to make the D even stronger is needed,then so be it. No the only real hole on the D is at DT. You draft one in the 1st round and you're set. M. Lewis can get ready to force turnovers on the other teams 40 yard line and give Spurrier a shorter field. We've NEVER won (in the modern era) with a great QB. Why start now?

[PCinOz]

Oh, and remember for next year (2003) we won't have $12.2m of dead money hanging over our heads.

[inmate running the asylum]

Mike,

Im not worried this time, unlike in 2000 when we were tying up big money in old players [Deion, George, Carrier, etc.], and here is why. Every signing to date has been reasonable, and although we dont know the details yet, even the Trotter signing seems reasonable based on what I heard. Which is a 7 year contract, averaging $4 mil per year, voidable after four. Thats really reasonable for an two-time all-pro.

But looking over this roster, I dont see any "dead money" yet for next year, unless Marco or Smith refuse to restructure. If they restructure and are cut after June 1st NEXT YEAR, even that will be spread over 2003 and 2004.

Furthermore, looking over the roster this team is getting experienced, but getting YOUNGER. On offense we have no starting players at the moment over 30, and only one backup [Albright] over 30. On defense we only have two starters over 30 [Armstead and Marco/Smith splitting RE], and three backups over 30 [Green, Mason, Mitchell]. We only have eight players over 30, if you throw in the punter Barker!

With quality youth on the team and no "dead money" next year, we are only a player or two away, from making a serious challenge for the Super Bowl. Its all contingent on the quarterbacking we get now, and according SS he is not even worried about that!

So im not worried this time. Comments anyone?

[fish]

While I agree with you guys, the details of these moves seem to be able to work out fjust fine, I think thier point is somewhat legit. I don't think the problem lies in Snyder wanting "to make a big splash" as much as it has been the fluxuation of the coaching staff.

We have got to keep these guys settled for awhile. Yes, I am happy about the SS signing and completely delighted about the Lewis signing, but we can't build longterm consistency without keeping the coaching staff together for more than a season. All that talk of "having to get to know each other", and getting "my kinda guys" onto the roster we heard last year, we're going to experience that here again. And how many of you think Lewis will be here again next year, ESPECIALLY if we have any MAJOR success defensively this year?

[Art]

What long-term plan can there be? In 2000 we underwent a series of signings on the defensive side that were expected to be timed losses of players. Carrier for three years, Bruce for two and Deion for two. The signings improved the defense 26 spots in the rankings, and were a dramatic on the field success for Snyder's Redskins.

Then Marty comes in and Marty wasn't under new management. He was new management. In one swoop, he eradicated the plan in place for 2000 and redesigned a new plan. That's fine. I don't fault Marty for not playing with the $27 extra million in budget Snyder tried to give him. But, when Marty failed as a coach and refused to make staff changes or even discuss how things were run from a management staff, Snyder pulled the trigger and went a new direction.

Isn't it funny, BTW, that Marty now has Cameron as an offensive coordinator instead of Raye. For the record, if he'd have had Cameron as the offensive coordinator in Washington and agreed to get rid of Raye, he'd still be here, but, well, I digress. Now, we have new guys in place and they are instituting another plan. Similar in many ways to Marty's but that we're getting a number of middle-tier free agents at pretty good prices.

Marty got a lot of vets at minimum prices. The Redskins tried earlier in the offseason to address their middle linebacker spot by talking with Crockett, who'll start in the middle for Minnesota. Tice has repeatedly been quoted, BTW, in Minnesota as saying he promised a free agent a starting job and it wouldn't be right to bring Trotter in. Interesting honor this guy has. But, I digress.

The moment Trotter came available he became the jewel of this entire offseason's free agent class. The Redskins are absolutely right to make a move for this guy. And after early screaming about, "We can't afford $12 million in bonus and $6 million a year," we're now hearing substantially smaller numbers and still, "We can't afford $6 million and $4 million a year." Yes. Yes we can.

Defensively we have FOUR Pro Bowl players from last year with the addition of Trotter. We all love Smoot. Wilkinson was an alternate as a Pro Bowl player. The makings of a very strong unit are clearly there. Offensive needs are clear as well. But again, there has to be a belief that Spurrier has a clue as to what he needs to succeed and he'll know this the more he puts his offense against Marvin's defense. It'll be fun to watch.

When you have a chance to add 25-year-old multiple Pro Bowl performers, you do it and you don't really look back. Here, we're not even paying a ton for this move. Bully to us.

[Luca Brasi]

Art,

You just said everything I've been thinking for the last week but haven't had the time to write. Great post, and it's nice to know that not everyone feels the need to question every move the front office makes. If there are truly people that aren't excited about having 3 pro-bowl linebackers, then they must be pulling for the other team. Thanks again Art.

[Ernie5]

Snyder got this reputation as liking the "flavor of the month," but he hardly deserves it. He went on ONE such binge -- 2000 -- and none since. Trotter hardly qualifies as the flavor of the month; he's 25, a two-time pro bowler & not yet in the prime of his career. The scrutiny oughta be on the Eagles for being so cheap-arsed that they let him go. :laugh:

Clearly, people are more concerned with typecasting Snyder than actually paying attention to what he has done & what this front office is doing. That's fine -- keep mocking Snyder & paying attention to 2-year old surface crap: the Redskins will gladly steal one of the top young defensive players in the NFL. Thanks.

[Riggo-toni]

9inarow,

Let me take this time to thank you for your pics, er... posts :tongue: Love them hot latinas

[Braves On Warpath]

There is a BIG, HUGE difference between the signings before the 2000 season and the Trotter signing.

Trotter is only 25. He probably still has his best football to come. Think about Bruce or even D$ion and getting them when they were still 25. How long has it been since we had a stud MLB? Too long or my taste.

[bulldog]

let's face it, the Redskins have filled some holes with quality talent in Armstead and Wynn on defense. At the same time Jacquez Green is likely to be a very productive receiver in Spurrier's offense and his speed is a welcome addition to a receiver corps that lacked the true deep threat in 2001.

the signing of Trotter would only make a quality defense better.

We have also filled in on the offensive line with capable performers inside at C and RG.

The Redskins chances come down to the quarterback position and how it is handled.

If the Skins were to trade for Bledsoe or were to go with Wuerffel and he was productive as the starter then the Redskins could be an 11-5 team.

Certainly they would challenge for a playoff spot at least with the veteran Bledsoe at quarterback.

If the Skins instead draft Harrington and trade for Matthews to start in 2002 then the Skins will probably be a middle of the pack team, unless Matthews also finds his niche here under his old boss.

BUT, if the quarterback situation is resolved satisfactorily NO ONE is going to question the signing of Trotter to improve what is already in my mind a playoff defense.

[JimboDaMan]

Let me also point out that, FWIW, Spurrier has repeatedly claimed that the QBs on the roster, or maybe projected for the roster (Matthews), will be fine to go into the season with.

Now I kind of view that as just so much pap. But honestly I don't know that much about how the guy operates other than he has the rep of being a straight shooter.

As far as 'why they don't win'. They went that first 5 years under Norv and didn't win, the 'flavor of the week' theory not applicable there. Unless you consider Norv himself the flavor of the week, which in fact he was at the time of his hiring.

The next year they didn't go flavor of the week, and DID win.

The following year they absolutely went flavor of the week and didn't win.

Last year no flavor of the week, and finished with the same non-winning record.

This year you can argue that Trotter and Armstead are the new flavors. But wouldn't Carr, Harrington, Bledsoe, and Dilfer also qualify? Spurrier also went and got Wuerfful and Craig, Anthony and Doering. And of course everybody roasted him precisely because they are NOT flavors of the month.

Ya can't win off the field if you're a Redskin. On the field, just win, baby.

[NavyDave]

So nobody called to educate these fools that Danny's moves in y2k were on the defensive side which was a success but norvals side of the ball sucked.

If the defense add trotter and a complimentary DT to go with BDW then all we need is offense thats one RCH better than last year for usto make it to the playoffs

[Wacky Ralph]

Originally posted by MikeB

Guys,

I was just listening this morning and some, what I think are valid, points where raised. Keep in mind this is the morning show, where they try to be outrageous.

Heard Tony say that the Redskins are "always after the flavor of the week and thats why they don't win." Also Tony, Al, and Rhia all where baffled over how, with just 2 mil, the Skins could sign Trotter. Rhia pointed out that they where restructuring some contracts. Al chimed in saying that it seems absurd because we don't even have a QB, so why strap yourself when you might not even challenge this year.

What hits home to me is Tony's comment. I tend to agree. Dan likes the big splash and there just doesn't seem to be a long term building plan in place. We've been down this road before (and yes, not with anyone of Trotters quality and youth) and failed miserably. I could be wrong, and if Spurrier can do things with these QB's I will be, but until then, this signing would make me very nervous. Let it be on record.

AAAAAAAAHHHHHHHH!!!!! Someone's been stealing my thoughts!!! My GOD, "The X Files" is REAL!!!!!!! THE SMOKING MAN IS REALLLLLL!!!!!!!

"Restructuring the contracts of veterans". What does that mean? It means these veterans agree to take LESS money now, at least counting against this year salary cap, in return for a bonus & a longer contract. And if these veterans retire before the contract ends, the Redskins are stuck with dead money.

This stratagy worked out great with Troy Aikman in Dallas, huh????

[Art]

Ralph, it's important to start by saying, I've loved your schtick so far on this board. You are giving me more than an occasional laugh. Despite the fact that you clearly see things differently than I see them, I've thought out debates have been very fun.

But, now to the downside of this. I hate repetitive refusal to understand something. VoR got repetitive quick so he got boring. You've been fresh for the most part and you are just starting to display repetitive refusal.

What repetitive refusal is defined as is recognizing something factual and letting that fact guide the rest of what you say.

Here, it's a fact that veterans on this team have contracts that were structured in such a way so as to require them to be rewritten or torn up. With Coleman and Davis, you have guys you have to restructure or you will lose. With BOTH, you will have certain dead money.

There's no way to avoid it with either the way their initial contracts were written. It can't be helped. We MUST face this reality. The only question is do we take the dead money today, or do we take it later? We're going to take it. So, you're not really against dead money, since there's no way around it in this case.

So stop talking about it as if it was something we can avoid with these guys. We're going to take a cap it. We can take it now, after June 1, next year, or the year after. It's not going to make any difference. If you understand that, perhaps it will help me to understand what you propose we do about it.

There are ONLY three ways around it. Either you pay the guys what their base contract calls for until it runs out, meaning you have no dead money, only money wasted on players that probably aren't going to be worth $11 million ever, or, you renegotiate with them to keep them producing for you simply delaying the dead money hit you are going to take and you've taken every year the cap's been in existence, or you cut them sooner rather than later and take it now to get it out of the way.

That's all you can do.

I believe you don't think Smith will play three more full years and if he is playing, I take it you won't think he's worth $5 million a season? I believe you don't expect Coleman to play four more years and I take it you don't think he will play up to a $5.5 million contract in base dollars.

If you think that these players will fulfill their contracts as written and are worth the precise nature of how the contracts are written which would mean we'd never again have any dead money, then I take back thinking you are undergoing repetitive refusal and I'll simply say we don't understand the nature of the cap in the same way.

But, if you realize the fact that these players WILL require dead money against the cap at some point, then, stop talking like we can avoid it .

[Wacky Ralph]

Originally posted by Art

Ralph, it's important to start by saying, I've loved your schtick so far on this board. You are giving me more than an occasional laugh. Despite the fact that you clearly see things differently than I see them, I've thought out debates have been very fun.

But, now to the downside of this. I hate repetitive refusal to understand something. VoR got repetitive quick so he got boring. You've been fresh for the most part and you are just starting to display repetitive refusal.

What repetitive refusal is defined as is recognizing something factual and letting that fact guide the rest of what you say.

But, if you realize the fact that these players WILL require dead money against the cap at some point, then, stop talking like we can avoid it .

I'm not repeating myself. I'm not. Repeating myself is not something I would do. Why would I repeat myself? So I'm not. Repeating myself, that is. Me? Repeat myself? That doesn't sound like something I would do. Repeat myself.

I understand that certain contracts will always have a certain amount of dead space built into 'em. Dead space. Built into 'em. And that's OK, when it's done in limited doses.

But it scares the burrito-juice out of me when we RE-negotiate contracts with an older veterans, like some of the articles printed on the board are saying we'll do to squeaze under the cap & sign Trotter. 'Cause that's when you REALLY start getting in trouble. That's what eventually crushed Dall@ss and Jaggoffville.

I just wanna avoid having a dark cloud hanging over our salary-cap-skies, when Spurrier's offense is clicking and our playmakers on defense are kicking anal-cavities.

[Dirk Diggler]

This prick is beginning to irritate me. Go to the Eagle message board and debate the other inbreds. :hammer:

[Art]

Ralph,

It's got NOTHING to do with Trotter. It's likely Trotter's first year cap hit will be around $1.3 million. We're not restructuring with veterans because of Trotter. Before Trotter was even available we were reworking Davis and talking about the requirement to do Coleman the same.

We could cut Greer and Mitchell this instant and fully afford Trotter. Or, hell, we could fully afford Trotter immediately without doing a thing, because, again, his cap hit is likely to be less immediately though I'd really like it to be heavy early, but that's a different discussion for after he signs .

Anyway, we have to renegotiate Coleman and/or Davis so we can afford our draft picks. We have no choice. We either have to cut a couple of guys or renegotiate to have the alloted rookie pool available. That Trotter is available people are attaching his name to what we were doing PRIOR to his availability.

We either have to restructure or cut Coleman and/or Davis to have a little free money. We either have to restructure these guys or cut Barker and Mitchell and Greer and, etc., to get the rookie pool covered. This is part of the process. Now, there's more urgency to restructuring Coleman because we do want Trotter but, this was an inevitable procedure and it doesn't matter if we get Trotter or not, we're still restructuring or cutting these guys.

[Wacky Ralph]

Originally posted by Art

Ralph,

It's got NOTHING to do with Trotter. It's likely Trotter's first year cap hit will be around $1.3 million. We're not restructuring with veterans because of Trotter. Before Trotter was even available we were reworking Davis and talking about the requirement to do Coleman the same.

We could cut Greer and Mitchell this instant and fully afford Trotter. Or, hell, we could fully afford Trotter immediately without doing a thing, because, again, his cap hit is likely to be less immediately though I'd really like it to be heavy early, but that's a different discussion for after he signs .

Anyway, we have to renegotiate Coleman and/or Davis so we can afford our draft picks. We have no choice. We either have to cut a couple of guys or renegotiate to have the alloted rookie pool available. That Trotter is available people are attaching his name to what we were doing PRIOR to his availability.

We either have to restructure or cut Coleman and/or Davis to have a little free money. We either have to restructure these guys or cut Barker and Mitchell and Greer and, etc., to get the rookie pool covered. This is part of the process. Now, there's more urgency to restructuring Coleman because we do want Trotter but, this was an inevitable procedure and it doesn't matter if we get Trotter or not, we're still restructuring or cutting these guys.

If restruring the contracts of our aging veteran has NOTHING to do with signing Trotter-- either now or in the future-- than I'm a happy(er) guy. But that's contrary to certain articles published on this forum & counter-intuitive to what typically happens when a team in Washington's position adds a last-minute player.....particularly when they hadn't planned on him being available until a few weeks ago. The way I look at it, we're rebuilding right now. I think the best strategy for a rebuilding team is to use rely more on FRONT-loaded contracts (so you'll have cap-space in the future to add the missing pieces), to rely on cheaper FAs with an upside who might really prosper in a new environment/ new scheme, and to NEVER tie-up future money just to be competitive in the short-term. Then, when you're on the verge of being a Superbowel team, THAT IS WHEN you go for broke, moving heaven, heck, hell, hades, purgatory, Utah, and earth to gain a short-term competitive edge during a championship run. Championship windows close quickly in the era of free agency, so when you have a shot, you do all you can to take it.

That's my philosophy. And on several points, the Trotter signing runs contrary to it.

Sorry if this offends people. Actually, I'm not sorry. That's what I believe, and I don't think it's a stupid philosophy. A pox on the houses of those who defy the fiery logic of the Wackster!!!!! Bibbibby BOO!!

[Wacky Ralph]

Originally posted by Dirk Diggler

This prick is beginning to irritate me. Go to the Eagle message board and debate the other inbreds. :hammer:

That's nice. A guy who names himself after a drugged-out fictional porn star flames me for expressing an opinion that he doesn't personally agree with.

In the movie "Boogie Nights" Dirk Diggler had a gigantic penis. I'm curious-- what was it about Dirk that you found so attractive that you wanted to name yourself after him????

[Reaganaut]

Dang Art, your post is very well reasoned. Thank you for taking the time to put posts like this together. Posts like yours are why I have put ExtremeSkins into my "rotation" which is small after seven years on the Internet daily. Hat's off!