cfujskins Posted January 12, 2005 Share Posted January 12, 2005 There's one more variable about the trade that should not be put aside either and thats the contracts that both parties received. Looking at the contract that Denver handed to Champ, I say the scale is tipped to our favor a litte bit:) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
budski Posted January 12, 2005 Share Posted January 12, 2005 I see it about even steven. Although next year I think Portis will have a better year. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
f_dallas Posted January 12, 2005 Share Posted January 12, 2005 Looking at the contract that Denver handed to Champ, I say the scale is tipped to our favor a litte bit No Need to rehash this again, but I believe Denver gave Champ $18 million in bonuses and the Skins gave Portis $17 million in bonuses. The money was off by around $10 million over the life of the contracts, but I think everyone is aware that the end of these agreements are probably funny moeny- the bonus dollars are all that counts. Additionally, the CB position is more important than the RB position (at least dollarwise)...I wouldn't say either got the "better of the deal". They both made their player the highest paid at theit respective positions (at the time). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AzSkinsFan63 Posted January 12, 2005 Share Posted January 12, 2005 "Bailey's effectiveness quasi-neutered"??? :laugh: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wskin44 Posted January 12, 2005 Share Posted January 12, 2005 The trade has to be taken within the context of each team. Wash. was faced with an unhappy franchised player who was going to eat huge cap space in '04 and prevent us from doing much last offseason. Denver was faced with a young star who wanted a new contract which they didn't want to do. Denver ended up with Bailey (a serious improvement for them) and Bell to replace Portis. Washington ended up with Portis (better by far than any RB on their roster) and Springs to replace Bailey. Denver's running game survived but wasn't as consistently dangerous without Portis. Washington's defense didn't miss Bailey for a minute. But Washington was able to go out and sign Washington, Griffin and others last offseason which may not have been possible with a franchised Bailey. And Washington would have been right back in the same position this offseason with Bailey weighing on the cap at franchise numbers. Washington was in a bigger pickle with Bailey than Denver was with Portis (because Portis wasn't a free agent). Denver used that leverage to get the draft pick that everyone ****es about, but both Wash. & Denver understood the reality. Washington did an excellent job of getting value for Bailey and moving on. Denver did an excellent job of getting value for Portis and avoiding an ugly holdout of a player under contract. Trying to compare who won or lost the trade is simple b.s. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NoCalMike Posted January 12, 2005 Share Posted January 12, 2005 The trades aftermath really made it CHamp/Tatum Bell for Portis/Sean Taylor, because I really felt that if we had Smoot and Bailey in the secondary for 2005, we would have chosen Winslow in the draft. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Henry Posted January 12, 2005 Share Posted January 12, 2005 Originally posted by f_dallas No Need to rehash this again, but I believe Denver gave Champ $18 million in bonuses and the Skins gave Portis $17 million in bonuses. That's how the national media portrayed it, but that's misleading. Bailey got an $18 mil bonus PLUS $5 mil in roster bonuses, or $23 mil in total bonuses. Bailey's total contract is $63 mil over seven years. Portis' got an $11 mil bonus plus $6 mil in roster bonuses, or $17 mil in TOTAL bonuses. Portis' total contract is $50 mil over eight years. It's not really that close. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Art Posted January 12, 2005 Share Posted January 12, 2005 I've said before and will say again. The second a single person here says they'd have traded Deion Sanders for Emmitt Smith in 1993 is the moment any of you can say you'd take Bailey over Portis. If 1,300 yards makes a system back, then, give me a system back any day of the week. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SkinsNut73 Posted January 12, 2005 Share Posted January 12, 2005 ...give it a couple more years and I think everyone will have to admit we got the better end of the deal. Right now they can hang their hats on the "Redskins didn't make the playoffs, but the Broncos did...Clinton is not the right back for Gibbs' offense...blah, blah, blah" crap. We'll come out on top in the end... ...especially after the Broncos trade that 2nd rd pick (T. Bell) for another corner Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ntotoro Posted January 12, 2005 Share Posted January 12, 2005 Originally posted by 1-2-3 times a loser i think its a bad trade for both teams, teams have figured out though great in coverage Bailey is poor when thrown at, and Portis looks a system runningback 1300 yards in basically 14 games (plus Philly 1 and Pittsburgh where he was basically "benched" by coach Gibbs) in an offense that had no passing game at all and you want to say he's a system back... ? If that's the case, I wish all system backs were this good... :doh: Nick Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
[[ghost]] Posted January 12, 2005 Share Posted January 12, 2005 portis and springs>bailey and bell Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jrfriedm Posted January 12, 2005 Share Posted January 12, 2005 He's still a good to very good player at a position where the Broncos were destitute. And what Trung was something special? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DCMONEY Posted January 12, 2005 Share Posted January 12, 2005 I don't look at this as a Bailey for Springs deal. Bottom line is The Skins gave Portis the richest contract in RB history at the time when he had 2 years remaining on it and no bargaining power. Even if they had to renegotiate to get Portis to accept the trade, they didn't have to make him the highest paid RB in history. I don't thnk you ever over compensate for a running back period. The Skins also gave up Champ and a 2nd rounder. Bad management in my opinion. I kept saying to go for Corey Dillon. He's still serviceable and woulda been way more Cap friendly. A lot of teams inquired about Champ. A 1st rounder coulda been obtained for him since they were gonna part ways anyway. Not to take anything away from Portis but who was Ruben Droghns before this year? He coulda easily had 1500 yds rushing, if he wasn't sharing the ball. He had 1240 while sharing the load. The Skins overcompensated for Portis period. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sweet Sassy Molassy Posted January 12, 2005 Share Posted January 12, 2005 Originally posted by jrfriedm And what Trung was something special? My sentiments exactly. There was no mention of our RB situation. Apparently, 600 yards a year is good enough for Ol' Peter King. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Skins11 Posted January 12, 2005 Share Posted January 12, 2005 Originally posted by DCMONEY I kept saying to go for Corey Dillon. He's still serviceable and woulda been way more Cap friendly. So let's pick up a whiny Corey Dillon, who wanted out since he is fed up with being on a losing team that's trying to rebuild. Wanted to go to a team who was already winning without him. Yup, he would have been just fine here with our 6-10 record. The Skins are rebuilding, they were not one or two players away from contending for a superbowl like the Patriots were. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SkinsNut73 Posted January 12, 2005 Share Posted January 12, 2005 Originally posted by DCMONEY I don't look at this as a Bailey for Springs deal. Bottom line is The Skins gave Portis the richest contract in RB history at the time when he had 2 years remaining on it and no bargaining power. Even if they had to renegotiate to get Portis to accept the trade, they didn't have to make him the highest paid RB in history. I actually thought the decision to renegotiate was a good move. If we had taken his current contract, he may have bolted in 2 years. At the time he was easily considered a top 3 back who rushed for 1500 yds per year and had 29 career TD's in 2 yrs...and is still very young. We were locking up a franchise back, not a regular RB, by renegotiating his contract. He deserved to be paid good money IMO.:2cents: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ntotoro Posted January 12, 2005 Share Posted January 12, 2005 Originally posted by DCMONEY I don't look at this as a Bailey for Springs deal. Bottom line is The Skins gave Portis the richest contract in RB history at the time when he had 2 years remaining on it and no bargaining power. Even if they had to renegotiate to get Portis to accept the trade, they didn't have to make him the highest paid RB in history. I don't thnk you ever over compensate for a running back period. The Skins also gave up Champ and a 2nd rounder. Bad management in my opinion. I kept saying to go for Corey Dillon. He's still serviceable and woulda been way more Cap friendly. A lot of teams inquired about Champ. A 1st rounder coulda been obtained for him since they were gonna part ways anyway. Not to take anything away from Portis but who was Ruben Droghns before this year? He coulda easily had 1500 yds rushing, if he wasn't sharing the ball. He had 1240 while sharing the load. The Skins overcompensated for Portis period. Portis will be here a while. Dillon, while he had a good year this year, would need to be replaced in a year or two since he's a running back on the wrong side of 30. Cheap, but not a long-term solution and was already sick of being on a team rebuilding. What would make you think he'd want to come here? He wanted to go somewhere he felt was easiest for him and what better team would that be than a NE? They had everything in place but the running back already and he waltzed right in. Still think the D-Line sucks, too? Nick Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
f_dallas Posted January 12, 2005 Share Posted January 12, 2005 That's how the national media portrayed it, but that's misleading. Fine...the Skins won in a landslide- enjoy the spoils. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Henry Posted January 12, 2005 Share Posted January 12, 2005 Originally posted by f_dallas Fine...the Skins won in a landslide- enjoy the spoils. I didn't say that. I'm just sick of hearing people bend the truth to make all owners not named Snyder look frugal in comparison. And while I'm not accusing you of doing that, maybe you got your information from someone who does. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bubba9497 Posted January 12, 2005 Share Posted January 12, 2005 Originally posted by f_dallas Fine...the Skins won in a landslide. exactly! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dahurt002 Posted January 12, 2005 Share Posted January 12, 2005 To me we got the better deal. I may be bias but notice, S. Springs had a way better year than bailey (5 picks and 5 sacks). For a lot cheaper, the defense became better without him and we got a 22 year old running back that gained 1300 yards behind a beat up line with NO, I MEAN NO, passing game until Patrick got in the 9th game of the year, and he still almost got 1500 yards even when he missed the last game of the year. Denver was destroyed in the playoffs last year without Champ and that is why they over-paid for him. They went 9-6 and had to beat the colts to get in this year, so the colts let them win so that they could destroy them in the first round of the playoffs for practice, with Champ Bailey I don't about you guys but Champ didn't help there situation and Portis did help ours P.S. Which player has yet to reach his prime????? IT AIN'T CHAMP. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ERIC THE REDskinsfan Posted January 12, 2005 Share Posted January 12, 2005 Originally posted by Gamebreaker Why is that funny? Springs had nothing to do with that trade. Dude- How can you say he had nothing to do with the trade? If we still had Champ do we still sign Springs?!? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TerpSkin Posted January 12, 2005 Share Posted January 12, 2005 Why is that funny? Springs had nothing to do with that trade. Actually, I would argue that is not true. It's all a matter of resources given up and resources gained. To sign Champ Bailey to a long term deal costed a boatload of money. That boatload could in turn be spent on signing Portis to a long term deal and Springs to a long term deal. Therefore, Springs should be included in the trade if you are going to include what Denver did with their second round pick in the trade. So when you look at it that way, we did pretty darn well in the trade... and I think that will get more pronounced as time goes on. Involving Springs in this trade is the equivalent of mentioning the performance of Reuben Droughns this season. False. Involving Smoot in this trade is the equivalent of mentioning the performance of Reuben Droughns this season. Drougns and Smoot were both already on the roster and were going to continue to be on the roster regardless of the trade. Springs would not have been signed if we had kept Champ both because of a lack of need and a lack of cap space... similarly Tatum Bell would not have been drafted by the Broncos if they kept Portis both because of the lack of need and the lack of an extra draft pick. Portis & Springs for Bailey & Bell is the proper comparison. Moreover, when judging the wisdom of the trade given the information at the time, one needs to look at the performance of the individual intended to replace the traded player. Springs more than made up for losing Champ... but Denver envisioned using Tatum Bell and Quentin Griffin to make up for losing Portis, which failed miserably. The Broncos were merely lucky to have discovered the until-then-misused Droughns. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ERIC THE REDskinsfan Posted January 12, 2005 Share Posted January 12, 2005 Well said Terp!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Art Posted January 12, 2005 Share Posted January 12, 2005 Springs absolutely had something to do with the trade of Bailey. As Gibbs stated, had the team felt it could not recover the loss of Bailey elsewhere, we'd never have traded Bailey. But, we examined those players available to replace Bailey and decided we could get production out of a replacement, making it easy to consider the trade. Just as Denver only traded Portis because it felt his production could be made up with someone else. Bailey's production WAS made up by someone else where Portis' production wasn't made up in Denver by any player. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.