why would samuels redo deal-he shouldnt

[bsmsss]

he is in the last yr of his deal--his deal gives him a salary of 9 mil

the only way he doesnt get the 9 mil is if he gets cut by sept--thus the last yr of a deal is like a signing bonus--if he does gets cut he will just sign with another team and get his big contract anyway

thus what does he have to gain by redoing

say he redoes his deal and he gets a 14 mil bonus--he really is only getting 5 mil more since his final yr on his deal is giving him 9 mil anyway

thus he would be smart to play the final yr--get his 9 mil and then next yr get another 14 in a signing bonus on a new deal

thats 23 mil vs 15 mil in gaurenteed money

this is why samuels will say no

skins should have redone his deal last summer not now

skins have no leverage

[DeaconBlue]

Too bad he doesn't want a ring instead..

[scruffylookin]

If he wants to stay a Redskin (like he has said) he needs to redo his contract. He'll get his money in a new signing bonus. Redoing his contract isn't the same as accepting a paycut.

[TaylorPickSix]

Yeah, if Samuels wants to remain in DC, he'll sign an extension lowering his cap number this year and giving him a bigger signing bonus (prob the 14 mil Smoot was complaining about, b/c samuels is actually worth it.)

[Bang]

Right,, and no other owner in the NFL would look at his refusal to do a deal and think "all he wants is money" and look elsewhere.

~Bang

[DonMagicJuan]

he should take one for the team, look at the pats, the damn excutive gave up 3 mil a year to join seattle just to stay with the pats probablymakin a mil....that shows you that organization is at its best right now in the NFL

[thinker]

Originally posted by bsmsss

he is in the last yr of his deal--his deal gives him a salary of 9 mil

the only way he doesnt get the 9 mil is if he gets cut by sept--thus the last yr of a deal is like a signing bonus--if he does gets cut he will just sign with another team and get his big contract anyway

thus what does he have to gain by redoing

say he redoes his deal and he gets a 14 mil bonus--he really is only getting 5 mil more since his final yr on his deal is giving him 9 mil anyway

thus he would be smart to play the final yr--get his 9 mil and then next yr get another 14 in a signing bonus on a new deal

thats 23 mil vs 15 mil in gaurenteed money

this is why samuels will say no

skins should have redone his deal last summer not now

skins have no leverage

A lot of this is just incorrect. He has two more years. His cap number is over $9 million this year but that includes pro-rated bonus money. His salary is about $6 million. If he got a $12 million bonus he would be pocketing $6.5 million extra this year. I sincerely think Samuels is willing to renegotiate - they're just arguing about the size of the bonus.

[bedlamVR]

I think also they are going to be looking at totally re-doing his deal to get an extention to give us some help next year too.

The Skins couldn't redo Samuels deal last year because he wouldn't budge and to say the F.O. has no leverage Samuels is not too hot either. He strugles in run blocking and has lapses of concentration leading to penalties and has never really lived up to his potential . He is 2 years removed from pro-bowl calibre play and should he be released say after June the 1st I cannot see anyone falling over themselves to give him the big money he would be looking for.

Remeber he has been a key component in an offensive line that has given up huge numbers of sacks in the last two years people looking to upgrade could probably say they could save a few bucks getting a less spectacular but more solid rookie or journyman vet elsewhere.

[Warhead36]

If he doesn't want to redo his contract I say Gibbs make a statement and cut his ass. Besides, he isn't that good. Lots of times last year I saw him get beat. Yeah I know, he shut down Simeon Rice, but he also let Alex Brown beat him a lot in that Bears game, and a few other games I remember seeing Samuels get beat frequently. Too frequently to be getting paid the money tha the is.

[PCRoughrider]

The fact that he is in the last year of his deal is exactly the reason he should re-do it. If the Redskins make it clear that they will not pay him what he's scheduled to make this year, he'll go onto the open market with the last few years on his resume to get a new contract.

His last few years have not been good.

[bulldog]

I think Gregg Williams has shown (if we didn't already have the example of the Patriots to nudge us) that the team does not need to pay exorbitant salaries to guys across the board to have a winning team.

The more I see of guys like Samuels that have been taking the money and returning less than value the more I am of the opinion that if Gibbs wants to set up the Redskins to compete and contend in the future he needs to perhaps take the team a step back and release or trade guys like Samuels and some others who right now appear to have a stranglehold on the chances of this team vis a vis the cap in 2005 and 2006.

It may just be time to clean house of these veterans and start over again.

I say this not because I want to see the Redskins go 6-10 again but because the team has failed to make the playoffs with either Samuels or Arrington on the roster, so obviously they alone aren't the answer.

Arrington's deal was redone and he will be a Redskin for the forseeable future, fine. I think Williams can take a good player and perhaps set him up to be a premiere player.

But Samuels?

Working with Bugel and Co. he did recover some of his former 'glory' so to speak in getting back to being a capable and solid presence at LT.

But this guy is nowhere close to where Jim Lachey was in 1991 when NOBODY got by the guy for 16 games and the Redskins dominated teams at the line.

He is nowhere near where Orlando Pace was back in 99-02 as the top tackle in the NFL.

Therefore, why pay this guy bribery wages just to go 9-7 in 2005?

Screw that.

I ultimately want to see a team go 13-3 or 14-2 here and return to the Super Bowl.

If that means taking a step back in being aggressive for 2005 and 2006 so be it.

With the moves made already to adapt the offense for Portis and starting Ramsey, those alone may make this team a 2-3 game better squad WITHOUT any big time moves in the offseason.

And if we can pick up a franchise wide receiver or offensive/defensive linemen at #9, we may be better than that WITHOUT Samuels.

The chickens will come home to roost in 2006 when the majority of his cap hit will be on the books, but sometimes that is the cost of correcting a mistake that was made in the past

Instead of negotiating sensible deals with Arrington and Samuels as rookies to spread the bonus and salary as the Eagles and Patriots do with their players the Redskins backloaded everything to the hilt and THAT is why the contracts of these two players has kept the team hostage the past two offseasons.

We got relief from Arrington last year and that allowed us to add Portis and Washington and Springs.

Samuels doesn't look at himself as a career Redskin as Arrington does, so like Smoot he is going to be after every dollar, regardless of how many other players we have to cut to accomodate him.

Doing so is a move for an also ran.

Let's just say a loud NO.

No to Smoot at $15 million. No to Samuels on a restructured deal for $20 million.

[TheBeast36]

redoing contracts isnt GOOD for the player but it is done because they WANT to be there. our leverage is we hope he wants to be there.

[bulldog]

my gut feeling is that a deal with Samuels will not be reached before March 1 and the team as a consequence is going to be much more limited in free agency (and retaining our own players) than we had originally hoped for.

again, if Samuels sees the deals out there and his agent wants to all of a sudden drop by and work out a new deal in June, what is the Redskins incentive at that point?

2005 opportunities will have been missed.

for this to work for 2005 that deal needs to be re-done in the next couple of weeks.

[Nicealot]

Originally posted by bulldog

The more I see of guys like Samuels that have been taking the money and returning less than value the more I am of the opinion that if Gibbs wants to set up the Redskins to compete and contend in the future he needs to perhaps take the team a step back and release or trade guys like Samuels and some others who right now appear to have a stranglehold on the chances of this team vis a vis the cap in 2005 and 2006.

Samuels WOULD WANT to renogitate his contract and get the guaranteed money. His quality of play has declined and he can no longer balme Spurrier's offensive scheme. Is Gibbs to blame for the decline? I think not. Samuels is no Walter Jones (Seattle) who got a 16 million signing bonus and he's certainly no Orlando Pace (franchise player). So long as the offer is reasonable and within market standards, he should restructure, I think.

[Cskin]

Bulldog is right..... restructuring a contract of a guy who has indicated, at least indirectly, that he's in it for the money and isn't a "core Redskin" would not be in the team's best interest.

Gibbs' should send a message, a declaration that the Redskins are no longer an organization that will be held ransom for huge contracts and be rewarded with inconsistent and subpar play.

Trade Samuels to Cleveland, San Diego, or the Dolphins and identify his replacement either on the roster or a short-term FA. Same goes with Smoot... he's given only lip service to being a "true Redskin"... asking for money he isn't worth due to his own indiscretions before he became a player in the NFL.

[PCS]

The guy in it for the money has restructured twice since being in D. C. . Now is the time for serious negotiations and hopefully the kind that are cap friendly to the Skins but keep Samuels of having to do so one more time.

[bulldog]

that's great Park City, but if Samuels and his agent aren't able to articulate a number to the Redskins that they find appropriate until June or July (ie after other guys hit the market in 2005) then the Redskins will be hamstrung in free agency and the import of that extended deal will be largely blunted.

right now, Samuels and his agent are looking back to his being a pro bowl starting caliber performer a la 2001 and calculating the money based on that yardstick.

unfortunately, unlike Walter Jones, he has not performed at that level the past couple of years so it would be stupid for the Redskins to give Samuels a new contract with a prorated $16 million bonus attached to it

Samuels and the Redskins are in a catch-22.

Samuels wants top dollar and believes he will continue trending back to the player he was in 2001 while the Redskins are looking at what he has done the past 2 years and are probably telling him he is not worth Jones/Pace/Tra Thomas money.

[PCS]

Possibly Bulldog, but unless you or I have been in those meetings then we probably have no idea what the hell is the sticking point or points. What he or his agent are asking for an what the Skins are willing to give. Yes. There are differences here but let's not make them out to be what they may not be. And don't you think that thats a very large, fairly negative If you have going there based on what is a very small amount of information and a somewhat inaccurate analysis of his play this past season? Samuels played very, very well. Maybe not as good as some others but better than most. That can allow him some leverage. It's possible that with Patrick now starting and the need for a solid maybe even top notch Left Tackle to protect him also gives him some leverage. But that again is really hard to say with absolute certainty. But thanks for the speculation anyway.

[bulldog]

I rated Samuels performance this season as 'solid'. He mades strides back from the guy that had a lot of false start penalties in 2002 and 2003 and looked poor in one on one matchups with Hugh Douglas and Greg Ellis.

Evidently, the rest of the NFL rated Samuels somewhere in that range as he was not voted to the pro bowl and wasn't even an honorable mention on most postseason all-star teams I have seen.

The Redskins say he had a fine year. But they also said that Dockery looked good as well and that is a point I would dispute to some degree. The Redskins inability to hold the fort inside in 2004 against some of the better defensive lines was not all on Cory Raymer.

[PCS]

No. But it was a big factor in the performance of the online. That and the loss of Jansen. Dockery had himself a sophmore year but came on and regained his form for the most part in the latter part of the season. I wouldn't use the ProBowl as an indicator either, considering the lack of players there from the Skins defense present on that team as well.

[bulldog]

Would you rate Samuels' 2004 season as one worthy of pro bowl consideration? Or would you agree with me that he came back to being a solid presence but still has a ways to go to be the consistent force he was in prior circumstances?

[REEGSKINS]

Originally posted by bulldog

I think Gregg Williams has shown (if we didn't already have the example of the Patriots to nudge us) that the team does not need to pay exorbitant salaries to guys across the board to have a winning team.

The more I see of guys like Samuels that have been taking the money and returning less than value the more I am of the opinion that if Gibbs wants to set up the Redskins to compete and contend in the future he needs to perhaps take the team a step back and release or trade guys like Samuels and some others who right now appear to have a stranglehold on the chances of this team vis a vis the cap in 2005 and 2006.

It may just be time to clean house of these veterans and start over again.

I say this not because I want to see the Redskins go 6-10 again but because the team has failed to make the playoffs with either Samuels or Arrington on the roster, so obviously they alone aren't the answer.

Arrington's deal was redone and he will be a Redskin for the forseeable future, fine. I think Williams can take a good player and perhaps set him up to be a premiere player.

But Samuels?

Working with Bugel and Co. he did recover some of his former 'glory' so to speak in getting back to being a capable and solid presence at LT.

But this guy is nowhere close to where Jim Lachey was in 1991 when NOBODY got by the guy for 16 games and the Redskins dominated teams at the line.

He is nowhere near where Orlando Pace was back in 99-02 as the top tackle in the NFL.

Therefore, why pay this guy bribery wages just to go 9-7 in 2005?

Screw that.

I ultimately want to see a team go 13-3 or 14-2 here and return to the Super Bowl.

If that means taking a step back in being aggressive for 2005 and 2006 so be it.

With the moves made already to adapt the offense for Portis and starting Ramsey, those alone may make this team a 2-3 game better squad WITHOUT any big time moves in the offseason.

And if we can pick up a franchise wide receiver or offensive/defensive linemen at #9, we may be better than that WITHOUT Samuels.

The chickens will come home to roost in 2006 when the majority of his cap hit will be on the books, but sometimes that is the cost of correcting a mistake that was made in the past

Instead of negotiating sensible deals with Arrington and Samuels as rookies to spread the bonus and salary as the Eagles and Patriots do with their players the Redskins backloaded everything to the hilt and THAT is why the contracts of these two players has kept the team hostage the past two offseasons.

We got relief from Arrington last year and that allowed us to add Portis and Washington and Springs.

Samuels doesn't look at himself as a career Redskin as Arrington does, so like Smoot he is going to be after every dollar, regardless of how many other players we have to cut to accomodate him.

Doing so is a move for an also ran.

Let's just say a loud NO.

No to Smoot at $15 million. No to Samuels on a restructured deal for $20 million.

GREAT POST!!!

[rdskns n 05]

The one thing everyone seems to forget in all these debates is the continunity this team has had over the last 5 years, There has not been any! I trust Coach will make the right decision here he did not want to come back to a losing season but he knew he had alot of work ahead of him, I think Chris will be great next year, you now have a good coaching staff in place and they now know what they have to work with. Things will be different next year.:dallasuck

[PCS]

Nope. As I said, I don't use the probowl as an indicator. Way too many factors involved there. Best I can do, and that's not saying much being I'm not presently employed in the NFL for good reason, is compare Samuels performance in 2004 against previous years. He had a solid and possibly a top...oh... 10 or better year this year considering some of the folks he went up against and of course having to unlearn the teachings of Kim Helton and learn those of Joe Bugel. And of course another offense.

If I were employed by the Skins or someone else, I would be doing what I think should be done. Looking at every single game and every single play and rating him that way. I would watch these plays while knowing what the play was and what his responsibility was on that play and if he did his job and did it well. I would be looking at his footwork, the placement of his hands, whether his head was on a swivle based on pass protection and who he was playing against and with. All kinds of things like that.

[Mister Happy]

N/M