rtandler Posted March 4, 2005 Share Posted March 4, 2005 Not that I blame Pierce, mind you. But players like him need to accept the consequenses: Don't construe any this, by the way, as criticism of any of the players for deciding to take the money. Their careers are short and most of them have just one chance for a big payday. Far be it from me to say that they should take a million or two less here and there in order to stay in Washington.The flip side of that coin is that the players need to forgive us if we are quite skeptical of their nice-sounding pronouncements of undying devoution to the Burgundy and Gold. This plus a look at Coles and Patten. Tandler's Redskins Blog: Beware of Redskins for Life Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bubba9497 Posted March 4, 2005 Share Posted March 4, 2005 links not working Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ntotoro Posted March 4, 2005 Share Posted March 4, 2005 This one should work. Nick Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dead Money Posted March 4, 2005 Share Posted March 4, 2005 http://redskinsblog.blogspot.com/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
taylor36 Posted March 4, 2005 Share Posted March 4, 2005 So, I guess Smoot is going to follow Pierce. Smoot always says he's a "true redskin". So do we get someone to replace him in free agency or the draft? Or do we go with Harris and Wilds? By the way, love your blog. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bubba9497 Posted March 4, 2005 Share Posted March 4, 2005 good call on Patten Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BG Posted March 4, 2005 Share Posted March 4, 2005 Hmm interesting, makes me realize that in the hoopla of Redskins offeseason shuffle, we didn't tag anyone right? why not????? http://msn.foxsports.com/nfl/story/3413324 We could have transitioned Pierce (not that I am dwelling on this :paranoid: ) right? It wouldn't have been as high as what we would have to pay him at a franchise tag (cuz no one would have paid that and a draft pick), yet it would have sent a bad message to Smoot. However, where we stand right now, we may lose Smooty too.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rtandler Posted March 4, 2005 Author Share Posted March 4, 2005 Didn't really have the cap room to tag either, BG, until Samuels restructured and that was no sure thing. It was there on paper but they would have gone into free agency with zero cap room. Even if they had been able to manuver enough to tag Smoot, a corner's franchise tag is worth about $10 million and Smoot wisely would have just taken that and played under the tender in '05, creating a huge cap hit this year. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BG Posted March 4, 2005 Share Posted March 4, 2005 Originally posted by rtandler Didn't really have the cap room to tag either, BG, until Samuels restructured and that was no sure thing. It was there on paper but they would have gone into free agency with zero cap room. Even if they had been able to manuver enough to tag Smoot, a corner's franchise tag is worth about $10 million and Smoot wisely would have just taken that and played under the tender in '05, creating a huge cap hit this year. Hey thanks Rich. I appreciate that... Never knew the transition and franchise $ was the same. I always thought it was a certain % upped from the players previous salary ... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.