Larry Brown #43 Posted March 9, 2005 Share Posted March 9, 2005 Here are Smoot's comments about why he's leaving, word-for-word from an interview with Marius Payton on Comcast SportsNet this morning... "I can say this about Coach Gibbs: He did everything he could. And I appreciate everything Coach Gibbs did to try to keep me here. But when it came down to it, the money situation was so messed up, we couldn't work nothing out. It wasn't him not trying to work something out. It was just past stuff we had done." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
andyman Posted March 9, 2005 Share Posted March 9, 2005 Smoot, the cap and budget expert, speaks. Truth is, no team makes an offer to a player without having the capability to pay it. When the Skins made their final offer to Smoot, his potential $10.3 million signing bonus and salary was accounted for. The team cannot sign a contract it cannot pay and fit under the cap...NFL rules. Smoot wanted more than was budgeted. Smoot wanted more than Springs. Neither was going to happen, and it didn't. Turn the page, moving on. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bang Posted March 9, 2005 Share Posted March 9, 2005 Translation... "My agent saw his commission on that extra 800,000 as a nice downpayment on a new boat." ~Bang Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Brown #43 Posted March 9, 2005 Author Share Posted March 9, 2005 Originally posted by andyman Smoot, the cap and budget expert, speaks. Truth is, no team makes an offer to a player without having the capability to pay it. When the Skins made their final offer to Smoot, his potential $10.3 million signing bonus and salary was accounted for. The team cannot sign a contract it cannot pay and fit under the cap...NFL rules. Smoot wanted more than was budgeted. Smoot wanted more than Springs. Neither was going to happen, and it didn't. Turn the page, moving on. From hearing Smoot say these things this morning, it sure sounded as though he was implying that this was the story he was getting from straight from Gibbs--about the money situation being messed up. Of course, that's my interpretation...but if you heard it, it sure sounded like that's what he was saying. Sounds as though he opened the door slightly on some private conversations with the coach...but again, that's my interpretation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blondie Posted March 9, 2005 Share Posted March 9, 2005 Originally posted by Larry Brown #43 From hearing Smoot say these things this morning, it sure sounded as though he was implying that this was the story he was getting from straight from Gibbs--about the money situation being messed up. Of course, that's my interpretation...but if you heard it, it sure sounded like that's what he was saying. Sounds as though he opened the door slightly on some private conversations with the coach...but again, that's my interpretation. Thank you Larry for the last sentence. So many believe what they THINK is GOSPEL. They think it so therefore it is so. Each of us has an opinion. Although I heard it differently, the only thing I know for sure, is that Smoot is gone. Blondie Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Church Posted March 9, 2005 Share Posted March 9, 2005 Originally posted by Bang Translation... "My agent saw his commission on that extra 800,000 as a nice downpayment on a new boat." ~Bang It wasn't just about the difference in signing bonus money. Smoot didn't make this decision based on $800,000 (or $300,000, depending on which Redskins' offer you believe). Washington typically backloads contracts, paying out low salary. Look at the contracts signed by Marcus Washington and Shawn Springs: (from nflpa.org) Washington: Salary History 2004 535000.00 2005 540000.00 2006 1500000.00 2007 4000000.00 2008 4425000.00 2009 4500000.00 Springs: Salary History 2004 660000.00 2005 665000.00 2006 750000.00 2007 4875000.00 2008 5000000.00 2009 6000000.00 I assume that the contract Washington offered Smoot was structured very similarly to these two and others Washington has done in the past: big bonus, small salary over the first three seasons. We have to wait until the NFLPA site is updated with Smoot's contract information, but assuming Nunyo was correct in his article, Smoot's Vikings contract averaged $6 million dollars per year over the first three seasons. His signing bonus, due to being able to spread it out only 5 years this season, accounts for roughly $2 million of that, meaning that it's possible that he's seeing $4 million per in salary over the first 3 years. If Nunyo's numbers are incorrect and Smoot's contract is more similar to the one signed by Antoine Winfield, than Smoot still earns significantly more over the first three seasons than he would from a contract structured like the ones above. Winfield: Salary History 2004 1600000.00 2005 600000.00 2006 4700000.00 2007 4900000.00 2008 5600000.00 2009 6000000.00 My point is, don't believe Smoot left over $800,000. It was likely significantly more than that amount. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ntotoro Posted March 9, 2005 Share Posted March 9, 2005 Originally posted by Church My point is, don't believe Smoot left over $800,000. It was likely significantly more than that amount. I really doubt Winfield will go into next year and the year after making almost $5m. He'll restructure eventually whether it's a year from now or two years from now, otherwise he'll be cut. These guys know the only salary they're guaranteed is the bonus. Nick Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Church Posted March 9, 2005 Share Posted March 9, 2005 Originally posted by ntotoro I really doubt Winfield will go into next year and the year after making almost $5m. He'll restructure eventually whether it's a year from now or two years from now, otherwise he'll be cut. These guys know the only salary they're guaranteed is the bonus. Nick Barring something happening to Red McCombs over the next season, the Vikings are still likely to be in the $20 million range underneath the salary cap. And I think that's a conservative number for them. There will be no need for them to restructure that contract unless they don't feel he's performing to that level. **EDIT** Plus, I don't think that the NFLPA numbers on Winfield are correct, now that I look at them. Winfield didn't receive a signing bonus when he signed last season. He received a roster bonus that wasn't prorated over the life of the contract and thus all counted towards the 2004 cap. His cap hit for last year was actually something like $13 million and is one of the reasons the franchise number for corners was so high. Let me see if I can find the relevant info via google. Found it: http://www.startribune.com/stories/503/5265998.html The Vikings signed Winfield to a six-year, $35 million deal with a $10.8 million roster bonus. Although the size of the contract set a team record for free agency, critics suggest the team's motivation was in part the need to reach the league's minimum salary cap.The Vikings also purposely hamstrung themselves from acquiring other big-name players last year because roster bonuses aren't prorated over the life of the contract, as signing bonuses are. Winfield's cap number last year was a league-high $12.4 million. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PCS Posted March 9, 2005 Share Posted March 9, 2005 Be prepared to believe anything. Players leave town for bigger contracts and they leave fo not much more than being offered. And it doesn't jsut happen with the Skins. Hopefully that site get's updated asap. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Craigerson Posted March 9, 2005 Share Posted March 9, 2005 Well see, this doesn't make me hate Smoot though, he realizes unlike LC, Gibbs isn't trying to do him wrong, his hands are tied by previous mistakes, but the FO is trying to turn things around so sacrifices must be made. I'm glad he's making that clear to the fans, that its a issue of him wanting more than we can give. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wskin44 Posted March 9, 2005 Share Posted March 9, 2005 Whether Smoot got offered $10 or $10.3 or $10.5 isn't what caused the money disparity. I believe that he was offered a split bonus, meaning the $10.? was offered partially in upfront guaranteed money and partially in 2006 or later roster bonuses that could be converted to signing bonuses down the road. Convertable roster bonuses are not guaranteed because the player can be cut before they are paid. Smoot did not leave over $800,000. He left because their was a huge difference in guaranteed money. The mismangagement of player signings in the past has now cost us Pierce and Smoot. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fuji869 Posted March 9, 2005 Share Posted March 9, 2005 Originally posted by Bang Translation... "My agent saw his commission on that extra 800,000 as a nice downpayment on a new boat." ~Bang Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GSF Posted March 9, 2005 Share Posted March 9, 2005 Originally posted by Bang Translation... "My agent saw his commission on that extra 800,000 as a nice downpayment on a new boat." ~Bang I think you hit the nail on the head here. Greedy agents are going to ruin football. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Conrad87 Posted March 9, 2005 Share Posted March 9, 2005 He's gone and nothin's gonna bring him back He's gone.... :rant: :tantrum: :rant: :doh: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dead Money Posted March 9, 2005 Share Posted March 9, 2005 I read that Smoot's new contract paid him and average of $6mil a year during the first 3 years.. There is no way we could ever compete with that. Dan got a little bit of his own savvy payback.. We took Coles when the Jets couldn't do anything about it that why we had to eat :pooh: on his trade. He was paid up front. This whole situation sucks but what goes around comes around and it seems that Gibbs and Company have chosen to bite the bullet now instead of letting it get any worse. I for one am glad that the article about Coles came out and that we refused to pay more than we should have for AP and Smoot. Yeah we lost good players, but the organization will be stronger for it in the long run. The one thing that still left a bad taste in my mouth after last years offseason was Portis and how he said all his buddies were calling him to try and get some money too... That kind of stuff had to stop, and I think this offseasons moves or lack thereof, is a good step forward for our Redskins. Its like a lot of things in life, the tough decisions are usually painful. PS: Blondie, this is an internet message board. Unless it has quotes surrounding it, or has a link referring you to the original author... then it is an opinion. Its quite simple actually. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ntotoro Posted March 9, 2005 Share Posted March 9, 2005 Originally posted by Kevin B. I read that Smoot's new contract paid him and average of $6mil a year during the first 3 years.. There is no way we could ever compete with that. Not this year, but next year the team would have been in tip-top shape and all he needed to wait was one more year. Regardless, the team had already decided he wasn't worth paying that kind of money, at least up-front, before Coles was even dealt back to the Jets. They had already made up their mind he was worth X and Smoot thought he was worth Y. I agree with our FO on this one. That's an awful lot of money to pay someone who has never been to a Pro Bowl, is undersized and has been getting dinged up a lot the last couple years because of his size. We didn't even need him to beat his new team. Nick Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Art Posted March 9, 2005 Share Posted March 9, 2005 The figure of $6 million a year over three years includes the signing bonus of $10.8 million. Which means his yearly salary will be a total of $7.2 million over three seasons. This is only possible due to not being able to prorate out bonuses over the full seven years at this point, I believe. In any case, by the rules of the league, you have to pay a player the value of the prorated bonus over the first three years. It's the Deion rule. You can't pay him league minimum forever. You have to boost your base salaries, and, in fact, we'd have paid him almost the precise same amount over the early years, save, our bonus was somewhat less. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brown 43 Posted March 9, 2005 Share Posted March 9, 2005 Could someone explain how the Raider's do it? It seems every year they do more than the Redskins and get away with it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.