if we dont resign smoot...
 

why dont we put the franchise tag on him if we cant sign him and trade him for a pick or something? that way we would get something for him.

I'm sure that will happen. Especially if they've already resigned Pierce.

From what I've heard, I don't even think they're going to franchise him...

Maybe they want him to test the market and see what other teams think he's worth?

Yeah, franchising Smoot is a bad idea. He is not worth the top 5 salaries for cb'S IN THE LEAGUE. I think he shoud fall somewhere between 8-15, top 5 is tooo much money for him.

he is worth that much because the cap went up in value, each year players salaries go up.

but correct me if im wrong, if we tag him and he signes with another team, dont we lose the franchise tag for the life of the contract?

also, smoot could take the tag money since its more than he would make per season otherwise and screw us over.

I think it's very unlikely that we would franchise him

[url="http://www.askthecommish.com/"]www.askthecommish.com[/url] has some great info on the cap, free agency, etc.

Here's a blurb about the franchise tag

[quote]Each team can name one Franchise Player and one Transition Player. Or, the team may elect to designate two Transition Players in lieu of naming a Franchise Player. When the team places either tag on a player, they have effectively offered the player a one year contract at a predetermined annual wage.

For Franchise Players, that wage is the average of the top 5 players at the player's position. For the Transition Tag, that wage is the average of the top 10 players at the player's position. The player is still free to negotiate with other teams. However, if the player signs with another team, then that team must fork over two first round draft picks to the prior team. As you can guess, not too many teams are eager to part with such lofty compensation. For Transition Players, the prior team maintains the Right of First Refusal, which in essence means that a Transition Player is really a RFA.

Why do teams so rarely use either the Franchise Tag of the Transition tag?

There are a couple of reasons. First and foremost is the Salary Cap. When a team designates a player with either tag, the predetermined annual wage we cited above immediately hits the team's salary cap. For example, last year when the Bengals elected to name Takeo Spikes their Transition Player, he was guaranteed an annual salary of $4.8M (the average of the top 10 NFL LBs' 2002 salaries), and this amount immediately hit the Bengals 2003 Salary Cap. Also at work is a notion of professional courtesy. Many NFL players look upon the Franchise or Transition tag with an unfavorable view. As such, naming a player with one of these tags could send a bad message to other players on the team.[/quote]
Does anyone really think someone would give up 2 first round picks for Smoot??

[QUOTE=jamf]he is worth that much because the cap went up in value, each year players salaries go up.

but correct me if im wrong, if we tag him and he signes with another team, dont we lose the franchise tag for the life of the contract?

also, smoot could take the tag money since its more than he would make per season otherwise and screw us over.[/QUOTE]

That is not a very good way to evaluate what you should pay a player. A player should only make top 5 money ONLY if his play dictates it.
Not because we have the money to pay him or throw away. We have other needs to address besides corner back, plus there other great corner backs in this league. Freddy Smoot is replaceable.
Our reckless spending is why we have $10.1 million dollars of our cap in dead money this year. You know the players we overpaid for like Dan Wilkinson, Dave Fiore, Mark Brunnell...etc. The list is too long to list.

although he may be a forum favorite maybe there is a possibility we let him go and get a phillip buccanon from the raiders or draft antrel Rolle this year in the draft

They don't have to give up 2 first rounders, if the holding team agrees to a lesser deal. Look at what we did with Champ last year.

[QUOTE=cpayne5]They don't have to give up 2 first rounders, if the holding team agrees to a lesser deal. Look at what we did with Champ last year.[/QUOTE]
Right, but Champ was traded not franchised.

Either way, is Smoot worth even one #1?? I doubt it.

Basically it's not worth it to franchise him and guarantee him that top 5 salary and that's why it's very unlikely we'd tag him.

Phillip Buchanon's name has come up a couple of times here. He is not a FA; he is under contract.

He does not like his contract and thinks he deserves more money so he is complaining and asking for a trade.

The next big tackle Buchanon makes will be his first one and he did not have anything resembling a great year. A Bay area Raider fan tell me that Buchanon gets beat deep about twice a game.

So, if the Skins lose Smoot, I doubt that it would be smart for them to trade for (he's under contract, rmemever) a malcontent who gets beaten deep and then start him at CB.

In my opinion, of course...

Well said Curmudgeon.

The problem with trading a malcontent (and I'm not saying Smoot is one, but he certainly isn't showing the team much love right now) is that you are likely to get a malcontent in return. In order to get rid of a headache, you usually acquire one.

I disagree I think it is worth it to franchise him. That way even if we can't reach a deal we can have him on the team for next year. You got to remember that next year is real important, its almost like a superbowl run cause we all know about the cap in 2006. I also believe it is important not to just let smoot walk, we can get something for him.

You also got to remember that if smoot is allowed to walk he can sign with any team. And I know of a team that really needs a right cornerback and has lots of cap space. That team is the Dallas Cowboys.

[QUOTE=Mattyk72]Right, but Champ was traded not franchised.[/QUOTE]

We put the franchise tag on him, then traded him to Denver.

I think it would be worth it to franchise Fred Smoot. If we can't trade him, or sign him, then we'd have to pay him $5-8 million (don't know the exact numbers here). That's not really a cap killer. It's better than letting him leave for nothing.

I also think it would be smart to franchise Smoot, but only to trade him.

We won't get 2 first rounders, but we can take less. We might not get anything great in return but anything is better than nothing.

As for keeping him, the tag price will be $7M+, which I think is too expensive.

[QUOTE=cpayne5]We put the franchise tag on him, then traded him to Denver.

I think it would be worth it to franchise Fred Smoot. If we can't trade him, or sign him, then we'd have to pay him $5-8 million (don't know the exact numbers here). That's not really a cap killer. It's better than letting him leave for nothing.[/QUOTE]

you're right about the tag I forgot about that

We already have two good CB's in Walt Harris and Shawn Springs.
Walt Harris (cheap- only $955K in 2005) is finally healthy and will have this offseason to improve as opposed to last offseason where he had knee surgery and was just trying to get back to walking much less playing football. When healthy he is a proven good Cb in the NFL and will be better this coming year as oppsoed to last season.
Plus we have these two impressive rookie corners in Garnell Wilds and Rufus Brown.
Add to that a player or two we draft or sign as free agent, we should be fine.
We should not commit to paying Smoot $7m+ next year, he is not a shut down corner, we should not pay him like one.
I hate the fact we will already be be paying in 2005 (if they do not agree to salary redutions) Samules $9.6M, Lavar Arrington $6M, Renaldo Wynn $4M and Mark Brunnell $3.4M next year. These four guys are not worth are not worth $23m. The Redskins could cut these over paid guys and still be just as good as they are now. We played almost the entire season with out Lavar and our defense was still #2 in the NFL. NOw you want to add $7M+ for Smoot? That is crazy, he is not that good.

PT.2
We do not need compensation for Smoot. Look at the top 3 teams this year: New England, Pittsburg and Philly. They each lost some important veterans from their D (Philly lost both of their starting CB's) this offseason, replaced them with cheaper players and they still are the best teams in the NFL. Lets not act like Smoot is irreplaceable.

[QUOTE=CrazyCanuck]I also think it would be smart to franchise Smoot, but only to trade him.

We won't get 2 first rounders, but we can take less. We might not get anything great in return but anything is better than nothing.

As for keeping him, the tag price will be $7M+, which I think is too expensive.[/QUOTE]

Hmmm an intriguing thought... what would be the prospects of franchising Smoot and trading him for a solid Center or proven pass-rush DE?

[QUOTE=LongTimeSkinsFan]Hmmm an intriguing thought... what would be the prospects of franchising Smoot and trading him for a solid Center or proven pass-rush DE?[/QUOTE]

Not sure if we could get a solid center or DE for Smoot, but that would be nice. The best case scenario would be to deal for a solid guy that is not happy on his current team (ie Portis last year).

[QUOTE=Defensewins]PT.2
We do not need compensation for Smoot. Look at the top 3 teams this year: New England, Pittsburg and Philly. They each lost some important veterans from their D (Philly lost both of their starting CB's) this offseason, replaced them with cheaper players and they still are the best teams in the NFL. Lets not act like Smoot is irreplaceable.[/QUOTE]

That's true and considering how our defense played overall...I don't believe it would hurt us too much if Smoot goes....I would rather keep him though....

If the Redskins were looking at DRAFTING a center, I would look at Jason Brown from North Carolina. I was doing some research and this guy is a BEAST at 6'3", 330 lbs.

Here are the top prospects for centers and I know that Bugel knows how to mold them.

1 Ben Wilkerson Sr. LSU 6-4 300
2 Vince Carter Sr. Oklahoma 6-3 290
3 Greg Eslinger Jr. Minnesota 6-3 285
4 Richie Incognito Jr. Nebraska 6-3 300
5 Jason Brown Sr. North Carolina 6-3 330
6 Jason Respert Sr. Tennessee 6-3 310
7 Chase Johnson Sr. TCU 6-3 305
8 Drew Hogdon Sr. Arizona State 6-2 295
9 Jelani Clement Sr. Hampton 6-2 310
10 Alex Herron Sr. South Florida 6-3 280

Another quick thought...

"8(8). Washington Redskins

*Mathias Kiwanuka Defenisve End Boston College

Renaldo Wynn and Ron Warner are the starters so looking for a young stud to give the team a pass rush would be welcomed. Kiwanuka also adds the ability to disrupt the passing lanes even when he doesn't reach the quarterback. Kiwanuka has a rather large wingspan and he already stands 6'7, that is 4 inches taller than any defensive end currently on the Redskins roster."

6'7"?!?!? And I've never even heard of this guy.

I saw one BC game, he played alright. I really don't know much about him but have heard good things.

I want Richie Incognito. Simply for the name.

Incognito is transferring to Oregon or Oregon State, and is a head case.

jhold4th:

He is "transferring" because the Nebraske coaches told him to stay away from the program at Nebraska.

Sounds like a "problem child". And after the Redskins' extensive background invesitgation into the rehabilitation of Darrell Russell (remember that fiasco?), I don't think this is someone this franchise needs to take a chance on.