Latest on Coles
 

[url="http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/columns/story?columnist=pasquarelli_len&id=1998972"]http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/columns/story?columnist=pasquarelli_len&id=1998972[/url]

INDIANAPOLIS -- Several league and team sources attending the annual NFL predraft combine workouts confirmed for ESPN.com Thursday that the [url="http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/clubhouse?team=was"][color=#000000]Washington Redskins[/color][/url] have at least three franchises legitimately interested in trading for unhappy wide receiver [url="http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/players/profile?statsId=5107"][color=#000000]Laveranues Coles[/color][/url].

But even with no lack of suitors for Coles, the Redskins still face this knotty problem in trying to strike a deal, one which would likely bring a high-round draft pick in return: Because of the convoluted salary cap ramifications, the Redskins can't peddle Coles to another club until they sell offensive tackle [url="http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/players/profile?statsId=5032"][color=#000000]Chris Samuels[/color][/url] on restructuring his current and burdensome contract.

And while the Redskins have crept a bit closer to Samuels on a reworked contract, which would extend his current deal and provide Washington much-needed cap relief for 2005, there remains plenty of work to be done to consummate an agreement.

"Right now," said a high-ranking official from one of the franchises attempting to acquire Coles from Washington, "the Redskins are (stuck). They simply can't absorb, at least not yet, the cap hit they'll take from trading Coles. They need to find room and the obvious way is to finish off a new deal with Samuels. But I guess that's not done yet."

The salary cap math involved in the Coles mess: If Washington trades the wide receiver, whom they signed as a restricted free agent in 2003, forfeiting a first-round draft choice to the [url="http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/clubhouse?team=nyj"][color=#000000]New York Jets[/color][/url] in that transaction, they face a cap impact in excess of $9 million. Efforts to have Coles bypass a $5 million deferred signing bonus due him on April 1, a move that would have dramatically decreased the cap hit, seem to have fallen apart. Coles had originally agreed to forfeit the $5 million, but only as part of an agreement that he would be released, and able to choose his next team.

The Redskins don't have the cap space sufficient to afford the $9 million charge that would accompany a Coles trade. But Samuels, whose cap charge for 2005 is $9.5 million and who is due $6.5 million in base salary and bonuses, can provide desperately needed room if he agrees to a new deal.

Samuels, 27, is agreeable to an extension but the numbers must be right before the five-year veteran, a first-round pick in the 2000 draft, signs off on a reworked contract. As of Thursday afternoon, despite accelerated negotiations between the Redskins and Samuels' agent, an accord was not imminent.

Agent Jimmy Sexton in January sent the Redskins a contract proposal that was rejected by Washington officials. A month later, the Redskins would love to strike a deal based on those January figures. Problem is, with the big-money contracts already signed during this offseason by [url="http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/players/profile?statsId=3949"][color=#000000]Walter Jones[/color][/url] of Seattle and Indianapolis' [url="http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/players/profile?statsId=5566"][color=#000000]Ryan Diem[/color][/url], the financial landscape for offensive tackles has been significantly altered.

Jones received a signing bonus of $16 million on a seven-year contract with total value of $52.5 million. Although he is one of the better left tackles in the league, Samuels does not rate in Jones' elite class, but still will merit a contract with a signing bonus close to what Jones received an a per-year average of at least $6 million.



Until the Redskins come up with the right figures, though, the three teams interested in acquiring Coles figure to be cooling their heels. [i]Len Pasquarelli is a senior NFL writer for ESPN.com. To check out Len's chat archive, [url="http://sports.espn.go.com/chat/sportsnation/story?page=ChatArchivePasquarelli"][color=#000000]click here[/color][/url] [img]http://espn.go.com/i/in.gif[/img].[/i]

Re: Latest on Coles
 

very good read.

I trust Snyder, mabye more than I should. So heres to hoping he gets done what he has to, we end up with a second first round pick by trading coles and we can absorb his cap hit for this year. that way we build through the draft with two rookie first rounders and have a ton of cap savings for next year.

Re: Latest on Coles
 

I wonder who those teams are. And what they're willing to part with.

Samuels [U]must[/U] agree to restructure. There's simply no other way to do it if they want something in return for Coles. If Chris Samuels is interested in winning a championship, or at least put his team in position to contend for one, he would restructure without blinking.

This is going to be interesting.

Re: Latest on Coles
 

Because god knows -- being on the Redskins is insta-championship.

Re: Latest on Coles
 

I think we can safely say the Jets are one team that's interested.

Re: Latest on Coles
 

[QUOTE=Daseal]Because god knows -- being on the Redskins is insta-championship.[/QUOTE]

Nobody's saying that. But clearly, Samuels has to realize that the Skins are in a much better position if they can get [I]something[/I] in return for Coles.

Re: Latest on Coles
 

Jets, Ravnes. I would even say the cowboys, although i dont know if we would trade with them.

Re: Latest on Coles
 

If they are going to get it done, we should know soon. March 1 is just around the corner.

Re: Latest on Coles
 

[QUOTE=Beemnseven]. If Chris Samuels is interested in winning a championship, [.............] he would restructure without blinking.
[/QUOTE]

Seems to me u r saying that.

But it is nessessary to rework that contract by tuesday and if not we could be looking at a trade or realease. "Samuels's salary is scheduled to count $9.5 million against the cap, easily the highest on the club, in 2005. That number grows to $11.3 million in 2006. However, Samuels has a clause in his contract that will void the deal in 2006, making him an unrestricted free agent after this season. The voided contract will increase his 2005 cap number to $12 million."
This is to much but he is sorta getting greedy ( I would to on this team) he is looking around and other linemen are getting big deals so he wants in. I hope that we can get an agreement but otherwise I am willing to see him go for that amount of breathing room.

"On winning NFL teams, players sometimes take less money to stay. On this team, they're willing to forfeit good money to leave. We have to wonder why."
Sally Jenkins

Re: Latest on Coles
 

what trade value do you think coles will have.
"THEY" say high draft pick but i don't think that is worth it. I think we may end up keeping him, someone on the redskins team said that he talked to coles and coles said he would play if he was on this team next year.

He won't be upset when we win the superbowl!....... I HOPE?!

Re: Latest on Coles
 

i think coles will still be with us and be BIG #80, i don't see anything that will work for both the skins and Coles. Wait.. will coles be #87 if Gardner leaves b/c he was 87 with the jets, but i think crebet is 80 on the jets was he there before coles that guy is old ? if anyone know the answer please post somin

Re: Latest on Coles
 

they gotta just release coles cuz id rather have that 5 million dollars then a high round draft pick and no money to spend

Re: Latest on Coles
 

True That

Re: Latest on Coles
 

Coles won't get released, just because he is that good, and we won't let him go to Dallas. I hope we send him to Baltimore and we get their first. Samuels needs to stop b.s.ing and restructure

Re: Latest on Coles
 

OK here's the thing. If you can restructure Samuels then you end up making the Redskins a good $8 million or so under the $85 million cap. Then if you trade Coles, you get hit with the 9.28 million, but 3.5 of that was already going to the cap. So the additional hit to our cap would amount to 5.5 million or so. Subtracting the 5.5 from the 8 million we'd have after restructuring Samuels, we'd end up with about 2.5 million in wiggle room. So with that, you sign Antonio Pierce, and you live with your WR situation. Or you say goodbye to Pierce and you bring in a free agent WR (but Gibbs said he wouldn't do that on the radio). Those moves would pretty much eat up the rest of the cap room. Free agency will be dull for us this year if Coles gets traded.

But the bright side, you will have freed up tons of cap room in 2006, getting rid of Coles' ~$5 million, and reducing Samuels from $11 million down to like $6 million. That's a gain of $10 million in cap room, taking them down to $96 million in 2006. Figure the cap keeps increasing at the rate it has been, to about $90 million next year, and they're only over by $6 million or so instead of the Titans disaster they were headed for next year. Then, restructure a few contracts and you can manage to keep your core together.

So trading Coles actually may have some long-term viability. And if we get a high pick, like late 1st or early 2nd rounder, that player will hopefully be making a long-term contribution.

Sorry to beat you over the head with numbers, but I'm liking the way it would shape up for a few years down the road. I was fearing a dismantling of the team in 2006, but trading Coles would seem to help that situation. We'd be limited in what we can do this year, and we'd have to basically get our new talent through the draft instead of free agency, but that's probably exactly what the team needs.

Re: Latest on Coles
 

Basically, sometimes you have to bite the salary cap bullet to avoid being forced to blow up the team down the road. And if you can get something for Coles while you're at it, all the better.

Re: Latest on Coles
 

Samuel's will restructure or he will be gone, Coles will be dealt we are not just going to give him away, if he truley want's out he will forgo the $5mil from us and get it back and more when he renegotiates with his new team, if he really want's out that's how it has to be, and yes I would trade him for the highest #1 possible even the boy's if they are offereing, we need to get better in plenty of other area's, we need a #1 for Coles and at least a #3 for Gardner, I would also look for something for Morton as well, that could land us a nice draft this year.

Re: Latest on Coles
 

So, let's see if I have this right...

The Skins have known they had to get Samuels to restructure for about a year now - - since they tried to get him to do it last year. Then they got a proposal from his agent and they turned it down. Now, the "market price" has gone up and the Redskins are unwilling to go there.

Isn't Danny Boy the guy who never lets $$$ stand in the way of a deal? Remember, he's the one who paid LC a $13M signing bonus when LC was only asking for $10M and then Danny Boy went around gloating about how smart he was. Who nixed the earlier deal - the one they'd love to have now but the price of poker just went up?

Samuels and his agent are in the drivers' seat and they know it. Remember, all he has to do is not sign anything and he gets $6.5M next year from the Redskins - or they can release him and he can sign his big fat free agent contract somewhere else and get a big signing bonus. So, now he asks the Skins for a big signing bonus plus a little more because after all, he's doing them a favor...

Re: Latest on Coles
 

[QUOTE=SKINSnCANES]Jets, Ravnes. I would even say the cowboys, although i dont know if we would trade with them.[/QUOTE]

what if one of the teams happened to be the team with a newly aquired extra first round pick in the Vikings? I believe their original pick is number 18 or something like that or maybe even the chargers for their actual pick which is around 24 I think. I could see both willing to part with a late 1st round pick for a proven wideout with a workable contract as far as the per year #'s go for a wr with coles like production. but we'll never really know until after it happens cuz thats when most of the dirt comes out about possible trades.

Re: Latest on Coles
 

SC,

In all fairness, we paid Coles $3 million more than what Coles was asking for because we needed to beat out the Jets' offer. Teams that have losing records and need to attract players in free agency consistently have to outbid teams with better records. We have losing a record and so we need to outbid teams like Philly, New England, etc.

Re: Latest on Coles
 

From Friday's Washington Times:

[QUOTE]San Francisco 49ers coach Mike Nolan referenced his background with Coles and said he would be interested. The Baltimore Ravens, according to a source, have done due diligence on Coles but are leaning toward signing a free agent. The New York Jets already have had discussions with Washington about bringing back Coles. And several NFL executives believe the Minnesota Vikings would be interested after this week's trade of superstar Randy Moss. [/QUOTE]

So this leads me to naturally conclude that we're close to sending Coles to San Fran for the number 1 overall pick :D

Re: Latest on Coles
 

Y'know i just get the feeling this Coles thing just isn't going to happen. We have to restucture Samuels but that wa s a given from day one and I don't see us just gobbling up that room to release Coles .

We don't HAVE to do anything with Coles he is under contract and will return and play hard as he has said and we have X number of months of solid negoications to win him over to Gibbs overhaulled offence or arrange a release next year. It just strikes me as the Ramsey "I want a trade" deal last year and what happened there?

Re: Latest on Coles
 

Also . How the hell do we pay No.1 pick in a year where we have no glaring weaknesses that can be addressed in the draft class that has no must have top guy. We need to trade down if anyone and this year it is a buyers market trades in the top 5 will be few and far between.

Re: Latest on Coles
 

You trade it down - Bedlam.

Re: Latest on Coles
 

[QUOTE=bedlamVR]Also . How the hell do we pay No.1 pick in a year where we have no glaring weaknesses that can be addressed in the draft class that has no must have top guy. We need to trade down if anyone and this year it is a buyers market trades in the top 5 will be few and far between.[/QUOTE]

I'm guessing you might be responding to my earlier post when I said we're clearly close to sending Coles to San Fran for the no. 1 pick

I was only joking, just making light of all the outrageous trade rumors we inevitably hear at this time of year

I can't predict the future but I'm almost sure it doesn't involve Coles for the 1st overall pick

Re: Latest on Coles
 

You're right SS. Their 1st and 2nd rounders!

Re: Latest on Coles
 

[QUOTE=BigSKINBauer]Seems to me u r saying that.[/QUOTE]

Wrong. Daseal said that being on the Redskins is 'insta-championship.'

I never said that. I said that if Chris Samuels is [I]interested[/I] in a championship or at least putting his team in position to contend for one, he would restructure.

Getting something in return for Coles to help our team contend for a championship is not the same as saying it's an instant championship.

Re: Latest on Coles
 

What I'm saying Beemn, is he probably has a better chance at a ring if he DOESN'T restructure and gets cut.

Re: Latest on Coles
 

[QUOTE=Ramseyfan]SC,

In all fairness, we paid Coles $3 million more than what Coles was asking for because we needed to beat out the Jets' offer. Teams that have losing records and need to attract players in free agency consistently have to outbid teams with better records. We have losing a record and so we need to outbid teams like Philly, New England, etc.[/QUOTE]

And even if we manage to re-work Samuels contract....you can add another team that we need to outbid......Jerry Jones promised that he is going to very aggressive in free agency this year.....and they have tons of cap room....before Bledsoe $20 milliion.......at least thats what our paper here reported................

Re: Latest on Coles
 

Ok, I've been away from the boards for a while, so here are my thoughts on the Coles situation (like anyone cares):

Coles needs a history lesson. He needs to look at the WR's from Gibbs' first tenure and he will see that they got plenty of work in his "ball-control" offense (a SB record 35 points scored in one quarter doesn't come from running the ball). Plus they are included in the top Skins WR's of all-time. Gibbs just needed a year to "get his feet wet" and has said that they will go downfield more this year.

The toe will be what hurts Coles or the Skins. If they try to trade him, it may keep them from getting what they want for him, and if they released him, it would keep him from getting as much money. Ironic, considering that I think that is what is behind this whole thing (Redskins want him to get the surgery and he doesn't). How does he know a new team wouldn't want him to do it?

If he is unwilling to give up the 5 million, the Skins should keep him to prove a point that anyone can't just leave regardless of the contract they signed...but I don't think they will.

Re: Latest on Coles
 

Another thing, last year he had a great 90 catches for a disappointing 950 yards. Well maybe if his toe was healthy, he would have actually gotten more yards after the catch....hmmm....

Re: Latest on Coles
 

[QUOTE=Daseal]What I'm saying Beemn, is he probably has a better chance at a ring if he DOESN'T restructure and gets cut.[/QUOTE]

And that's pretty sad.

Re: Latest on Coles
 

[QUOTE=SkinsRock]Another thing, last year he had a great 90 catches for a disappointing 950 yards. Well maybe if his toe was healthy, he would have actually gotten more yards after the catch....hmmm....[/QUOTE]

Yup, that's what I've been saying too. He must know that he can't get too many YAC with his toe in the condition that it's in.

Re: Latest on Coles
 

[QUOTE=SkinsRock]Another thing, last year he had a great 90 catches for a disappointing 950 yards. Well maybe if his toe was healthy, he would have actually gotten more yards after the catch....hmmm....[/QUOTE]

I wonder why he declined to have surgery on his toe.............

Re: Latest on Coles
 

[quote]I wonder why he declined to have surgery on his toe...........[/quote]

cause the surgery is potentially career ending, so he rather play it safe and kinda suck than risk it all... so now he's slower, but still worth keeping around...

Re: Latest on Coles
 

[QUOTE=That Guy]cause the surgery is potentially career ending, so he rather play it safe and kinda suck than risk it all... so now he's slower, but still worth keeping around...[/QUOTE]

Thanks for the info That Guy.......so kinda like Shaq and his toe thing, eh...and he's slower but still worth keeping around too :)