Redskins "Low-balling" Hall (Allegedly)

GMScud · 01-26-2009, 02:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Schneed10

Whatever we think about Hall, the premise of this thread is just wierd. Why would anyone complain about Vinny trying to save money on players?

We do all understand that cap space = opportunity to sign other players, right? I don't need to launch into a giant salary cap lecture, do I?

Hahaha, I was thinking the same thing. We always gripe about overpaying, now we're trying to be somewhat reasonable and it's a problem suddenly? Let's not forget BigHairedAristocrat seems to have a pretty negative view about most Skins-related stuff. I like how he puts the phrase "low-balling" in quotes, yet he was the one who said it in the first place.

saden1 · 01-26-2009, 02:46 PM

If he's getting anything it should be an incentive laced deal. No way I'd pay him a huge contract after getting cut from the Raiders and playing half a season. I wouldn't be surprised if he gets a fat deal from the Skins though, this is still a team owned by Snyder after all.

Eknox · 01-26-2009, 02:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CRedskinsRule

I wouldn't go overboard for him, because that will definitely set the bar for Rodgers, and if I had to choose, I would keep Rodgers. At 12 Million maybe they hope to be able to keep both,which would be the best situation personnel wise.

I would love to see that happen, to see them sign both at about $12m each

SBXVII · 01-26-2009, 02:56 PM

His whole crap in Oakland is BS. He did not fit the system so they bash him. He did fairly well previously and did well for us so I don't count the Raiders.

As far as gauranteed money? I think it all depends on how much is in the contract and for how long. Perhaps they are offering him 40 mill for 4-5 yrs which is 10 mill more then we have been offering most contracted people especially CB's and WR's, but they lowered his gaurenteed money from 16mill to 12 mill. I don't have a problem with that. I think it all depends on how they tweek the contract. Now if they offered the same typical contract as ARE, Lloyd, Archeletta, 30 mill and for what 4-6 yrs and who knows what gaurenteed then no not fair.

I'm glad Vinny/Snyder are actually thinking about their pockets now so long as the Skins have the rights to try and match any other team who comes up with something better.

TheMalcolmConnection · 01-26-2009, 02:59 PM

I just don't understand why we're going to let Rogers walk or trade him and keep only Hall. I mean are we thinking that Springs can make it through one more season before we draft another corner. I know it's been back and forth on how people feel, but Rogers, dropped interceptions aside is a very, very good corner.

JoeRedskin · 01-26-2009, 03:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 44ever

Typical Skins neg. They'll pay a guy from somewhere else BIG. But low ball their own. "Self sabotage mentality"

Wait, he plays for us half a season and somehow he's our own?! Carlos, yes. He's homegrown and, if in the plans, should get a quality offer. Hall? The Raiders were already fleeced for his services - So we should repeat their mistake? This is not someone who has shown that he has a tradition of "team first".

If we can lock him up cheap, great. If not, hasta la vista baby!

steveo395 · 01-26-2009, 03:07 PM

This is not low-balling Hall at all. He is not that good in coverage. He gets burned all the time, but he does have good ball skills. Rogers is a much better tackler and cover corner, he just cant catch and he has better character. If we have to get rid of one of them, I would rather it be Hall.

TheMalcolmConnection · 01-26-2009, 03:08 PM

For me, I'm OK with leaving a little bit of a hole if it means we can keep our homegrown talent like Rogers. With limited draft picks this year we need to look at some true blue chip talent with that 13rd round pick. Last year, moving back was definitely feasible. While the draft is truly a crap shoot, there is some great talent at the Skins areas of need, namely along the defensive and offensive lines that will be available.

I don't want us trading pick to pick up a second tier OL, CB, or LB when we have the pick sitting in our laps...

Dirtbag59 · 01-26-2009, 03:15 PM

It's looking more and more now like we're going to go into 2009 with Hall, Smoot, and Tryon as our top 3 corners. Not the worse drop off but heres to hoping that Smoot works hard this offseason so we can get at least one more good year from him. My only concern though is giving the front office an out to go after another Corner through the draft.

Trample the Elderly · 01-26-2009, 03:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by steveo395

This is not low-balling Hall at all. He is not that good in coverage. He gets burned all the time, but he does have good ball skills. Rogers is a much better tackler and cover corner, he just cant catch and he has better character. If we have to get rid of one of them, I would rather it be Hall.

I agree. We can get more in the long run for Carlos. We've got him on contract for next year regardless. I would see who's available before I'd sign Hall. I'd rather have a crap load of Camp Fodder to bring in an undrafted rookie who is a better cover than to sign Hall.
Then again I'd rather lose a season or two to rebuild the team. Hall isn't taking us to the promise land and we can ill afford to draft another CB right now.

ArtMonkDrillz · 01-26-2009, 03:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dirtbag359

It's looking more and more now like we're going to go into 2009 with Hall, Smoot, and Tryon as our top 3 corners. Not the worse drop off but heres to hoping that Smoot works hard this offseason so we can get at least one more good year from him. My only concern though is giving the front office an out to go after another Corner through the draft.

That's a HUGE dropoff IMO.
Springs can rarely stay healthy thru a whole year, and Smoot's no iron man out there. Plus, God only knows about Tryon.
I don't see why we are just assuming that Rogers isn't here next year? Is his contract up or will he be an UFA after next season so we're just hoping to get something for him while we can?

GTripp0012 · 01-26-2009, 03:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Schneed10

It would be no surprise to me if it's true that Vinny wants to keep the guaranteed money lower. He has to be concerned about the team's cap situation and knows he needs to keep as much room available to maneuver, or he's going to lose out on free agency altogether.

On a 6 year deal, $12 million guaranteed would take up $2 million in 2009 cap space. $16 million would take up $2.7 million. That's a big difference, an amount that would allow for one additional quality-depth guy in free agency.

It's also quite possible that the Redskins are betting Hall won't be able to do better. Revenue streams are in decline for NFL franchises due to the economy. There may be a lot of teams simply unwilling to pay it.

The way I see it, we should be thanking Vinny here. He's trying to keep a cool head, locking good players up for a reasonable amount. Would you rather he spend $20 million guaranteed on a Nate Clements type like the 49ers did?

Absent a new CBA though, signing bonus money from contracts signed from here through Week 10 of the 2009 season cannot prorate money past 2012.

So this is way more significant than a .7 million difference. A 12 million SB prorated becomes a 3 million hit this year. 16 million SB becomes a 4 million hit this year.

And then the 30% rule makes contracts in this climate a general mess.

I guess the bottom line is that if you combine this with the economy, and this great free agent class is going to get grossly underpaid. It makes sense to free up as much room as possible and get in on the action.

BigHairedAristocrat · 01-26-2009, 03:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GMScud

Hahaha, I was thinking the same thing. We always gripe about overpaying, now we're trying to be somewhat reasonable and it's a problem suddenly? Let's not forget BigHairedAristocrat seems to have a pretty negative view about most Skins-related stuff. I like how he puts the phrase "low-balling" in quotes, yet he was the one who said it in the first place.

Sorry for the confusion, i put low-balling" in quotes because at first glance, how can 12M garaunteed and about 50M total over 6 years be considered low-balling....

But when you consider what other starting CBs are making and where Hall falls when compared to them, 12M is almost insulting. Chris Gamble got 23M garaunteed and i honestly don't think Gamble is a better corner than Hall. Gamble benefits from an excellent pass rush more than anything else. His time in Oakland (where he did not fit the scheme) aside, Hall has been a top corner his entire career. IMO he is worth 16M.

GMScud · 01-26-2009, 04:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BigHairedAristocrat

Sorry for the confusion, i put low-balling" in quotes because at first glance, how can 12M garaunteed and about 50M total over 6 years be considered low-balling....

But when you consider what other starting CBs are making and where Hall falls when compared to them, 12M is almost insulting. Chris Gamble got 23M garaunteed and i honestly don't think Gamble is a better corner than Hall. Gamble benefits from an excellent pass rush more than anything else. His time in Oakland (where he did not fit the scheme) aside, Hall has been a top corner his entire career. IMO he is worth 16M.

ohh, gotcha...

As far as him being worth $16M guaranteed, I just don't know. Gamble may have been a bit overpaid, but he's very good and fits their scheme well.

TheMalcolmConnection · 01-26-2009, 04:01 PM

It's the Oakland days that are making him damaged goods. While Gamble, Clements, etc, might have had down years, none of them have been called locker-room cancer or have been victimized more times in a season like Hall has. I don't know if anyone remembers, but Hall was beaten more than ANY OTHER DB IN THE NFL while he was on Oakland.

I think he knows and the rest of the league knows that while the talent might still be there, he's got a lot of red flags that go with it, hence the lower initial salary.

That and the economic restrictions outlined above.

01-26-2009, 02:46 PM	#17
saden1 Eternally Legendary Join Date: Feb 2004 Location: Seattle Age: 33 Posts: 9,738	Re: Redskins "Low-balling" Hall (Allegedly) If he's getting anything it should be an incentive laced deal. No way I'd pay him a huge contract after getting cut from the Raiders and playing half a season. I wouldn't be surprised if he gets a fat deal from the Skins though, this is still a team owned by Snyder after all. __________________ RG3, RGIII, RG三, RG३, RGγʹ, RGג, RG٣, RG๓, RG..., RG셋, RGԳ!

01-26-2009, 02:56 PM	#19
SBXVII Pro Bowl Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: Virginia Posts: 7,498	Re: Redskins "Low-balling" Hall (Allegedly) His whole crap in Oakland is BS. He did not fit the system so they bash him. He did fairly well previously and did well for us so I don't count the Raiders. As far as gauranteed money? I think it all depends on how much is in the contract and for how long. Perhaps they are offering him 40 mill for 4-5 yrs which is 10 mill more then we have been offering most contracted people especially CB's and WR's, but they lowered his gaurenteed money from 16mill to 12 mill. I don't have a problem with that. I think it all depends on how they tweek the contract. Now if they offered the same typical contract as ARE, Lloyd, Archeletta, 30 mill and for what 4-6 yrs and who knows what gaurenteed then no not fair. I'm glad Vinny/Snyder are actually thinking about their pockets now so long as the Skins have the rights to try and match any other team who comes up with something better.

01-26-2009, 02:59 PM	#20
TheMalcolmConnection I like big (_\|_)s. Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Lexington, Virginia Age: 31 Posts: 17,120	Re: Redskins "Low-balling" Hall (Allegedly) I just don't understand why we're going to let Rogers walk or trade him and keep only Hall. I mean are we thinking that Springs can make it through one more season before we draft another corner. I know it's been back and forth on how people feel, but Rogers, dropped interceptions aside is a very, very good corner. __________________ Regret nothing. At one time it was exactly what you wanted.

01-26-2009, 03:07 PM	#22
steveo395 The Starter Join Date: Mar 2005 Location: New Jersey Posts: 1,673	Re: Redskins "Low-balling" Hall (Allegedly) This is not low-balling Hall at all. He is not that good in coverage. He gets burned all the time, but he does have good ball skills. Rogers is a much better tackler and cover corner, he just cant catch and he has better character. If we have to get rid of one of them, I would rather it be Hall. __________________

01-26-2009, 03:08 PM	#23
TheMalcolmConnection I like big (_\|_)s. Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Lexington, Virginia Age: 31 Posts: 17,120	Re: Redskins "Low-balling" Hall (Allegedly) For me, I'm OK with leaving a little bit of a hole if it means we can keep our homegrown talent like Rogers. With limited draft picks this year we need to look at some true blue chip talent with that 13rd round pick. Last year, moving back was definitely feasible. While the draft is truly a crap shoot, there is some great talent at the Skins areas of need, namely along the defensive and offensive lines that will be available. I don't want us trading pick to pick up a second tier OL, CB, or LB when we have the pick sitting in our laps... __________________ Regret nothing. At one time it was exactly what you wanted.

01-26-2009, 03:15 PM	#24
Dirtbag59 Naega jeil jal naga Join Date: Jan 2006 Location: Atlanta, Georgia From: Silver Spring, Maryland Age: 27 Posts: 13,957	Re: Redskins "Low-balling" Hall (Allegedly) It's looking more and more now like we're going to go into 2009 with Hall, Smoot, and Tryon as our top 3 corners. Not the worse drop off but heres to hoping that Smoot works hard this offseason so we can get at least one more good year from him. My only concern though is giving the front office an out to go after another Corner through the draft. __________________ Flacco is 1337 Fanclub President

01-26-2009, 04:01 PM	#30
TheMalcolmConnection I like big (_\|_)s. Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Lexington, Virginia Age: 31 Posts: 17,120	Re: Redskins "Low-balling" Hall (Allegedly) It's the Oakland days that are making him damaged goods. While Gamble, Clements, etc, might have had down years, none of them have been called locker-room cancer or have been victimized more times in a season like Hall has. I don't know if anyone remembers, but Hall was beaten more than ANY OTHER DB IN THE NFL while he was on Oakland. I think he knows and the rest of the league knows that while the talent might still be there, he's got a lot of red flags that go with it, hence the lower initial salary. That and the economic restrictions outlined above. __________________ Regret nothing. At one time it was exactly what you wanted.

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

Redskins "Low-balling" Hall (Allegedly)

Redskins Locker Room