Redskins "Low-balling" Hall (Allegedly)

BigHairedAristocrat · 01-26-2009, 04:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Schneed10

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.

I recognize that you know more about the salary cap than i ever will, but i have to disagree with you there.

Considering Smoot is garbage, Carlos Rogers cant hold on to the ball andwants a big payday or a trade, and Shawn Springs is excellent when healthy but is old and a stiff breeze keeps him out of a game, 0.7M is well worth the investment.... especially when you consider that if we let Hall walk, it essentially forces us to keep springs at 8.5M - thats twelve times $700,000 difference in 2009 garaunteed money it would take to keep Hall here. So by your logic, if paying hall more money means losing out on one additional quality-depth guy, then letting hall walk will cost us twelve of those guys....

On the other hand, if we take the long-term view and give hall his money, we have more flexibility in deciding what we want to do with Springs, and can secure a starting CB spot up for the next 6 years or so.

I understand we have had a problem with overspending in the past... but everyone forgets we also had problems with letting great players walk because we tried to low-ball them. In my view, the approach we are taking with Hall is scarily similar to the approach we took with Antonio Pierce and Ryan Clark. We could have kept both those players if we had just paid them what they were worth, instead of playing hardball and letting them taste free agency. We let both of those guys go, and they got respectable contracts with their new teams and went on to superbowls... and what have we done since?

Yes, there is a danger in overpaying. But Hall isnt asking us to overpay him. Hes not even asking for much more than what we're willing to pay. What he's asking for is fair. IMO letting Hall walk because of a 0.7M/year difference would be a mistake of epic proportions.

TheMalcolmConnection · 01-26-2009, 04:12 PM

I don't think we played hardball with Antonio Pierce. NY paid a pretty good contract for him and while I think GW had SOME hand in letting him walk, we definitely would have been a little more strapped now if he were on the team with a similar contract to NY's.

BigHairedAristocrat · 01-26-2009, 04:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GMScud

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.

I agree with you that Gambel is overpaid (grossly so IMO), but that doesnt change the fact that it "raised the bar" for what every FA corner is going to expect. Salaries are always going to escalate and we need to keep that in mind. If Hall were 2-3 years older or had ever had discipline problems in the lockerroom or on the field, and we didnt have issues with every single one of our other CB positions right now, I would be singing a different tune.

But to me, Hall isnt asking for anything unreasonable. Negotiating is one thing, but squabbling with him over 4M garaunteed when his his offer is very fair, could be interpreted by Hall as insulting and disrespectful.

TheMalcolmConnection · 01-26-2009, 04:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BigHairedAristocrat

But to me, Hall isnt asking for anything unreasonable. Negotiating is one thing, but squabbling with him over 4M garaunteed when his his offer is very fair, could be interpreted by Hall as insulting and disrespectful.

Couldn't the Redskins say the same thing?

Sure, he came in and played well for that half of a season or so he was here, but truly he needs to prove he can be mature AND be consistent before he gets any huge money deals...

WaldSkins · 01-26-2009, 04:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheMalcolmConnection

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.

I don't really consider him a locker room cancer. He played for a terrible Atlanta team last year then went to an even worse Raider team. When he came here he came to a team that has the talent to win. Oakland is where players go to die, they call it the black hole because that's what it is a shithole. That team is probaly the worst ran team in the NFL and the only cancer that team has is Al Davis.

TheMalcolmConnection · 01-26-2009, 04:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by WaldSkins

I don't really consider him a locker room cancer. He played for a terrible Atlanta team last year then went to an even worse Raider team. When he came here he came to a team that has the talent to win. Oakland is where players go to die, they call it the black hole because that's what it is a shithole. That team is probaly the worst ran team in the NFL and the only cancer that team has is Al Davis.

While that's true to an extent, there are still players like that DB who I DO NOT feel like looking up who still performs well on the Raiders. I think by comparison he looked pretty good when at least one DB was playing well for them.

WaldSkins · 01-26-2009, 04:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by gaudiomatt

I also think it's amazing that people think carlos rogers being disgruntled is a reason to run him out of town, he's disgruntled because with absolutley no explanation reason or logic we are trying to run him out of town.

I don't think we were trying to run him out of town, he was just not starting at corner so he was whining about it. Personally id like him to start opposite of Hall this year but you never know with this team.

BigHairedAristocrat · 01-26-2009, 04:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheMalcolmConnection

I don't think we played hardball with Antonio Pierce. NY paid a pretty good contract for him and while I think GW had SOME hand in letting him walk, we definitely would have been a little more strapped now if he were on the team with a similar contract to NY's.

True, but we also wouldnt have needed to sign Fletcher, so we need to take his salary into account (not that I dislike fletcher, he's my favorite defensive player).

And also, if we hadnt let Ryan Clark go, we wouldnt have needed to use our #6 overall pick in the 2007 draft on Landry and could have addressed our DL by getting DT Amobi Okoye (my favorite at the time). More likely than not, however, we would have used the pick on a WR andTed Ginn Jr. was taken two spots after that. If we had gotten him, we probably wouldnt have used 3 2nd rounders last year on passcatchers who didnt contribute and addressed our lines then.... do you see the trickledown effect?

Sure, hindsight is 20/20, but if you can resign your own proven playmakers, then you dont have to spend money and draft picks gambling on draft picks and free agents to replace them. For the first time in years, we have a truly stellar defensive backfield (top 3 in the league without a doubt). We need to do whatever we can within reason to keep these guys together so we can address other areas of our team.

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

Now would you say that our backfield would have been top three if we had only Ryan Clark? I think we're both getting a little off topic.

I totally agree that we should keep Rogers and Hall. I don't like the idea of dicking over Rogers to keep Hall. All that being said, I think the money the Skins are asking (if that's true anyway) is more than reasonable for a guy who's already had two big paydays. If he knows anything about the Redskins, they aren't afraid to show you some money up front with restructuring if you prove you can be a team player.

BigHairedAristocrat · 01-26-2009, 04:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheMalcolmConnection

Now would you say that our backfield would have been top three if we had only Ryan Clark? I think we're both getting a little off topic.

I totally agree that we should keep Rogers and Hall. I don't like the idea of dicking over Rogers to keep Hall. All that being said, I think the money the Skins are asking (if that's true anyway) is more than reasonable for a guy who's already had two big paydays. If he knows anything about the Redskins, they aren't afraid to show you some money up front with restructuring if you prove you can be a team player.

No, i was saying our backfield was top 3 last year and it will be again this year if we can keep our guys in place (especially if Rogers and Hall are our starters). If we let Hall go, we're going to have to replace him. That means one less FA or draft pick used to address our lines. IMO our top two offseason priorities are resigning hall and not doing a D*** thing with Rogers.

CRedskinsRule · 01-26-2009, 04:54 PM

I doubt we would replace Hall with any FA out there. If he wants to be a part of the Skins great, our secondary is not close to our top two off-season priorities. I agree with Malcolm, Hall has had two BIG paydays, now its time to settle down and play. If he's not here that'll be a shame, but I doubt we will be looking longingly as he leaves.

GTripp0012 · 01-26-2009, 04:58 PM

Hall's not that hard to replace though. I agree that it would have to be done, as Springs, Rogers, and Smoot will never make the trio they did at the beginning of 2007, especially since that trio included #21.

There are plenty of guys we could go after should Hall shun us, but why does that make sense for him? No one wants him, and everyone else could have had him for a tiny fraction of their cap last year, but no one was offering more than half a million to finish out the year.

WaldSkins · 01-26-2009, 05:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GTripp0012

Hall's not that hard to replace though. I agree that it would have to be done, as Springs, Rogers, and Smoot will never make the trio they did at the beginning of 2007, especially since that trio included #21.

There are plenty of guys we could go after should Hall shun us, but why does that make sense for him? No one wants him, and everyone else could have had him for a tiny fraction of their cap last year, but no one was offering more than half a million to finish out the year.

Who out there is better then Hall as a free agent??

GTripp0012 · 01-26-2009, 05:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by WaldSkins

Who out there is better then Hall as a free agent??

Asomugha is too pricey to be considered, but here are a few names that are at or near Hall's level who could be signed for less than Hall wants:

Dunta Robinson (Houston)
Daven Holly (Cleveland)
Bryant McFadden (Pittsburgh)
Jabari Greer (Buffalo)

Not an extensive list, exactly, but there are other options besides Hall for us.

WaldSkins · 01-26-2009, 05:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GTripp0012

Asomugha is too pricey to be considered, but here are a few names that are at or near Hall's level who could be signed for less than Hall wants:

Dunta Robinson (Houston)
Daven Holly (Cleveland)
Bryant McFadden (Pittsburgh)
Jabari Greer (Buffalo)

Not an extensive list, exactly, but there are other options besides Hall for us.

I would love to have Robinson, but we gotta figure out who is gonna play opposite him. Is Rogers staying? What's up with Springs? Do we draft a CB? Yea i'd like to see Hall stay because our secondary last year was the best part of this team. We can't go into the season with just Springs, Smoot, and Rogers. Too many injury concerns.

01-26-2009, 04:12 PM	#32
TheMalcolmConnection I like big (_\|_)s. Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Lexington, Virginia Age: 31 Posts: 17,119	Re: Redskins "Low-balling" Hall (Allegedly) I don't think we played hardball with Antonio Pierce. NY paid a pretty good contract for him and while I think GW had SOME hand in letting him walk, we definitely would have been a little more strapped now if he were on the team with a similar contract to NY's. __________________ Regret nothing. At one time it was exactly what you wanted.

01-26-2009, 04:26 PM	#39
TheMalcolmConnection I like big (_\|_)s. Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Lexington, Virginia Age: 31 Posts: 17,119	Re: Redskins "Low-balling" Hall (Allegedly) Now would you say that our backfield would have been top three if we had only Ryan Clark? I think we're both getting a little off topic. I totally agree that we should keep Rogers and Hall. I don't like the idea of dicking over Rogers to keep Hall. All that being said, I think the money the Skins are asking (if that's true anyway) is more than reasonable for a guy who's already had two big paydays. If he knows anything about the Redskins, they aren't afraid to show you some money up front with restructuring if you prove you can be a team player. __________________ Regret nothing. At one time it was exactly what you wanted.

01-26-2009, 04:54 PM	#41
CRedskinsRule MVP Join Date: Aug 2008 Location: Pasadena, Md Age: 45 Posts: 10,904	Re: Redskins "Low-balling" Hall (Allegedly) I doubt we would replace Hall with any FA out there. If he wants to be a part of the Skins great, our secondary is not close to our top two off-season priorities. I agree with Malcolm, Hall has had two BIG paydays, now its time to settle down and play. If he's not here that'll be a shame, but I doubt we will be looking longingly as he leaves.

01-26-2009, 04:58 PM	#42
GTripp0012 Living Legend Join Date: Mar 2006 Location: Grand Rapids, MI Age: 25 Posts: 15,143	Re: Redskins "Low-balling" Hall (Allegedly) Hall's not that hard to replace though. I agree that it would have to be done, as Springs, Rogers, and Smoot will never make the trio they did at the beginning of 2007, especially since that trio included #21. There are plenty of guys we could go after should Hall shun us, but why does that make sense for him? No one wants him, and everyone else could have had him for a tiny fraction of their cap last year, but no one was offering more than half a million to finish out the year. __________________ Shanahan: “The bad thing is he's [Sav Rocca] probably our best offensive weapon and that’s not good.”

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