Warpath  

Home | Forums | Salary Cap Info | Shop | Donate | Stay Connected




Go Back   Warpath > Redskins Forums > Redskins Locker Room


Skins interested in Gallery?/Samuels trade talks *Merged*

Redskins Locker Room


Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 04-12-2004, 06:24 AM   #46
The Starter
 
joecrisp's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Charlottesville, VA
Age: 38
Posts: 1,501
Quote:
Originally Posted by CrazyCanuck
Samuels was a top-3 pick, and he's a "proven" player with a couple pro bowl
appearances (somehow ). Plus the team that trades for him would resign
him to a new deal that fits their own cap constraints. He should command at
least a top-3 pick in return (ie Gallery), and more IMO.

I would love Samuels for Gallery straight up, but anything more doesn't make sense.
That should be the case. It would be truly assinine of the FO to allow themselves to be talked into sacrificing Samuels AND their #5 pick to acquire a replacement for Samuels with the #2 pick.

As others have said, if the Skins are able to acquire Gallery, but retain the #5 pick, then I'm all for it. But as Canuck said, if the Skins have to deal anything more than Samuels for Gallery straight up, then it's a bad deal on the Skins' part. It would be further evidence of how the Skins' irresponsible cap management has had a destructive effect on the roster.

Of course, all of this is likely moot if the Giants are able to pull off a trade with the Chargers to move up to the #1 spot.
joecrisp is offline   Reply With Quote

Advertisements
Old 04-12-2004, 11:27 AM   #47
Camp Scrub
 
Davnpurt's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Bmore
Age: 33
Posts: 51
Samuels to Oakland?

http://sports.yahoo.com/nfl/news?slu...=tsn&type=lgns

What areas does this trade and subsequent draft pick actually address? Maybe drafting Gallery and/or grabbing said draft spot is simply a ploy. Either to expediate the process of re-working Samuel's contract or a possible trading down with the Giants who are infatuated with Gallery. Notwithstanding, do we really need an inexperienced O-lineman and does this preference superseed our problems on D-line and throughout the secondary?
Davnpurt is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-12-2004, 11:28 AM   #48
King of the Cage
 
Jamaican'Skin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Kingston, Jamaica
Age: 27
Posts: 2,336
Rob Gallery Talks

http://nflplayers.com/news/news_release.asp?id=2083
__________________
Back like a spinal tap
Jamaican'Skin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-12-2004, 03:46 PM   #49
Pro Bowl
 
SKINSnCANES's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: New Jersey
Age: 32
Posts: 5,411
Any news on holdman yet, that probably has a lot to do with any trades we make becuase of the cap room he'll take up. Granted we'll have more money when Trotter is gone but until then we wont have any money left.
__________________
"I'm used to winning, coming from the University of Miami. " Clinton Portis
SKINSnCANES is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-12-2004, 04:37 PM   #50
Camp Scrub
 
raleighskinsfan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 62
I've got to think this is merely innuendo stirred up to help push Samuels to redo his deal. It probably won't work though. But I've got to believe the front office is not dumb enough to give up Samuels AND the #5 pick just for the #2 pick. It would essentially be like giving two players for one (Samuels and #5) for one, and the one is an unproven college player. We're not going to give up a probowler and a top 5 pick for someone unproven, no matter how great the potential. This is one rumor I'm not going to burn alot of energy worrying about. If they wish to trade the #2 pick straight up for Samuels, I could live with that. But what is being discussed now is heavily in the Raiders favor and I don't see it happening.
raleighskinsfan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-12-2004, 04:59 PM   #51
Camp Scrub
 
Showtime's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 8
What about
1) Trading any (and all) combination(s) of Gardner, Betts, Ohalete, Trotter and a future pick for the #2 spot.

2) Using the #2 to select Fitzgerald - he will be an amazing 1a receiver opposite Coles. And, in time, he will help immensely with Ramsey's development. Not to mention he is a great receiver in all senses of the word.

3) Then using the #5 pick to select Taylor. No need to explain this one.

In the end, we upgrade our offense AND defense. We don't need to trade Samuels. All he wants is a fair shake in Gibbs' run-oriented/max protect offense and some love from the Front Office. I'm sure he will renegotiate for next year given the opportunity to prove himself.
Showtime is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-12-2004, 05:06 PM   #52
F the Shannys

 
CrazyCanuck's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Canada
Posts: 1,875
Quote:
Originally Posted by SKINSnCANES
Any news on holdman yet, that probably has a lot to do with any trades we make becuase of the cap room he'll take up. Granted we'll have more money when Trotter is gone but until then we wont have any money left.
From what I can tell we only have about $500K of 2004 cap room right now. I can't see them making any more moves unless they dump Samuels, Trotter, Moore, etc.
CrazyCanuck is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-12-2004, 06:21 PM   #53
Playmaker
 
skinsfanthru&thru's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Richmond, VA
Age: 33
Posts: 3,710
Quote:
Originally Posted by Showtime
2) Using the #2 to select Fitzgerald - he will be an amazing 1a receiver opposite Coles. And, in time, he will help immensely with Ramsey's development. Not to mention he is a great receiver in all senses of the word.
even if the skins were even remotely thinking about drafting a WR, it shouldn't be Fitzgerald. If we had a spot to fill with any of the top 3 wr's in the draft,which we don't, Roy Williams is the best Wr in the draft.

The more I hear about this deal with oakland the more I'm hating it cuz we in no way shape or form trade BOTH Samuels and the #5 overall pick for a rookie, even a rookie that has as much potential as Gallery. If this trade can go through without losing our pick so we could then select taylor or trade down and all we lose is samuels and his enormous cap #, thats a deal that makes more sense than practically giving up two high 1st round picks.
skinsfanthru&thru is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-12-2004, 07:04 PM   #54
Puppy Kicker
 
Daseal's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Arlington, Virginia
Age: 31
Posts: 8,214
Quote:
From what I can tell we only have about $500K of 2004 cap room right now. I can't see them making any more moves unless they dump Samuels, Trotter, Moore, etc.
Crazy, you are definitly the cap expert around these parts, but once the June cuts come we should have quite a bit left over in cap space, correct? With Trotter, Trung, and more likely to get the knife, shouldn't we expect to get upwards of 1 mil in cap space free, or am I being too optimisitic.

As far as the above poster said, Roy Williams is THE WR to pick in this draft. Fitzgerald is a talented guy, and he's slated at #3 because he has a personal relationship with Denny Green. I don't really like this trade, especially if it includes our #5. If it is something like a Gardner or Trotter and Samuels for Gallery fine, but I'd rather do it to light a fire under Samuels ass to restructure. That could be the purpose for this, who knows!

Either way, I wanna see Winslow or Taylor in our boat come April 24th. 8)
Daseal is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-12-2004, 07:31 PM   #55
Pro Bowl
 
SKINSnCANES's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: New Jersey
Age: 32
Posts: 5,411
When I asked about Holdman I meant did he sign out offer sheet. I know we dont have much money but we already presented him with a new offer last week. We'll have the money once Trotter, Candidate(mabye), Larry Moore, and some D-linemen get the boot.

If for some reason trading Gardner, Trotter, Ife and Trung got us the second pick without giving up Samuels, or the number five pick, I think we should then trade the second pick to the brown, then mabye down again and recoup a bunch of picks. If we could get rid of people we dotn need(no offence Gardner, who id love ot keep but atleast has trade value), free up cap space and get more picks that would be awesome. The Raiders have a very old team and do need a bunch of people to step in, and Norv has worked with some of them here, so just mabye this could work out for us.
__________________
"I'm used to winning, coming from the University of Miami. " Clinton Portis
SKINSnCANES is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-12-2004, 07:33 PM   #56
Pro Bowl
 
SKINSnCANES's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: New Jersey
Age: 32
Posts: 5,411
As far as the three receivers, I cant help but think Larry Fitzgerald is the best one. Hes by far the smartest and the best with the ball, mabye the best since Jerry Rice. Hes not the fastest but seeing the types of plays he makes is incredible. Roy Williams may be better right now becuase he has four years of college under his belt. But I think the upside definitly goes to Fitzgerald. Roy is one of those guys thats the best in this years draft becuase of expereince. Larry is one of those peopel that comes around every ten years and happened to be the first that is allowed to come out early. If Larry had another year of college, which up until this year he would have had to, he would easily be the first pick in the draft.
__________________
"I'm used to winning, coming from the University of Miami. " Clinton Portis
SKINSnCANES is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-12-2004, 07:45 PM   #57
The Starter
 
Riggo44's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: San Clemente CA
Age: 40
Posts: 2,389
Samuels may have angered Snyder by refusing to re-work his deal, but I have a feeling the motives for drafting Gallery and moving Samuels would be more salary cap-related than anything personal against Samuels. Though Gallery would certainly demand a huge contract, the numbers of the first 3-4 years would likely be rather cap-friendly-- certainly nowhere near as damaging as Samuels' numbers over the same timeframe.

I think your right! I really wouldn't care to much if Samule got traded. We could really use that kind of cap space!
__________________
Beer is proof that God loves us and wants us to be happy.
Benjamin Franklin
Riggo44 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-12-2004, 08:58 PM   #58
Mr. Brightside
 
Big C's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Fairfax, Virginia
Age: 28
Posts: 4,439
i think this would make the most sense
1st- trade #5 overall and rod gardner and or trotter for the #1 or #2 overall and select Gallery. If they dont want that, throw in a pick from next year
2nd- trade Samuels to Browns for #7 overall, that seems fair to me seeing as how hes at least a 2 time pro bowler and 26 years old, 3rd overall pick not long ago...

Anyone agree with me? that way we can still get D-Line help in Tommie Harris, or get either winslow or taylor if theyre there
Big C is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-12-2004, 10:02 PM   #59
Puppy Kicker
 
Daseal's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Arlington, Virginia
Age: 31
Posts: 8,214
The browns wouldn't give up their draft pick where they could get an allstar in Taylor or Winslow for Samuels.
\
Daseal is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-12-2004, 11:10 PM   #60
Mr. Brightside
 
Big C's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Fairfax, Virginia
Age: 28
Posts: 4,439
i dont know, maybe samuels and a 3rd rounder next year, that would be pretty fair it seems to me. the browns need o-line more than anything, they would probably consider it
Big C is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On



All times are GMT -4. The time now is 09:57 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
This site is not officially affiliated with the Washington Redskins or the NFL.
Page generated in 0.29576 seconds with 9 queries

Search Engine Friendly URLs by vBSEO 3.2.0 RC5

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25