Redskins Free Agent Contracts vs. League

#56fanatic · 03-05-2008, 07:13 PM

So what do you guys think, here are the questions I posted:

Do you think the Redskins are to blame for the new high salaries?
Do you think our recent high priced players turned out to be value, instead of over paying?
Do you think its best to fill all needs via free agency, so at the draft you always pick best available and arent handicapped by any needs?

I dont think they are to blame totally, no one is holding a gun to an owner head when they sign these ridiculous deals this year. If no one would pay the demands, the demands would go down. simple as that. However, most of the deals these guys are signing are not what they seem to be. It is a bunch of fluff. The most important part of those deals are the guaranteed portions. those are the real deals as far as #'s goes. for example, no way Big Ben see's all of the 108million he signed for. He is guaranteed 35 million of that. Same goes for Jevon Walker I am pretty sure.
What I do think the Redskins are on the hook for are the rising salaries of these assistant coaches. what we paid the "fantasy staff" we had in place the last couple of years has definately upset some of the older owners. Look at we we gave Saunders and GW, now look at what these other coordinators are getting, that I can blame on the Danny.

what is interesting with our over spending for years on free agents is not a single one of our FA signings since Danny took over has been in the probowl. Any one of the Redskin probowlers have been draft picks. That is what I find amazing. We are signing these guys to pretty big ass contracts and not a single one has made it to Hawaii. Bad moves? bad contracts? maybe, but some have been pretty quality players over the last 5 years.

I am a firm believer in building through the draft. I hope we keep that philosophy and build on it. Now, I am not a naive person and realize you do need to sign a big FA to push yourself over the top. NE, Indy, Philly all prove this. They build through the draft, and sign those guys that put them over the top. I read a stat that when NE one the last superbowl of the 53 man roster, 49 were drafted, same went for Philly and Indy those superbowl years. there are some examples of draft building not paying off (Bengals, Lions, Cards...) That is a combination of bad picks and bad GM moves.
sorry for the lengthy post

Bill B · 03-05-2008, 09:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SKINSnCANES

So this is a topic that has been discussed in probably every thread recently in some capacity, but I want to address it on its own.

Recently there is a lot of discussion on how everyone is glad we arent over paying, talking about how normally its us that gives out big deals, etc. But I was thinking back to all the deals we made, and really they dont seem that big.

We have Clinton Portis a 50 million dollar contract, that really wasnt that long ago ya know. There have been dozens of threads over the years saying how we paid him so much money, and gave up a pick, etc. My point is though, 50 million seems cheap now.

Turner got 35 million after being a backup, Lamont Jordon got a big pay day as a back up. Jevon Walker just got over 50 million. All the offensive linemen are getting atleast 30 million. Nate Clemons got over 80 million.

The last few years salaries have skyrocketed. If I could poll on this, I would ask if you think Dan Snyder is to blame for the high salaries of today?

He really started this trend of big spending to bring in guys.

If you look at all the guys we signed, like Springs, Washington, Moss, Randle El, even llyod, which were all in recent years, and look at the market the last two years, we really didnt overpay at all. Jevon Walker was hurt and got over 50 million!

Weve been an easy target for many years when it comes to free agency, even though we always have no problem staying under the cap. Remember when Gibbs had those conferences saying that we are paying to bring top young talent, and if you wait a few years youll see that we are getting a great deal and saving money? I think Gibbs was dead on. All those guys we overpaid for are really bargins right now, and for whatever reasons Redskins more than anyone else constantly rework contracts to help the team out. Dan made his mistakes the first couple years with the older guys that got big money, but recently I think his been doing well with signing, I still wish we grew through the draft a lot more, but I like that we have gone after what was considered top young talent to fill needs so we can draft best available instead of need.

So what do you guys think, here are the questions I posted:

Do you think the Redskins are to blame for the new high salaries?
Do you think our recent high priced players turned out to be value, instead of over paying?
Do you think its best to fill all needs via free agency, so at the draft you always pick best available and arent handicapped by any needs?

I think most of the rise is due to the cap increasing so owners who complain really can't blame Synder. If anything the rise can also be attributable in agents getting more and more agreeive on the deals and especially demanding a bigger portion be devoted to signing bonuses - seems players do not want to risk salary on non-guranteed bonuses and annual non-guranteed salaries, which is probably what any good agent will advise to their client.

I think a lot of our free agents got top dollar - partly because the Skins didn't value the draft as much as they hopefully do now. The had to overspend to get their guy becuase they didn't have a lot of draft picks from previous years stay on the roster. The one thing I would say is the trading of draft picks was over the top, but again if the FO sticks to their low cost ways and turn to the draft this is a much needed welcomed change.

I would rather the team stay focused on the draft and I would prefer most of the picks fill needs. If someone who is a can't miss is available in the draft I would use it on him versus a need, but I would address needs with 75-80% of the picks, because if you hit on a couple of picks filling needs you can avoid going gangbusters in free agency spending big bucks and straining your cap.

Dirtbag359 · 03-05-2008, 11:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Schneed10

I have no doubt we're the top cap management team in the NFL. Where we haven't been so great is getting the most talent for our money. That comes down to picking players. Thankfully, I think we're on the right track with that now, and I'm hopeful for some great results over the next few years.

Yeah, but if the Redskins swing and miss on guys like Thomas, Carter, ARE, M. Washington, L Fletcher, S. Springs, and Fred Smoot then managing the cap becomes a hell of a lot harder due to the fact that you're going to have to rebuild.

Part of the reason the Redskins are able to restructure deals is because a lot of the players they have brought in have been good, and keeping the core group in tact has contributed to the two playoff runs in 05 and 07.

I know thats kind of vauge but I think you guys get where I'm going with this.

Stuck in TX · 03-05-2008, 11:40 PM

You also have to take into consideration the teams that are giving out the big paydays... take the Falcons, Browns, and Raiders for example. NO ONE wants to play for any of these teams b/c they have been horrible over the past few years so they need to pay huge for talent to come there (Javon Walker, M. Turner, etc...) at the time the Skins werent too bad, and like it has been mentioned before, players like Portis came over with anticipation of a raise.

Mattyk72 · 03-06-2008, 08:40 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Stuck in TX

You also have to take into consideration the teams that are giving out the big paydays... take the Falcons, Browns, and Raiders for example. NO ONE wants to play for any of these teams b/c they have been horrible over the past few years so they need to pay huge for talent to come there (Javon Walker, M. Turner, etc...) at the time the Skins werent too bad, and like it has been mentioned before, players like Portis came over with anticipation of a raise.

I think the Browns can be taken out of that mix. They definitely appear to be a team on the rise after last year.

BeastsoftheNFCeast · 03-06-2008, 08:54 AM

I think there are some things being overlooked here, the fact that these huge contracts that are being signed today are huge now, but 3 years down the road they won't be due to the rising salary cap, so thinking along those lines, you can't ever overpay players. Also its not just the amount we paid, but it's also the quality of the player that we got, arch? Lloyd? Randle El? None of these guys could get the contracts that we gave them even if they hit the market today. Smoot got a contract about the same size as the others, and nobody has complained about it because he has preformed well so far. Also, some of the contracts being given out are just plain stupid, just because some other teams are being stupid doesn't mean that we're not, I mean seriously, Javon Walker 55 mil? Hes getting more money than Moss, that's not the market, it's just the raiders being dumb

SKINSnCANES · 03-06-2008, 11:48 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by #56fanatic

So what do you guys think, here are the questions I posted:

what is interesting with our over spending for years on free agents is not a single one of our FA signings since Danny took over has been in the probowl. Any one of the Redskin probowlers have been draft picks. That is what I find amazing. We are signing these guys to pretty big ass contracts and not a single one has made it to Hawaii. Bad moves? bad contracts? maybe, but some have been pretty quality players over the last 5 years.

What are you talking about that all of our pro bowlers have been drafted and none of our free agent made it, you only find it amazing cause its wrong!

Santana Moss made the probowl
Marcus Washington made the probowl
Laverneous Coles...

Springs should have made it a fwe times
carter is arguable

SKINSnCANES · 03-06-2008, 11:53 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by #56fanatic

So what do you guys think, here are the questions I posted:

Do you think the Redskins are to blame for the new high salaries?
Do you think our recent high priced players turned out to be value, instead of over paying?
Do you think its best to fill all needs via free agency, so at the draft you always pick best available and arent handicapped by any needs?

I dont think they are to blame totally, no one is holding a gun to an owner head when they sign these ridiculous deals this year. If no one would pay the demands, the demands would go down. simple as that. However, most of the deals these guys are signing are not what they seem to be. It is a bunch of fluff. The most important part of those deals are the guaranteed portions. those are the real deals as far as #'s goes. for example, no way Big Ben see's all of the 108million he signed for. He is guaranteed 35 million of that. Same goes for Jevon Walker I am pretty sure.
What I do think the Redskins are on the hook for are the rising salaries of these assistant coaches. what we paid the "fantasy staff" we had in place the last couple of years has definately upset some of the older owners. Look at we we gave Saunders and GW, now look at what these other coordinators are getting, that I can blame on the Danny.

what is interesting with our over spending for years on free agents is not a single one of our FA signings since Danny took over has been in the probowl. Any one of the Redskin probowlers have been draft picks. That is what I find amazing. We are signing these guys to pretty big ass contracts and not a single one has made it to Hawaii. Bad moves? bad contracts? maybe, but some have been pretty quality players over the last 5 years.

I am a firm believer in building through the draft. I hope we keep that philosophy and build on it. Now, I am not a naive person and realize you do need to sign a big FA to push yourself over the top. NE, Indy, Philly all prove this. They build through the draft, and sign those guys that put them over the top. I read a stat that when NE one the last superbowl of the 53 man roster, 49 were drafted, same went for Philly and Indy those superbowl years. there are some examples of draft building not paying off (Bengals, Lions, Cards...) That is a combination of bad picks and bad GM moves.
sorry for the lengthy post

and I wasnt trying to be mean, i get what youre saying and am on the same page. But we have had players make the probowl that were free agents.

Definitly had more that we drafted though (mabye you can thank the free agents for sucking and getting us high draft picks

)

TheMalcolmConnection · 03-06-2008, 11:54 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Schneed10

There's an article on SI's Truth and Rumors today about how the veteran Jet players are upset about the money just handed out to the new free agent class. They're wondering when they're going to get theirs. You can see the kind of angst a free agent binge causes in the locker room, same thing was happening to us every time we went on a binge. I think it affects team chemistry, besides the fact that new players have a learning curve. You end up with a tough season.

You're best off drafting guys into the program and letting them earn their stripes on the field, and then get paid. It helps breed a blue-collar, hard work equals financial reward kind of mentality.

Work and deserve it, earn it to own it.

And this is where I would get frustrated as a coach and owner. Maybe I'm being naive, but it's not like the veteran Jet players are any less capable of buying a fleet of high-end Italian cars. Maybe I think people should be PUMPED about who they get so they can WIN and not who has the bigger house.

freddyg12 · 03-06-2008, 12:19 PM

Good thread w/interesting posts. To answer the questions:

1) Snyder may have helped inflate salaries in a given year, e.g. 2000, but not every year since.

The main thing no one has mentioned here (and I'm surprised) is simple economics:
there is less supply and more demand of free agents, so it's a seller's market.
I don't have any links at hand, but there have been a no. of stories about how teams have gotten better at keeping their own players. Less are hitting the market & more are being franchised.

2) We've signed some good fa's, e.g. class of 2004, and several are team leaders. The downside is that these guys cost more & have fewer years of return as they're older.

3) I think an ideal balance would be at least 85%/15% draft-free agency. We've definitely had an imbalance in the past, but that's started to change, especially on the defensive side of the ball.

#56fanatic · 03-06-2008, 12:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SKINSnCANES

and I wasnt trying to be mean, i get what youre saying and am on the same page. But we have had players make the probowl that were free agents.

Definitly had more that we drafted though (mabye you can thank the free agents for sucking and getting us high draft picks

)

If i remember they were alternates. I was refurring to being voted as starters, not fillers for ones that decline or are injured.

Coff · 03-06-2008, 01:07 PM

So what do you guys think, here are the questions I posted:

Do you think the Redskins are to blame for the new high salaries?

I'm just going to focus on this question. The Redskins are to "blame" for new high salaries, because there hasn't actually been an increase in salaries relative to the salaray cap. The Skins are still the only team that constantly operates $20 million over the cap. Nearly all of the other teams, without exception, operate under the cap. Therefore, the increase in salaries is proportional to the increase in money paid to the players per the CBA.

If a bunch of other teams began operating well over the cap, than I would say that the Skins are responsible. On a side note, I think we are fortunate that other teams haven't started doing this yet, because I believe the reluctance of the other teams to operate over the cap in effect gives us a higher cap than the rest of the NFL. This is an advantage for the Skins. Perhaps they haven't utilized the advantage as well as we would like to see, but hopefully with time they will.

SKINSnCANES · 03-06-2008, 04:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by #56fanatic

If i remember they were alternates. I was refurring to being voted as starters, not fillers for ones that decline or are injured.

hm, not sure I have to check. I thought Washington and Moss were starters. That was the year Moss was second best receiver behind Smith.

03-05-2008, 07:13 PM	#16 (permalink)
#56fanatic The Starter Join Date: Oct 2005 Location: Charlotte NC Posts: 1,342	Re: Redskins Free Agent Contracts vs. League So what do you guys think, here are the questions I posted: Do you think the Redskins are to blame for the new high salaries? Do you think our recent high priced players turned out to be value, instead of over paying? Do you think its best to fill all needs via free agency, so at the draft you always pick best available and arent handicapped by any needs? I dont think they are to blame totally, no one is holding a gun to an owner head when they sign these ridiculous deals this year. If no one would pay the demands, the demands would go down. simple as that. However, most of the deals these guys are signing are not what they seem to be. It is a bunch of fluff. The most important part of those deals are the guaranteed portions. those are the real deals as far as #'s goes. for example, no way Big Ben see's all of the 108million he signed for. He is guaranteed 35 million of that. Same goes for Jevon Walker I am pretty sure. What I do think the Redskins are on the hook for are the rising salaries of these assistant coaches. what we paid the "fantasy staff" we had in place the last couple of years has definately upset some of the older owners. Look at we we gave Saunders and GW, now look at what these other coordinators are getting, that I can blame on the Danny. what is interesting with our over spending for years on free agents is not a single one of our FA signings since Danny took over has been in the probowl. Any one of the Redskin probowlers have been draft picks. That is what I find amazing. We are signing these guys to pretty big ass contracts and not a single one has made it to Hawaii. Bad moves? bad contracts? maybe, but some have been pretty quality players over the last 5 years. I am a firm believer in building through the draft. I hope we keep that philosophy and build on it. Now, I am not a naive person and realize you do need to sign a big FA to push yourself over the top. NE, Indy, Philly all prove this. They build through the draft, and sign those guys that put them over the top. I read a stat that when NE one the last superbowl of the 53 man roster, 49 were drafted, same went for Philly and Indy those superbowl years. there are some examples of draft building not paying off (Bengals, Lions, Cards...) That is a combination of bad picks and bad GM moves. sorry for the lengthy post

03-05-2008, 11:40 PM	#19 (permalink)
Stuck in TX Special Teams Join Date: Feb 2008 Location: Wichita Falls, TX Posts: 377	Re: Redskins Free Agent Contracts vs. League You also have to take into consideration the teams that are giving out the big paydays... take the Falcons, Browns, and Raiders for example. NO ONE wants to play for any of these teams b/c they have been horrible over the past few years so they need to pay huge for talent to come there (Javon Walker, M. Turner, etc...) at the time the Skins werent too bad, and like it has been mentioned before, players like Portis came over with anticipation of a raise. __________________ We will miss you Sean. RIP 1983-2007 REMEMBER VT Go Hokies

03-06-2008, 08:54 AM	#21 (permalink)
BeastsoftheNFCeast Special Teams Join Date: Dec 2006 Posts: 310	Re: Redskins Free Agent Contracts vs. League I think there are some things being overlooked here, the fact that these huge contracts that are being signed today are huge now, but 3 years down the road they won't be due to the rising salary cap, so thinking along those lines, you can't ever overpay players. Also its not just the amount we paid, but it's also the quality of the player that we got, arch? Lloyd? Randle El? None of these guys could get the contracts that we gave them even if they hit the market today. Smoot got a contract about the same size as the others, and nobody has complained about it because he has preformed well so far. Also, some of the contracts being given out are just plain stupid, just because some other teams are being stupid doesn't mean that we're not, I mean seriously, Javon Walker 55 mil? Hes getting more money than Moss, that's not the market, it's just the raiders being dumb

03-06-2008, 12:19 PM	#25 (permalink)
freddyg12 The Starter Join Date: Feb 2006 Posts: 2,109	Re: Redskins Free Agent Contracts vs. League Good thread w/interesting posts. To answer the questions: 1) Snyder may have helped inflate salaries in a given year, e.g. 2000, but not every year since. The main thing no one has mentioned here (and I'm surprised) is simple economics: there is less supply and more demand of free agents, so it's a seller's market. I don't have any links at hand, but there have been a no. of stories about how teams have gotten better at keeping their own players. Less are hitting the market & more are being franchised. 2) We've signed some good fa's, e.g. class of 2004, and several are team leaders. The downside is that these guys cost more & have fewer years of return as they're older. 3) I think an ideal balance would be at least 85%/15% draft-free agency. We've definitely had an imbalance in the past, but that's started to change, especially on the defensive side of the ball.

03-06-2008, 01:07 PM	#27 (permalink)
Coff Special Teams Join Date: Dec 2006 Location: Albany, NY Posts: 116	Re: Redskins Free Agent Contracts vs. League So what do you guys think, here are the questions I posted: Do you think the Redskins are to blame for the new high salaries? I'm just going to focus on this question. The Redskins are to "blame" for new high salaries, because there hasn't actually been an increase in salaries relative to the salaray cap. The Skins are still the only team that constantly operates $20 million over the cap. Nearly all of the other teams, without exception, operate under the cap. Therefore, the increase in salaries is proportional to the increase in money paid to the players per the CBA. If a bunch of other teams began operating well over the cap, than I would say that the Skins are responsible. On a side note, I think we are fortunate that other teams haven't started doing this yet, because I believe the reluctance of the other teams to operate over the cap in effect gives us a higher cap than the rest of the NFL. This is an advantage for the Skins. Perhaps they haven't utilized the advantage as well as we would like to see, but hopefully with time they will.

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

Redskins Free Agent Contracts vs. League

Salary Cap Central