Bashing the Coles-Moss Deal

DCopper04 · 03-09-2005, 01:21 AM

In reading the other threads, I see that there are quite a few people who are pissed about this trade. Some blame this trade for our inability to retain Smoot; some think we should have forced Coles to play at least one more season; others simply think that we got a bad deal out of it. I, on the other hand, think the trade was decent for the Skins, and shipping Coles out of town was something that had to be done eventually.

First, let me address the allegations that trading Coles is the reason we lost Smoot. This is just bullshit, plain and simple. We were going to lose Smoot anyway. Smoot wanted to be paid like a top 5 CB in the league, and like the #1 CB on his team. Unfortunately, our FO thought he was neither of the two. Before free agency started, we told Smoot where we valued him and how much we were willing to pay. Note that this offer never changed, even when the Coles-Moss trade began to brew. As well, saying that this trade cost us the opportinuty to keep Smoot is a slap in the face to our FO. It's not like Gibbs traded Coles, then thought "Oh shit! We just took a $9M cap hit for this! Oh well, looks like now we can't keep Smoot......" Please. I hope that the majority of Redskins faithful has more confidence in our FO than that. I know I do.

I've seen others blame the Coles-Moss trade on our inability to retain Pierce as well. This is even more ludicrous than the previous example. Pierce got an offer, and we didn't think he was worth that much, so we let him walk. Not to mention, Pierce signed the Giants' offer 4 or 5 days before the Coles-Moss trade occured. Like Smoot's case, this was simply an example of our FO trying to exercise some fiscal restraint. The Coles-Moss trade had no effect on Pierce's departure.

Some have argued that we simply got shafted in the deal. Coles is better than Moss, therefore the trade was bad for us; throw in the $9M cap hit, and we basically grabbed our ankles as the Jets fucked us, right? Wrong. Some online articles have recently shed some light on the animosity that existed between Coles and our FO. After reading those articles, it is obvious that Coles HAD to go, even if we got a raw deal for him. We could not let his situation become a distraction to the rest of the team. Plus, Coles' unwillingness to get the toe surgery was counterproductive to our long-term plans as an organization. Whether we could have gotten a better deal than Moss is a topic for debate, but he fills a glaring need on our roster.

There have been some questions about this trade concerning the extension that we are ultimately going to give Moss. Some have said that it is fiscally irresponsible to take Coles' cap hit, then turn around and scramble to put together an extention after trading for a player. First of all, let's just clarify that the terms of the extension have already been agreed upon. There is no negotiating at this point. Moss and the Skins have already reached an agreement; the Skins are just waiting to clear enough cap room before the deal can actually be signed. Snyder would not allow this trade to go through unless he had an extension worked out ahead of time. That's basic procedure. Second, I think that it would be MUCH MORE irresponsible to NOT extend Moss' deal right now. We don't want to get into a bidding war with other teams come free agency next season. Plus, we don't want to just let Moss walk after this season. If that were to happen, it would be the equivalent of releasing Coles AND taking the full $9M cap hit. If that were the case, we would have been better off simply releasing Coles, and recouping the $5M bonus payment that was due him.

Bottom line, it was a decent trade for the Skins, and one that needed to be done.

Daseal · 03-09-2005, 01:50 AM

The 9M dollar cap hit is the killer. Smoot got a 10.8SB from MN. Not exactly a large figure over what we initially offered.

Paintrain · 03-09-2005, 08:15 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Daseal

The 9M dollar cap hit is the killer. Smoot got a 10.8SB from MN. Not exactly a large figure over what we initially offered.

You consistently miss the point that the front office was not going to increase their offer to Smoot or Pierce.. The cap room is available to match Smoot's SB (they are sitting at about $2 mil according to the Post the other day AFTER the trade) they chose not to use it.. If they had 11M I doubt they would have matched Minnesota's offer, they just didn't want to pay that much for him..

The 9M cap hit sucks no doubt, but if he was treated like Terry Glenn as reported then everyone would be up in arms saying 'We should have taken the hit and gotten rid of him!!!!'. At least we got something for him.

MTK · 03-09-2005, 08:18 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Paintrain

You consistently miss the point that the front office was not going to increase their offer to Smoot or Pierce.. The cap room is available to match Smoot's SB (they are sitting at about $2 mil according to the Post the other day AFTER the trade) they chose not to use it.. If they had 11M I doubt they would have matched Minnesota's offer, they just didn't want to pay that much for him..

The 9M cap hit sucks no doubt, but if he was treated like Terry Glenn as reported then everyone would be up in arms saying 'We should have taken the hit and gotten rid of him!!!!'. At least we got something for him.

People also miss the point it's not the bonus that swayed Smoot, it was the way the deal was structured that pays him more over the first 3 years of the deal, alot more than we were willing to pay.

FRPLG · 03-09-2005, 08:23 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mattyk72

People also miss the point it's not the bonus that swayed Smoot, it was the way the deal was structured that pays him more over the first 3 years of the deal, alot more than we were willing to pay.

Exactly. The Skins have mastered this the past few years. It is how we got Coles from the Jets. The deal was big no doubt but it was also affordable cap wise for the Jets if structured the right way. The Skins went ahead and made it an impossible deal for them to match cap wise and the rest is history. Bad history now....

jdlea · 03-09-2005, 10:05 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Daseal

The 9M dollar cap hit is the killer. Smoot got a 10.8SB from MN. Not exactly a large figure over what we initially offered.

I'm not gonna bash you about the Smoot thing because, frankly, I don't really care. I knew he wasn't coming back when the season ended and he said he didn't think he was coming back. That said, he's right about the cap hit. You can talk all you want about how we could have matched the Smoot offer people, but if we did, how would we sign our draft picks? The 9 mil cap hit broke our back and left us unable to sign him. I don't really mind, I think he can be replaced and he didn't deserve more dough than Springs.

I just wish we didn't have to take this hit because Moss wants a new deal and I don't know about you all, but I think it hurts us in an attempt to sign draft picks. Can anyone tell me Sean Taylor's cap number from last year?

jdlea · 03-09-2005, 10:06 AM

Another thing that really bugs me is that the cap hit would have been next to nothing if he would given back the bonus and we would have released him. I don't mind getting Moss out of it, but at $9 mil, that kills us.

PFunk26 · 03-09-2005, 10:29 AM

You know I noticed people keep saying we won't be able to sign our rookies? I read somewhere that Vinny cerrato (however you spell it) said they were budgeting this cap hit ever since Coles starting complaining. I don't think they would have done it if it meant would would lose out on other players. I also think Moss is due for a breakout year the guys only what 25? I think last year was an injury fluke and when all is said and done we may have the better reciever. That toe thing is gonna bite the Jets in the butt eventually and when it does I'll be laughing my way to the super bowl. This offeason is the start to something great. And if I have to hear about how great the Patriots are at personel decisions one more time I'm gonna puke we all know you've een reporting it for like 3-4 years now let it go!

FRPLG · 03-09-2005, 08:21 AM

Daseal..you act like the FO should have just paid them whatever trhey wanted to keep them. At what point would you actually say they weren't worth it? Gibbs and comp decided what they thought they were worth and stuck to it. When you decide a guy is worth a 10 mil SB you don't raise it by even a dollar if you are going to stick to your principle of not over paying guys. We have conistently over paid for guys for years now and it hasn't worked. Maybe it is time to try something else and show some restraint. Others are right when they say that IF Snyder wanted these guysback so bad if would have happened. He doesn't have the frugality gene needed to let quality players go when you could stop it. Gibbs and comp convinced him not to over pay for them. Now if we want to argue about whether they were correct or incorrect in their valuation that's a legitimate discussion. Blaming Coles for this(while I have total disdain for him for the position he put us in) is ignoring the forrest for a tree.

MTK · 03-09-2005, 08:29 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by FRPLG

Daseal..you act like the FO should have just paid them whatever trhey wanted to keep them. At what point would you actually say they weren't worth it? Gibbs and comp decided what they thought they were worth and stuck to it. When you decide a guy is worth a 10 mil SB you don't raise it by even a dollar if you are going to stick to your principle of not over paying guys. We have conistently over paid for guys for years now and it hasn't worked. Maybe it is time to try something else and show some restraint. Others are right when they say that IF Snyder wanted these guysback so bad if would have happened. He doesn't have the frugality gene needed to let quality players go when you could stop it. Gibbs and comp convinced him not to over pay for them. Now if we want to argue about whether they were correct or incorrect in their valuation that's a legitimate discussion. Blaming Coles for this(while I have total disdain for him for the position he put us in) is ignoring the forrest for a tree.

That's what I don't get, for the past few years alot of people here and in the media alike have complained how we toss money around too freely, and now that the team is showing some restraint and responsibility with the cap, we want them to outbid anybody who tries to sign our FA's.

Monksdown · 03-09-2005, 10:31 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mattyk72

That's what I don't get, for the past few years alot of people here and in the media alike have complained how we toss money around too freely, and now that the team is showing some restraint and responsibility with the cap, we want them to outbid anybody who tries to sign our FA's.

I said it in a past thread. The Patriots have been cutting high priced talent and winning Super Bowls. And we have been paying high priced talent with sub .500 seasons.

celts32 · 03-09-2005, 10:27 AM

Whether or not the Coles trade had anything to do with the Skins not resigning Smoot is up for debate. However, I will not ever be convinced that it was a better decision for us to trade Coles for the incredibly average Moss than it would have been to just take the 5 mil give back and release him. Snyder just needed to save face and get something for him since he gave a #1 to get him and he also didn';t want anyone dictating to him what he should and shouldn't do. Snyder basically bit off his nose to spite his face. He could have signed a couple free agents that are better than Moss with that 5 mil in cap space. Instead he got an average player in Moss who needs an extension and a 9 mil cap hit. This is a disaster and I just can't even believe that there are people trying to spin it positive...

Tahoe Skin · 03-09-2005, 03:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by celts32

However, I will not ever be convinced that it was a better decision for us to trade Coles for the incredibly average Moss than it would have been to just take the 5 mil give back and release him.

Yes, and we probably could have gotten Moss (or someone his caliber) for way less than $5 mil a year.

BrudLee · 03-09-2005, 10:30 AM

It is a $9 million cap hit - but Coles would have been over $3 million on our cap if we'd kept him. There's a $6 million difference (give or take). Would I rather have the money? Of course - but not if it means keeping a player who very clearly is putting his personal goals above the team's goals.
"People say we're (Coles and Gardner) leaving now because we're selfish, but how are you supposed to be happy as a receiver when you go from a passing offense to a running offense? This wasn't what I signed up for."
You are supposed to be happy when you win. If you are all about the dollar (which I hear is going around) you are supposed to be happy with a $13 million dollar bonus. If Coles was entering a contract year, and was worried about his future earnings, this is a different conversation. But he was, in fact, due a $5 million payment on his signing bonus (at the time the largest in Redskins history, and I believe the second highest for a WR ever), which he received, and was in no danger of being cut unless he demanded it.
I understand wanting to do your best, and I understand the importance of a strong ego for an athlete at this level. Coles and I have very different recollections of the season, because I believe the offense did improve over the season - the benching of Brunell being one example - and if the Washington Post article stating that not getting enough catches in the final game (a victory!!!) was "the final nail in the coffin," then I can't side with Coles. The victory is always first.

BossHog · 03-09-2005, 11:14 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DCopper04

...This is just bullshit, plain and simple. ... "Oh shit! We just took a $9M cap hit for this! ...throw in the $9M cap hit, and we basically grabbed our ankles as the Jets fucked us, right? Wrong...

I feel your pain, but dude, watch your language!

03-09-2005, 01:50 AM	#2
Daseal Puppy Kicker Join Date: Feb 2004 Location: Arlington, Virginia Age: 42 Posts: 8,341	Re: Bashing the Coles-Moss Deal The 9M dollar cap hit is the killer. Smoot got a 10.8SB from MN. Not exactly a large figure over what we initially offered.

03-09-2005, 10:06 AM	#7
jdlea Playmaker Join Date: Feb 2004 Location: Arlington, VA Age: 41 Posts: 3,109	Re: Bashing the Coles-Moss Deal Another thing that really bugs me is that the cap hit would have been next to nothing if he would given back the bonus and we would have released him. I don't mind getting Moss out of it, but at $9 mil, that kills us.

03-09-2005, 10:29 AM	#8
PFunk26 Special Teams Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: Grafton, WI Age: 45 Posts: 355	Re: Bashing the Coles-Moss Deal You know I noticed people keep saying we won't be able to sign our rookies? I read somewhere that Vinny cerrato (however you spell it) said they were budgeting this cap hit ever since Coles starting complaining. I don't think they would have done it if it meant would would lose out on other players. I also think Moss is due for a breakout year the guys only what 25? I think last year was an injury fluke and when all is said and done we may have the better reciever. That toe thing is gonna bite the Jets in the butt eventually and when it does I'll be laughing my way to the super bowl. This offeason is the start to something great. And if I have to hear about how great the Patriots are at personel decisions one more time I'm gonna puke we all know you've een reporting it for like 3-4 years now let it go!

03-09-2005, 08:21 AM	#9
FRPLG MVP Join Date: May 2004 Age: 46 Posts: 10,164	Re: Bashing the Coles-Moss Deal Daseal..you act like the FO should have just paid them whatever trhey wanted to keep them. At what point would you actually say they weren't worth it? Gibbs and comp decided what they thought they were worth and stuck to it. When you decide a guy is worth a 10 mil SB you don't raise it by even a dollar if you are going to stick to your principle of not over paying guys. We have conistently over paid for guys for years now and it hasn't worked. Maybe it is time to try something else and show some restraint. Others are right when they say that IF Snyder wanted these guysback so bad if would have happened. He doesn't have the frugality gene needed to let quality players go when you could stop it. Gibbs and comp convinced him not to over pay for them. Now if we want to argue about whether they were correct or incorrect in their valuation that's a legitimate discussion. Blaming Coles for this(while I have total disdain for him for the position he put us in) is ignoring the forrest for a tree.

03-09-2005, 10:27 AM	#12
celts32 Playmaker Join Date: Feb 2004 Location: Hackettstown NJ Age: 54 Posts: 2,665	Re: Bashing the Coles-Moss Deal Whether or not the Coles trade had anything to do with the Skins not resigning Smoot is up for debate. However, I will not ever be convinced that it was a better decision for us to trade Coles for the incredibly average Moss than it would have been to just take the 5 mil give back and release him. Snyder just needed to save face and get something for him since he gave a #1 to get him and he also didn';t want anyone dictating to him what he should and shouldn't do. Snyder basically bit off his nose to spite his face. He could have signed a couple free agents that are better than Moss with that 5 mil in cap space. Instead he got an average player in Moss who needs an extension and a 9 mil cap hit. This is a disaster and I just can't even believe that there are people trying to spin it positive...

03-09-2005, 01:21 AM	#1
DCopper04 Camp Scrub Join Date: Jan 2005 Posts: 59	Bashing the Coles-Moss Deal In reading the other threads, I see that there are quite a few people who are pissed about this trade. Some blame this trade for our inability to retain Smoot; some think we should have forced Coles to play at least one more season; others simply think that we got a bad deal out of it. I, on the other hand, think the trade was decent for the Skins, and shipping Coles out of town was something that had to be done eventually. First, let me address the allegations that trading Coles is the reason we lost Smoot. This is just bullshit, plain and simple. We were going to lose Smoot anyway. Smoot wanted to be paid like a top 5 CB in the league, and like the #1 CB on his team. Unfortunately, our FO thought he was neither of the two. Before free agency started, we told Smoot where we valued him and how much we were willing to pay. Note that this offer never changed, even when the Coles-Moss trade began to brew. As well, saying that this trade cost us the opportinuty to keep Smoot is a slap in the face to our FO. It's not like Gibbs traded Coles, then thought "Oh shit! We just took a $9M cap hit for this! Oh well, looks like now we can't keep Smoot......" Please. I hope that the majority of Redskins faithful has more confidence in our FO than that. I know I do. I've seen others blame the Coles-Moss trade on our inability to retain Pierce as well. This is even more ludicrous than the previous example. Pierce got an offer, and we didn't think he was worth that much, so we let him walk. Not to mention, Pierce signed the Giants' offer 4 or 5 days before the Coles-Moss trade occured. Like Smoot's case, this was simply an example of our FO trying to exercise some fiscal restraint. The Coles-Moss trade had no effect on Pierce's departure. Some have argued that we simply got shafted in the deal. Coles is better than Moss, therefore the trade was bad for us; throw in the $9M cap hit, and we basically grabbed our ankles as the Jets fucked us, right? Wrong. Some online articles have recently shed some light on the animosity that existed between Coles and our FO. After reading those articles, it is obvious that Coles HAD to go, even if we got a raw deal for him. We could not let his situation become a distraction to the rest of the team. Plus, Coles' unwillingness to get the toe surgery was counterproductive to our long-term plans as an organization. Whether we could have gotten a better deal than Moss is a topic for debate, but he fills a glaring need on our roster. There have been some questions about this trade concerning the extension that we are ultimately going to give Moss. Some have said that it is fiscally irresponsible to take Coles' cap hit, then turn around and scramble to put together an extention after trading for a player. First of all, let's just clarify that the terms of the extension have already been agreed upon. There is no negotiating at this point. Moss and the Skins have already reached an agreement; the Skins are just waiting to clear enough cap room before the deal can actually be signed. Snyder would not allow this trade to go through unless he had an extension worked out ahead of time. That's basic procedure. Second, I think that it would be MUCH MORE irresponsible to NOT extend Moss' deal right now. We don't want to get into a bidding war with other teams come free agency next season. Plus, we don't want to just let Moss walk after this season. If that were to happen, it would be the equivalent of releasing Coles AND taking the full $9M cap hit. If that were the case, we would have been better off simply releasing Coles, and recouping the $5M bonus payment that was due him. Bottom line, it was a decent trade for the Skins, and one that needed to be done.

03-09-2005, 10:30 AM	#14
BrudLee Playmaker Join Date: Feb 2004 Location: Rehoboth Beach, DE Posts: 3,494	Re: Bashing the Coles-Moss Deal It is a $9 million cap hit - but Coles would have been over $3 million on our cap if we'd kept him. There's a $6 million difference (give or take). Would I rather have the money? Of course - but not if it means keeping a player who very clearly is putting his personal goals above the team's goals. "People say we're (Coles and Gardner) leaving now because we're selfish, but how are you supposed to be happy as a receiver when you go from a passing offense to a running offense? This wasn't what I signed up for." You are supposed to be happy when you win. If you are all about the dollar (which I hear is going around) you are supposed to be happy with a $13 million dollar bonus. If Coles was entering a contract year, and was worried about his future earnings, this is a different conversation. But he was, in fact, due a $5 million payment on his signing bonus (at the time the largest in Redskins history, and I believe the second highest for a WR ever), which he received, and was in no danger of being cut unless he demanded it. I understand wanting to do your best, and I understand the importance of a strong ego for an athlete at this level. Coles and I have very different recollections of the season, because I believe the offense did improve over the season - the benching of Brunell being one example - and if the Washington Post article stating that not getting enough catches in the final game (a victory!!!) was "the final nail in the coffin," then I can't side with Coles. The victory is always first. __________________ There's nowhere to go but up. Or down. I guess we could stay where we are, too.

Bashing the Coles-Moss Deal

Locker Room Main Forum