Redskins "Low-balling" Hall (Allegedly)

[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?

[GTripp0012]

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]

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.

[skinsfan69]

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?

Great point. As much as I think Vinny is just Dan's bitch, I think this is a smart move if the story is true. This is going to be a real quiet free agent year. The money is just not going to be there.