With Bruce gone

[turtle28]

49 minutes ago, Vladimir L said:

To Snyder money aint a thang

 

Bruce though made it about his ego and didnt take care of the in house guys

[Vladimir L]

1 minute ago, turtle28 said:

Snyder is loyal to a fault and isnt cheap

He wants to be good to players but Bruce even ruined that

[turtle28]

1 hour ago, Vladimir L said:

Snyder is loyal to a fault and isnt cheap

He wants to be good to players but Bruce even ruined that

I agree 100%. We went from last decade being too nice on players and overpaying them to Bruce not giving a crap about any of them, lowballing them and letting too much young home grown talent or even good vet talent walk out the door bc he thought he could replace them and you can’t replace a talent like DJax or Kirk Cousins that easily.

Edited January 6, 2020 by turtle28

[Thaiphoon]

1 hour ago, MKnight82 said:

Because I doubt his GM gets in a pissing match with him again.

It's hard to negotiate when the other side refuses to and blames the cat for his refusal.

Quote

Look, the redskins have a bad reputation for treating their players like crap during the Bruce Allen era.  Throwing some money towards their top player and kissing his *** a little wouldn’t hurt.

They already threw that money at their top player and kissed his butt. When he signed the top deal in 2015 ($66M, $30M fully guaranteed). He earned the lion's share in the early part of the contract (with only base salaries of $11M and $12.5M respectively in 2019 and 2020). And now wants more because he sees other LT's making more than him (because he's in the "out years" of the contract)?? The team put up with the cap hit to the player in the first part of the contract when the cap was lower. Now that he is more cap friendly they are supposed to reward him for what? Missing 13 games in the first 3 years of the $66M contract and then missing a whole other season (for a total of 29 games)?

Come on...

 

This is exactly why I maintain that the whole cancer scare was a smokescreen. He didn't want to look bad by asking for a contract extension when he had missed so much time and his play had decreased at the end of 2018. So...it's "I had cancer and it's the Redskins fault" is the basic message and average fans scream to pay him more money like its a jury trial and they are awarding damages to a plaintiff. Just like he was hoping.

[Woz]

2 hours ago, MKnight82 said:

Look, the redskins have a bad reputation for treating their players like crap during the Bruce Allen era.  Throwing some money towards their top player and kissing his *** a little wouldn’t hurt.

17 minutes ago, Thaiphoon said:

This is exactly why I maintain that the whole cancer scare was a smokescreen. He didn't want to look bad by asking for a contract extension when he had missed so much time and his play had decreased at the end of 2018. So...it's "I had cancer and it's the Redskins fault" is the basic message and average fans scream to pay him more money like its a jury trial and they are awarding damages to a plaintiff. Just like he was hoping.

Again, the win-win play would be to show up and ball out. This would have the best chance for Williams getting paid and/or traded to a new team. By going this route, he can maintain the high road position ("it was solely Allen and the training staff") and the team can "scrape up" some more money or trade him to someone who would in an advantageous way (read: playoff caliber team).

However, if tries to hold them over the barrel some more, then it reveals itself as a money play. Snyder won't want to play that game. Then, the pissing match goes on longer and everyone loses.

[MKnight82]

56 minutes ago, Thaiphoon said:

They already threw that money at their top player and kissed his butt. When he signed the top deal in 2015 ($66M, $30M fully guaranteed). He earned the lion's share in the early part of the contract (with only base salaries of $11M and $12.5M respectively in 2019 and 2020). And now wants more because he sees other LT's making more than him (because he's in the "out years" of the contract)?? The team put up with the cap hit to the player in the first part of the contract when the cap was lower. Now that he is more cap friendly they are supposed to reward him for what? Missing 13 games in the first 3 years of the $66M contract and then missing a whole other season (for a total of 29 games)?

Team's don't honor contracts, why do players have to?

[MKnight82]

56 minutes ago, Thaiphoon said:

This is exactly why I maintain that the whole cancer scare was a smokescreen.

There's nothing light about having cancer. 

[MKnight82]

37 minutes ago, Woz said:

Again, the win-win play would be to show up and ball out.

Which may happen.  People are getting offended by him simply asking for a new contract.  

[Skins212689]

4 hours ago, Woz said:

And I said you're probably right because Rivera wants him back. Coaches have an understandably short-term perspective. Outside of the season, they've got a six-to-twelve month consideration window where they're focusing on prepping for the season; during the season, that window is no more than a month if not a single week. Anything beyond that is beyond a head coach's purview.

HOWEVER, that is the responsibility of the GM. They need to be looking 2-3 years out, evaluating the cap, considering when players' contracts expire, what the market might look like, is the player living up to his current contact, or would it be better to cut them.

Because of that short-term thinking, Rivera (the coach) absolutely wants to bring Williams back. Rivera (the GM) probably should be a bit more hesitant. Unfortunately, Rivera has lots of experience thinking like a coach and little thinking like a GM. It's why I and @naptownskinsfan and a few others have said that the lack of a GM is going to be a problem. Bill Belichick is perhaps the only coach who can effectively think like a coach and a GM. Yes, teams have hired the coach before the GM and that seems to be the thing of late, but history says that unless they both get on the same page quickly (within a couple of months if not less), it likely isn't going to work.

So, yes, you are probably right that Williams comes back and gets paid by Washington. The question is that the right thing for this franchise going forward?

Yes It's the right thing for Franchise Player's like William's. Not all player's would be able to do what William's is doing. Just like Gordon from the Chargers had to come back without a new deal. 

If your GM isn't gonna sit down with one of your best player's to fix things or trade him away that makes YOU look bad, not the Player. 

[turtle28]

5 minutes ago, MKnight82 said:

Which may happen.  People are getting offended by him simply asking for a new contract.  

Agreed, which is in his right and it’s a ridiculous overreaction IMO to say he doesn’t deserve say a 3-year extension with some new guaranteed money. He should have gotten that last August.

[Woz]

22 minutes ago, MKnight82 said:

Which may happen.  People are getting offended by him simply asking for a new contract.  

My point is that any talk of contracts now is a bad idea on his and his team's part. He should just show up, no restrictions up front. That would be the best path to getting a new contract.

[Skins212689]

3 hours ago, Woz said:

My point is that any talk of contracts now is a bad idea on his and his team's part. He should just show up, no restrictions up front. That would be the best path to getting a new contract.

I'm not in favor of giving him a new contract. You show up in Football Shape we can restructure your current contract by adding Guaranteed Money to the deal or just making this last year of the deal Guaranteed. If Trent where to want more years added, they can then say We can talk about a New Deal come next year after we see how you look the 2020 season due to you missing all of the 2019 season.

Trent would than Look bad if he were to not accept that offer or participate in Team Activities or anything of that nature after Ron Rivera and other's showed they really wanted him back with that type of offer. 

Edited January 6, 2020 by Skins212689

[Thaiphoon]

20 hours ago, MKnight82 said:

Team's don't honor contracts, why do players have to?

I keep hearing this all the time. You've said this alot and I think it misses the mark widely.

How have the Redskins not honored this contract? They have. 

Oh, you're talking about how teams can cut players before the end of the contract, right?

Oh, I see. Let's talk about that (admittedly I have very little time right now as I have to run so I'll write this quickly and then flesh it out later)

. 

But first, why do players get guaranteed money in their contract? Why do teams offer signing bonuses at all?

Why not just have contracts that are slated to be strictly salary?

It's not for the cap. If all contracts are straight salary the cap can be massages the same way it's done now.

Know why NFL contracts have guaranteed money? Because they know that players can be cut by them. This is a benefit to the player as, in talking about signing bonuses, the player is literally guaranteed quite a bit of cash to be paid out to them for simply signing the contract. Now...if that player never plays a regular season down after signing that contract, the team must pay up.

Is that $ amortized over the life of the contract? You bet. But that is the small benefit to the team so that it can continue to offer guaranteed $ to other players.

But here's the kicker...if the team cuts or trades the player, all of that guaranteed money now must be paid by the team right then and there.

So wait...the player signs a contract. Let's say a 5year, $60m contract with $30m guaranteed ($20m signing bonus plus $10m in other guarantees over 5 years). That player literally gets the $20m right then (with the team allowed to work it off the salary cap books over 5 years). Again...the player literally gets $20m for simply moving a pen across the page(s). 

That player plays the first 3 years of the contract and misses quite a few games. Yet the team still pays him for those games he's not on the field. No problem, there. Honoring the contract to the player. 

In year 4, the guaranteed money has been mostly paid out and only about $5m of guaranteed roster bonuses, workout bonuses, other types of guarantees are left, etc... This is where the team actually can benefit from paying all that money up front to the player. Remember, that player got the bulk of the $60m in the first 3 years of the 5 year contract. The team has completely honored the contract up to this point and paid for 36 games of work that the player has only delivered 23 games. But again, the team has paid for 36 games.

Stay with me...so up until now, the player has benefited by getting most of the cash up front to play for 5 years. The team has honored that contract they have with that player by paying him even when he's not played in each of the games he's being paid for. And the player will continue to have his contract honored as long as he shows up and plays. 

What you're arguing for...by complaining that teams don't honor contracts because they can cut a player before the end of the contract...and that players should hold out for more money for whatever reason even if they have not completed the contract, that logic can also be used against players.

Team pays the player $X to do the job? Player overperforms. Player should hold out for a bigger contract, right? Okay.

How about if the player underperforms? Should we, using your same logic and then allow the team to claw back money from the player?

Teams can cut players before the end of the contract (but still must pay them all the guaranteed money)? That's bad right? But players can then (pocket that guaranteed $ and find employment elsewhere).

Using that same logic that it's not honoring the contract if teams can cut a player, then it's not honoring the contract if a player holds out. It's not honoring the contract if a player retires before the contract is up. If we used your logic that teams shouldn't be allowed to cut players (for fear of not honoring the contract) then players shouldn't be able to get out of them earlier either. Which means the player can be forced to not retire.

Sounds silly, right? But that's the logic you're using.

Team honors the contract by paying as agreed. Player honors the contract by playing as agreed. 

[offbyone]

21 hours ago, MKnight82 said:

Team's don't honor contracts, why do players have to?

Teams always honor contracts, it is the players who don't.  Teams don't hold out, players do.  

This is what Dead Cap space represents.  It is the money still owed to a player per the contract when the player is released before the contract expires.

[MKnight82]

1 hour ago, Thaiphoon said:

So wait...the player signs a contract. Let's say a 5year, $60m contract with $30m guaranteed ($20m signing bonus plus $10m in other guarantees over 5 years). That player literally gets the $20m right then (with the team allowed to work it off the salary cap books over 5 years). Again...the player literally gets $20m for simply moving a pen across the page(s). 

In your example the $20 mil is a signing bonus that both sides agreed to.  I don't see why that impacts anything 5 years down the road.  

I'd like to also point out that Trent Williams was given a $8.5 mil SB, not $20 mil. 

1 hour ago, Thaiphoon said:

That player plays the first 3 years of the contract and misses quite a few games. Yet the team still pays him for those games he's not on the field. No problem, there. Honoring the contract to the player. 

I think this is a ridiculous point considering the player is risking his actual physical well being to play for the organization under the contract and the only risk the organization has is losing some money.  Its not the same risk.  

1 hour ago, Thaiphoon said:

Team pays the player $X to do the job? Player overperforms. Player should hold out for a bigger contract, right? Okay.

Correct.

1 hour ago, Thaiphoon said:

How about if the player underperforms? Should we, using your same logic and then allow the team to claw back money from the player?

No, because NFL teams already have a ridiculous amount of power over the players.  MLB and NBA contracts are fully guaranteed.  MLB and NBA players cannot be franchise tagged.  And NFL organizations make A LOT more money than MLB and NBA teams.  And again, the player laid his actual physical well being on the line, the only thing the organization is risking is probably 0.5% of their budget that year.  

1 hour ago, Thaiphoon said:

Teams can cut players before the end of the contract (but still must pay them all the guaranteed money)? That's bad right? But players can then (pocket that guaranteed $ and find employment elsewhere).

Correct, but that player will not receive any of the nonguaranteed contract money.  So essentially, the organization is saying the nonguaranteed money means nothing and they can remove that player at any time with no repercussion.  In this situation, why should the player honor the contract at that point either?  That is where Trent's contract is at.  

1 hour ago, Thaiphoon said:

Sounds silly, right? But that's the logic you're using.

It sounds silly to me that you're trying to compare the organization's position to an individual players.  Again, they are the one risking their body on every snap.  

1 hour ago, Thaiphoon said:

Team honors the contract by paying as agreed. Player honors the contract by playing as agreed. 

No teams only pay for guaranteed money and then typically dump a player.  When the player's guaranteed money is up why should the player honor that contract either?  That is the situation Trent is in.