FOX Sports Says Pierce is Gone

If Pierce leaves without given us a shot at matching the deal fcuk him. He said that he wanted to be a redskin and he would give us a shot at matching so if he doesn't he isn't worth the time. Barrow would give us time to find a solid replacement plus Clinton Smith could be the next Pierce for all we know. Don't rule out Danny goin after Hartwell or Bell though.

[QUOTE=angryssg]I stand corrected and feel like a jackass at the same time. Thank you for showing me the error in my ways. I am therefore awarded no points and may God have mercy on my soul.



at no time did anything you said make sense, we are all dumber now for having read it.:laughing2

Thanks, you have boosted my confidence and my self esteem.

isn't Pierce unrestricted? Do the Redskins even have the option to match?

Yeah he's unrestricted, but he said recently that he would give the Skins a chance to match any offers. We'll see if he holds true to that, or maybe more importantly, will the Skins consider matching if they are indeed given that chance?

Skins should match. This is chump change money and he is worth it. I bet the Giant contract is back loaded. The real question is how good will he be? In two to three years he might command 15+ million signing bonus.

As a theoretical question, assuming the money is essentially the same, would you rather have Rolle and Pierce or Smoot and Hartwell?

I think Pierce will give the Skins a chance to match. He has shown loyalty to the club in the past, such as playing for a less lucrative deal than what other teams were offering last year.

Could be that Pierce has already given the Skins the opportunity to match, and they decided it didn't fit their salary cap projections for the next few years. I doubt Pierce would totally forsake Williams, not to mention Snyder's checkbook. Barrow's supposedly going to be ready to practice during the offseason camps, and they've re-signed their young backups, so maybe throwing a lot of money at Pierce doesn't make sense, given those factors.

As a theoretical question, assuming the money is essentially the same, would you rather have Rolle and Pierce or Smoot and Hartwell?

Theoretically I would rather have pierce and smoot, but I would rather let go of pierce than smoot

I saw we let Pierce go. He is a good player, but he can be replace. Part of his success was because of the system. Barrow should be able to replace him if he's healthy. I think we MUST resign Smoot. He is a rising star who really effects what GW can do on defense. Plus i think we can draft a good young MLB in the third round and have in ready to play in one year.

As a theoretical question, assuming the money is essentially the same, would you rather have Rolle and Pierce or Smoot and Hartwell?

Continuity is always a better option. Getting up to speed takes time. You can't just throw someone in and expect them to perform from the get go. I'd rather keep Pierce and Smoot.