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.
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.