Skins interested in Gallery?/Samuels trade talks *Merged*

It wouldnt be 4-5 million freed up. We're still liable for a bunch of money for Samuels, then wed have to pay a ten million dollar signing bonus to Gallery. And what makes anyone think that the Raiders will get Samuels to agree to a restructure to make the trade work. The only benefit to the Raiders is if we gave them Samuels and Gardner and our pick and they get Samuels to renegioate. I think our best bet is hoping all the trade talks make Samuels renegioate his contract becuase he comes out and says i want to be a Redskin. Infact I think the rumors are just tactics to get him to do so.

Gallery would be good. I'd give up our 2nd rounder next yr and Samuels.

Gallery is just going to be another Pace or Samuels, wileding an impossible cap number in a few years.

From what I can tell Samuels' cap hits are as follows:
2004: $8.750M
2005: $9.643M
2006: $11.320M

Included in the above is $8.797M of deferred signing bonus ($2.932M in 2004-2006).

So the dead-money cap hits if the Skins were to cut/trade Samuels would be as follows:

1. Cut/trade Samuels before June 1st
2004 dead money: $8.797M
2005 dead money: $0

2. Cut/trade Samuels after June 1st
2004 dead money: $2.932
2005 dead money: $5.865

Okay, I questioned the Brunell trade, but this Samuels + our #5 pick for the #2 pick is absolutely crazy.

Granted, Samuels didn't have his best season last year. But Samuels for 3 spots!!!!???!!!??? And to select a OT when we've got the former #3 overall pick from 2000 at LT?

We need D-line, not O-line help Mr. Gibbs.

I agree RF, just seems like way too much to give up to move up 3 lousy spots.

Something like Gardner and Samuels for the #2 overall sounds like plenty to me, maybe throw in a future pick if necessary, but Samuels and the #5 for just the #2 just doesn't sit well with me.

I'm hoping there's something else going on that we don't know about, some other motive for letting our "interest" for Gallery be known at this point.

Samuels was a top-3 pick, and he's a "proven" player with a couple pro bowl
appearances (somehow ;)). Plus the team that trades for him would resign
him to a new deal that fits their own cap constraints. He should command at
least a top-3 pick in return (ie Gallery), and more IMO.

I would love Samuels for Gallery straight up, but anything more doesn't make sense.

Samuels was a top-3 pick, and he's a "proven" player with a couple pro bowl
appearances (somehow ;)). Plus the team that trades for him would resign
him to a new deal that fits their own cap constraints. He should command at
least a top-3 pick in return (ie Gallery), and more IMO.

I would love Samuels for Gallery straight up, but anything more doesn't make sense.
That should be the case. It would be truly assinine of the FO to allow themselves to be talked into sacrificing Samuels AND their #5 pick to acquire a replacement for Samuels with the #2 pick.

As others have said, if the Skins are able to acquire Gallery, but retain the #5 pick, then I'm all for it. But as Canuck said, if the Skins have to deal anything more than Samuels for Gallery straight up, then it's a bad deal on the Skins' part. It would be further evidence of how the Skins' irresponsible cap management has had a destructive effect on the roster.

Of course, all of this is likely moot if the Giants are able to pull off a trade with the Chargers to move up to the #1 spot.

http://sports.yahoo.com/nfl/news?slug=draftdishraidersandredsk&prov=tsn&type=lgns

What areas does this trade and subsequent draft pick actually address? Maybe drafting Gallery and/or grabbing said draft spot is simply a ploy. Either to expediate the process of re-working Samuel's contract or a possible trading down with the Giants who are infatuated with Gallery. Notwithstanding, do we really need an inexperienced O-lineman and does this preference superseed our problems on D-line and throughout the secondary?

http://nflplayers.com/news/news_release.asp?id=2083