Fred Smoot Update

[EARTHQUAKE2689]

ok no one is going to outbid the redskins to do anything we all know that and if by some miracle we dont get clements i would rather have asante samuel than fred smoot anyday

[MTK]

Originally Posted by EARTHQUAKE2689

ok no one is going to outbid the redskins to do anything we all know that and if by some miracle we dont get clements i would rather have asante samuel than fred smoot anyday

So you're in favor of overpaying for a CB, but not a LB?

[EARTHQUAKE2689]

depends on which corner and which linebacker you are talking about and i dont like overpaying anyone but if the guy deserves it

[Sheriff Gonna Getcha]

Originally Posted by EARTHQUAKE2689

ok no one is going to outbid the redskins to do anything we all know that and if by some miracle we dont get clements i would rather have asante samuel than fred smoot anyday

Contrary to popular belief, teams do outbid the Redskins. The Giants outbid us for Pierce and the Vikings for Smoot. Moreover, teams outbid us for other teams' free agents (e.g., the Eagles outbid us for Kearse, who we were reportedly interested in until we found out how much cake he wanted).

[EARTHQUAKE2689]

we didnt get outbided ny pierce of smoot we didnt want to pay smoot as much as springs and pierce as much as washington

[MTK]

The deal the Giants gave Pierce was about even to what the Skins offered him but the the deal breaker was the Giants gave him more up front money in the deal where our deal was backloaded.

[EARTHQUAKE2689]

if you say so man that is not what joe gibbs daid on espn

[MTK]

Pierce, the cerebral leader and top tackler in the third-ranked defense in the league last year, was poised to sign a six-year, $26 million contract, including a $6.5 million signing bonus, with the Giants. Pierce had said all along that he wanted to stay in Washington, but he also said he expected the type of payday that the Redskins have thrown at incoming players over the years.

The Redskins, however, are limited because of their spending splurges of recent seasons, including the $49.6 million they spent in bonuses to six new players over a four-day period a year ago.

In the end, that made Pierce's asking price too high. The team also noted that his deal with the Giants turned out to be better than the six-year, $24 million contract the Redskins gave linebacker Marcus Washington last year. Washington went on to make the Pro Bowl, while Pierce was a second alternate.

"We thought it was very important to have a salary structure here that makes sense for all our players," Gibbs said. "We went as far as we could go, I felt like."

NFL.com - Washington Redskins Team News

[TheMalcolmConnection]

So maybe we ARE starting to back down on contracts bit by bit...

[MTK]

More on Pierce's deal vs. what we offered him:

Although coach Joe Gibbs said the Redskins couldn't meet Pierce's contract demands, a club source said Washington matched almost all of the Giants' six-year, $26 million deal, including a $6.5 million signing bonus, but offered less during the first two years.

Marshall tabbed to replace Pierce - Redskins Extra - The Washington Times: Sports - March 04, 2005

[That Guy]

uh, we did get outbid, gibbs tried to lowball pierce into giving the skins a home town discount after the giants made their offer, and pierce (understandably) got pretty pissed off. saying smoot is better than springs is completely laughable..

[EARTHQUAKE2689]

Ok You Want The Truth They Both Suck Ass

[Sheriff Gonna Getcha]

Originally Posted by Mattyk72

The deal the Giants gave Pierce was about even to what the Skins offered him but the the deal breaker was the Giants gave him more up front money in the deal where our deal was backloaded.

True, but the difference between a front-loaded deal and a back-loaded deal is usually pretty significant. Backloaded deals contain a lot of fictitious money that the player is never going to see, whereas frontloaded deals do not. So, in my mind, the G-men outbid us for Pierce.

On a somewhat related note, I've been reading Giants fan board and they seem to be critical of Pierce. I don't have the slightest clue why, but they aren't as glowing of Pierce as I would have expected. Maybe that's a function of the entire defense's level of performance.

[EARTHQUAKE2689]

we don't have team chemistry thats why we are losin right now

[GTripp0012]

Originally Posted by EARTHQUAKE2689

we don't have team chemistry thats why we are losin right now

Correction--we are losing, which is why we don't have team chemistry right now.