Snyder's greed

[DEHog]

Right, at his age, conditioning has nothing to do with injury prevention and how dare his employer ask him to show up and work. Sorry, I guess we just see this completely differently. In my mind, the guy signing my check has the right to ask me to work for it.

Don't put word in my mouth I never said that...It's like me saying you think that him working out with the team in the off-season is going to prevent an injury...it's not?
Of course the team has the right to ask and Taylor has the right to say no.
WOW how far he has fallen with the Skins nations It's seems like yesterday we were hoping he'd played at least two years??

[DEHog]

His injury didn't have anything to do with conditioning, but that's not at all the point.

The situation could be closely monitored by the Redskins in camp, they could work out his injury problem and get him 100% healthy. It's not about improved conditioning, it's about controlled rehab and making sure we could avoid his flop from last season.

Instead he showed a serious lack of dedication IMO, he's going to go play for a team like Tampa where he'll be close to home and get the veteran treatment.

Isn't that what OTA's are for
And your right he will find a team that allow him to workout close to home and will probally be come back player of the year...knowing our luck!

[PulpExposure]

I feel we would have been better served if we had acquired more players for the same price is all.

I keep hearing this. I just don't get it. When good (not great) players like Chris Canty (career high of 3.5 sacks as a DE) are getting 7 million a year from other teams, exactly which free agents would you have signed in exchange for Albert's 12 million per year (as widely reported, his contract really is a 4 year, 48 million deal)?

I mean, the Giants got Rocky Bernard and Chris Canty (essentially a young Renaldo Wynn) for about 11 million per year (Bernard's contract is reportedly 4 years, 16 million, and mind you, he'll be 30 in April). Combined, they had less sacks last year than Haynesworth did (Bernard had 4, Canty had 3...Haynesworth had 8.5).

I'm not sure how I understand this argument. When mid-level free agents are getting 5-7 million per year...are you saying we could have signed 2 midlevel free agents, like Bernard and Canty, who would have been as impactful for us as the most dominant DT (and maybe defensive player) in the league?

If so, we'd have to disagree on that.

[CanesSkins26]

BUT TAYLOR DIDN'T SAY HE WANTED TO "WORK-OUT" IN MIAMI. He said he wanted more time with his family. That ain't working out. And when a player suffers injuries to the extent Taylor did, it's not unreasonable for the team to want him to rehab and work-out with his employers trainers.

Former Miami players don't stay down there just to work out. They stay down there because that's where most of them live in the off-season. Ed Reed and Andre Johnson were at Miami's first spring practice the other day and lots of former Miami players stop by the school during the off-season. Sean Taylor used to play pick-up basketball games in the athletic center, for example. The point being that those players go down there because it's their home and because Miami players are a pretty tight-nit community. It just so happens that Miami's S&C coach, Andrew Swasey, has a very good off-season workout program in place. With regard to Taylor, it doesn't matter what his reason is for wanting to stay in Miami. He is under no contractual obligation to spend his off-season working out in Virginia. Players get criticized all the time for wanting their contracts redone, yet when a team wants to alter the terms of a deal people just expect the players to go along. Taylor did nothing to violate the terms of his deal and it was a poor football decision by the Skins to cut him outright for not working out up here.

[Irn-Bru]

That the Skins cut Taylor for that workout clause was just a pretext. He wasn't going to be a Redskin in 2009 with his cap number. Let's use a little common sense here.

[PulpExposure]

So, I wonder if cutting Taylor is just a part of Snyder's greedy marketing scheme to dominate the universe? Because, you know, cutting famous players sure brings those endorsement dollars and sells club seats.

[DEHog]

That the Skins cut Taylor for that workout clause was just a pretext. He wasn't going to be a Redskin in 2009 with his cap number. Let's use a little common sense here.

Thanks IB that is really all I'm saying...While e I won't call it cap hell the Skins did have to make some moves to get under the cap and to be active in FA. I really don't have a problem with them ( other than I didn't like the deal at first but that's old news) just cutting JT to get the cap space to go after someone else in FA or in the draft. I found it interesting that Hall didn't sign his contract until yesterday so some player(s) was getting cut yesterday.
It just seems like the Skins FO have to have some excuse or something AKA GW and Lavar.

[DEHog]

So, I wonder if cutting Taylor is just a part of Snyder's greedy marketing scheme to dominate the universe? Because, you know, cutting famous players sure brings those endorsement dollars and sells club seats.

Not saying that's the case but the JT cut (or some other player(s) had to be done to make room for the big splash.

[Redskin in Canada]

Taxes are mandatory, Redskins tickets are not. Vet didn't assert that being a Redskins fan is inextricably intertwined with supporting Snyder, the two can be exclusive. What Vet is saying is that Snyder is not taking an opinion poll, he's looking at his bottom line and so long as you willingly contribute to that bottom line, you essentially endorse what he does. Danny says "well, ticket sales/jersey sales/etc. are up, ipso facto the people purchasing them support the decisions I have made." You can go to a Redskins game and tell everyone you can't stand Dan Snyder but all Snyder knows is: you bought the ticket.

Insightful post.

I have the impression, from the post by Vet, that he did not make this distinction. In fact, my reading is that literally "buying" into any of the Redskins is a support for Snyder. My contention is that this is not the case and these are exclusive elements. But I will not write for him. I will let him clarify this point himself.

In fact, I am sure that there is a -relationship- just as there is a relationship between a Union and the Corporation. One would further argue that it is in the interest of the Union (fans and players) that the company ownership (Danny Snyder) does well.

But there is a HUGE difference between liking and supporting the workforce and the owner. The owner can be a deplorable individual and many elements of the workforce can be great people as we know. To be fair, the converse argument also applies. The owner can be great and some fans and players can be horrible too.

The key point is the distinction of DIFFERENCE between supporting the Skins, which is definitely not a statement of confidence or support for DS.

It is true though that Daniel Snyder will assume that the purchase of a ticket and any other item as a vote of confidence and support for his work. That is why he tries desperately to MARKET the Team so aggressively with big publicity stunts. He is trying to preserve the market base that supports his overpriced product through advertising and not through product quality by means of real success on the field.

[Redskin in Canada]

So, I wonder if cutting Taylor is just a part of Snyder's greedy marketing scheme to dominate the universe? Because, you know, cutting famous players sure brings those endorsement dollars and sells club seats.

You can do better than this. Come on! You are an intelligent and experienced poster simply on the other side of the argument.

A smiley would have made a difference but you are trying to ridicule other people's views. This is not constructive. I could respond with a similar sarcastic comment but it would also simply be just as unhelpful to the discussion. Some of us have accumulated legitimate concerns about the future of the franchise.

[Redskin in Canada]

I feel we would have been better served if we had acquired more players for the same price is all.

I keep hearing this. I just don't get it.

So, if Fat Albert gets injured soon, behaves like a prima donna , or just does not perform up to the standard of his salary, Would you then get it?

Why is it so difficult to understand that ALL most of us are saying is that this is a VERY risky move which prevents the Team to be assisted at other positions and further depth.

But in this thread this is even worse. Some of us argue that this is the same old Danny using this huge acquisition to restore interest in a mediocre franchise.

[BnGhog]

Why does it have to be a marketing ploy????

One of our bigest needs is a DT. AH was the best DT last year. Danny signed the best. Why can't that be for the simple reason, that we needed a DT, and Danny wanted the best.

So, any time the Danny wants the best for his team, that's really just a marketing ploy.

I mean he didn't sign Ray Lewis just because he's the biggest name and a future hall of famer.

He signed our bigest need. And he signed the that's suppose to be the best. Couldn't it be because Dan wants to win, and not as a marketing ploy? Isn't it possible??

[BnGhog]

All offseason, we have talked about how we NEED a DT. A Stud DT.

Then Danny Signs the best in FA. And its just a maketing ploy. Wow.

[Chris Luva Luva]

Couldn't it be because Dan wants to win, and not as a marketing ploy? Isn't it possible??

Yes but not likely. I'm sure that there's a bit of both going on.

[VetSkinsFan]

Taxes are mandatory, Redskins tickets are not. Vet didn't assert that being a Redskins fan is inextricably intertwined with supporting Snyder, the two can be exclusive. What Vet is saying is that Snyder is not taking an opinion poll, he's looking at his bottom line and so long as you willingly contribute to that bottom line, you essentially endorse what he does. Danny says "well, ticket sales/jersey sales/etc. are up, ipso facto the people purchasing them support the decisions I have made." You can go to a Redskins game and tell everyone you can't stand Dan Snyder but all Snyder knows is: you bought the ticket.

Insightful post.

I have the impression, from the post by Vet, that he did not make this distinction. In fact, my reading is that literally "buying" into any of the Redskins is a support for Snyder. My contention is that this is not the case and these are exclusive elements. But I will not write for him. I will let him clarify this point himself.

In fact, I am sure that there is a -relationship- just as there is a relationship between a Union and the Corporation. One would further argue that it is in the interest of the Union (fans and players) that the company ownership (Danny Snyder) does well.

But there is a HUGE difference between liking and supporting the workforce and the owner. The owner can be a deplorable individual and many elements of the workforce can be great people as we know. To be fair, the converse argument also applies. The owner can be great and some fans and players can be horrible too.

The key point is the distinction of DIFFERENCE between supporting the Skins, which is definitely not a statement of confidence or support for DS.

It is true though that Daniel Snyder will assume that the purchase of a ticket and any other item as a vote of confidence and support for his work. That is why he tries desperately to MARKET the Team so aggressively with big publicity stunts. He is trying to preserve the market base that supports his overpriced product through advertising and not through product quality by means of real success on the field.

First off, let me apologize for not being as literarily gifted as some. My point was as Fios stated: Whether you MEANT to put a dollar in Danny's pocket is irrelavent. When you go to the games, you're lining his pocket. You can say what you want about what you think of the Danny and his busniess practices, but, in the end, your money that the Danny now has in his pocket says that you are supporting him, whether intended or not.

[El Mexican]

Very interesting thread here.

I'd like to point out something, given the fact that I have studied and worked in the Marketing field.

Snyder knows he has a triple A product. One that has, in itself, an element that other products rarely have. This element is loyalty. Redskins fans are extremely loyal to this team, in this case a "brand".

When, as a marketer, you appeal to the loyalty of your consumers by making your brand "new" every year, you imply that, in fact, you are producing a better product. Every loyal fan, in Snyder's view, should see he's "trying" to win a SB by bringing in the big time free agents.

This is his game and he knows how to play it.

Think about the few products you buy "blindly" just because you are a loyal consumer to that brand. That, my friends, is the wet dream of any marketer because he knows he can get away with irregular quality in his product from time to time just by saying it's "new and improved".

Loyalty to a brand is so coveted by marketers because it is, at it's core, irrational.

Just my opinion, here, to an already great thread.

[PulpExposure]

So, I wonder if cutting Taylor is just a part of Snyder's greedy marketing scheme to dominate the universe? Because, you know, cutting famous players sure brings those endorsement dollars and sells club seats.

You can do better than this. Come on! You are an intelligent and experienced poster simply on the other side of the argument.

A smiley would have made a difference but you are trying to ridicule other people's views. This is not constructive. I could respond with a similar sarcastic comment but it would also simply be just as unhelpful to the discussion. Some of us have accumulated legitimate concerns about the future of the franchise.

You're right. A bit too snarky. Apologies, RiC. Must have not gotten enough sleep last night

And I do share many of your concerns with the future of the Redskins, especially in the hands of Lil' Napoleon. However, I disagree vehemently that FA signings are merely marketing ploys; the economics simply dictate otherwise.

If they were trading the farm for an established star QB, or had traded for Favre, I'd be with you in a heartbeat. But no one (except for the die-hard fans whom Snyder already has) really cares about the Skins signing a defensive tackle or cornerback. Those are "boring" positions to most casual fans.

[PulpExposure]

I feel we would have been better served if we had acquired more players for the same price is all.

I keep hearing this. I just don't get it.

So, if Fat Albert gets injured soon, behaves like a prima donna , or just does not perform up to the standard of his salary, Would you then get it?

Why is it so difficult to understand that ALL most of us are saying is that this is a VERY risky move which prevents the Team to be assisted at other positions and further depth.

Oh I'm with you on the risk of it. I'm well on record here for being against signing Haynesworth, because of his injury & motivation concerns. However, I think the thinking that the 12 million Haynesworth gets per year could be equivocated to 2-3 good players is fundamentally flawed.

1. There just aren't a lot of very good players in the FA market this year. There are (were) virtually zero good OT, for instance, and very few (if any) good linebackers.
2. Even mid-level free agents are getting insane deals. I mean I like Chris Canty; I think he's a decent player, but to me, he's just a young Renaldo Wynn. He has shown no passrush ability (career high 3.5 sacks last year). Even still, the guy gets 7 million a year from the Giants.

[Redskin in Canada]

Very interesting thread here.

I'd like to point out something, given the fact that I have studied and worked in the Marketing field.

Snyder knows he has a triple A product. One that has, in itself, an element that other products rarely have. This element is loyalty. Redskins fans are extremely loyal to this team, in this case a "brand".

When, as a marketer, you appeal to the loyalty of your consumers by making your brand "new" every year, you imply that, in fact, you are producing a better product. Every loyal fan, in Snyder's view, should see he's "trying" to win a SB by bringing in the big time free agents.

This is his game and he knows how to play it.

Think about the few products you buy "blindly" just because you are a loyal consumer to that brand. That, my friends, is the wet dream of any marketer because he knows he can get away with irregular quality in his product from time to time just by saying it's "new and improved".

Loyalty to a brand is so coveted by marketers because it is, at it's core, irrational.

Just my opinion, here, to an already great thread.

This is a GREAT post.

But I would differ with the last conclusion. Redskins fans' loyalty is not irrational (in the strictest sense of the word, meaning only charged with emotion and not logical deduction).

The loyalty of Redskins fans towards their team means living memories that have not been shared with any other team. It means camaraderies among fans, camaraderies among players and fans, appreciation for the sacrifices of our coaches and players, strength against adversity, courage against unsormountable odds against us, etc. It is, in other words, a microcosmos of life where the values that we cherish are represented in a fair competition on the field. The Redskins have a hsitory of VALUES which make them different than many other teams. The Redskins for some of us represent a metaphore for life's values and challenges.

Yes, the best Skins that I remember are unforgettable. Win or lose, the effort and the work ethic is what we look into players who wish to become real Redskins and not only employees.

You see, some of us are still romantics who feel that their team has been kidnapped and taken away by a magalomaniac who likes to play fantasy football with the roster. He knows little or less about the NFL than most posters in this board and he still wishes to SHOW his ego and fatten his pockets with this Team.

But just look at this thread, just a few posts above you have a poster saying that the "new and improved" Washington Redskins have awaken his interest and faith in success for the coming season.

One would think that after over a decade of stunts, the Redskin Nation would have awaken to see the writing on the wall but not. One wonders how the same snake oil can be delivered to the fans year after year and we do not get to learn that the ownership and lack pf quality people at the top are hurting this team and its fan base!

You are right. Loyalty in -SOME- cases can be irrational.

[Redskin in Canada]

First off, let me apologize for not being as literarily gifted as some. My point was as Fios stated: Whether you MEANT to put a dollar in Danny's pocket is irrelavent. When you go to the games, you're lining his pocket. You can say what you want about what you think of the Danny and his busniess practices, but, in the end, your money that the Danny now has in his pocket says that you are supporting him, whether intended or not.

I say that this is TRUE in part as much as a Union wishes to have the Corporation succeed. It is also TRUE that I can cheer for the players and coaches on the field and support their efforts while despising the policies of the ownership. It is very much like despising the big executives looking for handouts in Washington while some of us support the litttle entreprenour and the working person.

There is a DIFFERENCE with some common denominator. So that I make myself clear, I have promised not to buy any merchandise and not attend another game at FedEx until a competent person is hired to run this team.

In the meantime, I will follow my every team's move and post here to praise and criticise their performances.

Interestingly, what the Danny may end up is becoming the most hated or laughable individual in sports in the DC area.

[Redskin in Canada]

1. There just aren't a lot of very good players in the FA market this year. There are (were) virtually zero good OT, for instance, and very few (if any) good linebackers.
2. Even mid-level free agents are getting insane deals. I mean I like Chris Canty; I think he's a decent player, but to me, he's just a young Renaldo Wynn. He has shown no passrush ability (career high 3.5 sacks last year). Even still, the guy gets 7 million a year from the Giants.

Is it possible to have a PLAN among the midst of this money madness???

I will not argue that this guy was not the best available at a position of need. It is the JUDGMENT and WISDOM of placing most of your eggs in such a risky basket that should scare theliving daylights out every fan.

My point all along has been that FOR YEARS this owner has been under the illusion that he is just a couple of players away from a Lombardi Trophy which shall bring him BOTH fame and fortune.

He wishes to win NOW and big signings do two things for him: feed the illusion of the two players away and restore the marketability of the franchise.

Some of you have decided to ignore the MAIN point raised to point at the GREED of the owner: the PRICE OF THE FRANCHISE.

Jerseys and other revenue (such as dwindling ticket sales for those in the know) are only a small part of the REAL increase of value of the Skins. Nobody was able or willing to tell me how much money has the Danny made, not on tv, not on endorsements, not on ticket sales but on the increase in the COST OF THE FRANCHISE !!!

[PulpExposure]

Interestingly, what the Danny may end up is becoming the most hated or laughable individual in sports in the DC area.

He's probably the most hated already, RiC. But people forget that while we haven't been much good under him (more like average), we were really, really awful before he took over. It's some sort of improvement, I guess.

[Redskin in Canada]

You're right. A bit too snarky. Apologies, RiC. Must have not gotten enough sleep last night

And I do share many of your concerns with the future of the Redskins, especially in the hands of Lil' Napoleon. However, I disagree vehemently that FA signings are merely marketing ploys; the economics simply dictate otherwise.

No problem brother. We are in this together.

I did not say that the signingswere MERELY for marketing purposes. I said that they serve that purpose too. I said that a responsible GM would not have placed all of his eggs in that fragile basket if he wanted to succeed ON THE FIELD and not only in sales.

[Redskin in Canada]

Interestingly, what the Danny may end up is becoming the most hated or laughable individual in sports in the DC area.

He's probably the most hated already, RiC. But people forget that while we haven't been much good under him (more like average), we were really, really awful before he took over. It's some sort of improvement, I guess.

All he has to do is put his EGO to the side and hire a competent GM. I will be the first to recognise his humility, wisdom and vision if he recognises his limitations as an NFL expert.

He can continue to run the marketing side. He canmake trillions if he wishes to. All he has to do is to STEP AWAY before it is too late.

[TincoSkin]

isnt Dan gonna become the most loved man in DC sports? i mean we're gonna win the superbowl next season and when that happens he'll be a hero!

HAHHAhahahhaHAhahAHaha