The-Hogs.net - Washington Football Discussion, Redskins to Commanders Era

Redskin in Canada wrote:Some of Lavar's quotes are out of context and others are reactions to perverse questions.

And very out-of-date. He's using quotes from September and October.

Screw this article.

I don't put any credence in it because why would LaVar talk about his contract dispute now?

It's just another case of a "journalist" trying to stir the pot. It's a ridiculous time of the season to do so.

True. I'd hate to see him sitting the bench again at those prices. The fact is it's out there now and will no doubt need to be cleaned up.

Jake wrote:

Redskin in Canada wrote:Some of Lavar's quotes are out of context and others are reactions to perverse questions.

And very out-of-date. He's using quotes from September and October.

Screw this article.

I don't put any credence in it because why would LaVar talk about his contract dispute now?

It's ust another case of a "journalist" trying to stir the pot. It's a ridiculous time of the season to do so.

Ah! What a jerk, that Elfin.

This writer is a total tool. Lavar has been playing outstanding football since his return. While I'm not for building a team around any one player, he certainly showcases the tenacity and ferocity of our defense. Here's to hoping he stays around as long as possible.

Redskin in Canada wrote:BEWARE OF THE MEDIA

Some of Lavar's quotes are out of context and others are reactions to perverse questions.

The media (D. Elfin now) is trying to create a controversy to distract our team and fans.

DO NOT LET THEM. IGNORE THEM!

also... maybe i missed it but who knows when this guy actually talked to LA... maybe he would be open to redoing his deal to stay in the area... maybe williams possibly leaving would change his mind... who knows what will happen... my gut says he is gone but dont take this article to heart. actually no.. take one hting to heart. he doesnt live football so he'll NEVER see his full potential... the guy is a monster and should be blowing people up left and right. he wont because his heart just isnt in it.

BossHog wrote:I'm not in any way saying that a journalist shouldn't be able to write what he wants...but does that sound like the actions of an impartial journalist? Doesn't being impartial constitute writing without so much judgement?

I'm still waiting for an intelligent answer in ANY of these lavar talks as to how on earth the Redskins will be better off CUTTING him and eating all of the signing bonus. Oh sure he has a huge cap hit next year (and that's Washington's fault, not Lavar's) but cutting him won't shed THAT much cap in 2006 AND it will create a monstrous amount of dead cap in 2007.

You'll find in EVERY DARN ONE of these articles that nobody even addresses the cap... at least not in a manner that denotes having researched the actual concept...

Here's the straight truth for you: L.A is due to make over 12 million next year... over 5M of that is JUST his signing bonus allocution (that's because he is owed $30M in signing bonus still)... so no matter what... we owe lavar about $30M.... and that does NOT include the 6.5M roster bonus in 2006.

How does someone profess that we account for $30M in cap dollars?

Can I ask where you're getting your numbers from? I haven't been able to find a complete breakdown of the contract extension, but reports at the time indicated a $15.5M signing bonus. And while that certainly doesn't comprise all guaranteed money, it's a far sight from the $30M+ you're working with (which would be, to the best of my understanding, *extremely* unusual). FWIW, profootballtalk.com reported in April that the total cap hit taken for releasing Arrington after this season would be around $12M ($5/7M if after june 1st). Onerous, but not impossible.

the washington times is a crap newspaper that i blow my nose with.

Paralis wrote:

BossHog wrote:I'm not in any way saying that a journalist shouldn't be able to write what he wants...but does that sound like the actions of an impartial journalist? Doesn't being impartial constitute writing without so much judgement?

I'm still waiting for an intelligent answer in ANY of these lavar talks as to how on earth the Redskins will be better off CUTTING him and eating all of the signing bonus. Oh sure he has a huge cap hit next year (and that's Washington's fault, not Lavar's) but cutting him won't shed THAT much cap in 2006 AND it will create a monstrous amount of dead cap in 2007.

You'll find in EVERY DARN ONE of these articles that nobody even addresses the cap... at least not in a manner that denotes having researched the actual concept...

Here's the straight truth for you: L.A is due to make over 12 million next year... over 5M of that is JUST his signing bonus allocution (that's because he is owed $30M in signing bonus still)... so no matter what... we owe lavar about $30M.... and that does NOT include the 6.5M roster bonus in 2006.

How does someone profess that we account for $30M in cap dollars?

Can I ask where you're getting your numbers from? I haven't been able to find a complete breakdown of the contract extension, but reports at the time indicated a $15.5M signing bonus. And while that certainly doesn't comprise all guaranteed money, it's a far sight from the $30M+ you're working with (which would be, to the best of my understanding, *extremely* unusual). FWIW, profootballtalk.com reported in April that the total cap hit taken for releasing Arrington after this season would be around $12M ($5/7M if after june 1st). Onerous, but not impossible.

Welcome to the boards, Mr. Elfin. Why start the reasearch AFTER the article was written?

Bascially Lavar is saying that he wants to be a Redskin, if not, he can't even visualize playing for another team. how can this be negative? i agree that the spin that this guy put on it is foolish, but lavar isn't saying anything bad.

Paralis wrote:
Can I ask where you're getting your numbers from? I haven't been able to find a complete breakdown of the contract extension, but reports at the time indicated a $15.5M signing bonus. And while that certainly doesn't comprise all guaranteed money, it's a far sight from the $30M+ you're working with (which would be, to the best of my understanding, *extremely* unusual). FWIW, profootballtalk.com reported in April that the total cap hit taken for releasing Arrington after this season would be around $12M ($5/7M if after june 1st). Onerous, but not impossible.

Yeah but that 15.5M doesn't include any of the money from his original contract... and I can't help it if you read bad info in the media... isn't that what i was trying to say in the first place.

HOWEVER, I did forget to take off the $5M that the Redskins paid in 2005 Sorry... so....

Going into 2005 the Redskins owed lavar $26M in signing bonus money ALONE... due to the little stigma of NOT BEING ALLOWED TO PRO-RATE BONUSES PAST 2009 as per the CBA (in large part due to the as yet uncapped 2007)... that works out to about $5.1 per year by my numbers. They paid that number once in 2005 taking the number down to about $21M. But that doesn't include escalators, or any other bonus money, but I'm not certain as to whether or not ANY of that would be guaranteed... probably not... and he's not likely to have earned any escalators either... but there is still over 25Million in other bonuses in his contract, so who knows?


But STILL... I would think that we're still on the hook for AT LEAST $21 milion in SIGNING BONUS MONEY alone without anything else... and that's a LOT more to account for than splitting up 11M over 2 years... twice as much in fact.

Warpath has approximately the same numbers that I do... http://redskins.scout.com/3/contractdetails.html

AND...to save the 6.5M roster bonus in 2006, surely you would have to cut him BEFORE June 1st and put ALL of it on 2006 wouldn't you?

Someone should start a Petition stating that we should keep Lavar in a redskins uniform? Any volunteers? Just click on the link.


If we get enough, maybe someone in the organization will see itl

BossHog wrote:

Paralis wrote:
Can I ask where you're getting your numbers from? I haven't been able to find a complete breakdown of the contract extension, but reports at the time indicated a $15.5M signing bonus. And while that certainly doesn't comprise all guaranteed money, it's a far sight from the $30M+ you're working with (which would be, to the best of my understanding, *extremely* unusual). FWIW, profootballtalk.com reported in April that the total cap hit taken for releasing Arrington after this season would be around $12M ($5/7M if after june 1st). Onerous, but not impossible.

Yeah but that 15.5M doesn't include any of the money from his original contract... and I can't help it if you read bad info in the media... isn't that what i was trying to say in the first place.

HOWEVER, I did forget to take off the $5M that the Redskins paid in 2005 Sorry... so....

Going into 2005 the Redskins owed lavar $26M in signing bonus money ALONE... due to the little stigma of NOT BEING ALLOWED TO PRO-RATE BONUSES PAST 2009 as per the CBA (in large part due to the as yet uncapped 2007)... that works out to about $5.1 per year by my numbers. They paid that number once in 2005 taking the number down to about $21M. But that doesn't include escalators, or any other bonus money, but I'm not certain as to whether or not ANY of that would be guaranteed... probably not... and he's not likely to have earned any escalators either... but there is still over 25Million in other bonuses in his contract, so who knows?


But STILL... I would think that we're still on the hook for AT LEAST $21 milion in SIGNING BONUS MONEY alone without anything else... and that's a LOT more to account for than splitting up 11M over 2 years... twice as much in fact.

Warpath has approximately the same numbers that I do... http://redskins.scout.com/3/contractdetails.html

AND...to save the 6.5M roster bonus in 2006, surely you would have to cut him BEFORE June 1st and put ALL of it on 2006 wouldn't you?

Game. Set. Match.

BossHog wrote:

Paralis wrote:
Can I ask where you're getting your numbers from? I haven't been able to find a complete breakdown of the contract extension, but reports at the time indicated a $15.5M signing bonus. And while that certainly doesn't comprise all guaranteed money, it's a far sight from the $30M+ you're working with (which would be, to the best of my understanding, *extremely* unusual). FWIW, profootballtalk.com reported in April that the total cap hit taken for releasing Arrington after this season would be around $12M ($5/7M if after june 1st). Onerous, but not impossible.

Yeah but that 15.5M doesn't include any of the money from his original contract... and I can't help it if you read bad info in the media... isn't that what i was trying to say in the first place.

HOWEVER, I did forget to take off the $5M that the Redskins paid in 2005 Sorry... so....

Going into 2005 the Redskins owed lavar $26M in signing bonus money ALONE... due to the little stigma of NOT BEING ALLOWED TO PRO-RATE BONUSES PAST 2009 as per the CBA (in large part due to the as yet uncapped 2007)... that works out to about $5.1 per year by my numbers. They paid that number once in 2005 taking the number down to about $21M. But that doesn't include escalators, or any other bonus money, but I'm not certain as to whether or not ANY of that would be guaranteed... probably not... and he's not likely to have earned any escalators either... but there is still over 25Million in other bonuses in his contract, so who knows?


But STILL... I would think that we're still on the hook for AT LEAST $21 milion in SIGNING BONUS MONEY alone without anything else... and that's a LOT more to account for than splitting up 11M over 2 years... twice as much in fact.

Warpath has approximately the same numbers that I do... http://redskins.scout.com/3/contractdetails.html

AND...to save the 6.5M roster bonus in 2006, surely you would have to cut him BEFORE June 1st and put ALL of it on 2006 wouldn't you?

The obvious problem with this discussion is whether or not we can take media numbers for granted. When NFL.com cites Carl Poston when listing length, total value, signing and total bonus figures for a contract extension, it seems like it's worth taking into consideration--primarily because it's in the Postons' best interests not to understate the value of the contract (and, by extension, their services).

Arrington agrees to eight-year deal (NFL.com)

But even if that's not the case--even if the Postons allowed themselves to be used as sources to report incorrect contract figures (contract figures which you seem to suggest are uniformly below what Arrington signed for), the numbers you're working with are still wonky.

Surely we can agree that the date of the contract extension isn't in question. 12/03 was too late to fit new money under the 03 cap, so for allocation purposes, the bonus is split over 6 years--2004-2009. Two of these years have already been accounted for, so what remains is two-thirds of $26M, or about $17.5. Higher than the number I'm working with, sure, but still a far cry from the $30M we need to account for.

And that's the ceiling--assuming there's some odd structure I'm unfamiliar with, whereby the signing bonus from Arrington's rookie contract was prorated only over the years of his rookie deal (expiring at the end of 06, I believe?), then the $17.5M could be lower still.

As long as there's no CBA extension, the June 1 deadline is pretty much meaningless in 06. The only date that matters is whenver the roster bonus is scheduled to fall due (I've read 7/15, but can see fewer agendas competing to ensure accuracy).

I'm still leery of the numbers you linked to, though. First because warpath uses a different contract length and total value figure than initially reported (see the top of my post), but also because in the player bio for Arrington, they seem to still be using the numbers from his rookie deal--this two years later.

But I'm not sure this is worth arguing about. Your numbers not only didn't jibe with what I'd read previously about Arrington's contract situation, but, if true, would surely have started a media revolt. On the other hand, NFL contract numbers (the details, at any rate) aren't a matter of public record, and so there's nothing I can point to that conclusively says I'm right--just reading the wires and playing with the numbers in my head. Maybe you still feel surer than I do, but hopefully, if so, you can explain it better. It's still way ahead of the game, but having a good handle on the numbers makes the offseason a lot more entertaining.[/url]

g. rolley wrote: The only entity he hasn't complained about is the FANS. Guess why, we buy his jerseys! Hey when he signed the lifetime contract to be a Redskin and then settled on the contract dispute instead of letting an arbitrator find ruling, it should have been over. But low and behold now he's upset again. What is with him, maybe it's best to release him?

Not fair..I heard LA on the John Thompson show praising the fans at FedEx. He said the fans really don't understand just how much they help him and the team on the field while they are playing. He said it is the fans that make FedEx an intimidating place for opposing teams. That is not the words of a man whose reason NOT to criticize the fans is b/c they buy his jersey.

REDEEMEDSKIN wrote:
As much as we can pin this on Effin for even "going there", Lavar should be held accountable for putting himself in a position to be misconstrued, misinterpreted, misrepresented, misunderstood, etc.

Shame on the media, too, for fishing for this story. Boo, Washington Times. BOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!! [/color]

Shame on the WT indeed!!

And if you are going to hold public figures to the standard of not putting themselves in a position to be misconstrued, misinterpreted, misrepresented, misunderstood, etc..jeesh..I guess your kids need to be All-American athletes with Rhodes scholarships and a community service record 2nd only to Mother Theresa

LaVar Arrington wrote:I restructured my contract to help the Redskins. Do you think I'm going to do that now? Of course not.

...Well, end of story. He has written himself out of here unless verse the Eagles and through the playoff he plays the best football of his career.

WuSkinsFan wrote:And if you are going to hold public figures to the standard of not putting themselves in a position to be misconstrued, misinterpreted, misrepresented, misunderstood, etc..jeesh..I guess your kids need to be All-American athletes with Rhodes scholarships and a community service record 2nd only to Mother Theresa

True. Very true. They will be all that and more. However, should they slip up, they will learn not to do it again, unlike Mr. Arrington, who likes to air out his laundry in the media, or at least, has allowed the media to do it for him anyway, with or without his "knowledge".

Not fair..I heard LA on the John Thompson show praising the fans at FedEx. He said the fans really don't understand just how much they help him and the team on the field while they are playing. He said it is the fans that make FedEx an intimidating place for opposing teams. That is not the words of a man whose reason NOT to criticize the fans is b/c they buy his jersey.
_________________
Who wouldn't fell good when 90k+ fans are screaming for you. It's possible the context was way off, but there have been a lot of issues regarding him, his salary, his treatment or something. He should just be "playing his guts outs" and let the future unfold. Unfortunately I missed the JT show but after reading this article wonder what is going on in his head.

Paralis wrote:The obvious problem with this discussion is whether or not we can take media numbers for granted.

Whereas the cap numbers apparently permeate the discussion, it is not the main point of contention in relation to the substance, timing and plain venom intended with the article written by the author.

Whereas media staff has a legitimate right to discover and report stories that may become exciting news attracting wide coverage, there is an ethical standard, which unfortunately seems to drop increasingly year after year as a whole. But this is particularly clear in the case of the sports media covering the Redskins over the last few years.

This is not the first time that the sports media digs for controversy at whatever cost to the Redskns over the last few years. Sometimes there is no cause for controversy whatsoever but the damage is done. It would appear that there is an increasingly apparent pattern of anti-Redskin bias in several of these articles.

The main point should not be hidden in a discussion over the cap and the real or fictcious economic implicatons of Lavar's contact next year:

This is an article

1) designed in substance;

2) planned in its timing; and

3) selective in its taget -Lavar-

To create the maximum amount of controversy, distraction and damage to the Redskins in the front ofice, the locker room, and the fans.

It is designed to attract the attention of ther media during ALL future press conferences by our team. It is designed to be a DISTRACTION!

DO NOT LET THEM!

The way to solve this issue is to put a halt to it in a coordinated action by the staff and Lavar himself. They need to get together to talk about it and clear the air as soon as possible. let a dstracion to be shown for what it is

Can anybody blame the Redskins organization or not reserving as many seats for the media in FedEx field now?

Go to hell D Elfin. You are one of the best examples of what is wrong wih sports journalism these days.

g. rolley wrote:_________________
Who wouldn't fell good when 90k+ fans are screaming for you.

Albert Bell I think he was actually nastier than Mean Joe Green and Jack Youngblood. Too bad he didn't play football.

SI Dropped

skinfaninla20 wrote:SI Dropped

They are in full DISTRACTION camapign:

LaVar Arrington knows he won't be a member of the Washington Redskins much longer. That's fine with him. In fact, Arrington is not sure he wants to play football for any team after this season.
-- Washington Times

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2005/s ... index.html

Justice Hog wrote:I think David Elfin is a complete ASS for talking to Lavar about this at this time of year. Couldn't that butthead what until after the playoffs were over to do this story?

Like Lavar hasnt been thinking about all of this already? DUH
He knows his days are probably numbered unless they renegotiate a new deal or something. This guy is just writing about what EVERYONE knows already.

I think it was a dumb thing to say, Redskins now know if he was serious & wants to continue to play ONLY for the Redskins, they now have a barganing chip. He was probobly trying to say how much he wants to continue to be a Redskin, but abviously chose the wrong words at the wrong time.

All LaVar ever did for us was give 100% every play of every game. When they benched him he seemed pissed at times, but he remained a team player through it all. If anyone deserves the money he is making it is LA. If he leaves or retires I will be very pissed. Hopefully the 'Skins can get a ring for him this year!