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

Can anyone tell me what kind of signing bonus Ty Law would be asking for?

I just think it would be a smarter idea to not give Santana a new contract and sign Law instead.

I know Law is washed up, but the Chiefs aren't in hot pursuit of him anymore, and we could sign him to a 3 year contract.

Probably 14 mil...unless he signs with an immediate contender, based on last year's results.
He's gonna want more than Smmot and Lucas.
Will he get it ?
Can't say. Joe has Danny on a tight leash.

Are you kidding? Why would we pay for a hurt-up Ty Law, instead of Smoot? Better yet there is better potential and less money drafting a CB.

Skinna Mob wrote:Are you kidding? Why would we pay for a hurt-up Ty Law, instead of Smoot? Better yet there is better potential and less money drafting a CB.

We wouldn't pay Smoot more than Springs, but we would proably pay Law more than Springs, in Theory...

Still, I think the D will remain solid, especially with Courtney Brown!

I wouldnt mind see Ty Law as a Redskin, But Im pretty sure he is going to be signing with the Steelers

Skinsfan55 wrote: We wouldn't pay Smoot more than Springs, but we would proably pay Law more than Springs, in Theory...

Where would this extra money, and consequently larger required cap space, come from?

Well, the extra money is no problem... The Danny can take some change out of his pocket. But you're right Boss, the cap space is the problem.

Pac Man might be a better investment than Law

If Ty Law wasn't hurt I'd love to see him here. I'm all for bringing in Patriots, especially big physical corners that could have the same effect Springs had. But, he may not ever recapture his old form and we don't really have the cap room.

This is what I don't understand though. If we are planning on signing Santana Moss to a $13 million signing bonus, why don't we have the room to sign a big name free agent like Law. If we don't sign Moss long term, wouldn't the logic insist that we have room to sign someone to an equivalent contract to the one we are proposing to Moss? I agree that Law is not %100, but I'd rather give him big bucks than give Moss big bucks. Moss hasn't proven anything.
However, I think we shouldn't spend the money on either and get a few role players. But if I had to pick between Moss and Law, I would rather pay Law.

I would really rather not pay any of them big bucks, if we were going to spend big bucks I would have wanted to be on Smoot or Pierce.

I agree with drDrew and C'fieldSkin.... but since both Smoot and Pierce are no longer options, how about we look at Dyson, Hartwell, Jones or Franks?... each of these guys would fill a need and thus free up a draft pick

Law is going to want huge amount of money, better off drafting a younger cb, like Pac Man Jones, Rolle or Carlos Rodgers .

Im thankful that we dont have the money to purchase him.

doctordrew wrote:This is what I don't understand though. If we are planning on signing Santana Moss to a $13 million signing bonus, why don't we have the room to sign a big name free agent like Law. If we don't sign Moss long term, wouldn't the logic insist that we have room to sign someone to an equivalent contract to the one we are proposing to Moss? I agree that Law is not %100, but I'd rather give him big bucks than give Moss big bucks. Moss hasn't proven anything.
However, I think we shouldn't spend the money on either and get a few role players. But if I had to pick between Moss and Law, I would rather pay Law.

have they announced an extension with Moss already? I musta missed it. what are the details of the contract anyway?