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

The Washington Redskins have contacted Oakland and are believed to be interested in acquiring the Raiders' second overall selection in the April 24-25 NFL draft, according to a league source who requested anonymity.

In recent days, the Redskins, who own the No. 5 overall pick, have been part of draft-related trade rumors, particularly involving Pro Bowl left tackle Chris Samuels. The Redskins reportedly are interested in dealing Samuels because of the player's reluctance to restructure his contract. Redskins Vice President Vinny Cerrato denied those rumors last night.

Click here for more.

KKRYAN beat you to this one BH.

http://www.the-hogs.net/forum/viewtopic. ... 948&sid=10

10% of the cap for an inconsistent O-Lineman doesnt make sense.

jklote wrote:10% of the cap for an inconsistent O-Lineman doesnt make sense.

And how consistent was THE REST of the line the first half of last year? Jansen has a nice, fat contract, too, but no one is jumping on him for sucking wind last year.

Hm. I thought Chris Samuels was also represented by P-Ram's agent, and the Agent wants to make life horrible for the Redskins now that Patrick Ramsey's starting job is in danger. I say we get rid of Chris Samuels so that P-Ram's agent has less mobility in denying us our future QB.

ANT7088 wrote:KKRYAN beat you to this one BH.

http://www.the-hogs.net/forum/viewtopic. ... 948&sid=10

I checked Hog Wash for a link, but admittedly not league news. See I would have figured as a mod you would have moved it to the appropriate forum then Jake, or got one of us to move it... this is Redskin news.... not league news...

I'm gonna say this one last time... anyone who thinks that this SAVES cap money just doesn't understand or have all the facts about the cap... Samuels cap hit if he plays for us this year is 8.75 million... if we trade him and have to pay the remainder of his signing bonus on this year's cap... it will cost about 9 Million... not only do we not save money... I believe we lose a few hundred K.

... so there is no cap savings to trading Samuels... none... and unlike Trotter who's getting dumped because of his attitude, Chris doesn't have that problem... now Sexton his agent... that's another story.

So argue about whether or not Gallery will be better than Samuels, because not only will we not save any cap $$$ by trading Samuels away... we'll have the added cap charge of signing Gallery to a 6-7 year 50 M deal.

So can we at least discuss the trade on the merits without the cap... because there is nothing good cap-wise about this move.

Here is ESPN's take on this TODAY


The franchise that lands the Iowa star figures to secure his services, and thus ensure some degree of bodily safety for its starting quarterback, for the next six or seven seasons. Little wonder, then, that so many teams covet him and are plotting potential scenarios for trying to get into position to snatch him. Little wonder, too, that the Oakland Raiders are getting a lot of phone calls about the second overall spot in the draft, and what it might take to pry that slot away from them.


Cleveland, which flirted briefly with the idea of trading for Pace, has made no pretense of its interest in Gallery, who would be the centerpiece of a revamped blocking unit. But the team that is perhaps most ardent in its pursuit of Gallery is Washington, which would like to slide up three rungs in the draft, to the Oakland spot, to choose him. The Redskins, to this point, have demonstrated stealth in their efforts, but now they have been outed.


Yeah, we know, the Redskins already have a top-flight left tackle in Chris Samuels. And we just noted, only a few paragraphs ago, that teams with proven left tackles (Samuels has made a pair of Pro Bowl appearances), don't discard them.


Both points are well-taken, but this is the Redskins we're discussing, and owner Daniel Snyder doesn't always adhere to league convention. More important, Snyder does not deal well with players who don't play according to his rules. Samuels, in rejecting all overtures toward the kind of contract extension linebacker LaVar Arrington bit on, is seen by the Redskins now in a different light.


The Snyder rationale: If you're not with me, and not going to provide me the kind of salary cap relief I need, well, you can go the way of Champ Bailey. Samuels has a salary cap charge of $8.749 million for 2004 and, after twice previously reworking his contract to help Snyder out of jams, is balking at another re-do. Plus having played two seasons in the flawed pass protection scheme drawn up by the deposed Steve Spurrier, the left tackle wants a shot to rehabilitate himself.

What the Redskins would prefer to do is cut a deal, perhaps using wide receiver Rod Gardner as trade bait, that allows them to choose Gallery. And then they could either deal Samuels to a tackle-needy team, like Cleveland, or release him at some point.

wow, so it wasn't just a rumor!!

The franchise that lands the Iowa star figures to secure his services, and thus ensure some degree of bodily safety for its starting quarterback, for the next six or seven seasons.

Gee, that sounds awfully familiar. I remember in 2000 they were talking about a tackle from Alabama the same way. What was his name again???? Oh yeah, Chris Samuels! Anyone who honestly thinks Samuels isn't that good needs to remember that he was playing for Spurrier's messed up pass protection scheme. Samuels will again be a beast with Bugel running the show. And once he gets a taste of winning this year I'm sure he'll be more than happy to restructure and stay with the team.

Like BH said, it doesn't make sense to trade him because of cap reasons. Gallery may be good, but is he better than Chris who has 4 seasons under his belt? No. My guess is that the 'Skins may be blowing smoke Samuels' way to make him realize he won't be around much longer unless he restructures at some point in the near future.

I second that Whomp-em (and BossHog). I can't believe people think Samuels is worth trading. Not only would it hurt us more financially, he's going to play great under Buges. It would be great if he would restructure his deal but even if he doesn't, we're in better shape by not trading him. Let's get some D!

It's 2 weeks before the draft Al Davis will talk to anyone about any trade Samuels will come out the huddle and go to the line for the first time in two years and the defence wont know if it a run or a pass. He'll be his old pro bowl self and a redskin but he'll need to restucture that contract

BossHog wrote:

ANT7088 wrote:KKRYAN beat you to this one BH.

http://www.the-hogs.net/forum/viewtopic. ... 948&sid=10

I checked Hog Wash for a link, but admittedly not league news. See I would have figured as a mod you would have moved it to the appropriate forum then Jake, or got one of us to move it... this is Redskin news.... not league news...

I'm gonna say this one last time... anyone who thinks that this SAVES cap money just doesn't understand or have all the facts about the cap... Samuels cap hit if he plays for us this year is 8.75 million... if we trade him and have to pay the remainder of his signing bonus on this year's cap... it will cost about 9 Million... not only do we not save money... I believe we lose a few hundred K.

... so there is no cap savings to trading Samuels... none... and unlike Trotter who's getting dumped because of his attitude, Chris doesn't have that problem... now Sexton his agent... that's another story.

So argue about whether or not Gallery will be better than Samuels, because not only will we not save any cap $$$ by trading Samuels away... we'll have the added cap charge of signing Gallery to a 6-7 year 50 M deal.

So can we at least discuss the trade on the merits without the cap... because there is nothing good cap-wise about this move.

Hey Boss, I saw this as draft related and that is why it was not posted under hog news.

It's not that he isn't good, it's exactly what the article said. If he isn't willing to renegotiate to help the team (and granted, he's done it before) then his cap figure will be in the way later and they'll have to cut him.

CHRIS SAMUELS has made the decision to not renegotiate. By doing that he made the front office have to make a choice whether to tie 1/10 of the cap up in him, or find someone who can for cheaper. And Gallery would be the best thing you could get IF they feel like they have to get rid of Samuels.

And Samuels will play great under Bugel (Jake), there's no doubt. But you have to help the team financially too. I know he's done it in the past, but he's got to expect with that large cap number that they would Need do it again.

I love Samuels as much as the next guy, and I really do believed that he will return to his all-pro level under Bugel, but I really like the idea of trading up and taking Gallery. Think about it. We would get younger, cheaper, and maybe even better at a cornerstone position. If Gallery can't step in this season, everyone seems to believe that Winey can hold down the fort until he is ready. Finally, with the left-handed Brunell projected to start, left tackle isn't the crucial spot on the line, making Samuels value decrease. It's definetly something to think about...

Steve Spurrier III wrote: I love Samuels as much as the next guy, and I really do believed that he will return to his all-pro level under Bugel, but I really like the idea of trading up and taking Gallery. Think about it. We would get younger, cheaper, and maybe even better at a cornerstone position. If Gallery can't step in this season, everyone seems to believe that Winey can hold down the fort until he is ready. Finally, with the left-handed Brunell projected to start, left tackle isn't the crucial spot on the line, making Samuels value decrease. It's definetly something to think about...

So if Samuels value decreases with Brunell being a lefty... doesn't Gallery's as well?

... it still doesn't justify tying up 9 million in cap for Samuels to NOT have him on the team.

It's leverage for the Redskins though... make Sammy think he's not a lock and maybe he'll be more interested in doing a new deal... even if it means firing Sexton to get it done.

Get the deal Done Now thats THE best outcome

On Saturday during the mini camp Samuels told reporters that he hopes he is one of those "core players" which Coach Gibbs wants. I think he better realize that now is the time to become one of those "core players". We all know that he is the best blind side tackle of the nfl. We all know under buges we will see flasbacks of Joe Jacoby.

All Samuels needs to do is restructure or sign an extension. If he does that there is no doubt he will be one of those "core players".

I have to agree on the part of this being agent Sexton's way of getting back at the Redskins for bringing in Brunnell. I hate agents. They get these very talented athletes to represent and they only care about the money. However in this case I don't see how it will benefit Sexton's pocket. He will get paid ALOT if Samuels stays and he will get paid alot if he goes. Its got to be because he is pissed off at Danny for bringing in Brunnell.

I'm not sure how Gallery will be "cheaper" than Samuels. Samuels was a #3 pick four years ago. Gallery would be the #2 pick this year. The 2004 cap hit from Gallery would probably by lower than 8 mil; but then you would have to trade Samuels and lose another 9 mil under the cap.

Gallery's overall contract value will be higher than the one that Samuels signed.

The only way I can see this being possible at all is if we waited until after June 1 to trade Samuels.

That being said, I do like Gallery.

how will this effect us down the road... say closer to 2006.... cus if it will help us then, then maybe danny is kind of feeling the heat from the media and making a move to do something for that damn 2006 that all those people cant seem to stop talking about, plus... i cant hear enough about gallery's pass blocking ability, but how does his run blocking go.. is he a joe gibbs' system type run blocker

BossHog wrote:So if Samuels value decreases with Brunell being a lefty... doesn't Gallery's as well

Yes it does. My point is that we wouldn't need to Gallery to step in and anchor the line his first year or two. By the time Ramsey takes over, hopefully Gallery would be ready to take over as well. If Ramsey takes over in two years and Gallery progresses normally, he would hopefully be on the same level as Samuels, only with more years left. Our scouting department would have to very high on Gallery to pull the trigger on this deal.

I am not familiar with the way the cap works in terms of trades. If trading Samuels is going to hurt us on the cap, then my enthusiasm for this trade will be severly dampered. A big reason for doing this would be to save money, so if we would still have to pay Chris, this wouldn't make a lot of sense.

Again, on the surface it looks like it might work. I just think it's worth considering...

There is no this trade would happen for Samuels because of the massive dead cap money hit we would take it for it! What about this scenario If we traded Gardner for this pick (2nd overall)and took Sean taylor then traded down our 5th pick and took Udeze! Then we would have Udeze and Taylor!!

Rod Gardner by himself is not worth the second overall pick...

I have to agree with you there Steve SpurrierIII! I forgot to mention we throw in our 3rd round pick and maybe Trotter! It is very wishful thinking but if Trotter restructes his deal he would be a lot more tradeable

There is one reason that Al Davis will not do this trade for Samuels. It is very simple if you know Al. The reason he won't pull the string is because Samuel is not over the age of 35 yet. Al love to get the over the hill washed up players. That is why Al won't trade the pick.