Paul Woody: The Skins' offseason of discontent

[bubba9497]

The Skins' offseason of discontent
PAUL WOODY
POINT OF VIEW
Monday, April 18, 2005


Happiness is a relative term, and at the moment, LaVar Arrington, despite his millions, despite his recent marriage, despite his fleet of luxury cars, is not happy.

Money, Arrington might be tempted to say, can't buy happiness. He also might be tempted to say that if the Washington Redskins would give him the $6.5 million he alleges they promised him, he would be a tad bit happier.

But Arrington doesn't feel the love from the Redskins at this moment.

While most might think a player who will earn $5.5 million this year should be happy even if he's told his job is to wrap the used adhesive tape into a giant ball, the "star" players don't see it that way.

Arrington is unhappy that the organization did not announce to his teammates that he was having surgery.

He thinks the team forgot about last season when he was unable to play.

And Arrington is upset over the $6.5 million he alleges the team removed from the contract he signed at the end of the 2003 season.


The team contends the money never was in the contract and that Arrington's complaint should be with his agents, Carl and Kevin Posten.

The Postens apparently are saying the Redskins pressured them to read and sign the contract quickly so it could be filed before the end of the 2003 season. That, they claim, is how they missed the missing $6.5 million.

That's a pretty big miss.

And something seems to be amiss.

One NFL executive who has seen the contract said, "It makes no sense. The guy extended his contract for no more money."

Last year, Arrington said he was putting this contract grievance behind him. But it's interesting that when Arrington became upset with the team over his knee, the contract dispute bubbled to the surface as well.

What the Redskins have is an unhappy player, and it might be a while before Arrington is once again happy to be in Washington.

That's not good for anybody, and there's plenty of blame to go around.

Arrington's agents should have given the contract a more thorough reading. The team should have known that once Arrington realized the true worth of the contract, he was going to be very unhappy.

That the team feels Arrington should direct his unhappiness toward his agents does not solve the problem.

Arrington is seen as the "face" of the franchise.

Currently, the "face" of the franchise is scowling and hobbling around on crutches.

Last week, coach Joe Gibbs said every NFL team has problems and that the Redskins probably have fewer than most.

In this offseason, Gibbs has jettisoned wide receiver Laveranues Coles, which cost the team $9 million against the 2005 salary cap.

The Redskins also lost two players, cornerback Fred Smoot and linebacker Antonio Pierce, Gibbs vowed it needed to keep.

Two other players, wide receiver Santana Moss and safety Sean Taylor, are boycotting the "voluntary" offseason workouts in contract disputes.

Moss, obtained in a trade for Coles, is in the last year of his contract, and it is understandable that he wants a new deal.

Still, it's not asking too much for him to make a show of good faith by working out with his new teammates.

Taylor's boycott is another in a growing list of head-scratching imbroglios for the second-year player.

He signed a contract last season, complete with a $14 million bonus, and has no business thinking he needs a new one already.

And now the "face" of the franchise is firing less than courteous salvos at the organization.

So, yeah, it has been just another quiet offseason for the Redskins.

If this is what happens in the offseason, the regular season should be quite a show.


Contact Paul Woody at (804) 649-6444 or pwoody@timesdispatch.com

This story can be found at: http://www.timesdispatch.com/servlet/Satellite?pagename=RTD%2FMGArticle%2FRTD_BasicArti cle&c=MGArticle&cid=1031782203637&path=!sports!redskins&s=1045855935462

[Gilgamesh]

I hate leftovers.

[Truant]

I really must be twisted, but I see more positives than negatives in all this.

Gibbs isn't catering to the star players. We are showing fiscal restraint. We're going through great efforts to get rid of guys who don't want to be here and could turn out to be cancers. Why is this so much worse than we've ever been?

This was a 6-10 team!! How much worse could it get? Gibbs is doing it his way and a lot of people don't agree with it... but I'd hedge my bets on Joe over these writers any day of the week.

[Buford]

it can get a lot worse, to be honest. We could go from the 9th overall pick, to somewhere in the top 3.

[Om]

Fluff piece, generally.

Only thing I see that perhaps registers as worthy of response/comment is the misleading spin written into this comment:


The Redskins also lost two players, cornerback Fred Smoot and linebacker Antonio Pierce, Gibbs vowed it needed to keep.

At no time do I believe Gibbs specifically cited AP or Smoot as players the team "vowed it needed to keep." What Gibbs did, repeatedly, was include those players in general public comments about the team's stated desire to keep "core players." He did not "vow" to keep any specific player, but rather stated repeatedly that the team's desire to keep the loosely-defined group of "core players" would necessarily reach a breaking point when the contract demands of any one (or two, in this case) player(s) exceeded the value assigned them by the team, both contractually and in locker-room considerations.

Apparently, writers like Woody are either unable or unwilling to parse their own language to the extent their readers do. Even in such innocuous columns as this, they seem unable to keep their biases and/or agendas from showing through, continuing instead to give their readers far less credit than they are due.

Perhaps one day they'll realize there's gold in them thar intellectually honest hills, too. :)

[Buford]

still, if you're going to say these are the type of guys you want to keep....and those are the ones specifically that you let go. What does it say? That we won't overpay to keep a guy?

no

I think it said "We sort of got ourselves in a bind here with one player, and because of him, we can't afford to keep you two"

Being called a "Core Redskins" might be like the kiss of death.

[Om]

Or ... it could be that certain players siimply got an inflated sense of their worth to the team, and the team decided not to let the tail wag the dog. :)

[Buford]

please, did you see Smoots deal?

It wasn't the bonus that was too high. I believe they front loaded the deal, no?

Basically....seeing what we did with the Coles situation. It was easy to insert that poison pill.

Pierce was overpaid. No doubt. But if you have 2 guys labeled as "Core" going into the offseason, and you keep none. Something went wrong.

Wait until you see Moss' deal before we talk about inflated.

[Om]

In framing his thoughts on what he means by "core player," Gibbs has very carefully included the idea at the player be willing to put team interests high on his list of priorities. That there is such a thing as a two way street. To the extent the specific contract information has been made available, it would be hard to argue that the team came anywhere close to lowballing either player, given their histories. Is the player entitled to simply chase the money? Of course. Does that help him build a case for being a "core player?" Perhaps not.

That another team was willing to pay a premium for those players does not by definition mean the Redskins undervalued them. They were offerred what can just as easily--more easily, in fact--be argued was fair market value. Why? Because the Redskins were the team best positioned to fully assess their strengths, weaknesses and potential benefits down the road.

Assuming that the Giants and Vikings were in better position than the Redskins to make informed decisions and place dollar values on those players, based on those factors, is just not something I'm prepared to do.

Let's also not lose sight of the fact that NONE of these scenarios by themselves are the whole "answer." As with any complex organizational situation where one component directly affects another, the "answer" is almost always some combination of factors. Of course the Coles thing entered into the team's thinking. But to assume it alone was the driving force, again, I believe not consistent with assessing the big picture.

It's up to each of us as fans to decide for ourselves if the people making the decisions, based on access to all aspects of that combination of factors, are qualified to do so in the teams' best long term interests.

[Buford]

the Coles situation didn't need to be factored into the Redskins thinking, it was the driving force. If we had even half of that 9 mil back under the cap. Do you think we wouldn't of at least tried to offer Smoot something simliar to Minny's deal? I think we would have.

I won't deny that CB's were very overvalued this offseason. Considering what we've seen happened to Champ in DC and Denver. You need a great passrush for a CB to excell. And if we can get that, even with Springs and Harris. We'll be fine.

But, for me. This keeps going back to the Coles situation. I believe he had little leverage and we could of pulled a reverse McCardell on him during the summer or early fall. "Stay at home, and we'll let you know when teams come up with something we like......OR.......help us relieve a lot of this cap hit, and we'll find a way to get you back to the Jets."

[G-Prime]

Originally posted by Bufford
still, if you're going to say these are the type of guys you want to keep....and those are the ones specifically that you let go. What does it say? That we won't overpay to keep a guy?

no

I think it said "We sort of got ourselves in a bind here with one player, and because of him, we can't afford to keep you two"

Being called a "Core Redskins" might be like the kiss of death.

That's not true.. We had offers on the table to smoot and pierce for months before the season ended.. Before Coles got the hair up is butt to cause all this crap.. At anytime those players could have taken the deals presented to them. The reason they are not here is their choice and is in no way related one single bit to Coles.

And I don't believe Joe would of payed Smoot a penny more... he might of payed for Pierce though by the nudging of GW.

[Om]

The Redskins put the totality of circumstances under the microspoce, Bufford, and, in the end, apparently disagreed with your position on how best to handle Coles.

They also, apparently, did not agree with your assessment that AP and Smoot should be re-signed at the terms they demanded.

Your opposition to both has been duly noted here, however. :)

[Buford]

thanks for noting them. :)

[Om]

On the house. :)

[jrfriedm]

I think that Woody is pressed to come up with something to write about due to the fact that the Redskins are having a relativly quiet offseason. This Arrington thing will blow over once he's able to get back into pads and start hitting somebody.

[Neophyte]

Originally posted by Om
Or ... it could be that certain players siimply got an inflated sense of their worth to the team, and the team decided not to let the tail wag the dog. :)

Good point and I hope this is the case. Tired of paying outrageously and being the but of every joke in the league.

[redman]

Originally posted by Bufford
But if you have 2 guys labeled as "Core" going into the offseason, and you keep none. Something went wrong.Failing to account for cap implications makes that a ridiculous statement. A "core" player asking for too much money is expendible.

[Buford]

who asked for too much Money? Smoot?

We know Pierce was overpaid.

wait until Moss' deal and lets talk about too much money.

[redman]

Originally posted by Bufford
who asked for too much Money? Smoot?

We know Pierce was overpaid.

wait until Moss' deal and lets talk about too much money. Yes, Smoot asked for too much money.

I don't necessarily disagree about Moss, but we'll see.

[wskin44]

Two thoughts, first addressing spoiled players with big egos: During Gibbs 1 he had a few notable players like this but I believe he managed to get them to buy into the team concept because at that time winning was the one sure way for players to increase their worth. Today there is much less corrolation between winning and the size of contracts. The Snyder era Redskins have written the book on that. Can Gibbs 2 overcome this fundamental change and get the few players who fill the highly paid, highly spoiled, huge ego category to buy into the team first philosophy? It may be the biggest challenge he has ever had as a coach because the Redskin's corporate culture in the recent past has not reflected Gibb's philosophies.

Second I just want to comment about Smoot/Pierce and Woody's comments. Each team has a salary structure that allocates certain dollars to certain positions during certain years. Both Smoot and Pierce went to teams that were allocating significantly more dollars to their positions over the next three years than the Redskins were. All sides made a business decision. There were no bad guys or grossly poor decisions made here, and it shouldn't be a story. I'm sure that Gibbs will miss Pierce and Smoot worse than we will, but this team has not been winning and the lack of Corporate discipline is a prime suspect.

[TheLongshot]

I still think winning cures a lot of ills. Players are willing to take a little less to stay with a winner, especially if they spent their career on horrible teams.

For those who don't play this way, we don't really want anyways, in the long term.

The key idea is to try to identify a "core" group of players that you want to build your team around, and try to keep them. Unfortunatly, when you have a bunch of money wrapped up in other players which may not fill this ideal, you probably will lose some of those players, as we have. Hopefully, now that we have some consistancy in the front office, we will have fewer of these moments. Getting rid of Coles was a partial solution. He didn't want to be here, so we took a one year hit so that maybe, we don't have to make another tough decision about a player we would like to keep.

Jason