Ok...Whats the Deal With Coles & Money

[TheMalcolmConnection]

EX-freakin'-ACTLY.

[bertoskins]

here is my solution:

1. trade coles to jets for a first round pick, then used it for a wr
2. trade coles for a draft pick, then trade this pick to a big name and producative receiver
3. trade coles for a pick and cash, use this pick, and sign free agents like mason of titans, plax of pitts, etc

[Daseal]

Our pockets aren't shallow. Snyder doesn't "need" cash. If we get cash from another team that in no way extends our cap so the third option is out - I'd rather just have a first round pick, but I doubt we'd get it.

Malcolm - The difference is a lot of teams want Coles, not a single team wants Brunell.

And you all say you can't be sent to another department - but you sure as hell can quit, and he's giving 5 months notice.

[Gmanc711]

Originally Posted by bertoskins

here is my solution:

1. trade coles to jets for a first round pick, then used it for a wr
2. trade coles for a draft pick, then trade this pick to a big name and producative receiver
3. trade coles for a pick and cash, use this pick, and sign free agents like mason of titans, plax of pitts, etc

If we could get a first round pick; I'd say that. But in my opinion, it would be a high second at best. Unless we got a first round pick, or somehow (I dont understand it to the full degree) had full salary cap relief; then f*ck him. Stay here and play for the contract that YOU SIGNED!!

[JudgeJebus]

Originally Posted by Daseal

And you all say you can't be sent to another department - but you sure as hell can quit, and he's giving 5 months notice.

When you quit after signing a contract with a signing bonus, you're obligated to return the prorated part of the signing bonus that you have not earned. See Ricky Williams. For L.C., that's about $9.3 million. I doubt he's prepared to return that much. But who knows?

[Daseal]

I was under the impression he was going to give back what he still owed. If not tell him to fuck off. I don't care if he doesn't dress out. Let's see what kind of contract you get after that.

[skin4Life28]

Did everyone forget why Coles came here in the first place. 1. The signing bonus was so big he would be set for life and 2. Spurrier was here at the time with the fun and gun offense. He scored quite a bit that here and had a monster year. After Spurrier left points went down and offensive production went down big time. This shouldn't be that big of a shocker anyway if you knew anyhting about Coles you should know about his issues at Florida St.

[sportscurmudgeon]

The Redskins don't have to trade Coles. That's absolutely true; nothing in the cosmos can force them to do that! The Redskins have him under contract and can indeed force him to play here. Think about that. That is precisely how you want to enter the 2005 season - with your #1 WR pissed off about even being on the team. That's a formula for success. Glad the people who think this is a viable option are not the GM for my team!

Next season the Redskins can have Coles on the inactive list for 14 games and McCants on the inactive list for 14 games. That means we'll probably play Manny, Moe and Jack at WR. That'll get the Skins into the playoffs. That'll help in the development of the young QB.

You want to punish Coles? Great. Try to figure out what your're going ot do about him. But if I'm LC and you keep me until April 2 - against my will or having made whatever changes will make me temporarily happy - there's another $5M of Danny Boy's money in my bank account. Please find another way to punish me that severely! I'd love another $5M payday heading my way for just sitting here in the offseason and running my mouth about how I'm unhappy.

BTW, I can play for the contract that I signed because that contract says the team owes me $5M next month. If the team makes good on that provision and I'll be there for each and every mandatory camp activity and whatever. Oh, somebody here implied that they were going to make me play hard next year. Pardon me while I chuckle. You pay me; I go on the field. At that point, ONLY I define what effort I will give and will not give. So, don't get in my face with your power trip because you have no real power here...

The Washington Redskins info machine has told the world that LC is a "clubhouse problem" - no one else did that. Now, tell me why LC would be highly motivated to help out those folks? Remember, all he has to do is sit on his ass and attend one QB camp in March and he collects $5M from these guys who have "sullied his reputation". And he will be cooperative - - why?

[Daseal]

Well SC - What do you think LC will be worth if he gets benched for 3 years? Or till whenever we can afford to easily cut him from a salary cap standpoint. Overall I'm sure he'd lose money. I think they'll find a way to work this out that appeases both sides.

[DCopper04]

Does anyone know the NFL rules about recouping cap space in the event that a player is injured for an extended period of time? I'm pretty sure there is some situation where a player's salary does not count against the salary cap if he becomes injured for a long period.

If we can't work out a deal for Coles, there is a chance he could "hold out" in an attempt to force a trade. I do agree that he is a stand-up guy who will work his hardest wherever he plays, but his demeanor could change very quickly if he doesn't get what he wants. This would be a disaster, because we would have him eating up cap room, AND not playing. So, if Coles refuses to get the surgery, and he holds out, do you think we could deem his toe "unfit to play," put him on injured reserve, and recoup the cap space that he would have otherwise occupied? It would be a last resort, but it could be useful. We are already snug against the cap, and there's no sense having this receiver eat up a nice chunk of $$ if he won't play.

I mentioned a scenario similar to this in a past thread, but I'm not positive about the league rules regarding this issue.

[JudgeJebus]

SportsCurmudgeon,

From the Washington Post:

[A]ccording to one teammate with knowledge of the situation, Coles has said he would return -- and play hard -- if necessary.

I think that before this recent episode (which, as some have noted, Coles handled in a very classy manner by keeping his discontent out of public view), all of us would have agreed that this sounds about right for Coles. Your suggestion that Coles would not play hard if we kept him seems, to me, completely discordant with everything we know about the guy.

Now, even though I think Coles is a stand-up guy, I don't think the Redskins should indulge his ridiculous request to be released. The reason: It's pure blackmail. If we honor this request, there's nothing to stop any player from blackmailing us in this way. Anytime we sign someone, they could cash their signing bonus and then immediately demand to be released. We simply cannot allow that.

Now, because I think Coles is a stand-up guy and has handled this situation professionally, I do think we should try to accomodate his request to be released, but only on fair terms. As I noted in another thread, if a player retires, he is obligated to return the pro-rated amount of his signing bonus that he has not yet earned. A signing bonus is given in return for the player signing the contract. In this case, Coles was given $13M to play for 7 years. Since he wants to leave after 2 years, I would not even consider his release unless it involves him forfeiting five-sevenths of this amount, or about $9.3M. Accordingly, not only should Coles have to forfeit his right to the $5M installment of his signing bonus he is yet to receive, he should return (a la Ricky Williams, another malcontent who refused to honor his contract) $4.3M.

In fact, even this is not enough. The $9.3M is what Coles would owe if he wanted to retire. But he doesn't want to retire--he wants to play for another team. For this to be fair, he would need to offer the Redskins (who own his rights to play in the league for the next 5 years) even more for the club to relinquish these rights.

[MTK]

Coles played hard all year so it is encouraging to hear that if he came back he would continue to do so. I just think too much damage has already been done and at this point both sides need to part ways.

With Derrick Mason available I think the team is even more eager to push Coles out. He appears to be a much better fit for this offense.

[BrudLee]

Originally Posted by sportscurmudgeon

The Redskins don't have to trade Coles. That's absolutely true; nothing in the cosmos can force them to do that! The Redskins have him under contract and can indeed force him to play here. Think about that. That is precisely how you want to enter the 2005 season - with your #1 WR pissed off about even being on the team. That's a formula for success. Glad the people who think this is a viable option are not the GM for my team!

Next season the Redskins can have Coles on the inactive list for 14 games and McCants on the inactive list for 14 games. That means we'll probably play Manny, Moe and Jack at WR. That'll get the Skins into the playoffs. That'll help in the development of the young QB.

You want to punish Coles? Great. Try to figure out what your're going ot do about him. But if I'm LC and you keep me until April 2 - against my will or having made whatever changes will make me temporarily happy - there's another $5M of Danny Boy's money in my bank account. Please find another way to punish me that severely! I'd love another $5M payday heading my way for just sitting here in the offseason and running my mouth about how I'm unhappy.

BTW, I can play for the contract that I signed because that contract says the team owes me $5M next month. If the team makes good on that provision and I'll be there for each and every mandatory camp activity and whatever. Oh, somebody here implied that they were going to make me play hard next year. Pardon me while I chuckle. You pay me; I go on the field. At that point, ONLY I define what effort I will give and will not give. So, don't get in my face with your power trip because you have no real power here...

The Washington Redskins info machine has told the world that LC is a "clubhouse problem" - no one else did that. Now, tell me why LC would be highly motivated to help out those folks? Remember, all he has to do is sit on his ass and attend one QB camp in March and he collects $5M from these guys who have "sullied his reputation". And he will be cooperative - - why?

You forgot the biggest lever Coles has - toe surgery. There is nothing to stop him from taking the team's advice (right after he gets his check) and fixing his fractured toe. Then we have paid an additional $5 million for a player who will absolutely be on IR next season, and will be in no hurry to get back onto the field.

[JWsleep]

Look, Sports and Brud, as far as I can tell they CANNOT CUT COLES. The salary cap hit would be over 9 mil all at once, requiring a Titans-like roster purge. Coles can count his loot by the beach in Rio if he wants, but he isn't going to play in the NFL for anyone but the skins without a giveback. It's just math.

As for his attitude, my guess is Joe Gibbs will work it out. If not, Coles will sit and collect his contract. But that's way cheaper than cutting him.

[JWsleep]

And as for "Manny, Moe, and Jack" didn't we already have them? We didn't exactly burn it up at wideout last year...