| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Dogs of war
Joined: 21 Jan 2005 Posts: 781 Location: Albuquerque, NM
|
Posted: Fri May 06, 2005 1:07 pm Post subject: Santana Clause |
|
|
|
Interesting view from CZABE
http://www.czabe.com/dailyczabe.shtml _________________ If you can read this, thank a teacher.
If you can read this in English, thank a soldier. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
BaBoyz22
Joined: 12 Feb 2005 Posts: 236
|
Posted: Fri May 06, 2005 9:34 pm Post subject: Mock |
|
|
|
| Fabulous Article!!!! |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
e16bball 
 Joined: 17 Dec 2004 Posts: 14976
|
Posted: Sat May 07, 2005 2:53 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
His point is well-taken, but he is apparently unaware of certain facts regarding the Moss situation, or is trying to gloss over them for the purpose of his article. Hmm, I can't believe it would be the latter...
Moss was set to be paid 450k this year. Yes, 450k to be a number one receiver in the NFL. To me, that is a contract that deserves to be fluffed up. I'm sure Czaban realizes this, but it wasn't exactly strong support for his article, so it didn't come up. Also, a new contract was implicit in the trade agreement. Why would we acquire a player just to take a chance on him being a free agent next year? The answer is that we would not, and thus the deal was actually probably more beneficial to us than to Moss.
As I said earlier, his point is well-taken, in that the Redskins have continually paid more money to guys who have proved nothing for the team. I don't like it, but it is a function of the value a type of player has for the team. In turn, the Redskins' history of signing outside players while letting internal players leave is a function of the continually changing coaches and schemes. In the cases he mentions, we let Smoot and Pierce go after they succeeded for us, just to bring in Moss who has proved nothing in DC. The reason is that Smoot and Pierce were successful, IMO, because of the system in which they played, especially in the latter case. We had other options at CB, and MLB is simply a position which does not require a superstar in the Williams system, and thus it was not fiscally wise to pay so much money to retain those players. Moss, on the other hand, fits the team's need for speed, so to speak, at WR, and fits Gibbs's system perfectly. Therefore, we paid him a great deal of money, because the speed he brings is vital, and was not really present on the team as it was last year. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
|