What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

Coles out in Washington? (1 Viewer)

As a Cowboys fan....YES! I love the Redskins shooting themsleves in the foot every single year!You couldn't make this stuff up if you tried! :no: :rotflmao: :rotflmao: :rotflmao:
I'm sure the Redskins are :rotflmao: at the thought that the Cowboys will have Drew Bledsoe as their starting QB. Just saying.
 
As a Cowboys fan....YES! I love the Redskins shooting themsleves in the foot every single year!You couldn't make this stuff up if you tried! :no: :rotflmao: :rotflmao: :rotflmao:
I'm sure the Redskins are :rotflmao: at the thought that the Cowboys will have Drew Bledsoe as their starting QB. Just saying.
:confused: Um...why? Drew Bledsoe is a better QB than anybody the Redskins have?!?! Trust me, the Cowboys don't need a QB at all to beat the Redskins.
 
The Redkins are going to suck forevor. Not because they're releasing Coles, but because he's another example of a free-agent they gave a ton of money and never got what they paid for. They actually gave up a first round pick to get this guy, on top of giving him a $13 million dollar signing bonus. You better be getting Randy Moss for that kind of a deal. Now the Redskins are going to repeat their mistake and dramatically overpay for Moose, a wide receiver who had one great year and was more the product of an offense than a guy like Owens who could come in and dramatically improve an offense. They'll give him a big bonus and cut him in two years. Snyder's a moron. I feel bad for Redskins fans, they're like the New York Knicks and the New York Mets. So many big name moves in the offseason that don't lead to wins and make things worse in the long run.
I'm a diehard Skins fan but I have to agree in large parts. You can't build a franchise on the checkbook of your owner! You build a great franchise via great drafts! Just take a look at what the Redskins drafted the last years, it's a wholotta sh... with the exception of 2 or 3 players. Sad but true! The Dan is the problem, not the solution. :wall:
 
No one think Coles will go back to the Jets??
With Santana, McCareins, and Cotchery? :no:
Coles took a lot of shots at the Jets mgt and Herm on his way out the door - this is why you don't burn bridges. What goes around comes around! As for all the garbage the Jets for the Redskins purge.....this is why moves have to be analyzed a few years later (me included). Jets should send the Skins a thank you card for the picks and lots of cap room! Bradaway is looking better and better lately!I remember Snyder crowing about pilfering the Jets too so a big F you to him as well!
 
From a Redskins message board, citing Mark Maske (his "NFL Insider" column appears in the Washington Post) on Tony Kornheiser's radio show:

The skins don't want anyone that doesn't want to be here. He is also saying that the Skins want a true #1 WR and they don't think Coles with this injury is a #1.The skins wanted him to have this surgery but he refused, so that is why this is happening.They might be looking at Mason, Porter, or Plaxico...........................................He also mentioned he wouldn't be surprised now if we go after Moss.........................The bottom line according to Maske is the skins feel if Coles doesn't have the surgery he is not a #1 and that is what they want, a true #1 WR.
 
I certainly do think this is a big reason for the Redskins showing interest in Muhsin.I think a move like this by Coles is very smart. That offense is going nowhere, fast. Until they can get that QB situation figured out, and other receivers to help out there, they will continue to struggle.Coles going to ATL or any number of cities would be huge for him. He'd be one to keep an eye out for in drafts, methinks... :thumbup:

 
I would like to see Coles end up in Dallas. Coles would be a great deep thread for Bledsoe if Dallas chooses to go that route.Plus, if they acquired Coles, they wouldn't have to use one of their NO.1 draft picks on WR, and could use them on defense where they need it.
I would love to see this. Considering he's on my roster for another year I really need this guy to be anywhere but Washington. All I can think about their offense is that Bangahaha video of Brunell not being to hit the ocean because of the Sea Gulls :rotflmao: About the only place I wouldn't want to see him is Atlanta. Vick just doesn't throw for enough yards. Jacksonville, back with the Jets, Dallas with Bledsoe chucking the rock, even Oakland if Porter goes - all great destinations. Even as a #2 across from TO would be better than being the #1 in Washington....The Washington Redskins were Passers and Receivers go to die.
 
As a Cowboys fan....YES! I love the Redskins shooting themsleves in the foot every single year!You couldn't make this stuff up if you tried!  :no: :rotflmao:  :rotflmao:  :rotflmao:
I'm sure the Redskins are :rotflmao: at the thought that the Cowboys will have Drew Bledsoe as their starting QB. Just saying.
:confused: Um...why? Drew Bledsoe is a better QB than anybody the Redskins have?!?! Trust me, the Cowboys don't need a QB at all to beat the Redskins.
That's true. I'm unbiased on this matter as I'm a Bucs fan, but I think the Redskins still has the better team with their defense.
 
No one think Coles will go back to the Jets??
With Santana, McCareins, and Cotchery? :no:
Coles took a lot of shots at the Jets mgt and Herm on his way out the door - this is why you don't burn bridges. What goes around comes around! As for all the garbage the Jets for the Redskins purge.....this is why moves have to be analyzed a few years later (me included). Jets should send the Skins a thank you card for the picks and lots of cap room! Bradaway is looking better and better lately!I remember Snyder crowing about pilfering the Jets too so a big F you to him as well!
Trotter did the same to the Eagles if I'm not mistaken. I could see him going back.
 
Coles leaving the Skins is tough. I really liked the guy, but he just hasn't been the same since his foot issue. I hope he get's his foot back in action and makes the Skins regret letting him go.

 
Remember, Parcells was the one who drafted Coles in 2000.He's got ties to Dallas and the Jets, along with the Jacksonville area. My money would be on him landing in one of those three places.

 
According to the CBA, the Skins would get credit for the refunded in the “next league year”. Is that 2005 or 2006? Has the 2005 league year started yet?

v) Credit for Signing Bonuses Refunded. In the event that a Team receives a refund from the player of any previously paid portion of a signing bonus, or the Team fails to pay any previously allocated portion of a signing bonus, such amount as has previously been included in Team Salary shall be added to the Team’s Salary Cap for the next League Year.
Look at p.105 http://www.nflpa.org/Members/main.asp?subPage=CBA+Complete
 
I would like to see Coles end up in Dallas. Coles would be a great deep thread for Bledsoe if Dallas chooses to go that route.Plus, if they acquired Coles, they wouldn't have to use one of their NO.1 draft picks on WR, and could use them on defense where they need it.
Didn't they HAVE 2 good good deep threats in Galloway and Bryant?
No, Galloway gets hurt and can't be counted on.Bryant had potential but that potential didn't materialize. Lavernous Coles has proven that he's a solid WR.He had 90 receptions last year and in the right offense still can be VERY effective.
 
Sportstalk 980 has reported that Joe Gibbs called a press conference to deny that the Redskins are going to release Coles. I have not found a transcript yet. They followed it with an interview with Nunyo Demasio of the Washington Post, who apparently questioned Gibbs during the press conference, and stuck to his story that Coles will be released or traded.

 
Explains their interest in Muhammad at the least.Where does Coles end up? If he wants a deep passing game, he'd be an awesome addition to the KC offense opposite Morton. Dallas would also be a great fit, as Dallas really needs and wants a primary option.
I think if this happens, there is real good chance that he ends up in Jacksonville. He is from Jax and they are looking to add a receiver.
Jimmy Smith is good right now.Reggie Williams will get better.I don't think Jacksonville really NEEDS a WR. They could use some defensive end help along with some upgrades to the cornerback position.
 
This is curious.  Why wouldn't Washington and Coles mutually agree to keep the unhappiness quiet, and get a list of teams for whom Coles would like to play?  I'm sure many teams would kill to add him to their WR corp.  I can't believe that the Skins would acquiesce with Coles' request without getting anything in return for an asset like him.
As noted in the article, hes returning part of his signing bonus(one would assume the pro-rated portion that has not played out).If they trade him, they take a massive cap hit from the bonus being pro-rated out.Both sides get what they want. Coles gets out, Skins get no cap trouble.
Actually no, there really is no reason for the Redskins not to try and trade him first. Even if he gives part of his signing bonus back to the Redskins, it still all counts against the cap. No cap relief in it.Any signing bonus immediately is prorated against the cap when the deal is signed, even if it is paid out in several payments. Like Randy Moss. I'm pretty sure his SB was paid out in two payments of $9 million, but the $18 million was prorated over the entire contract.
ReRead the CBA and get back to me on that.Money not spent is money not counted against the cap. Theres a reason teams go to such lengths to pursue signing bonus money when a Kenean McCardell type situation comes up.
ESPN reports sources close to Washington Redskins WR Laveranues Coles told ESPN.com on Monday morning that the Redskins were "trying to back off" their agreement to release the wide receiver and that they were tryng to trade him before making such a drastic move. A trade would be difficult, though, since the Redskins would absorb a salary cap hit in excess of $9 million. "They can't have it both ways," said one source. "If he's going to repay part of [his signing bonus], it's because he can be a free agent, and choose where he continues his career, not to have them trade him. Honestly, it's a mess right now."
Guess I was wrong about that. I didn't think that was allowed or else more teams would do that when releasing players (forcing them to give back part of the signing bonus).
 
This is curious. Why wouldn't Washington and Coles mutually agree to keep the unhappiness quiet, and get a list of teams for whom Coles would like to play? I'm sure many teams would kill to add him to their WR corp. I can't believe that the Skins would acquiesce with Coles' request without getting anything in return for an asset like him.
As noted in the article, hes returning part of his signing bonus(one would assume the pro-rated portion that has not played out).If they trade him, they take a massive cap hit from the bonus being pro-rated out.

Both sides get what they want. Coles gets out, Skins get no cap trouble.
Actually no, there really is no reason for the Redskins not to try and trade him first. Even if he gives part of his signing bonus back to the Redskins, it still all counts against the cap. No cap relief in it.Any signing bonus immediately is prorated against the cap when the deal is signed, even if it is paid out in several payments. Like Randy Moss. I'm pretty sure his SB was paid out in two payments of $9 million, but the $18 million was prorated over the entire contract.
ReRead the CBA and get back to me on that.Money not spent is money not counted against the cap. Theres a reason teams go to such lengths to pursue signing bonus money when a Kenean McCardell type situation comes up.
ESPN reports sources close to Washington Redskins WR Laveranues Coles told ESPN.com on Monday morning that the Redskins were "trying to back off" their agreement to release the wide receiver and that they were tryng to trade him before making such a drastic move. A trade would be difficult, though, since the Redskins would absorb a salary cap hit in excess of $9 million. "They can't have it both ways," said one source. "If he's going to repay part of [his signing bonus], it's because he can be a free agent, and choose where he continues his career, not to have them trade him. Honestly, it's a mess right now."
Guess I was wrong about that. I didn't think that was allowed or else more teams would do that when releasing players (forcing them to give back part of the signing bonus).
How would a team force a player to return their signing bonus if that player knew he was being cut? What leverage would the team have to do so?
"Mr. Coles, you can stay with us and make your $1.5million this year, then we'll probably have to cut you next june (after all the cap space is gone across the league) since you won't get that foot surgery. Or, if you give us back $5million dollars now, you can be out on the free agent market where your agent says you can get a $10+million signing bonus before deciding whether to have your surgery. You decide."
 
This is curious.  Why wouldn't Washington and Coles mutually agree to keep the unhappiness quiet, and get a list of teams for whom Coles would like to play?  I'm sure many teams would kill to add him to their WR corp.  I can't believe that the Skins would acquiesce with Coles' request without getting anything in return for an asset like him.
As noted in the article, hes returning part of his signing bonus(one would assume the pro-rated portion that has not played out).If they trade him, they take a massive cap hit from the bonus being pro-rated out.

Both sides get what they want. Coles gets out, Skins get no cap trouble.
Actually no, there really is no reason for the Redskins not to try and trade him first. Even if he gives part of his signing bonus back to the Redskins, it still all counts against the cap. No cap relief in it.Any signing bonus immediately is prorated against the cap when the deal is signed, even if it is paid out in several payments. Like Randy Moss. I'm pretty sure his SB was paid out in two payments of $9 million, but the $18 million was prorated over the entire contract.
ReRead the CBA and get back to me on that.Money not spent is money not counted against the cap. Theres a reason teams go to such lengths to pursue signing bonus money when a Kenean McCardell type situation comes up.
ESPN reports sources close to Washington Redskins WR Laveranues Coles told ESPN.com on Monday morning that the Redskins were "trying to back off" their agreement to release the wide receiver and that they were tryng to trade him before making such a drastic move. A trade would be difficult, though, since the Redskins would absorb a salary cap hit in excess of $9 million. "They can't have it both ways," said one source. "If he's going to repay part of [his signing bonus], it's because he can be a free agent, and choose where he continues his career, not to have them trade him. Honestly, it's a mess right now."
Guess I was wrong about that. I didn't think that was allowed or else more teams would do that when releasing players (forcing them to give back part of the signing bonus).
How would a team force a player to return their signing bonus if that player knew he was being cut? What leverage would the team have to do so?
This really isn't a tough concept. Yes, LC could "screw" the Skins by refusing to return any of his signing bonus, but in doing so, he screws himself far worse. The only chance he's going to have of landing a decent contract elsewhere is by being available while the other teams in the league still have the cash to spend. That means being on the market early - not after June 1st. Anyone that honestly thinks they can land a worthwhile deal by that point is kidding themselves - just ask Antonio Freeman. He ruined his career trying to play that game. There's no chance LC is going to put himself in a position where he's playing for a big contract on a lame foot because he had to settle for a 1 year or short term deal in June just to "screw" the Skins over.
 
Sportstalk 980 reported this morning that the Redskins are hastily trying to trade Coles, that doing so would required Coles to forfeit some of his bonus money, and that they're talking to the Jets about a Coles-for Abraham deal. My read on this (which could be totally wrong) is that Coles has already agreed to give back some money to either be traded (preferable to the Redskins) or released, despite Gibbs's denials yesterday.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
NY papers have acknowledged that JEts are talking trade with the Skins regarding Lav Coles. Jets already rejected the John Abe offer and I think they would probably only do it for a mid rd pick. Wash looks desperate at this point. If it did happen, interesting WR quandry for the JEts. Jets could have S. Moss as a #3 WR - pretty crazy considering how he went off two years ago.

 
This is curious. Why wouldn't Washington and Coles mutually agree to keep the unhappiness quiet, and get a list of teams for whom Coles would like to play? I'm sure many teams would kill to add him to their WR corp. I can't believe that the Skins would acquiesce with Coles' request without getting anything in return for an asset like him.
As noted in the article, hes returning part of his signing bonus(one would assume the pro-rated portion that has not played out).If they trade him, they take a massive cap hit from the bonus being pro-rated out.

Both sides get what they want. Coles gets out, Skins get no cap trouble.
Actually no, there really is no reason for the Redskins not to try and trade him first. Even if he gives part of his signing bonus back to the Redskins, it still all counts against the cap. No cap relief in it.Any signing bonus immediately is prorated against the cap when the deal is signed, even if it is paid out in several payments. Like Randy Moss. I'm pretty sure his SB was paid out in two payments of $9 million, but the $18 million was prorated over the entire contract.
ReRead the CBA and get back to me on that.Money not spent is money not counted against the cap. Theres a reason teams go to such lengths to pursue signing bonus money when a Kenean McCardell type situation comes up.
ESPN reports sources close to Washington Redskins WR Laveranues Coles told ESPN.com on Monday morning that the Redskins were "trying to back off" their agreement to release the wide receiver and that they were tryng to trade him before making such a drastic move. A trade would be difficult, though, since the Redskins would absorb a salary cap hit in excess of $9 million. "They can't have it both ways," said one source. "If he's going to repay part of [his signing bonus], it's because he can be a free agent, and choose where he continues his career, not to have them trade him. Honestly, it's a mess right now."
Guess I was wrong about that. I didn't think that was allowed or else more teams would do that when releasing players (forcing them to give back part of the signing bonus).
How would a team force a player to return their signing bonus if that player knew he was being cut? What leverage would the team have to do so?
This really isn't a tough concept. Yes, LC could "screw" the Skins by refusing to return any of his signing bonus, but in doing so, he screws himself far worse. The only chance he's going to have of landing a decent contract elsewhere is by being available while the other teams in the league still have the cash to spend. That means being on the market early - not after June 1st. Anyone that honestly thinks they can land a worthwhile deal by that point is kidding themselves - just ask Antonio Freeman. He ruined his career trying to play that game. There's no chance LC is going to put himself in a position where he's playing for a big contract on a lame foot because he had to settle for a 1 year or short term deal in June just to "screw" the Skins over.
JINX, We all understand why it is occuring in this instance.

Heinzer and I are talking in hypotheticals about why more teams dont do this to other players.

Youre statement is correct, but the same thing has already been said multiple times in this thread.
Hey just out of curiosity, can we stop quoting quotes over and over? It's starts to look ridiculous after a while.
 
Good article here;http://www.washingtonpost.com/sportsif :honda: then :bag:

Coles Is on the Trading BlockMove Would Be Contingent on Redskin Agreeing to Restructure ContractBy Nunyo DemasioWashington Post Staff WriterTuesday, February 22, 2005; Page D01 The Washington Redskins are trying to trade disgruntled wide receiver Laveranues Coles to avoid having to release him without receiving anything in return, according to NFL sources. But any move is contingent on Coles agreeing to restructure his contract. One possibility, according to a source, involves Coles forfeiting a $5 million deferred signing bonus payment he is scheduled to receive April 1 in exchange for being sent to a team of his choice. Such a move would limit the amount of money that Coles would account for under the Redskins' salary cap. _____Follow the Money_____Unless Laveranues Coles agrees to forfeit some of his signing bonus, the Redskins will be hard-pressed to get rid of him because of the salary cap. One way out:Coles forfeits the $5 million deferred payment due April 1 (part of the $13 million signing bonus in his seven-year, $35 million contract) and is traded or released. If Coles is traded, his new team likely would pay him the $5 million.If that is done before March 2, the start of the NFL's fiscal year, the team's salary cap hit for Coles next season would be $4.3 million. The Redskins already had allotted $3.36 million for Coles, so they would have to come up with about $1 million in additional cap room. After March 2, he would count $9.3 million against the cap in 2005 but the team would receive a $5 million cap credit in the 2006 season. If Coles does nothing, he would count $9.3 million against the cap next season if he is released before June 1 or traded at any point. If he is cut after June 1, he would count $1.86 million against next season's cap and $7.4 million in the 2006 season. The Washington Post reported yesterday that Coles has asked to leave the team because he dislikes its ball-control offense. The Post reported that sources said owner Daniel Snyder, Coach Joe Gibbs, Coles and Roosevelt Barnes, Coles's agent, had reached an oral agreement that stipulated the club would release Coles if he returned part of the $13 million bonus he received when he signed a seven-year, $35 million contract in 2003. et al.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Per the Washington Post (see post above), Coles is due a $5M bonus as part of his signing bonus on April 1. The ideal situation for the Redskins is to trade Coles and have another team pick up the $5M bonus (or have Coles waive the $5M payment). If this does not occur, I could see the Redskins waiving Coles in exchange for Coles waiving the $5M bonus. If Coles refuses to waive the bonus, I think the Redskins will keep Coles.If the Redskins are willing to keep Coles, they do have some leverage.

 
If anything, this entire episode has cemented my impression of just how demented my fellow skins fans are. I've been reading the extremeskins message board and between those convinced that we'll get Moss, that we'll pull off a one for one trade of Coles for Abraham, that we'll manage to move up in the draft for Mike Williams, etc I've come to the inevitable conclusion that most Skins fans are clinically insane.

 
Per the Washington Post (see post above), Coles is due a $5M bonus as part of his signing bonus on April 1. The ideal situation for the Redskins is to trade Coles and have another team pick up the $5M bonus
It is conceivable. Anyone trading for Coles would be getting him at 5yrs/$18.5m, or as little as 3yrs/$7.5m before a big raise kicks in. I could easily see a team willing to add a $5m roster/signing bonus as part of a trade given the bargain salaries they'd pay him for the next three years.
 
If anything, this entire episode has cemented my impression of just how demented my fellow skins fans are....I've come to the inevitable conclusion that most Skins fans are clinically insane.
You just realized that now?
 
NY papers have acknowledged that JEts are talking trade with the Skins regarding Lav Coles. 
Seriously?What's next? Denver trading for Clinton Portis?Edit: Yep, I see this is a serious story. Weird.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
This is a very big hit for the Redskins, there's no way around that. Coles did everything they asked of him without complaining, played hurt, caught 90 passes in a crappy passing offense. This hurts them, possibly badly.
Noway does this hurt the Skins. This team is better without a player who wants to leave than with him. WR can be had in FA and in the draft. The Skins could end up with Plex, Moose, Mason or even Mike Williams. They also have third year T.Jacobs, who will play the second year in this system. This Coles guy wants out? Let him out. Skins have a stron D and will do better next year! Oh - did I mention already, I'm a Redskins fan? ;) :football:
 
I heard an interview with McCants on local radio today.. he thinks he'll be gone next year and Coles will probably stay due to money. Just passing along the rumor..

 
They're coming to take me away! They're coming to take me away!I BUILT the Asylum, and am a permanent resident... :ph34r: All this (and more is to follow, of that you can be sure - Coles won't be the first surprise player of note to be gone before training camp. I put the over/under on shockers at 3 more before all is said and done) is simply Joe Gibbs putting his stamp on the Redskins, and building a team based on the old school team oriented, values based plan he succeeded with before, where success follows from buying into an ideal and working together as a team to achieve it. Call it 'The Redskins Way', if you will - it's been missing for a long, long time. Can you imagine what it was like for Gibbs to return to the 'skins? And possibly why he put it off for so long? I mean, he must have walked in and been in complete shock that the franchise he'd been responsible for picking up off the trashheap and turning into an organization that won on and off the field had turned into a complete mockery of everything he and JKC had built. I mean, working for Snyder would have been bad enough, but fixing something so horribly twisted and broken on top of that? Not First thing was to establish some standards and ensure continuity (building a firm foundation of the house before making decisions about the carpet and drapes), which is now underway with the coaching staff remaining largely unchanged for the first time in years, and the implications that Greg Williams is being groomed to take over the reigns when Gibbs eventually moves upstairs as full-time Team President. The Redskins situation as a team that Gibbs and Co. walked into last year (and I'm mostly talking about locker room, attitude, pride in team over individual, and lack of culture or identity), are kind of like one of those city-states the Romans used to have to deal with, where after taking charge, they realized the only way to fix things for good was to radically eliminate the opposition, burn the place to the ground, sow salt into the earth so nothing could grow there for years, and then start over from scratch. There's plenty wrong with the 'skins that needs to be fixed, and like most things that have been allowed to go on for far too long (there's a laundry list of examples relating to the liberal agenda in the US, but that's for the FFA), the only REAL way to deal with them is to eliminate them entirely, and build from the ground up. James Thrash = gets it. Taylor Jacobs gets James Thrash = increase in PT. Gardner/Coles = don't get it = gone = no big deal, because Gibbs will find players who, in a team based, values oriented environment will exceed their own abilities, and as a team, find success. After 2 years of being Spurrierized, and the constant turmoil that's gone on since The Squire's passing, for things to finally be right here in 'skinsland, it MUST get worse before it gets better - it's the only way......although I doubt we'll soon see an end to the ridiculous Purple/Green/Orange FedEx colors plastered all over the outside of the stadium...only when those go, and are replaced by soothing hues of burgundy and gold, will all be right in the world again...Yikes, here come the fellas in the white coats. Gotta go.

 
If anything, this entire episode has cemented my impression of just how demented my fellow skins fans are. I've been reading the extremeskins message board and between those convinced that we'll get Moss, that we'll pull off a one for one trade of Coles for Abraham, that we'll manage to move up in the draft for Mike Williams, etc I've come to the inevitable conclusion that most Skins fans are clinically insane.
You and I are often on different sides of the political fence, Scooby, but this conclusion is spot on. :D
 
Coles for Abraham is a fantasy. The Jets have over $8 million in cap space with Abraham tagged, so they have no incentive to get rid of him. As for the trade and the waiving of signing bonuses, it's not simple. The 'Skins want to get out f the $5 million b/c unpaid bonus money doesn't count against the cap. If Washington cuts Coles or trades him, they'll take an immediate $9 million hit. But if Coles agrees to waive his bonus, the bonus wont hit the contract. The problem is that the union and the league dont really like the idea, b/c it defeats the whole idea of guaranteed money impacting the cap the way it does. If players can agree to return bonus money and have that money come off of the cap, you're going to see a lot of teams trying to backdoor players in this manner. In addition to that problem, there's the cut-or-trade problem. If Coles agrees to waive bonus money, he's going to want to get cut and be able to sign a contract with whatever team HE wants to play for. There's no reason for him to give back money if he's going to get traded. If he gets traded, he's sure to get his money from one team or the other. If he's goign to stay on the 'Skins, they'll have to pay him his money So why would he want to give back the money if he's nto buying his freedom? That's where things are at. It's not clear to me that the NFL will allow Coles to give back some of his bonues and then get traded, but if they do, Coels will go for a 4th or 5th rounder, no higher. Though he is only 27, he has a two-year toe injury and a relatively large contract. We're going to have to wait and see on this one.

 
I haven't heard the player's union complain about this yet. This isn't the baseball union here.Simple answer would be to renegotiate the contract removing the $5 million defered bonus payment but adding a $5.001 roster bonus due April 1. If he's traded, he gets more money. If he's cut, he just bought his freedom, and he can make it up again with a new deal. (he still earned $9m/2yr with Washington -- not bad).Heck, even the baseball union would allow a player to give up bonus money in return for his freedom (cf Sosa, Sammy).

 
Coles will not agree to rework his contract to facilitate a trade. According to him, the "agreement" he had with the Redskins was to give back part of his bonus money to get released, not to get traded. Washington Post Article

Coles Will Not Rework ContractRefusal Makes Trade Less LikelyBy Nunyo DemasioWashington Post Staff WriterWednesday, February 23, 2005; Page D01Talks between the Washington Redskins and Laveranues Coles have reached a standstill: The wide receiver is unwilling to restructure his contract to facilitate a trade because he believes he had an understanding with the team and would be released, a source close to Coles said last night.The Washington Post reported yesterday that the Redskins are trying to trade Coles to avoid having to release him without anything in return; they gave up a first-round pick when they signed him as a restricted free agent in 2003. But Coles, who wants out of Washington because he is unhappy with the team's conservative offense, apparently wants to become an unrestricted free agent instead, if he forfeits part of his signing bonus. ............................................................................ ESPN.com reported Monday that a deal to release Coles was in place but that the team was trying "to back off" its agreement and make a trade instead.If Coles does not agree to forfeit a portion of the $13 million signing bonus he received when he signed a seven-year, $35-million contract in 2003, the Redskins probably could not trade him because the team would absorb a huge salary cap hit. A source said Monday that talks centered on Coles forfeiting a $5 million signing bonus payment he is due April 1.Coles's contract does not expire until 2010, which means the team can force him to return. And according to one teammate with knowledge of the situation, Coles has said he would return -- and play hard -- if necessary. However, Coles's unhappiness was evident last season, said one starter on the offense, and made it difficult for players to endure the team's struggles. .................................................................... Opinion about Coles's trade value varied among several NFL team executives who were interviewed yesterday and requested anonymity to avoid breaking tampering rules. One GM predicted that a team would give up a late first-round pick for Coles, noting his affordable annual contract. But another NFL team executive, a personnel director, doesn't believe Coles would bring better than a second-round pick. And that NFL executive said that he would start negotiations even lower."I know he has a cap-friendly salary for this year, so some teams would be interested, but everyone would want to take a look at his toe and whether that is going to be a problem," the executive said. "In free agency, he'd be a pricey guy, provided he was healthy or would get healthy for the season. He was a productive player on a struggling offense. That's definitely in his favor."Another GM agreed, saying, "If the guy is healthy, he's very valuable, no question about that. But if he won't get his foot fixed, then it becomes a big 'if.'
 
Coles will not agree to rework his contract to facilitate a trade. According to him, the "agreement" he had with the Redskins was to give back part of his bonus money to get released, not to get traded.

If this is true, it looks like Coles will be a Redskin for the next 2-3 years. It's his decision.

I think if the Redskins can get Coles to give back the $5M payment plus another $2M so there is no cap hit at all, they should consider releasing him.

Coles should seriously consider restucturing his contract so the $5M is a roster bonus due April 1 or maybe even March 15. That way, he gets his money and moves on. If he is trying to become a free agent in hopes of getting another big signing bonus, I really don't really sorry for him.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top