Think This Trade Would Be Realistic

[Sharkinva]

Ok...so which FA receiver are you thinking we can get that can produce as well as Garcon for a similar contract?????

Corection.. .Which FA WR can we get that will be younger, produce just as much and NOT cost more??

 

[Lonewate44]

Corection.. .Which FA WR can we get that will be younger, produce just as much and NOT cost more??

Fine.........


Where is the list of these quality guys you are referring to???????


Keeping in mind the cap hit we take for cutting him...becasue lets be real....No team will trade for him AND take on his contract........

 

[skinsdad62]

NFL Free Agency 100: Top 12 Wide Receivers | Bleacher Report

here is a list of free agent wrs stymie wont find it for you but i will

 

[Lonewate44]

NFL Free Agency 100: Top 12 Wide Receivers | Bleacher Report

here is a list of free agent wrs stymie wont find it for you but i will

I saw the list...but from that list, for what 4 mil aprox....those guys wont match his production!!!! That was my point...yours too I believe Dad!!1

 

[Stymietee]

NFL Free Agency 100: Top 12 Wide Receivers | Bleacher Report

here is a list of free agent wrs stymie wont find it for you but i will

Someone on this thread asked me to do that?

 

[Stymietee]

Or Maybe this younger Wr will come in and Not be as good as we hoped.....AKA Roberts

True it is a realistic possibility as is the possibility that a signed or drafted Wideout could be better, far better! I know, I know, not in the minds of some here. How will we ever get by, when he's gone?

 

[SoCalWizFan]

True it is a realistic possibility as is the possibility that a signed or drafted Wideout could be better, far better! I know, I know, not in the minds of some here. How will we ever get by, when he's gone?

If the new GM is as good as advertised then situations like this will occur often. IMO - two of the model franchises in this area have been the Pats & Eagles. Both of these teams consistently get rid of fan favorites at or just past their peak & replaced them with younger players & the results were good in most cases. Players like Seymour, Welker, Brian Dawkins, etc were moved out in spite of complaints by some fans & the team generally improved.

I expect to see similar from the Skins during the next several years & this could be the case for Garcon - I am good whether they keep or don't keep him.

 

[redskinsfan]

I that case its called spinning your wheels. We trade Garcon, sigh a starting caliber WR which will likely cost us the same $5 million we saved by dealing Garcon.... What exactly did we accomplish?? Now im fine with dealing Cousins because I do agree he wont get a real shot at the job. I just dont see a LOGICAL reason for dealing Garcon and bringing in some one who will need to learn the offense and likely cost just as much.

Well said. Keep in mind that we're still trying to mold RG3 into our franchise QB. The first thing we do is to bolster the o-line. Signing someone like a Mike Iupati and drafting an OT is a must. But keeping Pierre Garcon, who could start on most teams and do so very effectively, is right up there as well. Believe it or not, we've got most skill positions on our offense set. We just need an o-line to protect the QB, and for that QB to develop into the passer he needs to be. Maintaining stability and continuity with people like Garcon is mandatory.

 

[skinsdad62]

True it is a realistic possibility as is the possibility that a signed or drafted Wideout could be better, far better! I know, I know, not in the minds of some here. How will we ever get by, when he's gone?

again stymie i will go over it for you . we wont get value for garcon because of his contract size hence trading him most likely wont happen

the list of free agent wrs means most of the savings we gain by cutting him will be reinvested into a cheaper supposedly better replacement .

and roberts hasnt sniffed the production of garcon and 7 catch world beater grant doesnt appear to me to be a 70 catch guy

now we could put off a need in another area and spin wheels on a wr

why not simply keep garcon , and get the 10 mil in cap space in after 2016 when you will need it . by then an affordable replacement could be found or you can resign him at a better rate ?

but wait we cant because you dont like him

 

[Stymietee]

again stymie i will go over it for you . we wont get value for garcon because of his contract size hence trading him most likely wont happen

the list of free agent wrs means most of the savings we gain by cutting him will be reinvested into a cheaper supposedly better replacement .

and roberts hasnt sniffed the production of garcon and 7 catch world beater grant doesnt appear to me to be a 70 catch guy

now we could put off a need in another area and spin wheels on a wr

why not simply keep garcon , and get the 10 mil in cap space in after 2016 when you will need it . by then an affordable replacement could be found or you can resign him at a better rate ?

but wait we cant because you dont like him

I saw this on that other thread and was stunned at the lack of foresight in it so I ignored it in part because of that and secondarily because your rants frankly have taken on a more personal tone to them.

Now that I have more time to respond, let's clear up one thing first and foremost. Like most sane people aiming my personal feeling towards any professional athlete without the benefit of getting to know that particular individual is a non starter. Unlike you and your Griffin rants, I have NEVER attacked the man personally. Everything that I've ever said or written about him (Garcon) had to do with his status on the field. Which brings me back to your postings.

Your issue is that you refuse to see that Washington overpaid Garcon from the beginning as I stated from the beginning. You decided to call it hatred, or that I don't like the guy on some personal level because it fit your narrative.

You state that the team won't get value for him in trade and you would be correct, simply because he's overpaid and finding a trade partner would be difficult. Here's the problem, June is approaching quickly and decisions will have to be made at a position where the team is currently paying two players salaries generally reserved for one. On a team that has so many holes to fill, this is a luxury that it simply cannot afford especially since they would be paying a former 113 catch player the same salary as a 68 catch player.

Then you state that the team would essentially find itself in a wash replacing Garcon with a cheaper,
supposedly better replacement (which you later contradicted) . Would they? They save 5.5 million dollars releasing him before June 1, what makes you think that the goal is to get another WR? (Keep in mind I don't advocate releasing him, never have) Sometimes you have to take a step backwards before going ahead, luckily this team has only 3 or 4 backwards steps left. (3-13.....4-12) They were paying Santana Moss and Hankerson to dress and do little more than fill roster spots. That means contrary to your calculations the team would only need 1 WR if they moved Garcon. why not draft one?

In as much as Roberts and Grant are concerned, it's hard to sniff the production of Garcon when you're the 3rd option (Roberts) on a team like this one has been. The real question is what can he do when he's actually placed in the role that he was originally bought here to fill? I see it as no harm no foul type of thing, the team is going to be bad anyway. Then illogically, you pronounce Grant a bust by belittling him as a 7 catch world beater. Truthfully he was kept because he has potential, time to see what he can do by first using him as the 3rd option behind DJax and Roberts.

Here's another stunner coming from you, you claim that the team should keep him then realize the 10 million in cap space after the 2016 season when the team needs it, right? Newsflash the teams needs to restructure its' salary structure now not in the 3rd season of this rebuild. You've also said that the team has been in rebuild mode for some time now on that other thread. You are wrong there too, or do you have some other explanation for the signings of Hatcher and Clark? That's not rebuild that's the same ole' pick and patch crap that's been going on since 1999. This is the 1st year that the team has a actual GM, to say that the rebuild began earlier is just flatly wrong.

Finally, to redo his (Garcon's) contract would mean dead money in later years, not likely, considering McGloughins' history. So far every team that he's been with has let players go as the surpass age or performance peaks in favor of younger talent. Granted Allen has the propensity to work miracles on contractual dealings, but he's stated flatly that the team would no longer be interested in restructuring with this as a result. Nope the best option is to take the 4.4 million hit now, trade him, even if you have to do a resign and trade, use the 3rd or 4th pick that you get for him to help in the youth movement. (Notice that I didn't say 6th round pick that you've falsely claimed that I said he would bring this year....other thread)

 

[skinsdad62]

I saw this on that other thread and was stunned at the lack of foresight in it so I ignored it in part because of that and secondarily because your rants frankly have taken on a more personal tone to them.

Now that I have more time to respond, let's clear up one thing first and foremost. Like most sane people aiming my personal feeling towards any professional athlete without the benefit of getting to know that particular individual is a non starter. Unlike you and your Griffin rants, I have NEVER attacked the man personally. Everything that I've ever said or written about him (Garcon) had to do with his status on the field. Which brings me back to your postings.

Your issue is that you refuse to see that Washington overpaid Garcon from the beginning as I stated from the beginning. You decided to call it hatred, or that I don't like the guy on some personal level because it fit your narrative.

You state that the team won't get value for him in trade and you would be correct, simply because he's overpaid and finding a trade partner would be difficult. Here's the problem, June is approaching quickly and decisions will have to be made at a position where the team is currently paying two players salaries generally reserved for one. On a team that has so many holes to fill, this is a luxury that it simply cannot afford especially since they would be paying a former 113 catch player the same salary as a 68 catch player.

Then you state that the team would essentially find itself in a wash replacing Garcon with a cheaper,
supposedly better replacement (which you later contradicted) . Would they? They save 5.5 million dollars releasing him before June 1, what makes you think that the goal is to get another WR? (Keep in mind I don't advocate releasing him, never have) Sometimes you have to take a step backwards before going ahead, luckily this team has only 3 or 4 backwards steps left. (3-13.....4-12) They were paying Santana Moss and Hankerson to dress and do little more than fill roster spots. That means contrary to your calculations the team would only need 1 WR if they moved Garcon. why not draft one?

In as much as Roberts and Grant are concerned, it's hard to sniff the production of Garcon when you're the 3rd option (Roberts) on a team like this one has been. The real question is what can he do when he's actually placed in the role that he was originally bought here to fill? I see it as no harm no foul type of thing, the team is going to be bad anyway. Then illogically, you pronounce Grant a bust by belittling him as a 7 catch world beater. Truthfully he was kept because he has potential, time to see what he can do by first using him as the 3rd option behind DJax and Roberts.

Here's another stunner coming from you, you claim that the team should keep him then realize the 10 million in cap space after the 2016 season when the team needs it, right? Newsflash the teams needs to restructure its' salary structure now not in the 3rd season of this rebuild. You've also said that the team has been in rebuild mode for some time now on that other thread. You are wrong there too, or do you have some other explanation for the signings of Hatcher and Clark? That's not rebuild that's the same ole' pick and patch crap that's been going on since 1999. This is the 1st year that the team has a actual GM, to say that the rebuild began earlier is just flatly wrong.

Finally, to redo his (Garcon's) contract would mean dead money in later years, not likely, considering McGloughins' history. So far every team that he's been with has let players go as the surpass age or performance peaks in favor of younger talent. Granted Allen has the propensity to work miracles on contractual dealings, but he's stated flatly that the team would no longer be interested in restructuring with this as a result. Nope the best option is to take the 4.4 million hit now, trade him, even if you have to do a resign and trade, use the 3rd or 4th pick that you get for him to help in the youth movement. (Notice that I didn't say 6th round pick that you've falsely claimed that I said he would bring this year....other thread)

what you dont understand is no team is going to have only 4 wrs on their roster . we carried 6 - 2 is 4 trading garcon makes it 3 hence their are 3 wr spots

roberts , in his career hasnt been a number 2 and its doubful he will now

grant could be a good wr down the road but at this point he is a 4-5 guy he is slow and he is weak physically .

you do save 5.5 mil on garcon however you have to get a wr in FA to fill the roster spot which will cost 3-4 mil just for a body

why not simply cut hall in garcon;s steed and call it a day ? why not redo his contract ? why do i have to trade him (which wont bring us value ) or cut him ?

we have enough money to fill some holes this year without touching garcon luxury or not

i dont understand the personal attacks but if i have made them then you deserve an apology

 

[skinsdad62]

by the way frank gore and justin smith are but 2 guys the 49ers have kept that were past 30 or the normal productive shelf life of players at their positions so i guess that point is shot down as well