Skip to content

Moss for Lavar?

Jan 21, 2005, 6:53 PM EDT

I really thought that Dan Daly knew better than this. In a recent column he wrote:

The word out of Minnesota is that the Vikings might be ready to part ways with Randy Moss, their never-a-dull-moment wide receiver. Some people in the organization, important people, are ‘exasperated with him,’ my friend Kevin Seifert wrote in the Minneapolis Star Tribune earlier this week. ‘At the very least, they plan to initiate a substantive internal discussion about Moss and his future with the franchise this offseason.’

It’s hard to read that sentence without a picture of Moss in a Redskins uniform popping into your head. I mean, think about it: If the pre-eminent pass catcher in the NFL became available, could Dan Snyder possibly resist taking a run at him?

I doubt it.

[deletia]

Dan the Man has always had a weakness for the Big Splash (see Deion Sanders, Bruce Smith et al.), and trading for Moss would be, well, the Cannonball to End All Cannonballs.

Uh, Dan, the Deion/Smith/George fiasco was five years ago. Even before the grownups, led by Joe Gibbs, came onto the scene Snyder had learned that chasing after big money, big attitude players wasn’t they way to go. There is not much chance of a) Snyder asking Gibbs if he could try to cut a deal for Moss and b) Gibbs giving it the green light. It’s worse than the odds of Rod Gardner not dropping an easy pass, worse than those of Mark Brunell threading a rope between to defenders 35 yards downfield.

But, we’re all allowed to speculate, I guess. But Daly didn’t stop there. He proposed a deal that simply could not be done and I’m amazed that he didn’t realize it.

So imagine, if you will, this scenario: The Vikings send Moss to the Redskins for their No. 1 pick (ninth overall), a No. 2 (either this year or next) and LaVar Arrington (without whom the Washington defense did just fine this season, ranking third in the league).

[deletia]

The trick would be to make the numbers work. The Redskins would be hit with a huge cap charge if they traded Arrington so early in his deal, but they could alleviate some of it by releasing Mark Brunell, their grossly overpaid backup quarterback.

The numbers don’t work, Dan. The cost of trading Arrington and releasing Brunell (the cap consequences are the same in either case) prior to June 1 would be prohibitive. The dead cap for Arrington would be just a shade over $12 million and for Brunell it would be about $3.7 million. Add in Moss’ salary of $7.25 million and you have about $23 million, or over a quarter of the cap, tied up in the acquisition of one player.

Again, prohibitive.

Daly does start to redeem himself towards the end of the column, pointing out the obvious reasons why Gibbs would not want to trade for a player that he saw walk out on his team with time still left on the clock. Guys like Gary Clark and John Riggs marched to a different drummer, but they never marched out of the stadium early.

And if he could find a way to be unhappy in Minnesota, where he scored 90 touchdowns in seven seasons, he could certainly find a way to be unhappy in Washington, where the leading receiver scored only one TD in 16 games this year. Like most serial screw-ups, he’d be on his best behavior with the Redskins until he wasn’t ā€” and then, heaven help them.

Despite this and despite the financial roadblocks the size of the Hoover Dam, in the end, Daly insists that it still could happen.

But desperate teams do desperate things. They’ll even trade for players with more baggage than a 767 ā€” if they’re good enough.

I guess if you’re a columnist desperate for material you’ll come up with something like this.

  1. oneampoet - Jan 21, 2005 at 2:59 PM

    Dan Daly must be smoking some loco weed

  2. oneampoet - Jan 21, 2005 at 6:59 PM

    Dan Daly must be smoking some loco weed

  3. Chris Hughes - Jan 21, 2005 at 3:56 PM

    There is no way, no how, that Gibbs would back a deal for Moss. I agree Daly must be starved for material.

  4. Chris Hughes - Jan 21, 2005 at 7:56 PM

    There is no way, no how, that Gibbs would back a deal for Moss. I agree Daly must be starved for material.

  5. Dustin M. Czarny - Jan 21, 2005 at 5:47 PM

    I can’t agree more….in fact I did agree on my blog (http://cnyskins.blogspot.com/) and on other fan forums. Looks like the Times editorial staff is still punch drunk happy with the Inauguration.

  6. Dustin M. Czarny - Jan 21, 2005 at 9:47 PM

    I can’t agree more….in fact I did agree on my blog (http://cnyskins.blogspot.com/) and on other fan forums. Looks like the Times editorial staff is still punch drunk happy with the Inauguration.

  7. mbarnes202 - Jan 21, 2005 at 7:11 PM

    Daly was not being serious.

    What is serious is that Billick w/BAL (former O-coordinator) and Green w/ARI (former coach) may investigate. It *would* be a huge cap hit, though, for Minnesota.

    I have read that in the case of Arizona, it would include a slew of young players (e.g., DE Berry) plus draft picks. Why Green would do that with both Boldin and Fitzgerald already there is beyond me.

    Baltimore makes more sense, but who would they part with?

    But it does raise the nearly taboo question of whether or not you release or trade LaVar. The cap hit is unmangeable this year, but next year’s cap charge is already slated to be $12MM. I don’t know how much of that is a roster bonus or what, but how do you work that? Is he really worth it?

    I also think they must be concerned with Randy Thomas who is getting paid like an all-pro and seems to perform no better than most offensive guards– I would think he’s a candidate for cuts as well. We have some very serious cap issues in the next two years, and it will be interesting to see how they are handled.

    Rich, when are you going to start posting on FA and the draft?

  8. mbarnes202 - Jan 21, 2005 at 11:11 PM

    Daly was not being serious.

    What is serious is that Billick w/BAL (former O-coordinator) and Green w/ARI (former coach) may investigate. It *would* be a huge cap hit, though, for Minnesota.

    I have read that in the case of Arizona, it would include a slew of young players (e.g., DE Berry) plus draft picks. Why Green would do that with both Boldin and Fitzgerald already there is beyond me.

    Baltimore makes more sense, but who would they part with?

    But it does raise the nearly taboo question of whether or not you release or trade LaVar. The cap hit is unmangeable this year, but next year’s cap charge is already slated to be $12MM. I don’t know how much of that is a roster bonus or what, but how do you work that? Is he really worth it?

    I also think they must be concerned with Randy Thomas who is getting paid like an all-pro and seems to perform no better than most offensive guards– I would think he’s a candidate for cuts as well. We have some very serious cap issues in the next two years, and it will be interesting to see how they are handled.

    Rich, when are you going to start posting on FA and the draft?

  9. Rich Tandler - Jan 21, 2005 at 7:32 PM

    I don’t know, mbarnes, it didn’t seem to be a tongue in cheek job to me, nor did it to most who read it.

    As far as Arrington’s ’06 cap it, it does include a $6 million roster bonus that is convertable to signing bonus at the club’s option. Many such ’06 bonuses are, such as Portis’. That is making the Skins’ current ’06 cap number look worse than it really is. They don’t have much margin for error, to be sure, but they’re not looking at Niner-like cap hell.

    There’s not much FA stuff out there until after the Super Bowl and that’s when you’ll start seeing it around here. I don’t see the Redskins being as active as they have been the past couple of seasons unless Smoot goes. And it doesn’t make too much sense to look hard at the draft until we know who’s come and gone in free agency.

  10. Rich Tandler - Jan 21, 2005 at 11:32 PM

    I don’t know, mbarnes, it didn’t seem to be a tongue in cheek job to me, nor did it to most who read it.

    As far as Arrington’s ’06 cap it, it does include a $6 million roster bonus that is convertable to signing bonus at the club’s option. Many such ’06 bonuses are, such as Portis’. That is making the Skins’ current ’06 cap number look worse than it really is. They don’t have much margin for error, to be sure, but they’re not looking at Niner-like cap hell.

    There’s not much FA stuff out there until after the Super Bowl and that’s when you’ll start seeing it around here. I don’t see the Redskins being as active as they have been the past couple of seasons unless Smoot goes. And it doesn’t make too much sense to look hard at the draft until we know who’s come and gone in free agency.

  11. Marcus Edwards - Jan 22, 2005 at 2:31 PM

    Randy Moss has no class and no character.
    It would be a bigger travesty to see him wear burgandy and gold than it was to see Deion Sanders wear it.
    Thank goodness Joe Gibbs is around to make sure this doesn’t happen.

  12. Marcus Edwards - Jan 22, 2005 at 6:31 PM

    Randy Moss has no class and no character.
    It would be a bigger travesty to see him wear burgandy and gold than it was to see Deion Sanders wear it.
    Thank goodness Joe Gibbs is around to make sure this doesn’t happen.

  13. Anonymous - Jan 22, 2005 at 6:44 PM

    why wouldn’t you want to have a playmaker on the offence that could change any team? think about what his presence on the field would do for ramsey, portis, coles, and cooley. but, i have a better trade scenario than a lavar trade. (franchise smoot) trade smoot, gardener, and number 9 overall pick for moss. were going to lose smoot anyway, why not do what we did with champ bailey last year. and if the trade were to go through we would obviously restructure moss’s contract.

  14. Anonymous - Jan 22, 2005 at 10:44 PM

    why wouldn’t you want to have a playmaker on the offence that could change any team? think about what his presence on the field would do for ramsey, portis, coles, and cooley. but, i have a better trade scenario than a lavar trade. (franchise smoot) trade smoot, gardener, and number 9 overall pick for moss. were going to lose smoot anyway, why not do what we did with champ bailey last year. and if the trade were to go through we would obviously restructure moss’s contract.

  15. Rich Tandler - Jan 22, 2005 at 7:48 PM

    Well, anonymous, his “presence on the field” would be greatly enhanced if he stayed on the field for the entire game (unlike in Washington) or knew when he should be on the field (unlike on the fake FG in Philly).

    If his talent outweighs his issues, why do the Vikings want to get rid of him? Everyone knows the former, they know the latter better than anyone.

    I don’t think I’d trade even one of the three components you mentioned for Moss, let along all three.

    Sorry, I’ll pass on the problem child.

  16. Rich Tandler - Jan 22, 2005 at 11:48 PM

    Well, anonymous, his “presence on the field” would be greatly enhanced if he stayed on the field for the entire game (unlike in Washington) or knew when he should be on the field (unlike on the fake FG in Philly).

    If his talent outweighs his issues, why do the Vikings want to get rid of him? Everyone knows the former, they know the latter better than anyone.

    I don’t think I’d trade even one of the three components you mentioned for Moss, let along all three.

    Sorry, I’ll pass on the problem child.

  17. Marcus Edwards - Jan 22, 2005 at 9:09 PM

    In addition to what Rich said, Moss was quoted as saying he only goes 100% on about half the plays.
    I would rather see someone with less talent than Randy Moss who will give 100% on each play. That’s the kind of players Joe Gibbs won 3 rings with, not with spoiled primma donnas who only care about themselves.

  18. Marcus Edwards - Jan 23, 2005 at 1:09 AM

    In addition to what Rich said, Moss was quoted as saying he only goes 100% on about half the plays.
    I would rather see someone with less talent than Randy Moss who will give 100% on each play. That’s the kind of players Joe Gibbs won 3 rings with, not with spoiled primma donnas who only care about themselves.

  19. Anonymous - Jan 22, 2005 at 11:36 PM

    You wouldn’t trade one? Smoot is gone, garderner is gone, so basically its a first round pick for moss. The only other thing i need to mention is Owens. Owens was the same player Moss was at the end of his season in SanFran. Then he goes to the Eagles and produces. Its a GUARANTEE that whatever team he goes to he will still produce, and if we are winning he will have nothing to complain about!

  20. Anonymous - Jan 23, 2005 at 3:36 AM

    You wouldn’t trade one? Smoot is gone, garderner is gone, so basically its a first round pick for moss. The only other thing i need to mention is Owens. Owens was the same player Moss was at the end of his season in SanFran. Then he goes to the Eagles and produces. Its a GUARANTEE that whatever team he goes to he will still produce, and if we are winning he will have nothing to complain about!

  21. Rich Tandler - Jan 23, 2005 at 8:31 PM

    Let’s try this again, Anon–

    I wouldn’t trade a warm six pack for Moss.

    Moss is a head case.

    At some point the six pack can get cold.

  22. Rich Tandler - Jan 24, 2005 at 12:31 AM

    Let’s try this again, Anon–

    I wouldn’t trade a warm six pack for Moss.

    Moss is a head case.

    At some point the six pack can get cold.

  23. Muccman - Jan 23, 2005 at 11:53 PM

    Bringing Moss to the Redskins is a horrible idea, it would reverse everything they are trying to do as a franchise and it would be a step backwards. Gibbs brings stability and great values to the team, and as of now they have a solid core of hard-working players who have great potential. Moss would throw off the entire balance of the team and bring in a selfishness uncharacteristic of a Joe Gibbs football team. Gibbs would never want the progress the team has made in their first year together to be rendered worthless. As a diehard skins fan, I would be ashamed to have Moss on my team representing our franchise, and I guarantee you that it will not happen.

  24. Muccman - Jan 24, 2005 at 3:53 AM

    Bringing Moss to the Redskins is a horrible idea, it would reverse everything they are trying to do as a franchise and it would be a step backwards. Gibbs brings stability and great values to the team, and as of now they have a solid core of hard-working players who have great potential. Moss would throw off the entire balance of the team and bring in a selfishness uncharacteristic of a Joe Gibbs football team. Gibbs would never want the progress the team has made in their first year together to be rendered worthless. As a diehard skins fan, I would be ashamed to have Moss on my team representing our franchise, and I guarantee you that it will not happen.

  25. Doug - Jan 24, 2005 at 9:44 AM

    Moss will never be a Redskin. Gibbs wouldn’t tolerate him, and at this stage, I doubt even Dan Snyder would want him.

  26. Doug - Jan 24, 2005 at 1:44 PM

    Moss will never be a Redskin. Gibbs wouldn’t tolerate him, and at this stage, I doubt even Dan Snyder would want him.

  27. mbarnes202 - Jan 24, 2005 at 11:15 PM

    A couple of additional comments, which changes my earlier stance a bit:

    1.) Any trade for Moss would include a re-negotiation of his salary. I hadn’t thought of this before, but it is the only one that makes sense given his extremely large cap-numbers going forward, for his article to NOT be a joke.

    2.) An earlier poster commented that we should franchise Smoot as part of a pacakge with our #1 and Gardner for Moss. Two points: A.) why would we franchise Smoot? To get a #1 in return? Are you contemplating a swap of #1s, ours for theirs? B.) How could we keep both Moss and LaVar under contract?

    3.) Someone commented on the Roster Bonuses for some of our players in ’06– in those years, how does that work, we pro-rate that bonus over the remaining life of the contract? I.e., if LaVar has a $6MM roster bonus in ’06, and he’s signed through ’09, we take a $1.5MM SB cap charge each year from ’06 through ’09, (added to his base) for his cap charge each year? I thought I saw a document somewhere that said LaVar’s CAP CHARGE for ’06 was $12MM. Anyone know more information?

  28. mbarnes202 - Jan 25, 2005 at 3:15 AM

    A couple of additional comments, which changes my earlier stance a bit:

    1.) Any trade for Moss would include a re-negotiation of his salary. I hadn’t thought of this before, but it is the only one that makes sense given his extremely large cap-numbers going forward, for his article to NOT be a joke.

    2.) An earlier poster commented that we should franchise Smoot as part of a pacakge with our #1 and Gardner for Moss. Two points: A.) why would we franchise Smoot? To get a #1 in return? Are you contemplating a swap of #1s, ours for theirs? B.) How could we keep both Moss and LaVar under contract?

    3.) Someone commented on the Roster Bonuses for some of our players in ’06– in those years, how does that work, we pro-rate that bonus over the remaining life of the contract? I.e., if LaVar has a $6MM roster bonus in ’06, and he’s signed through ’09, we take a $1.5MM SB cap charge each year from ’06 through ’09, (added to his base) for his cap charge each year? I thought I saw a document somewhere that said LaVar’s CAP CHARGE for ’06 was $12MM. Anyone know more information?

  29. mbarnes202 - Jan 24, 2005 at 11:18 PM

    Well, well, well.
    Sorry all for the ridiculous repitition– I thought my machine was frozen. Obviously not. Very sorry for the multiple posts.

  30. mbarnes202 - Jan 25, 2005 at 3:18 AM

    Well, well, well.
    Sorry all for the ridiculous repitition– I thought my machine was frozen. Obviously not. Very sorry for the multiple posts.

  31. Rich Tandler - Jan 25, 2005 at 8:12 AM

    No problem, mbarnes, I deleted the excess posts.

    To your question about Lavar’s contract: A roster bonus does hit the cap entirely in the year that it is paid. So, technically, as of right now, Arrington’s 2005 cap hit is indeed $12 million with a $6 million roster bonus and another $6 million in salary and prorated singing bonus.

    However, a clause in the contract (standard in such deals for the Redskins in their recent dealings) permits the Redskins to change that to a signing bonus at their option, no renegotiation with the player necessary. So, the cap hit can be spread as you described, with about $1.5 million going to the cap over the next several seasons. That would make his number a more manageable $7.5 million or so.

    Portis and a few other players have such bonuses and clauses in their contracts for ’06. That’s why, when you hear that the Redskins are headed for cap hell, it’s true (because their actual cap number right now is pretty high), but it’s not (because the team can, solely at is discretion, lower that number considerable by converting the roster bonuses).

  32. Rich Tandler - Jan 25, 2005 at 12:12 PM

    No problem, mbarnes, I deleted the excess posts.

    To your question about Lavar’s contract: A roster bonus does hit the cap entirely in the year that it is paid. So, technically, as of right now, Arrington’s 2005 cap hit is indeed $12 million with a $6 million roster bonus and another $6 million in salary and prorated singing bonus.

    However, a clause in the contract (standard in such deals for the Redskins in their recent dealings) permits the Redskins to change that to a signing bonus at their option, no renegotiation with the player necessary. So, the cap hit can be spread as you described, with about $1.5 million going to the cap over the next several seasons. That would make his number a more manageable $7.5 million or so.

    Portis and a few other players have such bonuses and clauses in their contracts for ’06. That’s why, when you hear that the Redskins are headed for cap hell, it’s true (because their actual cap number right now is pretty high), but it’s not (because the team can, solely at is discretion, lower that number considerable by converting the roster bonuses).

  33. mbarnes202 - Jan 25, 2005 at 10:00 PM

    Rich,
    Thank you for that very clear explanation. Wheh, I really did think we were in trouble. You’ve calmed my nerves a bit.

  34. mbarnes202 - Jan 26, 2005 at 2:00 AM

    Rich,
    Thank you for that very clear explanation. Wheh, I really did think we were in trouble. You’ve calmed my nerves a bit.

RealRedskins.com Archives

Follow Us On Twitter