Jan 25, 2005, 2:14 AM EDT
In the long history of this blog (OK, just five months), there has never been a reaction to an entry the likes of the one received to the Randy Moss trade speculation talk that appeared here last week. There have been so many comments, challenges and questions that a follow up is called for.
First of all, let me clarify my position. The original blog entry focused on one column by Dan Daly of the Times that proposed trading Lavar Arrington, a first and a second pick for Moss and then releasing Mark Brunell to help pay for the deal. There are some who proposed other deals and other ways of making it happen and how to restructure Moss’ deal to make it all fit under the cap. None of that mattered to me. Here is the official Redskins Blog position on the possibility of trading for Randy Moss:
I would not trade a warm six pack for Randy Moss.
Moss is a head case, a problem child, and a cancer.
At some point the six pack can get cold.
With that out of the way, let’s turn to some of the comments I’ve received.
The vast majority thought that trading for Moss would be a bad idea.
There is no way, no how, that Gibbs would back a deal for Moss. . .
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. . .
Moss will never be a Redskin. Gibbs wouldn’t tolerate him, and at this stage, I doubt even Dan Snyder would want him. . .
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. . .
The notion that Joe Gibbs would agree to trade a star player with character for one without is far more prohibitive than the financial restrictions, IMO. . .
Ok, let’s just drop all this crazy speculation that we might trade for Moss. His punk arse won’t EVER have the privilege of wearing the burgundy and gold, certainly not under Gibbs’ watch. You can take THAT to the bank, folks.
On the other hand, there has been some love for the idea of picking up Moss if the right deal is there:
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! . . .
Why wouldn’t you want to have a playmaker on the offense that could change any team? . . .
Well, just not as many lovers as haters.
More amusing were a few Vikings fans who have piped in hoping to spur a trade of Moss. One wrote me to say that the Redskins could convert Moss’ 2005 salary to bonus and spread out the impact. When I explained that the Redskins need no part of additional cap hits in the future, he said:
You are right. I just want to see Minnesota get rid of him.
It seems as though the Daly column has sparked a round of speculation in media throughout the country about the possibility of the Redskins acquiring Moss. Peter King, in a Sports Illustrated.com article speculated that there was a chance that the Redskins would franchise free agent cornerback Fred Smoot and send him and their first-round pick, number 9 overall, to Minnesota for Moss. To his credit, King said that there was only a one in 20 chance of this happening.
The New York Post and the Pioneer Press, a Twin Cities paper, both speculated that a deal that included the Skins’ first rounder and receiver Rod Gardner would work.
Mind you, neither paper nor King cited either a Vikings source or a Redskins source that said such a deal had been proposed by either side. That’s why the word “speculation” is used in both cases.
In their initial round of talks about trading Moss, it seems that the Vikings are trying to make up for one of the biggest trading mistakes that any sports team has ever made. In 1989, they gave up 5 roster players (LB Jesse Solomon, DB Issiac Holt, RB Darrin Nelson, LB David Howard, DE Alex Stewart), and 6 assorted draft picks (conditional 1st & 2nd round in ’90 and ’91; 1st round and conditional 3rd in ’92) in exchange for Herschel Walker. They’re not asking quite that much for Moss, but the initial offers a pretty steep for a 29-year-old receiver.
They aren’t going to get it. No matter who ends up getting Moss, he won’t command a premium player and multiple high draft picks. The reason is simple—everyone knows that the Vikings want to get rid of Moss so it will soon become a buyer’s market. They will be doing well to get a high draft pick OR a good player with maybe another mid-level player or pick thrown in.
Follow Us On Twitter
- Redskins position preview: Inside linebackers
- Need to Know: Do the Redskins need to lock up Cousins before Luck signs?
- NFL to interview players named in Al-Jazeera report, what does that mean for Manning?
- Redskins' McCoy on backing up Cousins: 'I try to help him as much as I can'
- Need to Know: The Redskins week that was—Cousins on the rise
- Redskins position preview: Cornerbacks
- Will the Redskins air it out more in 2016?
- Need to Know: The top five receivers the Redskins will face in 2016
- Redskins' Callahan on Lichtensteiger: 'We’re fortunate to have him'
- As deadline approaches, little momentum for Kirk Cousins' long-term deal