Skip to content

More on Moss to Skins Talk

Jan 25, 2005, 2:14 AM EST

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.

  1. Anonymous - Jan 25, 2005 at 12:38 AM

    It’s pretty common knowledge that the Minnesota Vikings don’t want to move Randy Moss nearly as much as the national media thinks. He’s a distraction on SportCenter and on Lambeau Field, but he’s generally regarded as a hard-working team player in the lockerroom. Granted, there were those annoyed by his walking away from the team in the waning seconds of the Redskins game, but that’s the exception, not the rule. Do you really think the team cares that Moss bumped a traffic cop with his Lexus? Or that he mooned the Lambeau fans as a joke? Of course not. He’s like the guy on your highschool team that everybody from other schools heard was a nutcase, while everybody from your school knows he’s cool. You end up thinking it’s pretty funny that everyone thinks your buddy is a badass. I’m a Vikings fan and I hope we keep him. We’ll never get his value back in a trade from anyone.

  2. Anonymous - Jan 25, 2005 at 4:38 AM

    It’s pretty common knowledge that the Minnesota Vikings don’t want to move Randy Moss nearly as much as the national media thinks. He’s a distraction on SportCenter and on Lambeau Field, but he’s generally regarded as a hard-working team player in the lockerroom. Granted, there were those annoyed by his walking away from the team in the waning seconds of the Redskins game, but that’s the exception, not the rule. Do you really think the team cares that Moss bumped a traffic cop with his Lexus? Or that he mooned the Lambeau fans as a joke? Of course not. He’s like the guy on your highschool team that everybody from other schools heard was a nutcase, while everybody from your school knows he’s cool. You end up thinking it’s pretty funny that everyone thinks your buddy is a badass. I’m a Vikings fan and I hope we keep him. We’ll never get his value back in a trade from anyone.

  3. Rich Tandler - Jan 25, 2005 at 7:56 AM

    I agree, Anon, that the Vikings couldn’t get nearly as much for Moss as he’s worth to them. And that’s the key, since they know his quirks he’s more valuable to them than to any other team.

  4. Rich Tandler - Jan 25, 2005 at 11:56 AM

    I agree, Anon, that the Vikings couldn’t get nearly as much for Moss as he’s worth to them. And that’s the key, since they know his quirks he’s more valuable to them than to any other team.

  5. HOOPER - Jan 25, 2005 at 12:36 PM

    Wait, wait, wait. Randy Moss for 50/50 and the ninth pick? Are you kidding me? If Moss’ salary cap numbers are workable, there is no way the Redskins could not make that trade. Headcase or not, we’re talking about a hall-of-fame receiver who may not even be in his prime yet. Hell, at the price, Gibbs could bench Moss for the being a pain in the ass every other game and still get the better of the deal. There is no way — no way — the Vikings would take this deal. 50/50 is a headcase himself who isn’t even a scary number two receiver in this league. The ninth pick is a mystery — could be good, bad, or average. I’m all for a quiet off-season, but if this deal was an actual possibility, the Skins would have to take it. TO was a headcase too, remember? And unlike the Eagles, the Skins would have a big-time receiver opposite Moss. And unlike the Vikings, the Redskins have a coach who actually might do something when/if Moss started pulling any $hit.

    The people against this proposed trade are even crazier than the ones who think it could happen.

  6. HOOPER - Jan 25, 2005 at 4:36 PM

    Wait, wait, wait. Randy Moss for 50/50 and the ninth pick? Are you kidding me? If Moss’ salary cap numbers are workable, there is no way the Redskins could not make that trade. Headcase or not, we’re talking about a hall-of-fame receiver who may not even be in his prime yet. Hell, at the price, Gibbs could bench Moss for the being a pain in the ass every other game and still get the better of the deal. There is no way — no way — the Vikings would take this deal. 50/50 is a headcase himself who isn’t even a scary number two receiver in this league. The ninth pick is a mystery — could be good, bad, or average. I’m all for a quiet off-season, but if this deal was an actual possibility, the Skins would have to take it. TO was a headcase too, remember? And unlike the Eagles, the Skins would have a big-time receiver opposite Moss. And unlike the Vikings, the Redskins have a coach who actually might do something when/if Moss started pulling any $hit.

    The people against this proposed trade are even crazier than the ones who think it could happen.

  7. HOOPER - Jan 25, 2005 at 1:29 PM

    There is no way the Skins could get Moss for 50/50 and the ninth pick. I don’t know who’s crazier: those who think this could happen or those Skins fans who are actually against this deal.

  8. HOOPER - Jan 25, 2005 at 5:29 PM

    There is no way the Skins could get Moss for 50/50 and the ninth pick. I don’t know who’s crazier: those who think this could happen or those Skins fans who are actually against this deal.

  9. HOOPER - Jan 25, 2005 at 1:30 PM

    Sorry for the double post — first one took forever to post for some reason.

  10. HOOPER - Jan 25, 2005 at 5:30 PM

    Sorry for the double post — first one took forever to post for some reason.

  11. Doug - Jan 25, 2005 at 2:08 PM

    “I don’t know who’s crazier: those who think this could happen or those Skins fans who are actually against this deal.”

    Well, I must be crazy, because I agree with Rich Tandler. I wouldn’t give a warm six pack for him.

  12. Doug - Jan 25, 2005 at 6:08 PM

    “I don’t know who’s crazier: those who think this could happen or those Skins fans who are actually against this deal.”

    Well, I must be crazy, because I agree with Rich Tandler. I wouldn’t give a warm six pack for him.

  13. HOOPER - Jan 25, 2005 at 6:05 PM

    Interesting. So you wouldn’t trade a likely hall-of-famer for a guy we’d be thrilled to get a third round draft choice for and the unproven commodity that is the ninth pick?

    Do I like Moss? Not really. Is a headcase? Sure. So are a lot of young players before they mature. Chris Carter is a nice example. Maybe Moss just needs a coach who doesn’t bow down to everything he wants. Hell, TO is still a headcase and look what he did for the Eagles — and Moss is better than him. Personally, I want a quite off-season. This team needs continuity more than anything else. That said, if there’s any chance we could get this deal, and I don’t think there is unless McCombs and Tice are dumber than I thought, we HAVE to make it.

  14. HOOPER - Jan 25, 2005 at 10:05 PM

    Interesting. So you wouldn’t trade a likely hall-of-famer for a guy we’d be thrilled to get a third round draft choice for and the unproven commodity that is the ninth pick?

    Do I like Moss? Not really. Is a headcase? Sure. So are a lot of young players before they mature. Chris Carter is a nice example. Maybe Moss just needs a coach who doesn’t bow down to everything he wants. Hell, TO is still a headcase and look what he did for the Eagles — and Moss is better than him. Personally, I want a quite off-season. This team needs continuity more than anything else. That said, if there’s any chance we could get this deal, and I don’t think there is unless McCombs and Tice are dumber than I thought, we HAVE to make it.

  15. Rich Tandler - Jan 25, 2005 at 7:43 PM

    I hear what you’re saying, Hooper, but Randy Moss is going to be 28 in a few weeks. Now, you shouldn’t be the model of maturity and virtue by then, but that’s a little old to write dumb actions off to being an impetuous youth, don’t you think?

    Let me put it this way: If the Vikes offer Moss for Gardner and a first, they must be desperate to get rid of him. If they’re that desperate, things must be much, much worse than they appear to be on the surface.

  16. Rich Tandler - Jan 25, 2005 at 11:43 PM

    I hear what you’re saying, Hooper, but Randy Moss is going to be 28 in a few weeks. Now, you shouldn’t be the model of maturity and virtue by then, but that’s a little old to write dumb actions off to being an impetuous youth, don’t you think?

    Let me put it this way: If the Vikes offer Moss for Gardner and a first, they must be desperate to get rid of him. If they’re that desperate, things must be much, much worse than they appear to be on the surface.

  17. mbarnes202 - Jan 25, 2005 at 9:58 PM

    The issue isn’t whether we would take Moss for a #1 and Gardner– the issue is AT WHAT PRICE.

    Clearly, Moss would improve our offense. I remember how he carved up our defense with an acrobatic touchdown catch with Taylor draped all over him and a 50+ yard TD catch and run making Pierce look absolutely silly in the process (called back, but the catch and run were legal and incredible).

    He’s phenomenal, there’s just no denying it. Owens I think is 30, and Moss can have just as great an impact as Owens does.

    Again, though, the question is at what price. I don’t see how we could manage a cap with Arrington, Coles, CP, Samuels, Jansen, Thomas, Washington, and MOSS, not to mention a bunch of other key players with cap charges over $2MM per.

    But in the realm of a 3-year deal, or 4-year deal at say $4-5MM per, I would think we would be foolish not to make that trade.

    I have full confidence that Gibbs could handle his ego and personality– and teammates are willing to put up with a lot to get his playmaking ability. I mean, let’s face it, CP is not exactly the poster child for modesty and humbleness, and he’s absolutely fine.

    I think Moss would be the same.

  18. mbarnes202 - Jan 26, 2005 at 1:58 AM

    The issue isn’t whether we would take Moss for a #1 and Gardner– the issue is AT WHAT PRICE.

    Clearly, Moss would improve our offense. I remember how he carved up our defense with an acrobatic touchdown catch with Taylor draped all over him and a 50+ yard TD catch and run making Pierce look absolutely silly in the process (called back, but the catch and run were legal and incredible).

    He’s phenomenal, there’s just no denying it. Owens I think is 30, and Moss can have just as great an impact as Owens does.

    Again, though, the question is at what price. I don’t see how we could manage a cap with Arrington, Coles, CP, Samuels, Jansen, Thomas, Washington, and MOSS, not to mention a bunch of other key players with cap charges over $2MM per.

    But in the realm of a 3-year deal, or 4-year deal at say $4-5MM per, I would think we would be foolish not to make that trade.

    I have full confidence that Gibbs could handle his ego and personality– and teammates are willing to put up with a lot to get his playmaking ability. I mean, let’s face it, CP is not exactly the poster child for modesty and humbleness, and he’s absolutely fine.

    I think Moss would be the same.

  19. Doug - Jan 26, 2005 at 9:07 AM

    The price is that you’d have a player on your “team” who did not care about or even understand the concept of “team”. Randy Moss is a talent, no doubt about it. So what. His interest is in his own stats. He says himself he only tries on about 50% of plays. He really isn’t interested if the ball is not thrown his way. The difference between Moss and Portis is that Portis is downfield blocking for all he’s worth when someone else has the ball. That’s a huge difference. How does the rest of the team respond when they see their “teammate” loafing on plays? Not well, I’ll tell you that. Nope, I stand by what I said earlier. He’s not worth it at any price.

  20. Doug - Jan 26, 2005 at 1:07 PM

    The price is that you’d have a player on your “team” who did not care about or even understand the concept of “team”. Randy Moss is a talent, no doubt about it. So what. His interest is in his own stats. He says himself he only tries on about 50% of plays. He really isn’t interested if the ball is not thrown his way. The difference between Moss and Portis is that Portis is downfield blocking for all he’s worth when someone else has the ball. That’s a huge difference. How does the rest of the team respond when they see their “teammate” loafing on plays? Not well, I’ll tell you that. Nope, I stand by what I said earlier. He’s not worth it at any price.

  21. Dustin M. Czarny - Jan 26, 2005 at 10:48 AM

    The only scenario that would work out cap wise is Moss for Gardner and our first this year. And I don’t think it is near enough for the Vikings to pull the trigger. No other player of any value can be traded because of Cap implications.

    But even if they could…it would be a bad trade for the Redskins. We should pick a nice young WR with our #9 that won’t be a major cap hit for three years. let them develop and see where it goes. We have seen rookie wrs have major impacts on docile offenses the last two years. Let’s take our shot at that.

  22. Dustin M. Czarny - Jan 26, 2005 at 2:48 PM

    The only scenario that would work out cap wise is Moss for Gardner and our first this year. And I don’t think it is near enough for the Vikings to pull the trigger. No other player of any value can be traded because of Cap implications.

    But even if they could…it would be a bad trade for the Redskins. We should pick a nice young WR with our #9 that won’t be a major cap hit for three years. let them develop and see where it goes. We have seen rookie wrs have major impacts on docile offenses the last two years. Let’s take our shot at that.

  23. mbarnes202 - Jan 26, 2005 at 3:15 PM

    As to what kind of “poisonous effect” Moss would have on our team, I would argue it’s hard to say. Everyone said Corey Dillon was a head-case complaining all the time at Cincy, and he’s been a model teammate in New England. Similarly, TO bad-mouthed his own QB and criticized his own coach, and in general is way worse than Moss when it comes to Showboating (see his routine on the Dallas Star, the Sharpie incident, etc.) but completely changed the complexion of the Philly offense. On the other hand Ricky Williams was a basket case in both New Orleans and Miami — so can we really say for sure what will happen? I will grant that in the case of TO and Dillon, I can’t remember anyone ever questioning their effort.

    As to the drafting a young WR– well, very old ‘Skins fans are very wary of that– Gibbs’ drafting of Desmond Howard comes immediately to mind. David Terrel was also a high pick. True, there have been some successful high WR picks, but it’s a boom or bust proposition. Consider that when we traded our #1 for Coles, the next WR drafted was Bryant Johnson at ARIZONA, who’s stat line in ’04 does not compare favorably to Coles’, even though Coles had a tough year (Johnson was 49-547-1, Coles was 90-950-1). I like the notion of saving some money, though.

  24. mbarnes202 - Jan 26, 2005 at 7:15 PM

    As to what kind of “poisonous effect” Moss would have on our team, I would argue it’s hard to say. Everyone said Corey Dillon was a head-case complaining all the time at Cincy, and he’s been a model teammate in New England. Similarly, TO bad-mouthed his own QB and criticized his own coach, and in general is way worse than Moss when it comes to Showboating (see his routine on the Dallas Star, the Sharpie incident, etc.) but completely changed the complexion of the Philly offense. On the other hand Ricky Williams was a basket case in both New Orleans and Miami — so can we really say for sure what will happen? I will grant that in the case of TO and Dillon, I can’t remember anyone ever questioning their effort.

    As to the drafting a young WR– well, very old ‘Skins fans are very wary of that– Gibbs’ drafting of Desmond Howard comes immediately to mind. David Terrel was also a high pick. True, there have been some successful high WR picks, but it’s a boom or bust proposition. Consider that when we traded our #1 for Coles, the next WR drafted was Bryant Johnson at ARIZONA, who’s stat line in ’04 does not compare favorably to Coles’, even though Coles had a tough year (Johnson was 49-547-1, Coles was 90-950-1). I like the notion of saving some money, though.

  25. Anonymous - Jan 26, 2005 at 4:35 PM

    Im the anonymous who posted the “positives” for the Moss deal in the previous blog. Where in there i lso said to franchise smoot, and trade him gardener and the first round to the viking. since we dont want gardener anyway, and since smoot is likely not to return it would be like drafting Moss with the Ninth pick in the draft.

    and to “draft” moss with the ninth pick would be the most guaranteed play-maker that we couldnt get when we drafted shueler, westbrook, howard…if the money works you have to do it. there is no way that the redskins should let an opportunity escape them like this. there is nowhere for this franchise to go but up, its worth the gamble!

  26. Anonymous - Jan 26, 2005 at 8:35 PM

    Im the anonymous who posted the “positives” for the Moss deal in the previous blog. Where in there i lso said to franchise smoot, and trade him gardener and the first round to the viking. since we dont want gardener anyway, and since smoot is likely not to return it would be like drafting Moss with the Ninth pick in the draft.

    and to “draft” moss with the ninth pick would be the most guaranteed play-maker that we couldnt get when we drafted shueler, westbrook, howard…if the money works you have to do it. there is no way that the redskins should let an opportunity escape them like this. there is nowhere for this franchise to go but up, its worth the gamble!

  27. Muccman - Jan 27, 2005 at 10:34 PM

    Well, anonymous, you don’t seem to get it.

    RANDY MOSS WILL NOT BE A REDSKIN. NOT EVER.

    And that is a GOOD thing, I would much rather see my team work its way to success honorably in the hands of Joe Gibbs, not turn to that disgraceful Viking. Ugh.

  28. Muccman - Jan 28, 2005 at 2:34 AM

    Well, anonymous, you don’t seem to get it.

    RANDY MOSS WILL NOT BE A REDSKIN. NOT EVER.

    And that is a GOOD thing, I would much rather see my team work its way to success honorably in the hands of Joe Gibbs, not turn to that disgraceful Viking. Ugh.

RealRedskins.com Archives

Follow Us On Twitter