Skip to content

Coles Update: Team Trying to Deal Him

Feb 21, 2005, 6:09 PM EST

The Redskins may be backing off of their deal to release Laveranues Coles in exchange for his returning part of his signing bonus, according to a wire service story that appeared on ESPN.com.

The Redskins, however, will have to pick their poison. They will either recoup some bonus and some salary cap space or they will get a player and/or picks for Coles and take the net $6 million cap hit.

‘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.

Shopping Coles would seem to be the prudent thing for the team to do. That way, they can weigh the cost of the salary cap hit against what they would receive in the way of compensation. In addition, they could keep Coles from going to a division rival.

It’s highly unlikely that a trade will be made, but it makes sense for them to try.

  1. Andy - Feb 21, 2005 at 5:32 PM

    The only way this stands to work is if they were to trade Coles to a team that he would like to go to.

  2. Andy - Feb 21, 2005 at 9:32 PM

    The only way this stands to work is if they were to trade Coles to a team that he would like to go to.

  3. Rich Tandler - Feb 21, 2005 at 5:38 PM

    Still, he’d have to redo his contract and get some up-front money from his new team to recoup what he lost in repaying the Redskins. I don’t think he’s going to be doing any repayment if he’s going to be making “just” 3 million and change this year, which is what he would get under his current contract.

  4. Rich Tandler - Feb 21, 2005 at 9:38 PM

    Still, he’d have to redo his contract and get some up-front money from his new team to recoup what he lost in repaying the Redskins. I don’t think he’s going to be doing any repayment if he’s going to be making “just” 3 million and change this year, which is what he would get under his current contract.

  5. BandWagon - Feb 21, 2005 at 9:46 PM

    I’m not sure why they are saying “we can’t have it both ways”. That doesn’t make sense to me. If a) Coles doesn’t want to be here and b) the only way he can move on is to return some/all of his signing bonus, why would that preclude a trade? If that’s what the skins offer him and it’s contigent on some cap relief, why wouldn’t he do just that?

  6. BandWagon - Feb 22, 2005 at 1:46 AM

    I’m not sure why they are saying “we can’t have it both ways”. That doesn’t make sense to me. If a) Coles doesn’t want to be here and b) the only way he can move on is to return some/all of his signing bonus, why would that preclude a trade? If that’s what the skins offer him and it’s contigent on some cap relief, why wouldn’t he do just that?

  7. Rich Tandler - Feb 21, 2005 at 10:44 PM

    First, I don’t think that a player can return bonus in a trade scenario, just in a contract voiding scneario.

    Second, even if you could, why would Coles do it? He needs to be a free agent in order to make it work on his side. If he gets no signing bonus from a new free agent deal he can’t repay the Redskins.

  8. Rich Tandler - Feb 22, 2005 at 2:44 AM

    First, I don’t think that a player can return bonus in a trade scenario, just in a contract voiding scneario.

    Second, even if you could, why would Coles do it? He needs to be a free agent in order to make it work on his side. If he gets no signing bonus from a new free agent deal he can’t repay the Redskins.

RealRedskins.com Archives

Follow Us On Twitter