Skip to content

Samuels Deal Done, Coles Deal Dead

Mar 1, 2005, 11:13 PM EST

Chris Samuels has signed a contract extension with the Redskins. From the Washington Post

The Washington Redskins reached agreement today with left tackle Chris Samuels on a contract extension, sources said, providing the team with more flexibility under the salary cap to pursue free agents.

There is no word yet as to the details of the contract, only that the signing bonus will be the “biggest in team history” according to my source. Keep in mind, however, when seeing the amount of the bonus that Samuels was due to receive some $5.2 million in salary in 2005. The deal almost certainly guarantees all or most of that to spread out the cap impact. The guaranteed salary will be lumped into the signing bonus and, on paper, Samuels’ 2005 base pay will be somwhere around the league minimum. So, when you see his signing bonus, think “SB + 2005 salary” and it won’t seem quite as shocking.

It also appears that, despite some rumors that have been going around, the Laveranues Coles for Santanna Moss trade, like the parrott in the Monte Python skit, is still dead.

But, with the NFL free agency period beginning at midnight, a last-ditch effort to revive a trade that would send disgruntled wide receiver Laveranues Coles to the New York Jets appears to have been abandoned, increasing the chances that Coles would remain with the team next season.

Should Coles stay and if the Samuels deal saves $7 million in the cap, the number that most have estimated would be saved based on the paramaters being discussed, that would leave the Redskins about $13 million under the cap. We all know that at midnight tonight that money will be burning a hole in Dan Snyder’s pocket.

  1. Anonymous - Mar 1, 2005 at 8:02 PM

    I like the idea of going after Rabach, even if we overpay as usual to get him.

    A receiver would be nice to pair with a disgruntled Coles, but I’m not sure on who it should be. Anyone relatively inexpensive with some size and consistency would do.

    Resign Smoot and Pierce if the numbers are right, then just add some depth across both lines. I’d be happy.

  2. Anonymous - Mar 2, 2005 at 12:02 AM

    I like the idea of going after Rabach, even if we overpay as usual to get him.

    A receiver would be nice to pair with a disgruntled Coles, but I’m not sure on who it should be. Anyone relatively inexpensive with some size and consistency would do.

    Resign Smoot and Pierce if the numbers are right, then just add some depth across both lines. I’d be happy.

  3. Marquez12 - Mar 1, 2005 at 8:23 PM

    Stage Set for Coles to Suck It Up

    In a way, bringing Coles back will put a lot of pressure on him to perform. It will require him to continue to be a real professional. Since everyone knows he is “not happy” it will maybe immunize him from being a cancer. He also has to prove that his foot is healthy. And since he is unhappy then maybe the don’t have to coddle him. Maybe it will contribute to everyone focusing on results, rather than being “happy.”

  4. Marquez12 - Mar 2, 2005 at 12:23 AM

    Stage Set for Coles to Suck It Up

    In a way, bringing Coles back will put a lot of pressure on him to perform. It will require him to continue to be a real professional. Since everyone knows he is “not happy” it will maybe immunize him from being a cancer. He also has to prove that his foot is healthy. And since he is unhappy then maybe the don’t have to coddle him. Maybe it will contribute to everyone focusing on results, rather than being “happy.”

  5. Doug - Mar 2, 2005 at 9:26 AM

    Perhaps the “disgruntled” Coles isn’t quite so disgruntled after all.

    Perhaps the “dysfunctional” Redskins front office isn’t quite so dysfunctional after all.

    Perhaps Joe Gibbs and company actually do know what they’re doing.

    Perhaps all the hand wringing and teeth gnashing over all this is much ado about nothing.

    Perhaps it wouldn’t be a bad idea to watch and see what actually happens, rather than worry so much about what might happen.

    Nah, that wouldn’t be any fun!

  6. Doug - Mar 2, 2005 at 1:26 PM

    Perhaps the “disgruntled” Coles isn’t quite so disgruntled after all.

    Perhaps the “dysfunctional” Redskins front office isn’t quite so dysfunctional after all.

    Perhaps Joe Gibbs and company actually do know what they’re doing.

    Perhaps all the hand wringing and teeth gnashing over all this is much ado about nothing.

    Perhaps it wouldn’t be a bad idea to watch and see what actually happens, rather than worry so much about what might happen.

    Nah, that wouldn’t be any fun!

  7. mbarnes202 - Mar 2, 2005 at 11:16 AM

    I saw that Samuels deal averages about $7MM per year, which for a premier LT is I think a decent deal. Now let’s see if he stays motivated, or he goes the way of Randy Thomas who, to my mind, has not justified his salary. That and of course injuries will determine whether this deal was worth it. Samuels is 27, so 7 years brings him to 34, which for an OL is I think not too unrealistic.

    I noticed that the last ‘Skins offer to Smoot included a SB that was larger than Springs– and Smoot is a notch below Springs I think. But Smoot’s side is right that he probably would get that in the open market.

    A big white-knuckled game of chicken begins starting now because, guess what, the Dallas Cowboys are one of the teams that need a CB. Please no.

    I agree with Anon that Rabach might be a good fit for our team. Note, however, that there are reports that the center class in the upcoming draft is supoosed to be very strong.

    Rich, what’s your source say about the leanings of the team after the combine? Given that Mike Williams may not be available after the ‘Vikes pick at #7 (I don’t even think he’s a “safe” enough pick at our spot at #9), are we leaning towards someone like PacMan Jones if he’s available? Or Maybe Heath Miller? (I guess the Q with him is his speed) Erasmus James? Also, is it true that we can only hope for a day 2 pick for Gardner? (And finally, will McCants really just simply be released?)

  8. mbarnes202 - Mar 2, 2005 at 3:16 PM

    I saw that Samuels deal averages about $7MM per year, which for a premier LT is I think a decent deal. Now let’s see if he stays motivated, or he goes the way of Randy Thomas who, to my mind, has not justified his salary. That and of course injuries will determine whether this deal was worth it. Samuels is 27, so 7 years brings him to 34, which for an OL is I think not too unrealistic.

    I noticed that the last ‘Skins offer to Smoot included a SB that was larger than Springs– and Smoot is a notch below Springs I think. But Smoot’s side is right that he probably would get that in the open market.

    A big white-knuckled game of chicken begins starting now because, guess what, the Dallas Cowboys are one of the teams that need a CB. Please no.

    I agree with Anon that Rabach might be a good fit for our team. Note, however, that there are reports that the center class in the upcoming draft is supoosed to be very strong.

    Rich, what’s your source say about the leanings of the team after the combine? Given that Mike Williams may not be available after the ‘Vikes pick at #7 (I don’t even think he’s a “safe” enough pick at our spot at #9), are we leaning towards someone like PacMan Jones if he’s available? Or Maybe Heath Miller? (I guess the Q with him is his speed) Erasmus James? Also, is it true that we can only hope for a day 2 pick for Gardner? (And finally, will McCants really just simply be released?)

  9. Doug - Mar 2, 2005 at 1:39 PM

    I like Rabach. If we get him, our O-Line of Samuels, Dockery, Rabach, Thomas, and Jantzen will be one of the top lines in the league. I think Thomas has been exemplary. If we acquire a big blocking tight end, I think Clinton Portis should rack up 1,800 to 2,000 yards next year, with Betts tacking on another 600 or so.

    I hope we keep McCants and give him a shot. He’s a good player, even if he doesn’t contribute on special teams.

  10. Doug - Mar 2, 2005 at 5:39 PM

    I like Rabach. If we get him, our O-Line of Samuels, Dockery, Rabach, Thomas, and Jantzen will be one of the top lines in the league. I think Thomas has been exemplary. If we acquire a big blocking tight end, I think Clinton Portis should rack up 1,800 to 2,000 yards next year, with Betts tacking on another 600 or so.

    I hope we keep McCants and give him a shot. He’s a good player, even if he doesn’t contribute on special teams.

  11. Anonymous - Mar 2, 2005 at 3:12 PM

    can someone tell me how we saved money by restructuring Samuels’ contract, when he got record Sign on bonus of $15.75M? Is this just going to be cap friendly this season, and then we’d be in cap hell after a couple of years?

  12. Anonymous - Mar 2, 2005 at 7:12 PM

    can someone tell me how we saved money by restructuring Samuels’ contract, when he got record Sign on bonus of $15.75M? Is this just going to be cap friendly this season, and then we’d be in cap hell after a couple of years?

  13. Doug - Mar 2, 2005 at 3:54 PM

    The Redskins want to keep him, but they don’t want to pay that huge bonus that he’s due this year. So, they restructure, offering him more down the road, but giving them Cap space this year.

    At least, that’s how I believe it works. Anybody else?

  14. Doug - Mar 2, 2005 at 7:54 PM

    The Redskins want to keep him, but they don’t want to pay that huge bonus that he’s due this year. So, they restructure, offering him more down the road, but giving them Cap space this year.

    At least, that’s how I believe it works. Anybody else?

  15. mbarnes202 - Mar 2, 2005 at 6:08 PM

    Yeah, the way I figure the CAP charges, it doesn’t seem like we’d save a whole lot of money on Samuels’ new deal, in terms of CAP charges, with the restructuring. Samuels’ ’05 cap charge was to be 9.643MM.

    My understanding is that when a contract is re-structured, the new SB is prorated over the remaining years of the original contract AND the extension (in this case, 7 years total), and the allocation of the original SB remains unchanged. (This is from “ask the commish” website.)

    That means that, since Samuels’ cap charge for ’05 was to be $9.643MM, and his base was $5.1MM, he had $4.543MM in SB allocated to ’05– that stays the same. Now we need to add to that the prorated portion of the new SB (15.75MM / 7 years is $2.25MM per year), and his new base for ’05.

    I think there’s some rule about the maximum amount a salary can rise (the “30% rule”) when the contract enters or extends past the end of the CBA, currently set to expire in 2007, but here’s an example structure that does not rise by more than 30% per year:

    2005 2006 2007
    BASE 1.800 2.340 3.042

    2008 2009 2010 2011
    3.955 5.141 6.683 8.289

    (the sum of these figures, $31.25MM, combined with the SB, $15.75MM, equals $47MM).

    So, we add $1.8MM to the $2.25MM new SB proration and $4.543MM in the old SB proration for a total of $8.593MM cap charge for ’05, which is a small savings of $1.05MM for ’05. If we can give Samuels the league minimum in ’05 (i.e., the 30% rule does not apply), then the savings increase, in ’05, to $2.305MM (league minimum for someone with Samuels’ experience is $545,000, I think).

    What am I missing?

  16. mbarnes202 - Mar 2, 2005 at 10:08 PM

    Yeah, the way I figure the CAP charges, it doesn’t seem like we’d save a whole lot of money on Samuels’ new deal, in terms of CAP charges, with the restructuring. Samuels’ ’05 cap charge was to be 9.643MM.

    My understanding is that when a contract is re-structured, the new SB is prorated over the remaining years of the original contract AND the extension (in this case, 7 years total), and the allocation of the original SB remains unchanged. (This is from “ask the commish” website.)

    That means that, since Samuels’ cap charge for ’05 was to be $9.643MM, and his base was $5.1MM, he had $4.543MM in SB allocated to ’05– that stays the same. Now we need to add to that the prorated portion of the new SB (15.75MM / 7 years is $2.25MM per year), and his new base for ’05.

    I think there’s some rule about the maximum amount a salary can rise (the “30% rule”) when the contract enters or extends past the end of the CBA, currently set to expire in 2007, but here’s an example structure that does not rise by more than 30% per year:

    2005 2006 2007
    BASE 1.800 2.340 3.042

    2008 2009 2010 2011
    3.955 5.141 6.683 8.289

    (the sum of these figures, $31.25MM, combined with the SB, $15.75MM, equals $47MM).

    So, we add $1.8MM to the $2.25MM new SB proration and $4.543MM in the old SB proration for a total of $8.593MM cap charge for ’05, which is a small savings of $1.05MM for ’05. If we can give Samuels the league minimum in ’05 (i.e., the 30% rule does not apply), then the savings increase, in ’05, to $2.305MM (league minimum for someone with Samuels’ experience is $545,000, I think).

    What am I missing?

  17. Rich Tandler - Mar 2, 2005 at 6:10 PM

    Marquez, and doug I agree 100%. Coles had his chance to bail but he wanted more $ from the Jets. He’ll get over it, the offense will get better and he’ll average more like 17 a catch than 11.

    Rarbach is a good grab, no doubt.

    mbarnes, the combine results are still being digested. Gibbs wants to go into the draft having addressed all needs in free agency, so they would be in BAPROP (Best Available Player Regardless Of Position) mode.

    anon, the cap hit from signing bonuses are spread out through the length of the contract. So, on the seven-year deal Samuels SB will count about $2.25 million against the cap each year. That plus his salary will be his cap hit. Haven’t seen the full breakdown to know what the hit will be in the future.

  18. Rich Tandler - Mar 2, 2005 at 10:10 PM

    Marquez, and doug I agree 100%. Coles had his chance to bail but he wanted more $ from the Jets. He’ll get over it, the offense will get better and he’ll average more like 17 a catch than 11.

    Rarbach is a good grab, no doubt.

    mbarnes, the combine results are still being digested. Gibbs wants to go into the draft having addressed all needs in free agency, so they would be in BAPROP (Best Available Player Regardless Of Position) mode.

    anon, the cap hit from signing bonuses are spread out through the length of the contract. So, on the seven-year deal Samuels SB will count about $2.25 million against the cap each year. That plus his salary will be his cap hit. Haven’t seen the full breakdown to know what the hit will be in the future.

  19. Rich Tandler - Mar 2, 2005 at 7:17 PM

    I think, mbarnes, that since the deal was an extension, they could set it up so that the new SB wasn’t paid until next year (that year was voidable in Samuels’ original deal) so that the prorated charges didn’t kick in until ’06. Therefore, there was no “double hit” for the old and the new SB’s.

    That’s just an assumption, I don’t pretend to be a capologist. The good thing is, though, that I know a couple of guys who do a great job at figuring this stuff out and I’ll get this stuff up in the blog as soon as they have it figured out.

  20. Rich Tandler - Mar 2, 2005 at 11:17 PM

    I think, mbarnes, that since the deal was an extension, they could set it up so that the new SB wasn’t paid until next year (that year was voidable in Samuels’ original deal) so that the prorated charges didn’t kick in until ’06. Therefore, there was no “double hit” for the old and the new SB’s.

    That’s just an assumption, I don’t pretend to be a capologist. The good thing is, though, that I know a couple of guys who do a great job at figuring this stuff out and I’ll get this stuff up in the blog as soon as they have it figured out.

RealRedskins.com Archives

Follow Us On Twitter