Skip to content

Coles Trade Revived?

Mar 4, 2005, 12:49 PM EST

It appears that the Coles for Moss swap is still alive, if only slightly. It began to show a weak pulse yesterday, according to several new sources inclucing Newsday.com :

But talks aimed at swapping fourth-year receiver Santana Moss for Coles remained alive yesterday, and there is a decent chance the teams will be able to make the deal. The Jets have kept in contact with the Redskins, as well as Coles’ agent, Roosevelt Barnes, since the talks heated up last Friday at the NFL scouting combine.

The discussions have bogged down, mostly over Coles’ insistence that the Jets give him a new contract. At one point Saturday, Redskins coach Joe Gibbs said he considered it ‘not very likely’ that a deal would be consummated.

But talks continued yesterday between Barnes and the Jets.

It’s not clear whether or not the Redskins are going to insist that Coles pay back any of his original $13 million signing bonus as a condition for letting the unhappy wideout go to another team. Regardless, any cap relief that would come from such a move would not come until next year per NFL rules. So the 2005 cap impact of Coles’ departure is now fixed. For the exact numbers, I turn to PC, the redsident capologist at WarpathInsiders.com:

Right now Coles counts $3.357m against the cap, made up of $1.5m in base salary, and $1.857m in 2005 prorated signing bonus

If Coles is traded we add the other 4 years oustanding SB prorations against the cap $7.428m (thats 4 x $1.857m) then we deduct Coles base salary $1.5m. That means that the net effect on the cap above what he’s counting right now is an additional $5.928m

The Skins currently have around $7.2m under the cap (a REAL rough stab at present) after the Patten signing, so we cover that extra $5.928m hit for Coles.

In taking the $6 million hit this year, the Redskins will clear Coles’ $7 million cap hit for next year even if there is not payback of Coles’ original signing bonus.

Still, it’s difficult to imagine the Redskins making this move unless they are very concerned about Coles’ health, particularly his injured toe. Coles refuses to get surgery on it, a move that the Redskins seem to believe is necessary if it is ever going to be near 100%.

From Coles’ point of view, it appears that he is wary of playing for just $1.5 million next year and being in a position where the Jets could cut him at any time with no bonus accelleration to worry about.

  1. mbarnes202 - Mar 4, 2005 at 11:56 AM

    Can someone please explain to me how on earth Santana Moss is adequate compensation for Lavernaeus Coles, absent the Jets coughing up the $5MM roster bonus due to Coles or Coles foregoing that figure? (Also, remind me, can we even do this now?)

    I read that the ‘Skins were asking either for two #1s or a #1 and a player, but when it’s the Jets, we’re willing to get a receiver who the Jets themselves believe is not as good as Coles, and who has only a SINGLE YEAR LEFT ON HIS CONTRACT– we’d have to renegotiate anyway with the guy!! Why not wait a year and give up nothing!!!?!??

    This is absolutely crazy!! Why not just get a #1 from another team? I’m going nuts, because I cannot understand this deal at all, AT ALL from the Redskins’ point of view.

    Is it Snyder, who the Post reported always coveted Moss over Gardner, really pushing for this deal? Are we just not hearing that we’ll get the Jets’ #1?

    I mean, compare it to what we’re asking for Gardner– a middle round pick, and THAT’S IT– Why? Because any team getting him has to renegotiate with him anyway.

    This deal is so bad, I don’t know who could possibly be arguing for this deal at Redskin Park.

    Somebody please help … play devil’s advocate and spin the story the other way– why is this potentially the best way to handle the Coles’ situation?

  2. mbarnes202 - Mar 4, 2005 at 11:56 AM

    Can someone please explain to me how on earth Santana Moss is adequate compensation for Lavernaeus Coles, absent the Jets coughing up the $5MM roster bonus due to Coles or Coles foregoing that figure? (Also, remind me, can we even do this now?)

    I read that the ‘Skins were asking either for two #1s or a #1 and a player, but when it’s the Jets, we’re willing to get a receiver who the Jets themselves believe is not as good as Coles, and who has only a SINGLE YEAR LEFT ON HIS CONTRACT– we’d have to renegotiate anyway with the guy!! Why not wait a year and give up nothing!!!?!??

    This is absolutely crazy!! Why not just get a #1 from another team? I’m going nuts, because I cannot understand this deal at all, AT ALL from the Redskins’ point of view.

    Is it Snyder, who the Post reported always coveted Moss over Gardner, really pushing for this deal? Are we just not hearing that we’ll get the Jets’ #1?

    I mean, compare it to what we’re asking for Gardner– a middle round pick, and THAT’S IT– Why? Because any team getting him has to renegotiate with him anyway.

    This deal is so bad, I don’t know who could possibly be arguing for this deal at Redskin Park.

    Somebody please help … play devil’s advocate and spin the story the other way– why is this potentially the best way to handle the Coles’ situation?

  3. mbarnes202 - Mar 4, 2005 at 3:56 PM

    Can someone please explain to me how on earth Santana Moss is adequate compensation for Lavernaeus Coles, absent the Jets coughing up the $5MM roster bonus due to Coles or Coles foregoing that figure? (Also, remind me, can we even do this now?)

    I read that the ‘Skins were asking either for two #1s or a #1 and a player, but when it’s the Jets, we’re willing to get a receiver who the Jets themselves believe is not as good as Coles, and who has only a SINGLE YEAR LEFT ON HIS CONTRACT– we’d have to renegotiate anyway with the guy!! Why not wait a year and give up nothing!!!?!??

    This is absolutely crazy!! Why not just get a #1 from another team? I’m going nuts, because I cannot understand this deal at all, AT ALL from the Redskins’ point of view.

    Is it Snyder, who the Post reported always coveted Moss over Gardner, really pushing for this deal? Are we just not hearing that we’ll get the Jets’ #1?

    I mean, compare it to what we’re asking for Gardner– a middle round pick, and THAT’S IT– Why? Because any team getting him has to renegotiate with him anyway.

    This deal is so bad, I don’t know who could possibly be arguing for this deal at Redskin Park.

    Somebody please help … play devil’s advocate and spin the story the other way– why is this potentially the best way to handle the Coles’ situation?

  4. Anonymous - Mar 4, 2005 at 12:05 PM

    i think the reason we could only get a middle to low draft pick for Gardner is bec. he never lived up to being a first round pick. And as for Coles, I think the Skins see the toe and the fact that he wants out as big negatives, so they can live with Moss rather than keep Coles.

    I’m not sure what other options we have at WR, is Patten any good? Will he be a starter?

  5. Anonymous - Mar 4, 2005 at 12:05 PM

    i think the reason we could only get a middle to low draft pick for Gardner is bec. he never lived up to being a first round pick. And as for Coles, I think the Skins see the toe and the fact that he wants out as big negatives, so they can live with Moss rather than keep Coles.

    I’m not sure what other options we have at WR, is Patten any good? Will he be a starter?

  6. Anonymous - Mar 4, 2005 at 4:05 PM

    i think the reason we could only get a middle to low draft pick for Gardner is bec. he never lived up to being a first round pick. And as for Coles, I think the Skins see the toe and the fact that he wants out as big negatives, so they can live with Moss rather than keep Coles.

    I’m not sure what other options we have at WR, is Patten any good? Will he be a starter?

  7. Doug - Mar 4, 2005 at 12:11 PM

    Okay, here goes: Coles has a bad foot. He is tough, but he can’t get open deep anymore. Moss gets open deep. Also, if you’re trading a guy who wants to leave, you probably can’t get true value for him.

    Of course, we don’t really know what is going on with these negotiations.

    I doubt the Redskins really want to do this deal. On the other hand, Gibbs doesn’t want unhappy players on his football team. Even Randy Thomas said the other day that “if you don’t want to be here, hit the road!”.

  8. Doug - Mar 4, 2005 at 12:11 PM

    Okay, here goes: Coles has a bad foot. He is tough, but he can’t get open deep anymore. Moss gets open deep. Also, if you’re trading a guy who wants to leave, you probably can’t get true value for him.

    Of course, we don’t really know what is going on with these negotiations.

    I doubt the Redskins really want to do this deal. On the other hand, Gibbs doesn’t want unhappy players on his football team. Even Randy Thomas said the other day that “if you don’t want to be here, hit the road!”.

  9. Doug - Mar 4, 2005 at 4:11 PM

    Okay, here goes: Coles has a bad foot. He is tough, but he can’t get open deep anymore. Moss gets open deep. Also, if you’re trading a guy who wants to leave, you probably can’t get true value for him.

    Of course, we don’t really know what is going on with these negotiations.

    I doubt the Redskins really want to do this deal. On the other hand, Gibbs doesn’t want unhappy players on his football team. Even Randy Thomas said the other day that “if you don’t want to be here, hit the road!”.

  10. Rich Tandler - Mar 4, 2005 at 12:14 PM

    I’m there with Doug. If this deal goes down as a straight swap with no cap help for the Skins it has to be that they’re so afraid of the problems with the toe that they perceive themselves to be in a “cut our losses” mode.

  11. Rich Tandler - Mar 4, 2005 at 12:14 PM

    I’m there with Doug. If this deal goes down as a straight swap with no cap help for the Skins it has to be that they’re so afraid of the problems with the toe that they perceive themselves to be in a “cut our losses” mode.

  12. Rich Tandler - Mar 4, 2005 at 4:14 PM

    I’m there with Doug. If this deal goes down as a straight swap with no cap help for the Skins it has to be that they’re so afraid of the problems with the toe that they perceive themselves to be in a “cut our losses” mode.

  13. mbarnes202 - Mar 4, 2005 at 2:22 PM

    Well,
    OK– I’m hearing the “least worst” argument as to why we deal Coles to the Jets.
    It’s true, we don’t know what other teams are offering the ‘Skins, but we have heard that there are other interested parties (e.g., the Vikings).
    So now, for me, the question becomes comparing these competing offers. I wish I knew what those other offers were … because I think I’d rather take a 2nd round pick than Moss w/1 year left on his deal … and I think I’d certainly take a 1st round pick than Moss w/1 year left on his deal …
    who knows, maybe we’ll get Moss, sign him up for a 5 year deal, and he goes out there and becomes a modern-day Gary Clark type player, and I’m cheering every Sunday. One can hope, I guess.

  14. mbarnes202 - Mar 4, 2005 at 2:22 PM

    Well,
    OK– I’m hearing the “least worst” argument as to why we deal Coles to the Jets.
    It’s true, we don’t know what other teams are offering the ‘Skins, but we have heard that there are other interested parties (e.g., the Vikings).
    So now, for me, the question becomes comparing these competing offers. I wish I knew what those other offers were … because I think I’d rather take a 2nd round pick than Moss w/1 year left on his deal … and I think I’d certainly take a 1st round pick than Moss w/1 year left on his deal …
    who knows, maybe we’ll get Moss, sign him up for a 5 year deal, and he goes out there and becomes a modern-day Gary Clark type player, and I’m cheering every Sunday. One can hope, I guess.

  15. mbarnes202 - Mar 4, 2005 at 6:22 PM

    Well,
    OK– I’m hearing the “least worst” argument as to why we deal Coles to the Jets.
    It’s true, we don’t know what other teams are offering the ‘Skins, but we have heard that there are other interested parties (e.g., the Vikings).
    So now, for me, the question becomes comparing these competing offers. I wish I knew what those other offers were … because I think I’d rather take a 2nd round pick than Moss w/1 year left on his deal … and I think I’d certainly take a 1st round pick than Moss w/1 year left on his deal …
    who knows, maybe we’ll get Moss, sign him up for a 5 year deal, and he goes out there and becomes a modern-day Gary Clark type player, and I’m cheering every Sunday. One can hope, I guess.

  16. Doug - Mar 4, 2005 at 3:38 PM

    Well — I expect improvement from Taylor Jacobs. James Thrash is proven commodity. David Patten is a burner who stretches the field. If we added Moss, who by the way shouldn’t be a big cost burden, I think we’ll have 4 proven wide receivers. Anything else, via the draft or whatever, will be gravy.

  17. Doug - Mar 4, 2005 at 3:38 PM

    Well — I expect improvement from Taylor Jacobs. James Thrash is proven commodity. David Patten is a burner who stretches the field. If we added Moss, who by the way shouldn’t be a big cost burden, I think we’ll have 4 proven wide receivers. Anything else, via the draft or whatever, will be gravy.

  18. Doug - Mar 4, 2005 at 7:38 PM

    Well — I expect improvement from Taylor Jacobs. James Thrash is proven commodity. David Patten is a burner who stretches the field. If we added Moss, who by the way shouldn’t be a big cost burden, I think we’ll have 4 proven wide receivers. Anything else, via the draft or whatever, will be gravy.

RealRedskins.com Archives

Follow Us On Twitter