GG Posted February 26, 2005 Posted February 26, 2005 Wouldn't a Woodson-for-Rudi Johnson or a Woodson-for-Larry Johnson trade make complete sense?? 253963[/snapback] Gotta laugh at the Woodson for Larry, as KC is desperate for CBs to handle Moss. NFL Net is saying that KC will be hot for Law.
ofiba Posted February 26, 2005 Posted February 26, 2005 Note, I have no sources to back this up, other than a couple of message board links...I was just passing it along to see what you guys think. Travis Oakland Don't flame me for starting a rumor, because I am well aware that this could be totally bogus, but TD does have a history of wild deals, so it's not like it's impossible.
GG Posted February 26, 2005 Posted February 26, 2005 Not flaming the rumor, but asking to peruse the front page of this board to see if the story had already been posted.
Buffaloed in Pa Posted February 26, 2005 Posted February 26, 2005 Note, I have no sources to back this up, other than a couple of message board links...I was just passing it along to see what you guys think. Travis Oakland Don't flame me for starting a rumor, because I am well aware that this could be totally bogus, but TD does have a history of wild deals, so it's not like it's impossible. 253989[/snapback] Ive also read on steeler message board`s that the steeler`s would love to get Henry
Mark VI Posted February 26, 2005 Posted February 26, 2005 Dennis Williams of Buffalo's CBS affiliate ( Channel 4 ) is at the Indy Combine. He mentioned on last nights 11pm newscast that the Bills may be discussing Henry with the Raiders, according to his source. Woodson was not mentioned as part of the trade. The fact that Woodson surprised the Raiders with his franchise sheet caused additional rumors to fly. The Raiders believe Woodsons' agents ( the infamous Poston Brothers ) may have a deal in principle with another team and the Raiders need to agree on some trade terms before the deal is completed. I can't see why the Bills would want a high priced CB but I keep an open mind. Woodson may not even be part of the formula but it sure is interesting.
ofiba Posted February 26, 2005 Posted February 26, 2005 Not flaming the rumor, but asking to peruse the front page of this board to see if the story had already been posted. 253990[/snapback] Wow, sorry. I didn't see that. Mods may delete or merge this thread.
soljc Posted February 26, 2005 Posted February 26, 2005 Dennis Williams of Buffalo's CBS affiliate ( Channel 4 ) is at the Indy Combine.He mentioned on last nights 11pm newscast that the Bills may be discussing Henry with the Raiders, according to his source. Woodson was not mentioned as part of the trade. 254000[/snapback] Yeah, forget Woodson and swap TH for an OL.
d_wag Posted February 26, 2005 Posted February 26, 2005 not tagging woodson = zero compensation for raiders tagging woodson = some compenstation for raiders when they do deal him........all the early sign by woodson did was force a trade....... i disagree with the majority -- it was a smart move tagging him........something is better then nothing........
Nanker Posted February 26, 2005 Posted February 26, 2005 not tagging woodson = zero compensation for raiders tagging woodson = some compenstation for raiders when they do deal him........all the early sign by woodson did was force a trade....... i disagree with the majority -- it was a smart move tagging him........something is better then nothing........ 254083[/snapback] Well, not if they end up keeping him 'cause they can't make a deal. Raiders in Cap Hell! Has a nice ring to it doesn't it? Reminds me of a 50's horror flick title.
d_wag Posted February 26, 2005 Posted February 26, 2005 Well, not if they end up keeping him 'cause they can't make a deal. 254088[/snapback] and i'm of the opinion that won't be a problem...... asking price could be as little as a 3rd round pick......
Nanker Posted February 26, 2005 Posted February 26, 2005 and i'm of the opinion that won't be a problem...... asking price could be as little as a 3rd round pick...... 254095[/snapback] Maybe so, but that's a lot to in effect pay your "third round pick." Especially when the draft is so deep with... Hmmm. On second thought, maybe you've got something there.
syhuang Posted February 26, 2005 Posted February 26, 2005 not tagging woodson = zero compensation for raiders tagging woodson = some compenstation for raiders when they do deal him........all the early sign by woodson did was force a trade....... i disagree with the majority -- it was a smart move tagging him........something is better then nothing........ 254083[/snapback] Let's see if there's any Woodson trade before 3/2. If not, Raiders'll be in big big trouble. If you tried to use franchise tag to get some compenstation of a player, you have to take the risk that the player signs the offer immediately to mess your cap. People who claimed that Bills should use f-tag on Jennings to get something from him always said no one signed the one year offer so early, so there's no worry. And see what happened to Raiders now.
Live&DieBillsFootball Posted February 26, 2005 Author Posted February 26, 2005 To me, the only way that trading for Woodson makes any sense would be if you signed him to a long term cap friendly deal and planned on Nate Clements leaving next year. You can't tie up that much money in cornerbacks. Also, I think that with the rule changes, cornerbacks are not as important as they were a couple of years ago. The Pats sure got a lot out of their no-name cornerbacks this past year.
GG Posted February 26, 2005 Posted February 26, 2005 Let's see if there's any Woodson trade before 3/2. If not, Raiders'll be in big big trouble. If you tried to use franchise tag to get some compenstation of a player, you have to take the risk that the player signs the offer immediately to mess your cap. 254132[/snapback] To clarify again, there is no difference to Raiders cap whether Woodson signed the tender or not. The tender offer would have counted the same $10M vs Raiders cap. The only thing the Raiders could have done was to lift the FP tag, but that would have risked Woodson walking away with no comp. By signing the tender, Woodson is now guaranteed $10M for '05, and basically forcing the Raiders to trade him. Raiders can spite him by keeping him on the roster, but benching him for every game, but it's a very expensive spite.
syhuang Posted February 26, 2005 Posted February 26, 2005 To clarify again, there is no difference to Raiders cap whether Woodson signed the tender or not. The tender offer would have counted the same $10M vs Raiders cap. The only thing the Raiders could have done was to lift the FP tag, but that would have risked Woodson walking away with no comp. By signing the tender, Woodson is now guaranteed $10M for '05, and basically forcing the Raiders to trade him. Raiders can spite him by keeping him on the roster, but benching him for every game, but it's a very expensive spite. 254141[/snapback] Right, the point is Raiders can not lift the f-tag now. They just restructre Cannon's contract and plan to release Middleton, Parrella, Stone, and R.Williams to get under the cap on 3/2. But if they're going to make the Moss trade, they'll have to create another 7.25M cap space. This is where Woodson's signing hurts them, lifting the franchise tag is no longer an option for Raiders.
GG Posted February 26, 2005 Posted February 26, 2005 Right, the point is Raiders can not lift the f-tag now. They just restructre Cannon's contract and plan to release Middleton, Parrella, Stone, and R.Williams to get under the cap on 3/2. But if they're going to make the Moss trade, they'll have to create another 7.25M cap space. This is where Woodson's signing hurts them, lifting the franchise tag is no longer an option for Raiders. 254144[/snapback] They would have had to create the cap room for Moss anyway, and lifting the FP option on Woodson would almost have guaranteed they wouldn't get any compensation for him. There is no rush by Raiders or Minny to do the Moss deal this week. The only way Raiders get burnt is if they don't find anyone willing to trade for Woodson. In some sense, Postons may have hurt their client again. By locking him in for the guaranteed $10M they removed some negotiating leverage Raiders may have had in trying to trade him. I can see other teams hardballing Al Davis by saying that they want Woodson for a 6th rounder to get him off Raiders salary cap. Davis, OTOH may be vindictive enough to keep Woodson under the tender and then doing everything in his power to ruin the guy's career.
Nanker Posted February 26, 2005 Posted February 26, 2005 Right, the point is Raiders can not lift the f-tag now. They just restructre Cannon's contract and plan to release Middleton, Parrella, Stone, and R.Williams to get under the cap on 3/2. But if they're going to make the Moss trade, they'll have to create another 7.25M cap space. This is where Woodson's signing hurts them, lifting the franchise tag is no longer an option for Raiders. 254144[/snapback] Looks like it was Woodson that did the "F-tagging"
Recommended Posts