London Fletcher is a Redskin
London Fletcher signed a 5 year 25M dollar deal with 10.5M in signing bonuses (as mentioned by TexSkins in the comments section). Additional details:
I already argued against the Fletcher signing, if only because ILB was less of a need than other positions and because Lemar Marshall was a bargain. Also because I predicted that he'd get paid 6M a year. As it turns out, he's a 5M a year player which is still over 5 times more than we paid Lemar Marshall. I'm skeptical of the utility of replacing a small, 30 year old ILB with a small, 31 year old ILB. London Fletcher is clearly an upgrade, but he doesn't pass the smell test in the bargain department.
With that said, here's what I like:
1. This could have gone horribly, terribly wrong and it didn't. I was biting my nails earlier concerned that the Redskins would sign a 15M bonus and a 7 year deal to Fletcher. I thought it was possible we'd give him 7M a year. So I view the fact that nothing catastrophically bad happened as a plus.
2. I think the signing bonus is high (though, again, not catastrophically so) but I am pleasently surprised with the structure of this contract. I would have predicted a ridiculously backloaded deal where his salary steadily increases to untenable levels. With an ageing player such as Fletcher, that's just stupid. He's not going to be worth 4-5M in base salary in 2012, when he's 36 years old. We know that. The team knows that. Everyone in the world knows that. It would guarantee that the team signed a contract they had no intention of honoring, meaning they were planning for Dead Cap hits -- a strategy I find absolutely ridiculous.
Instead, the Redskins signed a 31 year old LB to a contract that is at least possible to close out. He makes 10M in the last two years of his contract, 4M of that in signing bonuses. That means the remaining two years have 6M in base salary. I have no idea what the salary split is, whether it is 3M and 3M or 4M and 2M or 5M and 1M. In any of those cases, there isn't any reason to think London Fletcher will be incapable of earning the last two years on his contract (and thus necessitating our cutting him). He probably won't be our starter by then, but he might be playing mentor to our future drafted ILB. The most I could honestly predict us paying him overall in 2011 is 5M (2M signing bonus and 3M salary). More likely I think his base salary drops the last two years of his contract, and that is closer to 4M overall (2M signing 2M salary). By 2011 that will not be an unreasonable sum to play a backup LB, especially an experienced veteran who can contribute in other ways, like helping along a gifted young talent learn the defense.
3. By all indications London Fletcher is an upgrade at the ILB position. However you feel about this contract or him as a player, the defense might be immediately better now than it was two nights ago. I'm pleased about that, even if I disagreed with the signing overall (because it wasn't cost effective, in my opinion). Even if you don't accept that London Fletcher is a better ILB than Lemar Marshall, the worst case scenario from purely a field-production standpoint is that this move is a Wash. It isn't like the Adam Archuleta scenario where we let Ryan Clark walk as we invited AA into town; Lemar Marshall is still on this team and should backup Fletcher. If Fletcher's unbreakable body breaks, we'll still have our 2006 starting ILB.
Am I thrilled? Meh, probably not. Rather I'm merely not enormously disappointed. And when it comes to Your Washington Redskins and the offseason, that's good enough for me.
Update [2007-3-3 9:11:40 by Skin Patrol]: The Official Site is calling it. Len Pasquarelli has the details and that's what I'm running with.
Hat Tip: Extreme Skins where the word is that ESPN News just made it official. Will have details soon...
As per usual, PFT has the first word:
Will post my thoughts once the details are released either later tonight or tomorrow morning.
0 recs |
9 comments
Comments
I'm surprised...
I'll wait to hear the full details tonight, but getting both a CB and a MLB for market price seems so unSnyderish.
This Yahoo! report has about all the day's FA activites for the club.
If these reported signings and contracts are true... I don't even know what to say. For getting reasopnable contracts in a sellers market is nothing short of promising.
When was the last time the organization didn't overpay? Maybe the Jay Schroeder era...
by TexSkins on Mar 2, 2007 10:07 PM EST reply actions 0 recs
ESPN is reporting...
That seems more of a front loaded contract, which would make his aging salary more reasonable. At least that's what I'm getting out of it.
With the information available to me at this moment, I like this contract. It shores up the run defense and moves Marshall from MLB to a backup role, probably the first reserve option at all three LB spots.
I'm gonna hold out my final vote until I hear more... but for now, I like it.
by TexSkins on Mar 2, 2007 10:27 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Fletcher for 25 mill? Thats nuts
by uniteddads on Mar 3, 2007 12:25 AM EST reply actions 0 recs
90 percent downfield...
I'll take that.
Signing any OG for 49 mil is nuts. Straight up. You cannot justify signing any offensive lineman (except for maybe a LT, but even then) for that much money...
Oh, and Fletcher's 31, not 32. If you're going to gripe, get your facts straight.
Any way you slice it, he's a better MLB than Marshall. And Marshall is a better backup than anyone the team had last year. You add depth and improve with 1 signing.
He knows the scheme. He knows the DC Gregg Williams. Both are comfortable with each other. Williams says he's a positive locker room influence, which this team needs.
Losing Dockery is a loss, but 49 million? He wasn't even the second best G available according to most of the experts.
For 7 mil a year, you get Smoot, Fletcher and a player to be named later. Mathlete time: 3 starters vs. one guard?
by TexSkins on Mar 3, 2007 2:54 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
fletcher
On the plus side he is apparently a high character guy who already understands the defense and never quits. I think he will make a big difference for the defense I'm just concerned about the cap space he is eating up and that he might not be as durable as he has in the past.
by pookskins on Mar 3, 2007 6:28 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Age is definitely
Without knowing the details of the bonus (perhaps some of it is split into roster bonuses) or how his salary is structured, let's not jump ship yet on his salary cap hit. It could be fairly reasonable. His contract is starting ILB money. Though his age worries me I'd like to see how the money is spread out before throwing up my hands in despair.
I also don't think there's anything unusual in us valueing him higher than other teams. He knows our coaching staff and our scheme and so of course he'd be worth more to us than he would to others. That doesn't mean he was viewed as a low value FA: higher than Cato June or Napolean Harris. Some teams might not have been interested because we were; there isn't any perceived utility in bid-fighting with the Redskins.
I might be eating my words when the specifics of his contract come out but until then I'll remain cautiously optimistic. Again, I would've been fine with Marshall if only because he was such a bargain, but that's out of my hands now.
by Skin Patrol on Mar 3, 2007 9:53 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
144 games played
by Skin Patrol on Mar 3, 2007 9:53 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
fletcher
I still like the guy and I'm happy we got him but I think we dished out to much cash to somebody of his age who nobody seemed to be high on except us. Yeah he has never been injured but that's in the past. I just hope this doesn't end up like the Barrow fiasco.
by pookskins on Mar 3, 2007 10:15 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
What are you doing up this early?
All very good points, and I agree with most of what you said. The last thing we want is another Barrow costing us millions in Dead Space in 2005. I fear that if Fletcher is comparable in disappointment, it'll cost us even more.
I don't know the dollar amounts other teams would have valued him at, but I acknowledge it's possible we overpaid the market. Sometimes those details trickle out towards the end of free agency as bitter owners who didn't get their guy explicitly state their failed offers.
by Skin Patrol on Mar 3, 2007 10:40 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

by 














