John Riggins: Clinton Portis has team "over a barrel."
From various sources comes an emerging and troubling potential Clinton Portis vs. John Riggins duel the likes of which have not been seen since, well, the last time Clinton Portis got into it with anoter former Redskin. Remember this?
Portis: What you go on TV and say, what you sit on your radio show and say, 'Portis need to shut up?' Portis gonna keep talking.
Mitchell: You keep talking. Keep talking, bro.
Portis: So the fools saying Portis need to shut up, they can kiss Portis's ass. I'm saying that. Ain't nothing gonna change, my man....
Mitchell: Clinton, I'm gonna tell you like this bro. I always talk. I'm an analyst. I analyze positive and negative. If you can't handle the negative....
Portis: You're a hater, that's what you are....
Host John Thompson: "Both of y'all are guys that we're both proud of, and when you see one another, eat a sausage sandwich, sit back and put your toes up and laugh about this crap."
That was just months ago and was widely reported as escalating dangerously towards a physical altercation. Now John Riggins is piling on though, thankfully, no one's pockets are losing their straightness as a result. Net yet, at least. Pro Football Weekly and Mark Maske provide the potentially offending quote:
"I don't think there's any turning back now because obviously to a certain extent Clinton Portis has the team over a barrel from my understanding of the amount of money that he's owed, guaranteed money that becomes really cost-prohibitive to get rid of him over a [salary] cap issue. There's not that many teams that would be interested in Clinton Portis, I don't think, and so they have a bad situation on their hands. [That's] my personal take on it."
We'll talk more about the salary implications in a moment, but what's all this noise about, anyways? Something like:
Redskins RB Clinton Portis spoke with a small group of media, including PFW, in Tampa before the Super Bowl and said he still isn’t sure if he’ll be a part of the team’s offseason workouts in the D.C. area or if he’ll work out in Miami, as he has become accustomed to doing — but something the coaching staff would rather he not do.
“I’m going to play it by ear,” he said. “I’m going to be taking my time. I know I’m winding down. I’m going to take my time and make the decision best for me to help carry this team.”
Part of me wants to know more about this "winding down" and wonders why it is that NFL employees get to "play it by ear" when it comes to what their employers want whereas the likes of me do what we're told. Part of me also recognizes that this is hardly business as unusual, and that Clinton Portis (and others) routinely trains outside of Washington in the off-season. So I'm somewhere between lamenting one of our best players effectively telling the staff that what they want may or may not matter, and really being disinterested in his off-season workout destination so long as he shows up healthy. (Mark Newgent correctly points out that perhaps John Riggins isn't the appropriate task-master for this, as he was hardly a boyscout.)
But about this being over a barrel business... Just start adding zeros. Although slightly dated, I don't think much of Portis' contract has changed since January 1st of this year, and Warpath's figures have Clinton as:
- The highest compensated player on the team through 2013, escalating dramatically in 2010 to over 10M a year.
- His release fees start at 13M in 2009 and go down about 2.5M-3M a year as additional guaranteed moneys are prorated out of his contract. Keep in mind this number is just as likely to increase as decrease, because the preferred solution for solving every Redskin salary cap problem is renegotiating formerly unguaranteed money into guaranteed money prorated over the course of the contract, thereby increasing the penalty for early release.
- Cursory examination shows that Portis is just above Chris Samuels and just below Chris Cooley in terms of release penalties over the next 3 years.
- Incredibly, the team is in the unenviable position of taking a 7 digit penalty for cutting Portis at any moment before 2013. I love Clinton Portis, he's one of my favorite players on the team. I am incapable, though, of defending our decision to tie so many funds into his contract necessarily. Fates change rapidly in the NFL and you're better off not marrying yourself to (virtually) any player for that much change. I think this is especially true of running backs, as the position is one of the more fungible ones in the game.
- Because he's set to cost the team an alarming 10+M in 2010, the team can actually save money by cutting him (with a penalty of around 8.5M) which would then give us the largest individual dead cap hit that I can recall seeing in Washington (for a nice comparison, we paid ~ 6M in total dead cap hit last year) though I could be wrong about that.
I harp on it too often and will forget the point for now, but briefly: I do not think restructuring unguaranteed moneys into guaranteed money is a wise strategy generally, and the sheer volume in dead cap hits that we'd suffer from cutting Clinton Portis at any time over the next 3 years is partial evidence of that, in my opinion. Having said that I urge everyone to fall back in love with Clinton Portis, because whatever happens he's either going to be here for a while, or haters should exercise caution over what they wish, as Portis cut and sent packing out of town represents (relatively) dire financial consequence for the team. In other words: Yea, over a barrel sounds about right.
0 recs |
8 comments
|
Comments
Of course...
none of the above takes into consideration what happens if the salary cap goes away…
by Skin Patrol on Feb 2, 2009 3:23 PM EST reply actions 0 recs
Reality or conjecture
Incredibly, the team is in the unenviable position of taking a 7 digit penalty for cutting Portis at any moment before 2013.
With the no CBA in 2010, it would account for 0 digits to drop him.
This place has become a joke…
Part of me wants to know more about this “winding down” and wonders why it is that NFL employees get to “play it by ear” when it comes to what their employers want whereas the likes of me do what we’re told. Part of me also recognizes that this is hardly business as unusual, and that Clinton Portis (and others) routinely trains outside of Washington in the off-season. So I’m somewhere between lamenting one of our best players effectively telling the staff that what they want may or may not matter, and really being disinterested in his off-season workout destination so long as he shows up healthy
.
Again the CBA which is quoted so much on the Salary cap and costs, but is forgotten when it comes to off-season plans, Work outs are voluntary, it’s not a requirment except for specific OTAs a player does not have to have contact with the team, and if the team does “require” or ask more than it can and will get fined for going against the CBA, ask Joe Gibbs.
Independent thought, seperate from talking heads and commercialism…
by dr WNC on Feb 2, 2009 4:33 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Re:
It is the case that without the CBA, all of this is meaningless. I hope, for the sake of football generally, that the CBA will be renewed.
I didn’t intend to suggest that voluntary workouts were involuntary. I don’t think Portis telling the team that he’s going to do something they preferred he didn’t do is a good thing, no matter whether voluntary or involuntary. I think we’d prefer “team players” to a group of individuals.
But, as I stated above, it matters not to me so long as he shows up healthy.
by Skin Patrol on Feb 2, 2009 7:18 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
When has the REDSKINS, wanted to do something and didn't ???
The issues which exist with this front office, the salary cap is not it and will be gone next year.
When did salary cap limitations prevent the REDSKINS from doing something which they wanted to do?
The REDSKINS have no interest or desire of getting rid of CP, conjecture not fact.
How does the salary cap effect the Redskins? It appears to be a non-issue, made into an issue.
by dr WNC on Feb 2, 2009 4:39 PM EST reply actions 0 recs
Re:
It forced us to hold onto Brandon Lloyd longer than was practical. It has forced us to restructure contracts we would not otherwise want to restructure, notably Chris Samuels’ contract. This latter will have consequences, at some point, that might not be that noticeable but certainly are considered by the people making personnel decisions, whomever that may be. I suspect we will have to keep Chris Samuels on the roster longer than we would otherwise want. The same will almost necessarily be true of Clinton Portis, who may have already exceeded in costs his value to the team, but will most certainly do so before his contract is up.
The presumption in Redskins land is that, since we’re always just SO active in the offseason (which I think is false) we must always get the men we want. The reality is that we get guys like Adam Archuleta or Andre Carter who, though proven very good players, are hardly the most expensive people on the market. There are free agents that the team has passed on, and we’ve done so in part for financial reasons.
Much of the spending the Redskins utilize may be forgiven, in part because we don’t have any super, insanely high paid players (because we don’t have very many really, truly great players) which gives us some wiggle room that other teams don’t. I’d rather have Tom Brady than 14M a year in free cap space. Also, because the salary cap has increased, some of our wasteful spending is permissible. But I think it is a rather short-sighted strategy to spend on the assumption that the cap will be a certain level in the future, as that is speculative spending. Supposing we gamble and lose, we’ll be in a lot of trouble. I don’t want to predict cap disaster, but I think the error in logic employed by fans who push back against us alarmists, is that simply proving that the Redskins haven’t been in cap disaster in the past doesn’t mean it won’t happen in the future. It could take years, perhaps even as much as a decade, to reach that horrible place we call Sky Is Falling where our team’s financial system gets called into question. The trouble is, if we get to that point, it could take years, a decade even, to recover.
I think there are some sensible defenses of restructuring. That business as usual hasn’t (yet?) destroyed the team, however, is not one of them in my opinion.
by Skin Patrol on Feb 2, 2009 7:28 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Portis
My real concern is Portis’ disregard for authority still seems ripe…we’re primed for another blowup next year where Zorn gets under-mined. Although if we average 16 points a game next year too it’s probably deserved.
by KevinE on Feb 2, 2009 4:42 PM EST reply actions 0 recs
That is also my concern.
I don’t much care what his attitude is so long as we’re winning (in which case his disregar for authority is better dubbed something like swagger or being a maverick, etc.) but when we aren’t, it is that same attitude that makes a bad situation worse. Terrell Owens is alternatively passionate and simply an asshole, when in reality he’s the same guy in good times and bad it just gets described as an asshole in the bad times. All things equal, at 8-8, I’d prefer an Art Monk personality to a Clinton Portis personality.
The good thing about Portis is everything about him turns out to be great for print, even when it comes from the mouths of his critics. Mark Newgent touched on it so I didn’t bother, but there’s something funny about John Riggins criticizing Portis this way given Riggins’ history.
by Skin Patrol on Feb 2, 2009 7:31 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
My real concern
is that he doesn’t rush for anything over 20 yards anymore….and he’s being paid like he’s the best rb in the league. Awesome.
by artmonk4ever on Feb 3, 2009 12:28 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

by 


















