WP: Kirk Cousins breaks his silence after Redskins trade for Alex Smith

[COWBOY-KILLA-]

If someone expresses willingness to trade for him even without a LTD, 

 

Then tag him Now.

 

If he signs, adios KC to said team, ie jets/Broncos/Browns 

whatever u can get..2nd plus something or even a few late round picks, I’d do too.

 

If he calls our bluff and doesn’t sign then rescind the tag and move on

just prior to FA..

 

i think his people would be hard pressed to pass on 34 gtd for this year.

 

def think it’s worth a shot.

[Tay]

29 minutes ago, redskinss said:

For me the argument as to the difference between an elite game changing quarterback and one who can excel in the right atmosphere died when they awarded the superbowl mvp this year. 

We can go round and round as to where cousins falls in this spectrum but I think foles is an outstanding barometer for kirk cousins.  

 

Quality QB play at a cheap cost is much better than Quality QB play at elite money.

[Fat Stupid Loser]

3 hours ago, Veryoldschool said:

Kirk is gone and the Redskins get is a 3rd round pick in 2019 providing Snyder doesn't do something self-destructive and stupid to blow this also. The fans on this board calling for Snyder to cling to Cousins and try to force a trade for Cousins are the same fans who didn't think Cousins was worth extending at market rates, let him go already and focus on the brilliant future the Skins have with Alex Smith.

Yep. Thought he wasn't worth keeping. Now we should get a first rounder for him. If he is worth a first or second rounder we should have paid the man.

[TD_washingtonredskins]

29 minutes ago, COWBOY-KILLA- said:

If someone expresses willingness to trade for him even without a LTD, 

 

Then tag him Now.

 

If he signs, adios KC to said team, ie jets/Broncos/Browns 

whatever u can get..2nd plus something or even a few late round picks, I’d do too.

 

If he calls our bluff and doesn’t sign then rescind the tag and move on

just prior to FA..

 

i think his people would be hard pressed to pass on 34 gtd for this year.

 

def think it’s worth a shot.

 

I think you need more than a team that "expresses a willingness to trade for him" without a LTD - you almost need the deal in place and a backup team. If we tag him without KNOWING we can move him, we are in deep ****. 

[Llevron]

Dude giving a big middle finger to the Redskins and the fans and some of yall still wishing the best for him. 

[Darrell Green Fan]

3 hours ago, Skinsinparadise said:

 

We've done well with our 3rd rounders -- especially top half of the first round.  But regardless, my point on the specific debate is ALL the compensation.  ALL of it.  It seems to get lost in the weeds, including in your post (though I understand not intentionally), that there are three dynamics in play with the trade, not just one.  If people want to minimize the 3rd rounder.  If they want to minimize Kendall Fuller.  If they want to minimize the opportunity cost to trade Kirk.  You got to minimize all of it -- not the part that they think isn't meaningful. 

 

Did we just trade Alex Smith for a third rounder and called it a day?

 

Or Is it?

A.  High third round pick

B.  Kendall Fuler

C. Opportunity cost to trade Kirk for a first rounder and more or at I'd presume at worst a 2nd rounder.

 

This part isn't directed your way.  A and B tend to be argued by some at times as separate points of discussion.  But they aren't.  Its both.  And the kicker to me is C.  You'd think C doesn't even exist.  Who cares that we had a fighting chance to transition tag Kirk and get trade value?

 

And the guy I am mostly debating this point on is making a big deal about losing a late 3rd rounder in 2019 as a key reason why we don't sign a FA -- smarter to give up trade capital in the whole bowl of soup to land Alex. 

 

As for the pick.  His points don't add up together.  The high third rounder can't be a whatever I am not losing sleep over the pick (with a nod to our old friend Vinny who traded 3rd rounders like candy) while its a really really really big deal to get that late third rounder for 2019.   

 

But again this wasn't a 3rd rounder for Alex.  This was Kendall Fuller.  A 3rd round pick.  And likely no shot at compensation for Kirk.  

 

 

 

 

 

I'm not trying to devalue a third round pick.  Just pointing out that the 78th pick in a draft containing 224 is in the 2nd third of the draft so it really isn't a high pick.  As for the trade this is what a good starting QB costs on the open market, to be honest after seeing the Bradford to the Vikes pick of a 1st and 4th for a far worse injury prone QB  I'm surprised it didn't cost more.  

 

[Skinsinparadise]

18 minutes ago, Darrell Green Fan said:

 

I'm not trying to devalue a third round pick.  Just pointing out that the 78th pick in a draft containing 224 is in the 2nd third of the draft so it really isn't a high pick.  As for the trade this is what a good starting QB costs on the open market, to be honest after seeing the Bradford to the Vikes pick of a 1st and 4th for a far worse injury prone QB  I'm surprised it didn't cost more.  

 

 

My point wasn't even a whit about is the Alex Smith trade a good one in a vacuum.  My total point is driven by this isn't a vacuum.  It wasn't the only choice, the only option.  It's about comparing options.

 

But playing along with your point, how did the Redskins do getting value for Kirk?  Assuming this long-shot tag and trade idea goes nowhere?  And I'll grant if it does go somewhere its a game changer as to the conversation of compensation of the whole bowl of soup.

[bedlamVR]

3 hours ago, Reaper Skins said:

Dude, that was Scot, not our current front office.

 What I was referring to was on the NBC Redskins page there was a segment with Finlay and Junior are talking about the process and where he is at now (as in the last week or so) and Junior was talking about how Dan sent his private Jet to pick him up and how the team assured stood by him following the injuries ... and this 'medling' is not limited to Dan under the Scot eara Dan has always been courteous to players and people will spin this negativly but I would rather the Owner be thoughtful and helpful rather than absent. 

 

It should still be on the site http://www.nbcsports.com/washington/redskins/need-know-redskins-junior-galette-will-be-valued-free-agent

 

There was also an interesting take on the Ried timing of moving on from Smith. The decision to move on from Smith was made in 2016  and was not entirely based on football performance (Smith did have a fantastic year last year - and kept the rookie on the bench all year) - but according to KC beat reporters (this was based on an interview on Junkies by the way) is the decision to go after Mahones was for salary cap reasons.. 

 

KC are in a cap bind right now ($185 committed to 2018 - $171 million in the rule of 51) and mismanagement of the cap is one of the main reasons Glen Dorsey was shown the door in 2017. Alex Smths deal was expiring in 2019  and either they would have to do something with that deal (probably this year)- OR move on. Given the crazy deals QBs were getting, re- upping Smith was not something they could afford to do . 

 

The Rookie cap has turned conventional thinking on its head -  it used to be if a team was selecting a QB in the first round they HAD to get it right because the deals could cripple teams financially for years to come ...   The Rookie contracts are cheap for at least 3 years and a 5th year option is generally a bargain. If you consider Mahomes cap figure for this year is $3.3 million that is the level of not a great back up - (Think what the Eagles gave Chase Daniel in 2016) ... 

 

There are things to be concerned about Smith but I dont see age being a primary - considering 2 of his pro bowl appearances occurred  in the last two years - he might fall off a cliff but what are the signs that is about to happen ?     

[COWBOY-KILLA-]

@TD_washingtonredskins yes agreed that was the implication. You have a deal in place, should have been the phrasing! 

[Dont Taze Me Bro]

55 minutes ago, Llevron said:

Dude giving a big middle finger to the Redskins and the fans and some of yall still wishing the best for him. 

 

First time in here since Kirk said he would file a grievance if tagged.  Any doubt that Kirk is all about that money and not helping the team should have gone out the window.  I wish we could have kept him to a LTD, but we didn't and now it's come to this.  I don't blame Kirk for wanting to go elsewhere, but I certainly could give two ****s anymore about his future success.

 

I definitely don't want him winning a super bowl or making it to one.  Heck, I don't want him to win a playoff game the rest of his career either.  I wanted him (like RGIII before him) to do those things with us.  Maybe in the future, there will be less salt (and trust me, almost 100% of my salt is thrown at the FO for botching this years ago), depending where he ends up.  But his lack of success in his future would make losing him not as bad.

[BatteredFanSyndrome]

26 minutes ago, Dont Taze Me Bro said:

I definitely don't want him winning a super bowl or making it to one.  Heck, I don't want him to win a playoff game the rest of his career either. 

I realize that the pain of hearing it on a daily basis on all sports media outlets, from the folks at work, from the fans of our division rivals and so on would really suck.  But honestly I'm kind of past all that now, perhaps folks just go easier on me because I actually admit how trifling we are while at the same time telling them how trifling their teams are usually.

 

With that said, something like that happening could also spur the much needed moment of clarity that Dan needs to have.

[Dont Taze Me Bro]

I was just thinking about the whole Kirk situation and the franchise tag in general.  I really think after what we witnessed first hand with Kirk approaching a third off-season under the tag (think before the Alex Smith trade), they need to change up how the tag works, specifically in regards to how they calculate the one year tag salaries.  Yes, we all know that the FO botched all of this, along with Kirk taking a different approach (positive) towards playing under the tag with no LTD, but ignoring that, what do y'all think?

 

I they they should tweak the formula to include the top 10 QBs (average salary) or 105% previous years salary, whichever is greater for the first tag.  Still gives them a raise, depending on their contract and it wouldn't cripple the team.  If tagged year two, top 5 average salary or 107% previous years salary, whichever is greater.  Third year tag, top 5 average again or 115% of previous year, whichever is greater.  

 

I haven't crunched any numbers, just tossing out the idea that in case another player wanted to play under tags like Kirk, it helps not cripple the team and it still pays the QB more money.  By lowering the percent increase and scaling it up, I would think it would encourage players to negotiate long term deals and it would help the teams when agents/players want the starting annual salary to start at the price of the tag during negotiations.  

 

 

 

 

[BatteredFanSyndrome]

I'm not sure why the NFLPA would budge on this because one of their own finally utilized a component of the CBA to their advantage.  With that said, they've gotten hosed before, so I guess it's possible. 

[mistertim]

2 hours ago, Fat Stupid Loser said:

Yep. Thought he wasn't worth keeping. Now we should get a first rounder for him. If he is worth a first or second rounder we should have paid the man.

 

Don't recall people in here saying Kirk wasn't worth keeping. I certainly always said that I'd like to keep him. The issue was whether he was worth the amount of money he apparently wants.

 

As far as the 1st rounder...if a team is desperate for a QB and/or there is any sort of bidding war, then the price can go up fast. Kirk is a good QB and there's always a team willing to overpay for a good QB.

[Darrell Green Fan]

1 hour ago, Skinsinparadise said:

 

My point wasn't even a whit about is the Alex Smith trade a good one in a vacuum.  My total point is driven by this isn't a vacuum.  It wasn't the only choice, the only option.  It's about comparing options.

 

But playing along with your point, how did the Redskins do getting value for Kirk?  Assuming this long-shot tag and trade idea goes nowhere?  And I'll grant if it does go somewhere its a game changer as to the conversation of compensation of the whole bowl of soup.

 

I'm really not sure what you are asking.  If you are asking me if the Smith trade was their best option moving forward once they were unable to sign Kirk my answer is absolutely.  The thought of going into next season with Sam Bradford, Baker Mayfield (at a cost of our 1st round pick) or Colt McCoy was terrifying. They made the best of this bad situation so let's go have us a season.

 

As for your second paragraph if you are asking me how they get max value for Kirk the answer is sign fewer FAs than we lose and be happy with the comp 3rd rounder.  I think we agree the tag and trade scenario is a Hail Mary and would probably backfire, no team will be trading a 1st or 2nd and put up the kind of money it would take to sign him.  

 

 

[Skinsinparadise]

15 minutes ago, Darrell Green Fan said:

 

As for your second paragraph if you are asking me how they get max value for Kirk the answer is sign fewer FAs than we lose and be happy with the comp 3rd rounder.  I think we agree the tag and trade scenario is a Hail Mary and would probably backfire, no team will be trading a 1st or 2nd and put up the kind of money it would take to sign him.  

 

 

 

They could have traded Kirk in 2017.  The idea of tag and trade -- before trading for Alex Smith was a much more viable thing -- and discussed as a viable possibility by multiple insiders including the normally skeptical Joel Corry.  The transition tag isn't 34 million dollars -- you'd be right in the range of what he's likely going to get.  But once they traded for Alex, the leverage of the transition tag became meaningless. 

 

You go on previously about the Bradford trade compensation.  Say you would be terrified if Bradford were our QB.  But at the same time hype maybe we get a fraction of what the Eagles got for Bradford -- but job well done? Unless, I am misreading your point.   Is there anything about how the FO handled this that you don't like?

 

Edit:  For me I laid out what would save this some for me and that is getting trade value for Kirk now.  I think just about no shot it happens.  I am just surprised how many gloss over the idea of getting trade value for the team's biggest asset.  Guys like Belichick and Reid and others game this stuff out for maximum value.  We come out of it with a ham sandwich.  

[Darrell Green Fan]

9 minutes ago, Skinsinparadise said:

 

They could have traded Kirk in 2017.  The idea of tag and trade -- before trading for Alex Smith was a much more viable thing -- and discussed as a viable possibility by multiple insiders including the normally skeptical Joel Corry.  The transition tag isn't 34 million dollars -- you'd be right in the range of what he's likely going to get.  But once they traded for Alex, the leverage of the transition tag became meaningless. 

 

You go on previously about the Bradford trade compensation.  Say you would be terrified if Bradford were our QB.  But at the same time hype maybe we get a fraction of what the Eagles got for Bradford -- but job well done? Unless, I am misreading your point.   Is there anything about how the FO handled this that you don't like?

 

Oh there is plenty about the front office's handling of this that I don't like.  I was on the Kirk bus since he took over as the starter.  It's unbelievable to me that ours will be the first team in history to simply allow a top 12 QB to walk out the door due to their incompetence.  

 

I had originally thought the transition tag was the best route.  I have since been corrected but can't remember the specifics. But clearly it was not an option. Not sure what your point was on Bradford.  I'm saying this guy, who has stolen more money than Ringo Starr when you look at dollars vs production, was worth a 1st and a 4th.  Seeing that I would have thought a trade for a much better QB in Smith would have costs more than a young CB and a middle 3rd.

 

To conclude they made the best of their own mess  They could not have waited for this whole tag/trade thing to unfold, by then Smith could have very well been dealt to another team. So not wanting to go into the foreseeable future with nobody manning the most important position in sports was not where they wanted to be so they fixed the problem. 

[HOF44]

41 minutes ago, Dont Taze Me Bro said:

 

 

I they they should tweak the formula to include the top 10 QBs (average salary) or 105% previous years salary, whichever is greater for the first tag.  Still gives them a raise, depending on their contract and it wouldn't cripple the team.  If tagged year two, top 5 average salary or 107% previous years salary, whichever is greater.  Third year tag, top 5 average again or 115% of previous year, whichever is greater.  

 

I haven't crunched any numbers, just tossing out the idea that in case another player wanted to play under tags like Kirk, it helps not cripple the team and it still pays the QB more money.  By lowering the percent increase and scaling it up, I would think it would encourage players to negotiate long term deals and it would help the teams when agents/players want the starting annual salary to start at the price of the tag during negotiations.  

 

 

 

 

It'll never happen, but I'd be pushing for no salary cap.  The owners have it set up now with the cap that a player can "cripple" a team.  Then they can say see we can't sign him he takes up to much cap.  Meanwhile depositing record profits in their accounts.  The NFLPA is a joke.  

[Veryoldschool]

1 hour ago, Dont Taze Me Bro said:

 

First time in here since Kirk said he would file a grievance if tagged.  Any doubt that Kirk is all about that money and not helping the team should have gone out the window.  I wish we could have kept him to a LTD, but we didn't and now it's come to this.  I don't blame Kirk for wanting to go elsewhere, but I certainly could give two ****s anymore about his future success.

 

I definitely don't want him winning a super bowl or making it to one.  Heck, I don't want him to win a playoff game the rest of his career either.  I wanted him (like RGIII before him) to do those things with us.  Maybe in the future, there will be less salt (and trust me, almost 100% of my salt is thrown at the FO for botching this years ago), depending where he ends up.  But his lack of success in his future would make losing him not as bad.

Let's remember the Skins decided to trade for a new franchise QB, so if they tagged Cousins it would not be with a eye towards continuing good faith negotiations towards a LTD with Kirk. Under these circumstances of course Cousins is going to file a grievance against a former employer trying to impede him securing a new job.  Yes, he is very rich so its not like a typical working stiff just trying to make a living getting worked over by a corporation but nonetheless it is abuse if the Skins try to impede his job search.

 

[HigSkin]

Point of reference for "spirit of the tag".....

 

 

[Skinsinparadise]

 

 

10 minutes ago, Darrell Green Fan said:

 

I had originally thought the transition tag was the best route.  I have since been corrected but can't remember the specifics. 

 

The transition tag doesn't work now.  Because the Redskins have to match the offer or lose Kirk for nothing.  Clearly, they aren't matching some other teams LTD. 

 

But the transition tag was perfectly viable before the trade.  Months back, I  personally didn't think think the transition tag was the best scenario but people in the business explained its by a mile best case scenario.  Tandler got into it in depth.   The transition tag keeps the starting point at 28 million.  And it allows Kirk to negotiate with another team.  The Redskins pose the threat to both Kirk and the other team by having the ability to match an offer.  And for a team like Denver it would present an opportunity (in a trade) for them not to go nuts front loading a deal.

 

"As for clearly it was not option." Clearly to whom?  

 

http://www.nbcsports.com/washington/redskins/need-know-can-redskins-tag-and-trade-cousins

If the Redskins want to try to tag and trade Cousins, the transition tag would be a much better vehicle to use. The practical effect would be the same and the Redskins would not have as much cap space tied up during the process.

There doesn’t really need to be any winking and nodding involved; the Redskins can give Cousins’ agent permission to talk to any or all teams at any time. Here is my understanding of how it could work out after the Redskins put the tag on him. 1) Cousins works out a deal with, say, Denver. No offer sheet is signed. 2) Cousins goes back to the Redskins, signs the tag, and the teams execute a trade that was agreed to beforehand. 3) Cousins signs the new deal with the Broncos.

There are a lot of moving parts to such a deal but there would be benefits for all three parties. Cousins appears to want out and this would assure him that the Redskins won’t match an offer sheet. The Broncos will be able to get their man without needing to use a heavily frontloaded contract, which they really can’t afford. And the Redskins would be able to get compensation for Cousins. A lot can go wrong here so there is no guarantee they could pull this off, but it is the best-case scenario of Cousins’ departure is inevitable.

1 hour ago, Dont Taze Me Bro said:

 

  I don't blame Kirk for wanting to go elsewhere

 

This is leading to a point on my end.  But curious as to this part of your post.  Why don't you blame him for not wanting to go elsewhere?  I don't blame him either but curious what your reasons are on it.

[bobandweave]

6 hours ago, Skinsinparadise said:

 

thanks for reading it all.   As for the length, take a look at how long the post I responded to was which was directed at me. So surprised I am the one who gets made fun of for the length.  I got another real long one directed at me.  For the interested viewers, I'll try to work my next response to be even more succinct.  Here goes.  

 

I'm not sensitive, make fun of me all you want. I can take it

 

6 hours ago, Skinsinparadise said:

As I said in my other post, you missed my point on it.  You are doubling down on it here. I'll play a little again but not after this post.  People around the league citing that as the main difference between the two is age and it matters apparently don't know what they are talking about.  Ditto Andy Reid who cited Alex's age for the prime reason why he traded for the younger QB in the draft. Check it out on Youtube.  But to put this to rest.   Alex is practically a Spring chicken, almost the same age as Kirk. We can make Alex 33.  Kirk 31.  Whatever works here.  Alex will play to his 45.   You got it.    It's not my main beef with the trade so like I said I don't want to get lost in the woods on this.  So if you insist that you are right on this.  You can have this point.  

 

Does getting a point from you come with anything special? Maybe a bucket of chicken? Mmmmm I'm hungry lol. 

 

Now to your point do you truly expect the Chiefs to come out publicly and say they were in cap hell? I don't, maybe you take them at face value and think they weren't pushed up against the cap? 

 

https://247sports.com/nfl/kansas-city-chiefs/Bolt/A-look-at-the-Kansas-City-Chiefs-salary-cap-situation-after-a-possible-Alex-Smith-trade-112173118

 

The websites Spotrac.com and OverTheCap.com both project the Chiefs to currently be in the red when it comes to cap space next year. Spotrac, using a $168 million projected salary cap number, has the Chiefs $10.6 million over the cap, which ranks last in the league

 

And here's some  more about the Chiefs cap situation if you care to educate yourself

https://arrowheadaddict.com/2018/01/24/kansas-city-chiefs-not-salary-cap-issue/

https://www.arrowheadpride.com/2018/1/16/16893170/the-chiefs-offseason-cuts-and-trades-that-can-lead-to-more-cap-space

 

Bottom line is the Chiefs prior to trading Smith were projected to have the worst cap situation in the league and were over the salary cap. You can buy the narrative that they weren't really in salary cap hell and hence they traded away Alex Smith if you want, that's on you. Truth is they were and they choose to go with Mahomes not because of his age, not because he proved he could be a good starter in the league, but because they needed the cap space. 

 

6 hours ago, Skinsinparadise said:

top half of the 3rd round to me is a high pick.  Clearly, it doesn't bother you.  In your discussion you tend to veer from one part of the compensation to another -- giving the vibe that they are all separate.  So I am going to keep my responses focused on the full compensation and ignore all the sidebar stuff that has nothing to do with the bottom line for me. 

 

Bottom line

 

1.  top half of the 3rd round pick

2. Kendell Fuller -- which to me is the equivalent to a first rounder or at worst a high 2nd rounder.

3.  Likely no shot at getting anything better than a late third rounder in Kirk in 2019.

 

Your response is hooray!  

My response is it stinks.  

 

Bottom line:

1. Your moving the goal post here. You went from "high" draft pick to "top of the 3rd round pick" which is refreshing because honestly a 3rd round pick isn't a high draft pick as you said before. 

 

2. This should make any Redskins fan smile :):):) The Redskins took a guy as the 84th selected player in a draft and you give him so much praise that he's worth a first round pick just two years later. What this shows me is that team can spot some real talent in the draft and that was a hell of a draft pick. If you want to ignore Fuller's contract being attractive to a team with no cap space that's your prerogative. You seem to be thinking things that just aren't true about the Chiefs and this deal now anyway. Why stop with just your takes on Alex Smith lol

 

3. As I said before, and will always say. There are folks out there that think the Redskins can get something from a trade with Kirk in the 2018 offseason, just weeks before he becomes a free agent. I do not now or ever have believed that to be the case. If those folks choose to think otherwise good for them. Until I see that as a real possibility I can not fathom why a team would give up anything for a guy that will be free in a couple of weeks like Kirk. The time to get something more then a third round pick for Cousins was any time before Halloween 2017 at 4pm EST. That was the trade deadline. Any time before that date the Redskins probably likely would have gotten something better then a third round pick for Cousins. Since they let that deadline pass they get what they get and that's a third round pick in 2019. 

 

6 hours ago, Skinsinparadise said:

 

Your response has the overtone that the deal is so great, that I am just nuts and just hating the FO for not embracing it.  But you of all people should know better than that since we debated this BEFORE it went down.  And I explained then why it was my least favorite scenario and flat out said what I prefer.  I don't care if you disagree. That doesn't sway me.  To each their own.  

 

And I don't care if you and I can't agree with the way things have gone down here. I've given more reasons in this debate why this trade was awesome considering that the Redskins weren't going to be able to keep Kirk. You've come up with things like cap space had nothing to do with why this went down. We are at an impasse that shall unlikely ever be agreed upon but I do like you as a poster and I like debating things and enjoyed the exchange

 

 

6 hours ago, Skinsinparadise said:

Do you understand that the Eagles got a 1st rounder and 4th rounder for Bradford

A first and 2nd rounder for Carson Palmer

Jay Cutler for two first round picks and a third

Heck we traded a 2nd and 4th for McNabb

On and on.

 

LOL, Bradford trade happened one week before the season started. Carson Palmer was traded to the Raiders mid season who had just lost it's starting QB, Jay Cutty was traded in 2008 when people still thought he was good to the Bears who hadn't had anything that looked like a good QB since Jim McMahon overpaid for him (seems to be a thing for them ie. Mike Glennon). The last trade really hurts because had the team known Kirk was heading out the door the Jets likely would have paid handsomely for his rights last year. 

 

You pretend that the surrounding situations about these trades don't play a part in them which is wrong. Even if you don't think the situations matter they most certainly do. Just like when this story ends with Kirk being on another team the situation regarding him and what compensation will be will show how the team believed the player at his word, and it cost them. Sucks but that's what this is

 

 

6 hours ago, Skinsinparadise said:

 

I don't give a rats behind about a late third round pick in 2019 which is the equivalent of the late round 4th round pick this year -- at the expense of potentially getting a first rounder for Kirk and keeping Fuller.  It's ridiculous IMO that this is even a point of discussion for debate.

 

Your right it is silly. Here it is February 21st 2018, months after the time to trade Kirk for a first round pick has long been gone. 113 days ago long gone to be accurate. Look I've said all along that I thought Kirk was a good QB who was going to stay here with us. He choose to say things that made everyone believe him. Then once the season ended he said things that showed he was lying about what he had said previously and had fooled everyone. 113 days ago today was when you could have had a first for Kirk, today that isn't happening. Blame Kirk for this.

[Darrell Green Fan]

22 minutes ago, Skinsinparadise said:

 

 

 

The transition tag doesn't work now.  Because the Redskins have to match the offer or lose Kirk for nothing.  Clearly, they aren't matching some other teams LTD. 

 

But the transition tag was perfectly viable before the trade.  Months back, I  personally didn't think think the transition tag was the best scenario but people in the business explained its by a mile best case scenario.  Tandler got into it in depth.   The transition tag keeps the starting point at 28 million.  And it allows Kirk to negotiate with another team.  The Redskins pose the threat to both Kirk and the other team by having the ability to match an offer.  And for a team like Denver it would present an opportunity (in a trade) for them not to go nuts front loading a deal.

 

"As for clearly it was not option." Clearly to whom?  

 

http://www.nbcsports.com/washington/redskins/need-know-can-redskins-tag-and-trade-cousins

If the Redskins want to try to tag and trade Cousins, the transition tag would be a much better vehicle to use. The practical effect would be the same and the Redskins would not have as much cap space tied up during the process.

There doesn’t really need to be any winking and nodding involved; the Redskins can give Cousins’ agent permission to talk to any or all teams at any time. Here is my understanding of how it could work out after the Redskins put the tag on him. 1) Cousins works out a deal with, say, Denver. No offer sheet is signed. 2) Cousins goes back to the Redskins, signs the tag, and the teams execute a trade that was agreed to beforehand. 3) Cousins signs the new deal with the Broncos.

There are a lot of moving parts to such a deal but there would be benefits for all three parties. Cousins appears to want out and this would assure him that the Redskins won’t match an offer sheet. The Broncos will be able to get their man without needing to use a heavily frontloaded contract, which they really can’t afford. And the Redskins would be able to get compensation for Cousins. A lot can go wrong here so there is no guarantee they could pull this off, but it is the best-case scenario of Cousins’ departure is inevitable.

 

This is leading to a point on my end.  But curious as to this part of your post.  Why don't you blame him for not wanting to go elsewhere?  I don't blame him either but curious what your reasons are on it.

 

 

Again I was suggesting the transition tag early on, made sense to me for the reasons you posted.  I don't remember where I heard it but it was from several sources and it was convincing, just don't remember the specifics of why it would not work.    I know it was discussed here in the 1,305 pages of Kirk discussion.  

[PlayAction]

Woulda, coulda, shoulda at this point.  Skins should wait until the last day for using a tag and then do nothing.  The Cousin's era is over and there's nothing more to do about it - hopefully we won't have to listen to Kirk stuff for the next two years like we did with RG3.  I'm happy the Skins are not paying 28-30 million or whatever contract Kirk will eventually earn.     

[Est.1974]

29 minutes ago, Veryoldschool said:

so if they tagged Cousins it would not be with a eye towards continuing good faith negotiations towards a LTD with Kirk. 

 

 

Kirk is on record this offseason stating that he was not willing to negotiate a LTD prior to the FA period starting. That clearly demonstrates little good faith on his behalf to give us the option to secure a LTD prior to FA. If he had been willing to sit down in January or February to discuss a LTD, and we refused, he might have something to complain about. He didn't, therefore the team will argue that it couldn't leave the situation open any longer. We secured a back up option as we we're exposed to having no viable starting QB on the roster come March. Kirk is the one who publicly said he wasn't going to talk to us. That was a mistake.

 

The tag is clearly also available so that teams can protect its assets. Many teams do it and your can easily read between the lines where there is little interest in a LTD. 

 

We could even tag Kirk and make him a LTD contract offer. There is your good faith. He doesn't have to like the offer, he hasn't done for the previous two season but was more than happy with the NFLs tagging process then. What's he going to do about it? Offer him the same deal Smith, he wont take it. Are the league going to to uphold a grievance on that. And if Kirk signs the deal, trade him. All we have to do is keep is signing bonus low to protect our cap position. What's anyone going to do about that?

 

Simply don't buy this grievance story. We've pissed his agent off by trading for Smith whilst his agent was still revelling in the fact that they have been able to play us under the tag game. He's fallen asleep on the job.

 

Our FO has strong options here. Whether we take one of them is another matter.