The (only!) official ES all things Kirk Cousins should we shouldn't we off-season thread.

[wit33]

42 minutes ago, Dont Taze Me Bro said:

 

From a business stance, it is very smart because he can play under the FT two years and make 44 million fully guaranteed.  Then sign a LTD that will yield another huge payday (most likely).  He is maximizing his earnings by playing under the tag.  And it's not privilege, it's an option available to him via the FT rules agreed upon by both the owners and players association in the CBA.

 

Just because no other QB has taken this approach doesn't make Kirk a bad guy or privileged.  He's playing by the rules in place, nothing more and nothing less.  

 

Ohh... I thought it was because he speaks well in front of the camera and looks the part. 

[MartinC]

OK folks I let this run for a while as the OP started out on a different take on the Cousins situation. But the conversation in this thread is now pretty much identical to the should/we shouldn't we, how much is too much conversation in the offseason Cousins thread. I'm going to be merging this thread with that in a few minutes.

[Est.1974]

29 minutes ago, Califan007 said:

 

Until they are in a situation in which they do not control where Cousins plays and how much he plays, the Redskins are in control. They would still control whether or not they want to franchise him again next year, what type of tag they want to place on him, whether they want to meet his salary demands, whether they want to release him outright, whether they want to bench him, etc, etc.

That doesn't make you in control. They have power to dictate the outcome for a couple of seasons, but that's not being in control...no way.

 

Kirk has them by the balls.

[Califan007 The Constipated]

54 minutes ago, UK SKINS FAN '74 said:

That doesn't make you in control. They have power to dictate the outcome for a couple of seasons, but that's not being in control...no way.

 

 

You just defined the word "control" and then said it doesn't mean control lol...

 

 

57 minutes ago, MartinC said:

OK folks I let this run for a while as the OP started out on a different take on the Cousins situation. But the conversation in this thread is now pretty much identical to the should/we shouldn't we, how much is too much conversation in the offseason Cousins thread. I'm going to be merging this thread with that in a few minutes.

 

What thread were you talking about lol...

[Est.1974]

21 minutes ago, Califan007 said:

 

You just defined the word "control" and then said it doesn't mean control lol...

 

You just confirmed you don't understand what being in control means.

[Skinsinparadise]

Redskins QB Kirk Cousins

Chances he’s tagged: 100%

I’ve been reporting since Thanksgiving that the powers that be in Washington – i.e. chief purse-string controller Bruce Allen and owner Dan Snyder – had decided they would be willing to tag Cousins again and let him play 2017 for $24 million if need be.

This hasn’t been lost on Cousins, either, and therefore there wasn’t much motivation or provocation for him to start talking about a new deal until March, after the tag had been applied for a second straight year. Once it is applied, Washington will try to sign him long-term up to the July 15 deadline to do so, and will also have one ear open in case any other club blows them away with a trade offer (that means you, San Francisco).

Any deal for Cousins is going to have to start around $24 million per year and be worth upwards of $60 million over the first two years, and once Washington goes ahead and apply the tag, my best hunch is that he ends up with a five-to-six-year deal to stay when this all eventually get resolved.

http://www.cbssports.com/nfl/news/estimating-the-odds-10-teams-use-franchise-tags-including-three-stone-cold-locks/

[RemoveSnyder]

3 hours ago, XtremeFan55 said:

For those thinking that the Redskins have until July 15th to trade Cousins are not thinking straight.  

 

July 15 is not the trade deadline. In 2016 the trade deadline was Nov. 1st.

 

July 15 is the deadline date for any franchise tagged players to sign a long term contract with their parent team. That's it.

After July 15, if no multi-year deal is agreed upon, the franchise player designated plays exclusively on that one year contract through the regular season. 

After the regular season has ended, but before the contract has expired, the team and player can negotiate an extension.

 

Otherwise, the one year contract ends and the player becomes, for example, an unrestricted free agent again, if applicable. 

[onedrop]

2 hours ago, UK SKINS FAN '74 said:

That doesn't make you in control. They have power to dictate the outcome for a couple of seasons, but that's not being in control...no way.

 

Kirk has them by the balls.

so only in control for the next couple of seasons then?

[RemoveSnyder]

20 hours ago, Epochalypse said:

Resigned Cousins to a 5-YR, 24 million/YR contract, w/35% guaranteed

Tangent to the fanspeak context.

 

I think the guaranteed money is going to have to be higher. You're only accounting for 42 million guaranteed here in this model.

In reality, I figure the starting point is at 45% or 50%. Because the combined total of guaranteed money, if using the consecutive tag application over the next two years, would be above 50 million dollars anyway.

...

23.94 + 34.47 = 58.41

23.94 + 28.72 = 52.66

...

At 45%, you're guaranteeing 54 million. At 50%, 60 million -- using your 5 year and 24 AAV model. 

 

 

Correct me if I'm wrong here. Numbers ain't my best. 

 

[Califan007 The Constipated]

1 hour ago, UK SKINS FAN '74 said:

 

You just confirmed you don't understand what being in control means.

 

"They have power to dictate the outcome" = Control.

[Califan007 The Constipated]

17 minutes ago, onedrop said:

so only in control for the next couple of seasons then?

 

Yep...which matches what I said in an earlier post: until the Redskins are in a situation where they do not control where Cousins plays and how much he plays, the Redskins are in control.

[RemoveSnyder]

This whole topic:

 

 

[Birdlives]

3 minutes ago, Califan007 said:

 

Yep...which matches what I said in an earlier post: until the Redskins are in a situation where they do not control where Cousins plays and how much he plays, the Redskins are in control.

 

 

And to piggyback on this, as I stated earlier in the thread, the Redskins appear fine with that. They have financially prepared themselves to cover the next two years worth of tags. They can cover the 24 mil this year and if conservative once again in free agency, will be able to carry over enough money to either franchise or transition him in 2018. Also noted, after the ability to tag expires for the 2019 season, Kirk will be 31. It also gives the Skins 3 more drafts and 3 years of open free agency to find a replacement.

[RabidFan]

4 minutes ago, Birdlives said:

 

 

And to piggyback on this, as I stated earlier in the thread, the Redskins appear fine with that. They have financially prepared themselves to cover the next two years worth of tags. They can cover the 24 mil this year and if conservative once again in free agency, will be able to carry over enough money to either franchise or transition him in 2018. Also noted, after the ability to tag expires for the 2019 season, Kirk will be 31. It also gives the Skins 3 more drafts and 3 years of open free agency to find a replacement.

Christ just rebuild and draft now if they are going to pay him $50m in two tags over 2 years and then he walks.  Use that money annually on getting a top 10 defense and keeping top 10 offense with depth.

[Warhead36]

What we need to hope for is that all the other QB-needy teams address the position during the off season. Browns trade for Garapollo, 49ers draft someone, etc. etc. Once the market dries up, Cousins's demands might drop by the 2-3 million we need it to to agree to a deal.

 

If a deal does get done, it won't be until after the draft. Unless some team decides to make him an offer and is willing to part with two 1sts.

[Momma There Goes That Man]

3 hours ago, Califan007 said:

 

Until they are in a situation in which they do not control where Cousins plays and how much he plays, the Redskins are in control. They would still control whether or not they want to franchise him again next year, what type of tag they want to place on him, whether they want to meet his salary demands, whether they want to release him outright, whether they want to bench him, etc, etc.

 

If that's the kind of control that makes you feel better about the situation, so be it. 

[Califan007 The Constipated]

14 minutes ago, Birdlives said:

 

 

And to piggyback on this, as I stated earlier in the thread, the Redskins appear fine with that. They have financially prepared themselves to cover the next two years worth of tags. They can cover the 24 mil this year and if conservative once again in free agency, will be able to carry over enough money to either franchise or transition him in 2018. Also noted, after the ability to tag expires for the 2019 season, Kirk will be 31. It also gives the Skins 3 more drafts and 3 years of open free agency to find a replacement.

 

What you said seems to have escaped the thought processes of a few too many fans and even media members. Especially that part in bold. I personally don't think they're gonna tag him next year (or rather it's more like Plan Q lol), but the Skins' FO isn't just winging it week by week.

 

 

5 minutes ago, Momma There Goes That Man said:

 

If that's the kind of control that makes you feel better about the situation, so be it. 

 

That's the reality. If ignoring reality makes you feel better (or feel worse), have at it.

[Momma There Goes That Man]

2 minutes ago, Califan007 said:

That's the reality. If ignoring reality makes you feel better (or feel worse), have at it.

 

Just because the Redskins can delay an inevitability by a year (if Kirk decides) doesn't mean they are in any type of control. 

[markmills67]

This whole Cousins saga is becoming a joke, if the Redskins don't give Cousins a LTD then we don't deserve regular play-off appearances, the best QB we have had in God knows how long and we are stalling and stalling for some unknown reason. Can one of you fellow Skins fans out there please tell me we are going to sign Cousins to a LTD. 

 

HTTR 

6 minutes ago, Warhead36 said:

What we need to hope for is that all the other QB-needy teams address the position during the off season. Browns trade for Garapollo, 49ers draft someone, etc. etc. Once the market dries up, Cousins's demands might drop by the 2-3 million we need it to to agree to a deal.

 

If a deal does get done, it won't be until after the draft. Unless some team decides to make him an offer and is willing to part with two 1sts.

If the not signing Cousins is because of 2 to 3m a year then we are a complete joke of a franchise. 

[Califan007 The Constipated]

11 minutes ago, Momma There Goes That Man said:

 

Just because the Redskins can delay an inevitability by a year (if Kirk decides) doesn't mean they are in any type of control. 

 

What's the inevitability?...A long term deal?...A trade?...Being released? Or all of the above.

 

Just a reminder, though lol...this whole talk about "control" was in response to someone saying that the Skins aren't as eager to shell out bucks for Cousins like they were for Norman. Someone else chalked it up to liking the new shiny toy while treating the guys currently on the roster as garbage (or whatever).  I said it's because with Cousins they have control but with Normal they had zero control. Which means that, with Norman they had to act immediately and find contract numbers they felt he would accept, but with Cousins there is no immediate hurry because they know they won't lose him. Plus they have other options for Cousins that they did not have for Norman.

[Est.1974]

32 minutes ago, Califan007 said:

 

"They have power to dictate the outcome" = Control.

 

We have the power to dictate the outcome for a couple is seasons true, will cost about 58mil in tag money.

 

Is that because we are in control of the situation, or because we have lost control of the situation?

 

Its a common mistake in all forms of life, people love to exert power when they know the control had gone. The power is short lived.................

[mistertim]

9 minutes ago, markmills67 said:

This whole Cousins saga is becoming a joke, if the Redskins don't give Cousins a LTD then we don't deserve regular play-off appearances, the best QB we have had in God knows how long and we are stalling and stalling for some unknown reason. Can one of you fellow Skins fans out there please tell me we are going to sign Cousins to a LTD. 

 

 

Just because the reason is unknown to you doesn't mean it is unknown to the people in charge of the decision. And we haven't had regular playoff appearances or even a playoff win with Cousins either, ya know...

[AlvinWaltonIsMyBoy]

[Califan007 The Constipated]

5 minutes ago, UK SKINS FAN '74 said:

 

We have the power to dictate the outcome for a couple is seasons true, will cost about 58mil in tag money. - IF they tag him again. If they sign him to a LTD, then what's the cost? If they trade him, then what's the cost?

 

Is that because we are in control of the situation, or because we have lost control of the situation? - The only way you lose control of the situation is if you no longer have the power to dictate the outcome.It's not when you no longer have the power to dictate the outcome in the most cost-efficient way possible.

 

Its a common mistake in all forms of life, people love to exert power when they know the control had gone. The power is short lived.................

- The idea that the Redskins already planned for this and are fine with it doesn't seem to be part of the equation in your eyes, I take it. I said in another thread (or maybe this one, hell, I don't know lol) that the only reason for anyone to spin the current situation with Cousins in a negative light is because the belief is there is no valid reason for Cousins not being signed yet. Is that how you feel? (genuinely asking)

 

^^ I'm not sure how to break that quote up lol...everytime I tried it got more and more screwed up.

[mistertim]

6 minutes ago, Califan007 said:

 

^^ I'm not sure how to break that quote up lol...everytime I tried it got more and more screwed up.

 

"It's not you, quote. It's me. It's just not working out and I think we should just be friends."