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

[TSO]

^^ Talk about bad timing. Did you miss my post just now?  

 

You need to take a break. We'll discuss this via PM. You got a Rule 11 in there too, why not, lol. 

 

Everyone else DO NOT REPLY to him and understand some of you, though it was largely deserved, went too far with him. Use the report function more. 

[bobandweave]

Actually I did miss your reply and was surprised to see that

[JSSkinz]

55 minutes ago, Monk4thaHALL said:

 

As for your line of: they [Redskins] dragged out the process, no, it's not just them. It's Cousins and his camp who are mandating the Redskins place a tag on him. And you should know the because: 23.94 guaranteed. Having the tag placed first is the reassurance Cousins wants for the legally binding tag which carries the guaranteed money. 

 

If you're trying to assign blame to someone for the fact that no deal has been made yet, then you have level the complaint at both sides. The Redskins are not unilaterally keeping Cousins twisting in the wind.

 

 

3

 

I'm not sure we're on the same page, almost as if you're responding to an argument I'm not trying to make.

 

Everything I didn't quote is due to the fact its obvious information that most of us know.  The "dragging ass' comment was made about post franchise negotiations and no I'm not blaming anyone, it's business not personal but the team is my only focus so I'm looking at a situation that I don't believe I have ever seen where the pro bowl QB and both his starting WR's are all free agents in the same offseason, if this has happened in the last 30 years please let me know.

 

If we don't quickly lock down Kirk to a LTD I think it could cost us some opportunities in free agency, I could be wrong but I don't know why any good offensive players would come here without knowing they have a QB who can win football games.

 

 

 

[RemoveSnyder]

24 minutes ago, Peregrine said:

Again, no one re-signs players before the combine.  Im not sure why people arent understanding this.  This isnt new.  This isnt just the Redskins.  This is how it happens every year, with every team.  Nothing to see here.

 

But there's a golden opportunity for the media to criticize the Redskins for not signing Cousins already so that when the Redskins do sign Cousins, those same media folks can say: "See! They're doing exactly what I said they should have done ... Here's why I'm important: A, B, C."

[AlvinWaltonIsMyBoy]

8 hours ago, Monk4thaHALL said:

That's a reason to trade someone. Not the ass cheeks mime or the middle finger necessarily, I'd probably think that was funny, honestly. But when the someone declaratively states they will not do business with you, not now, not ever, that's a reason. The #2 pick is not a reason. The #2 pick is a causal benefit from the act of trading a commodity.

You're right, there has to be a reason for us to not sign Kirk.  

 

I don't one hundred percent buy the speculation that Danny doesn't like Kirk because he liked RG3 more.  And I don't see your scenario of Kirk walking into the FO and miming people with his ass.  But what I can see, is that each of those scenarios could hold a little bit of truth, which could in turn be a source of friction.

 

In other words, Kirk is not the number one jersey selling electric QB Danny wanted/wants to lead his franchise.  On the other side, Kirk feels like he's been under appreciated in some ways and doesn't know what more he has to do for the organization to make a long term commitment to him.  

 

I think it's possible there's some lingering resentment on both sides.  To me, that could be a reason that Kirk gets shipped.  Is it a childish reason?  Sure it is.  But bruised egos can be very powerful things.

[RemoveSnyder]

33 minutes ago, jschuck12001 said:

I'm not sure we're on the same page, almost as if you're responding to an argument I'm not trying to make.

 

This what you wrote: 

5 hours ago, jschuck12001 said:

... vs how many free agents they will lose a chance at signing because they dragged out the process and those free agents won't want to commit their future to a Kirkless Redskins team that will win between 4-6 games next year. 

 

Who is they? The Redskins? 

Then I am responding directly to something you've literally written.

Quote

Everything I didn't quote is due to the fact its obvious information that most of us know.

 

You wrote the reason why free agents would not consider coming here: "a Kirkless Redskins team that will win between 4-6 games next year."

 

If tagged, Kirk is with the Redskins next year ... *unless. 

You didn't say: "a Kirkless Redskins team in 2019." 

 

Quote

The "dragging ass' comment was made about post franchise negotiations and no I'm not blaming anyone, it's business not personal but the team is my only focus so I'm looking at a situation that I don't believe I have ever seen where the pro bowl QB and both his starting WR's are all free agents in the same offseason, if this has happened in the last 30 years please let me know.

 

Well, post franchise negotiations can't happen yet, until tagged, this year. If you're referring to the time between March 2, 2016 and July 15, 2016, apparently the two sides were off concerning valuation, clearly. 

 

If you're referring to the window of time after the regular season, before the present, where an extension theoretically could have been negotiated, well, again, Cousins was and is clearly not interested in any long term contract without the reassurance of the tag which carries its guarantees. I think someone could argue that it's Cousins who is actually stalling this whole thing.

 

Quote

If we don't lock down Kirk long term I think it could cost us some opportunities in free agency, I could be wrong but I don't know why any good offensive players would come here without knowing they have a QB who can win football games.

 

The uncertainly starts, at the earliest, in 2019. If a free agent is deciding not to sign with the Skins because they figure in year 3 of their deal they might have to deal with a different QB than Cousins, then that's their decision. The Redskins can ensure that Cousins is here for 2017 and 2018, even if Cousins doesn't want to be here. Fact. 

 

So, why a free agent would say no to playing with Cousins for two years, if the deciding factor is to play with Cousins, is something you'd have to explain. 

 

 

[DC Lumber Co.]

Again, the thought process that if a long term deal isnt signed = Kirk is gone and therefore would have an impact on other players desire to re-sign or sign here is completely baseless.

 

As myself and others continue to point out, if we franchise Kirk we can continue to negotiate a long term deal until the deadline, which is a common scenario and is likely to be the case with Cousins as well. If for some reason Kirk takes the franchise tag as an insult (FWIW he actually has said he views the tag as the complete opposite, this is fact that is also ignored), he doesn't strike me as the type to hold out the entire 2017 season. The negatives of being out of football an entire year far outweigh anything he would have to gain from such a move.

 

So again (which I'm sure will continue to be ignored) Kirk will likely be Franchised on the 1st. He will likely sign said deal and we will continue to negotiate a long term deal. If Kirk doesn't want to be here like some of you think (when he has actually said the exact opposite, but that is ignored too) we will have him at least for the upcoming year, barring an unlikely hold out. That should be enough to sign any free agent, as the NFL changes far too quickly for a player to base decisions on anything but the immediate future, aka the upcoming season. 

 

Furthermore, we can still get compensation for Kirk via a transition tag placed on him prior to next offseasons free agency. Don't know why people still continue to think that its now or never for trading Kirk, its simply not true. Would the value be higher now? Sure. But we can still trade his rights next year. 

 

I know the camp that wants Kirk gone will never give up this argument until ink gets put to paper, but you're in denial if you think Kirk won't likely be our guy for at least the 2017 season. And so are the media guys who are reporting the contrary to be the more likely scenario. They want it to be true so badly because they know the ensuing circus show would make their jobs so much easier. If they want drama, I suggest they switch to politics, plenty for them on that front right now. 

[markmills67]

6 hours ago, DC Lumber Co. said:

 

The team wanted him to prove it for one more year. Simple as that. It was always going to be the franchise tag and the only way they would sign him to a multi year deal is if it was at a ridiculous value for the team that wouldnt hurt them long term if he ended up not proving it, hence the one and only "insulting" offer that they did make.

 

Literally nothing has happened. People freaking out and thinking that if we don't work a LTD out before we place the tag on him = he's gone, are really jumping to conclusions for no reason. He proved it, we've come out and expressed our intent that we want him back, and now its simply the standard posturing and back and forth that happens with any negotiation. We will franchise tag him and continue hashing out a deal up until the deadline. It will ultimately get done.

 

What makes you so certain that a LTD will get done with Cousins?

[markmills67]

What I don't understand is why it could take until July for Cousins to sign a LTD, if he is not going to sign a LTD until he has signed the FT then he is saying that  $23.9m is the lowest he will sign for per year. So how hard is it to say to Cousins we will give you  $25m per year with whatever guaranteed? If we don't think he is worth a LTD then just trade him.

 

HTTR 

[NewCliche21]

Holy ****, guys.  I take my usual February/early March sabbatical from the board and it just completely goes to ****.
 

 

[Probos]

5 hours ago, DC Lumber Co. said:

Again, the thought process that if a long term deal isnt signed = Kirk is gone and therefore would have an impact on other players desire to re-sign or sign here is completely baseless.

 

As myself and others continue to point out, if we franchise Kirk we can continue to negotiate a long term deal until the deadline, which is a common scenario and is likely to be the case with Cousins as well. If for some reason Kirk takes the franchise tag as an insult (FWIW he actually has said he views the tag as the complete opposite, this is fact that is also ignored), he doesn't strike me as the type to hold out the entire 2017 season. The negatives of being out of football an entire year far outweigh anything he would have to gain from such a move.

 

So again (which I'm sure will continue to be ignored) Kirk will likely be Franchised on the 1st. He will likely sign said deal and we will continue to negotiate a long term deal. If Kirk doesn't want to be here like some of you think (when he has actually said the exact opposite, but that is ignored too) we will have him at least for the upcoming year, barring an unlikely hold out. That should be enough to sign any free agent, as the NFL changes far too quickly for a player to base decisions on anything but the immediate future, aka the upcoming season. 

 

Furthermore, we can still get compensation for Kirk via a transition tag placed on him prior to next offseasons free agency. Don't know why people still continue to think that its now or never for trading Kirk, its simply not true. Would the value be higher now? Sure. But we can still trade his rights next year. 

 

I know the camp that wants Kirk gone will never give up this argument until ink gets put to paper, but you're in denial if you think Kirk won't likely be our guy for at least the 2017 season. And so are the media guys who are reporting the contrary to be the more likely scenario. They want it to be true so badly because they know the ensuing circus show would make their jobs so much easier. If they want drama, I suggest they switch to politics, plenty for them on that front right now. 

 

While I think this might be one of the most level-headed responses I've seen here, and agree with, I still think there's a possible scenario where they tag him (non-exclusive), Kirk signs it and then he's traded to a team like SF or Chicago.  It's a long shot but it's in the realm.

[Butters20]

Why, by signing, is he signaling that's the least he'd ever play for? The tag gives him a lot of money. More than most other QBs in the league. I think he is simply saying, 23.9 is enough to get me to play. 

 

If my boss offered me 200k per year id sign it. But I'd also do my job for 150k. 

 

I think there is room for negotiation. 23.9 is probably more than he's really earned right now, but the contract will likely have the increasing cap in mind. I'm thinking he will get a contract averaging 23-24 over years. 

[bowhunter]

This was a good while back, but it may yield some perspective. Even lifetime Redskins had negotiating tactics that were viewed negatively.

http://articles.latimes.com/1989-05-07/sports/sp-3758_1_green-s-agent-rote-trade

"

 

Green Says He Isn't Holding Out on Redskins

May 07, 1989|TOM FRIEND | Washington Post

 

 

Free agent Darrell Green emphasized Tuesday he's "not at war" with the Washington Redskins, his employer of six years' standing, and has plans to attend next week's minicamp.

Recent projections had been less promising, with Coach Joe Gibbs fearing a Green holdout, but the cornerback said he is thrilled a trade with Denver fell through and added that contract talks with the Redskins should progress amicably."

[TheGreek1973]

1 hour ago, bowhunter said:

This was a good while back, but it may yield some perspective. Even lifetime Redskins had negotiating tactics that were viewed negatively.

http://articles.latimes.com/1989-05-07/sports/sp-3758_1_green-s-agent-rote-trade

"

 

Green Says He Isn't Holding Out on Redskins

May 07, 1989|TOM FRIEND | Washington Post

 

 

Free agent Darrell Green emphasized Tuesday he's "not at war" with the Washington Redskins, his employer of six years' standing, and has plans to attend next week's minicamp.

Recent projections had been less promising, with Coach Joe Gibbs fearing a Green holdout, but the cornerback said he is thrilled a trade with Denver fell through and added that contract talks with the Redskins should progress amicably."

Wow I don't remember there were talks to trade him to Denver.  Wouldn't that be something if we did and essentially we would have traded two future HOFers at the CB to Denver (Green and Bailey). 

[DC Lumber Co.]

Anoher thing to consider is that it isnt as black and white as 24 million a year or "no deal" from Cousins camp. Its more likely that the deal fluctuates between 20-28 million depending on the year, averaging that magic 24 million dollar figure. 

[Bonez3]

The Chad Ryan piece on potential trade values is ridiculous. Sam Bradford got a 1st round pick. KC is worth 1st, 2nd and future 2nd-3rd. Thats is without pick swapping. 

 

Anything less is outrageous. 

[Taylor 36]

3 minutes ago, DC Lumber Co. said:

Anoher thing to consider is that it isnt as black and white as 24 million a year or "no deal" from Cousins camp. Its more likely that the deal fluctuates between 20-28 million depending on the year, averaging that magic 24 million dollar figure. 

True, but I think (or hope) most people realize that, which is why it is usually reported like this: 6 years for $144 million, $80M guaranteed.  People then just take the average and run with it, "He's getting 24M a year."  In reality, no NFL contract is setup that way.  There will be fluctuation each year in the actual amount paid and the actual amount that counts against the cap.  The guaranteed money is the most important part for people to look at.  The rest is usually more smoke and mirrors.

[Wildbunny]

8 minutes ago, Taylor 36 said:

True, but I think (or hope) most people realize that, which is why it is usually reported like this: 6 years for $144 million, $80M guaranteed.  People then just take the average and run with it, "He's getting 24M a year."  In reality, no NFL contract is setup that way.  There will be fluctuation each year in the actual amount paid and the actual amount that counts against the cap.  The guaranteed money is the most important part for people to look at.  The rest is usually more smoke and mirrors.

 

Yeah, some guys are also often offered a signing bonus of XXM, then in year one, it happens that you have a huge signing bonus and a lower salary like 1 or 2M for the first year to ease the pain.  Contract negotiation is more than just overall $.

[Gizmo 3squire]

Glad things have settled down in here. It was getting ugly.lol Woo sahh ladies and gents.lol

 

But back to the topic. I def agree w/ @DC Lumber Co. and @Taylor 36 It's definitely the upfront (guaranteed) money that will be more of a back and forth in the negotiations. I personally think a deal or a tag will be done, ultimately ending in a deal. Keyword w/ familiarity and keeping the team together on both sides. Just ignoring all of the brouhaha from the dc media is helping w/ reasoning as well, instead of just pulling unrealistic scenarios out of thin air. I did like the stats in regards to KC's production when he has Reed vs without, in comparison to other great QB's. Something that he will most definitely have to improve going forward on any team. Having stats like that doesn't scream longevity at QB to me, and it's contingent on the talent surrounding him. Now can he develop into a QB that can carry a team or get consistent wins w/o superior talent surrounding him? It's possible and not out of the question, but it's an area he needs to improve on. I don't want Captain Kirk one minute and CousINTS the next.lol Which is a fair argument imo. Heaven forbid something happens to a talent like Reed next season, and then what? If he can't perform w/o him, even with the rest surrounding talent, and redzone accuracy that's something to consider and can't be brushed aside going forward in the building process to be honest. While we'll have someone stable at QB, you don't want to be stagnant either and just be in limbo or content w/ "almost had it, but not quite." for 5 years. Or perennial first round exits in the playoffs. 

[Tsailand]

Tsailand's official prediction for how the Kirk Cousins situation will play out:

* The Redskins will apply the non-exclusive franchise tag today or tomorrow.

* Kirk won't sign the tag right away.

* Kirk will fly out west to meet with HC Rams and HC 49ers.

* This is totally legal on the non-exclusive franchise tag. 

* Neither team will extend him an offer in 2017.

* He'll also meet with a few good NFL teams, or at least have his agent talk to them.

* He won't bother with the bad QB-needy teams like the Browns.

* Then, after he's talked to everyone he's interested in, he'll sign our tag to lock in his $24M.

* There won't be a long-term deal with the Redskins.

* There might be a trade with a team like the Broncos or Texans, but probably not.

* In 2018 we will be right back where we are now except that the tag number is $10M higher.

 

How the Redskins could avoid ****ing the Kirk Cousins situation up:

* Offer him five years $125M today. With a no-trade clause and a no-more-tags clause and big incentives for getting to the NFC conference championship and beyond.

* If he doesn't take it, apply the exclusive franchise tag and tell him the same contract is still on the table.

* This theoretically prevents other teams from talking to him, and if they get caught talking to him they would likely owe us draft picks.

[Rskins06]

9 hours ago, NewCliche21 said:

Holy ****, guys.  I take my usual February/early March sabbatical from the board and it just completely goes to ****.

 

Can't believe I just watched that entire video.............and liked it..........a lot!!!

[PartyPosse]

1 hour ago, Tsailand said:

* Offer him five years $125M today. With a no-trade clause and a no-more-tags clause and big incentives for getting to the NFC conference championship and beyond.

* If he doesn't take it, apply the exclusive franchise tag and tell him the same contract is still on the table.

If he doesn't take 25 mil a year PLUS big incentives on top of that then I would rather just let him walk. If there was an offer like that and he still says no then he's just either being too greedy at this point or doesn't want to be here. Either way I'd rather him not stay and be a cancer on the team. 

[Bonez3]

KC's camp really does hold all the chips. If they went to the table and said, 'here's our proposal...'. Than, follow with a Pittsburgh Steeler policy that 'if you tag KC in any fashion, we won't negotiate again until next year'.

 

Basically, if I were KC's agent, I would assure the FO that if a tag gets put on, you won't hear from us until 2018. That would make the Skins on the hook for 34 mil in 2018 if they wanted to guarantee to keep him. 

 

This is a Ponzi scheme with the FO on the losing end keep pushing more money in with higher prices each turn. They really need a LTD soon and not let this get in any further. 

 

I swear, if I was KC's agent, I would assure them he is signing his autograph one time, you better make it worth your while.

[PartyPosse]

8 minutes ago, Bonez3 said:

Basically, if I were KC's agent, I would assure the FO that if a tag gets put on, you won't hear from us until 2018. That would make the Skins on the hook for 34 mil in 2018 if they want to guarantee to keep him. 

The tag basically just gives us an extension to negotiate with him exclusively. It's really not as insulting as you seem to think it is. 

[Bonez3]

Just now, PartyPosse said:

The tag basically just gives us an extension to negotiate with him exclusively. It's really not as insulting as you seem to think it is. 

I'm not suggesting it's insulting. I'm looking at the end game. If he signs it, he gets the 24 mil and only other guarantee from Skins next year would be 34 mil.

 

I wouldn't continue negotiating in any way. KC is gonna produce same or more this year. It's that simple. And when he does, he will be looking at 34 mil guaranteed for 1 year or a contract that has THAT as a leverage point. 

 

Really easy to identify leverage here