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

[jjpomeroy]

44 minutes ago, TheGreek1973 said:

My feeling is if the team comes in with close to 23 million per with 70 million guarantied we may have a deal.

 

I would concur with this thought, but with a higher guarantee of about $75M.  IMO, the higher guarantee can help get the annual average down.  

 

I think somebody posted this before, but the Andrew Luck deal structure could provide the Skins with a model to follow.  http://www.spotrac.com/nfl/indianapolis-colts/andrew-luck-9811/

[Skinsinparadise]

45 minutes ago, NewCliche21 said:

 

I know it's easy to armchair GM, but this isn't even just about Kirk.  What quarterback wants to come here, set franchise records two years in a row, and then not get paid?  Why would anyone worth signing want to come here if they treat their players this way?

 

Kirk's no 10, but when you've got an 8.5 or 9 who's willing to go for you, stop holding out for a 10.  What this is going to cost in talent acquisition is gonna be a lot more than a couple million a year and 10-20 million guaranteed.  I'll take an "overpaid" Super Bowl winner over a "value" maybe-next-year guy.

 

Agree.  It circles to me to Keim's line about the Redskins are known now first and foremost for wanting to win the deal.  Nice but there are limits to that approach. How about keeping and landing good players?   Hey I like to get a good bargain too once in awhile but if my house was laden with flea market items, I'd have a lot of junk versus nice things. 

 

If I had to take the more cynical point of view its a combination of what Grant Paulsen/Chris Russell say about Bruce.  His top thing is making money and he's very good at making money for Danny hence he's likely here to stay.  The team's net worth has grown substantially under Bruce -- Bruce prides himself on that and being frugal and in turn making Danny more money.   Bruce according to them is all about the money, etc. 

 

I just said this on another thread but IMO if Bruce's frugality costs us a franchise QB -- in my book he easily is up there with Vinny in terms of being punch line level infamous -- actually if Kirk leaves, I'd say Bruce is worst.

 

http://www.espn.com/blog/washington-redskins/post/_/id/30588/redskins-avoiding-big-deals-but-skepticism-remains-over-early-moves

 Agents who once used the Redskins to drive up prices, now believe the team’s goal is to “win the deal.” 

[Est.1974]

53 minutes ago, Skinsinparadise said:

Yeah to me this is 100% on Bruce/Schaffer at this point.  It's not even 99% IMO.  Is Bruce willing to pay what most consider market value or isn't he.  There doesn't seem to be much more than that.  

 

I'm still not clear if it is simply a case of wanting to win the deal in pure cash terms, or if the FO do have reservations about Kirks ultimate potential. But that's an old argument , at this stage all that seems evident is that we don't want to meet his demands, I dare say we are a long way short on guarenteed money.

 

With that in mind I am dead against a one year rental scenario. You're at risk of a complete disconnect over the duration of the year. I would seriously consider moving on sooner rather than later. Try and screw over the Browns or 49ers the best we can. Chances are we've **** in that nest too.

 

[Skinsinparadise]

3 minutes ago, UK SKINS FAN '74 said:

 

I'm still not clear if it is simply a case of wanting to win the deal in pure cash terms, or if the FO do have reservations about Kirks ultimate potential. But that's an old argument , at this stage all that seems evident is that we don't want to meet his demands, I dare say we are a long way short on guarenteed money.

 

 

To me my best guess for best case scenario is:   Bruce is thinking he has nothing to lose to drag this out close to the deadline and over time he hopes he either wears Kirk down or even if he doesn't why not try?  My best guess to worse case scenario:  the national/local reporters sources are on the money that a deal never happens because Kirk's side and Bruce won't budge. 

 

To the point of trading Kirk.  While I agree its better than a one year rental -- for me I'd hate it big time.  And, for me it doesn't take Bruce off the hook, in my book if it goes down, Bruce would be the worst GM we've ever had.  

 

I recall debates from months ago where people contended that look at all this team could acquire from the windfall of having that extra cap room if Kirk is gone.  My response then was what makes people think the FO will go on a spending spree in FA with that extra money?  It doesn't seem to be the way they operate these days.  This FA season is just more confirmation of that.  Actually that's been Grant Paulsen's line too which is Bruce will likely just roll over most of the cap windfall if Kirk is not back -- he's prideful about being frugal, he's unlikely to go shopping at Tiffany's with that extra dough.   

 

So even if I played along with the idea that some beat reporters contend that some at Redskins Park believe that the more economic move is to ride with Colt and save all that money.  If they played that card, I really doubt that money will be used for major upgrades.  So what's the point then?  Purely for Danny/Bruce to make more money?  I get its a business and I don't begrudge the money making side of it.  But I am a fan, I care about winning -- I don't care how much money Danny makes a season.

[Est.1974]

13 minutes ago, Skinsinparadise said:

 

To the point of trading Kirk.  While I agree its better than a one year rental -- for me I'd hate it big time.  And, for me it doesn't take Bruce off the hook, in my book if it goes down, Bruce would be the worst GM we've ever had.  

 

I recall debates from months ago where people contended that look at all this team could acquire from the windfall of having that extra cap room if Kirk is gone.  My response then was what makes people think the FO will go on a spending spree in FA with that extra money?  It doesn't seem to be the way they operate these days.  

 

I see that a little different. At least trading Kirk for multiple picks (assumption not fact) is a progressive move now if the LTD is off the table. It's one or the other. To wait a year is dead time in my book. I guess circumstances could change, doubtful. So holding on is kind of another indecisive move. Two wrongs don't make a right type view on my part.

 

With regards the windfall, not so much the cap space, I'd more consider the chance to draft another say 2 studs in the draft a windfall. Obviously offset by having another void at QB. And that's a big offset. I really want a resolution, either way, pre draft.

[WelshSkinsFan]

See what we can get in trade, Jay Cutler is out of work and we all know how Danny feels about him.

[desertbeagle85]

5 minutes ago, WelshSkinsFan said:

See what we can get in trade, Jay Cutler is out of work and we all know how Danny feels about him.

 

Joking right?

 

Wonder why Cutler is out of work

[WelshSkinsFan]

Yes it's a joke, I don't seriously think there is a decent trade offer out there and so even without a LTD I would rather another year of Kirk and a 3rd round comp pick than to trade him for a low pick now.  Danny did have the hots for Jay back when he was traded to the Bears and it would be just such a Skins thing to do that I can almost see it happening.

[TheShredder]

It makes no sense to push to sign KC before the draft.  Their could be trade scenarios and leading up to the draft, at the draft, and post draft. all could generate trade scenarios.  Since you've got time, they'll take it slow.

 

Jay Cutler...lol...that's funny.  He's been terrible for years!  McCoy could fill in but he's not going to win many games. 

[Est.1974]

I'd rather have 2017 picks if that's what it come down to.

[Gregpeck99]

Skins trade Kirk and their pick at 17 to the Browns for the 1st and 12th picks in 1st.

 

Skins then select Fournette and Trubisky/Watson and have plenty of cash left over.

 

Does this formula sound familiar?

[TheShredder]

7 minutes ago, Gregpeck99 said:

Skins trade Kirk and their pick at 17 to the Browns for the 1st and 12th picks in 1st.

 

Skins then select Fournette and Trubisky/Watson and have plenty of cash left over.

 

Does this formula sound familiar?

I wouldn't put it past them.

[Morneblade]

44 minutes ago, Gregpeck99 said:

Skins trade Kirk and their pick at 17 to the Browns for the 1st and 12th picks in 1st.

 

Skins then select Fournette and Trubisky/Watson and have plenty of cash left over.

 

Does this formula sound familiar?

 

And, it was be a complete failure. I'm not really ready for a 3-4 win season. I just hope we get a LTD done and we can forget about all of this.

[Skinsinparadise]

2 hours ago, UK SKINS FAN '74 said:

 

I see that a little different. At least trading Kirk for multiple picks (assumption not fact) is a progressive move now if the LTD is off the table. It's one or the other. To wait a year is dead time in my book. I guess circumstances could change, doubtful. So holding on is kind of another indecisive move. Two wrongs don't make a right type view on my part.

 

With regards the windfall, not so much the cap space, I'd more consider the chance to draft another say 2 studs in the draft a windfall. Obviously offset by having another void at QB. And that's a big offset. I really want a resolution, either way, pre draft.

 

For me it would be a depressing move for mainly 2 reasons

 

1.  Shows me that Bruce likely cares more about making money than winning.  I really doubt they go on a spending spree with the extra cap space they conserve on the trade.  This low key FA season for me is the coup de gras for me on that front.     Money saved on Kirk I am convinced is mostly money pocketed versus reinvested in the team.

 

2.  For me there has been two themes for this team being one of the worst teams of the NFL in the last two decades plus. 1.  lack of a stud personnel guy making decisions. 2. lack of a franchise QB.  Bruce trading Kirk would bring home both points for me and in a bad way. 

 

I am about as a draft fanatic as it gets.  The draft is like a religion to me.  Still, you are likely to find 2-3 starters in the draft.  That's it.  And like Parcells liked to say in his draft specials -- that's a good draft finding 2-3 guys.  The Redskins are not the only team with draft picks EVERY team will be drafting, every team in theory will be improving.  

 

Do I think Scott Campbell/Bruce are simply smarter than the FOs in the rest of the division and will get more out of the draft?  Sadly, I don't. Give them a couple of more high draft picks and watch out.  I am not enthusiastic about it.  What did the Rams do with all the picks they got in the RG3 trade.  Not much.

 

Do I think the same team who has spent five first round picks, two third rounders and failed (some of that was ironically under Scott Campbell) to find a franchise QB will all of a sudden get lucky super quick and in one fell swoop land on the key guy in 2018 -- I wish I did, instead I'd put a lot of money on them failing.   Most do fail, drafting a QB is a crap shoot especially if you don't have the first pick in the draft which I don't expect they will.

 

On a scale of 0-100 how much would I like them trading the first franchise QB that it took them 25 or so years to find -- so they can bring to the fold Jonathan Allen or whomever?  I'd give it a flat 0.  I'd unadulterated hate it.  Or lets play wth the sceanrio that they'd build without a QB for now -- we see that movie say hello to the Jets and the Rams who are loaded on defense but they stink. 

 

Not saying you should agree, I respect wherever everyone is coming from.   But yeah Bruce trading Kirk to me makes him in my book the worst Redskins GM of my lifetime and by a mile.   Vinny for his faults was overzealous in his quest to win and went too far.  If Bruce takes his frugality to the level of letting Kirk go -- to me he's the opposite extreme -- we'll lose but its not the end of the world because the franchise is making mountains of money. It's cringe worthy for me.

[PigskinRedskin]

Not sure if someone posted earlier but:

 

Quote

 

 

I know he probably knows as much as any of us out there, but he firmly believes Cousins will be here, so I have to imagine the Redskins will break at the very end of negotiations and understand that since they didn't get a trade done, either Cousins walks at the end of the season or we spend $28+ million for yet another 1 year rental, on top of the $20 + $24 million from the past 2 season, so just spend ~$72 million on 3 years.

 

They will meet his baseline for a LTD the day before because Cousins team won't budge.I just have to believe like many said, right now, besides some tension and "aww, come on man!", it doesn't really do anything to stretch out the talks if they do plan on signing up at the end. They know what they need in the draft, FA is pretty much done with so not having a QB long term won't be a factor there.

[Skinsinparadise]

17 minutes ago, PigskinRedskin said:

 

I know he probably knows as much as any of us out there, but he firmly believes Cousins will be here, so I have to imagine the Redskins will break at the very end of negotiations and understand that since they didn't get a trade done, either Cousins walks at the end of the season or we spend $28+ million for yet another 1 year rental, on top of the $20 + $24 million from the past 2 season, so just spend ~$72 million on 3 years.

 

They will meet his baseline for a LTD the day before because Cousins team won't budge.I just have to believe like many said, right now, besides some tension and "aww, come on man!", it doesn't really do anything to stretch out the talks if they do plan on signing up at the end. They know what they need in the draft, FA is pretty much done with so not having a QB long term won't be a factor there.

 

I saw that.  I've heard Schefter and other speak on this, nothing new there from Schefter's point of view.  95% or so of national/local reporters are on the same page. This is the prevailing theory:

 

1.  Kirk is back on a one year rental.  They can get him on a LTC, but it won't happen because Bruce won't offer what Kirk's agent thinks is a market deal.

2.  Kirk then will want out in 2018 or the Redskins transition Kirk at 28 million.  Then best case scenario is adios Kirk in 2019.

[elkabong82]

38 minutes ago, Skinsinparadise said:

 

I saw that.  I've heard Schefter and other speak on this, nothing new there from Schefter's point of view.  95% or so of national/local reporters are on the same page. This is the prevailing theory:

 

1.  Kirk is back on a one year rental.  They can get him on a LTC, but it won't happen because Bruce won't offer what Kirk's agent thinks is a market deal.

2.  Kirk then will want out in 2018 or the Redskins transition Kirk at 28 million.  Then best case scenario is adios Kirk in 2019.

 

Wait, what?

 

Sorry, but I haven't seen many reporters thinking this is what happens, certainly not enough to say it is the "prevailing" theory.

 

What I've seen is one theory that the deal gets done, but closer to the July deadline, and then a bunch of reporters who were dead wrong when they said Kirk wanted to be traded out of here/wouldn't sign a LTD w/ Bruce as Pres. start backtracking and trying to cover their ends by adjusting it to "Kirk will leave after the tag because he doesn't want to be in DC." 

 

I honestly can't recall seeing anywhere, other than from some on ES, that there's a belief Bruce is too cheap to do a LTD (and that requires them ignoring that the most recent offer from the Skins was $23 mil/yr). I could be mistaken though. But both sides have expressed the want to get a deal done, publicly now, so the most likely to happen theory is tat a LTD gets done. All the false reports and speculation are very similar to what we saw during the Von Miller tag. Reporting nothing new won't get clicks, but manipulating emotional responses from fans with speculation from anonymous sources does. 

 

[Skinsinparadise]

35 minutes ago, elkabong82 said:

 

Wait, what?

 

Sorry, but I haven't seen many reporters thinking this is what happens, certainly not enough to say it is the "prevailing" theory.

 

 

If you follow the breaking news section and twitter section on the board its been hard to miss.   Pessimism from the media about Kirk getting a LTD is all over the place.  Much of which has been posted on this very thread. In fact its tough to name a reporter/radio personality who covers the team who thinks a LTC gets done.  They are very few.  The ones that hit me are LaConfora and Cooley and one of the Junkies forgot which one.    And this is coming from a guy who still thinks a deal gets done and searches for and clings to any glimmer of hope.   Cooley thinks 60% shot they get it done.  

 

My take is similar to Cooley's take which is in spite of all we hear they'd have to be insane not to get a deal done.  And Cooley doesn't think Bruce is insane.  So that's his prevailing theory and they get it done for that reason.   My theory is the same and shared it on this thread probably at least 10 times.   But do I think I am in the majority on this?  Heck no.  From what I've been listening to and reading it doesn't sound good -- so I am hoping and counting on plenty of people to be wrong. 

 

A. Breer doesn't think they get a LTD done.  A. Schefter doesn't think they get a lone term deal done.  Mike Silver doesn't think they get a deal done.  Locally, Mike Jones doesn't think they get a deal done. John Keim has been not fully committal one way or another but his posts are skewed to the negative side on this issue including writing an article today about the uncertainty about Kirk's future and here are the alternatives if Kirk is gone.  JP Finley said he expects Kirk to be back on the tag but no long term deal.  Grant Paulsen doesn't think they will get a deal done.   C. Russell doesn't think they get it done.   Daniel Jeremiah thinks Kirk lands in SF.   Brain McNally isn't optimistic about a deal, and is actually quoted in SF papers about Kirk ending up there.  There are more than these guys, too. 

 

Now that all can change as the news changes.  Mike Jones for example started optimistic about a deal getting done.  Now he isn't.  For optimism to resurface I'd gather Bruce has to put a big offer on the table so the two sides get closer.

 

Good summary I think here by Keim

http://www.espn.com/blog/washington-redskins/post/_/id/30427/redskins-lack-upper-hand-in-kirk-cousins-trade-scenario-with-49ers

The Redskins’ offer to Cousins. Washington has said it wants to sign Cousins long term, but the Redskins haven’t come close to the baseline offer they know his side wants. You can say Cousins is being unreasonable, but that’s irrelevant. The bottom line is that’s what it will take to get it done right now. If the Redskins don’t increase their latest offer of $20 million per year (was told it offered low guarantees) then other teams can read this one way: They won’t sign him to a long-term deal. Therefore, if the Redskins want to get anything for Cousins they’ll have to lower their demands. 

[Gregpeck99]

Actually ... $ 75 Million give or take for a 3-year "Lease" of Kirk probably is right around fair market.

 

Neither side has incentive to change this status quo.

 

Chances of a LTD happening diminish every day.

 

Handwriting is on the wall.

[RWJ]

1 hour ago, Skinsinparadise said:

 

If you follow the breaking news section and twitter section on the board its been hard to miss.   Pessimism from the media about Kirk getting a LTD is all over the place.  Much of which has been posted on this very thread. In fact its tough to name a reporter/radio personality who covers the team who thinks a LTC gets done.  They are very few.  The ones that hit me are LaConfora and Cooley and one of the Junkies forgot which one.    And this is coming from a guy who still thinks a deal gets done and searches for and clings to any glimmer of hope.   Cooley thinks 60% shot they get it done.  

 

My take is similar to Cooley's take which is in spite of all we hear they'd have to be insane not to get a deal done.  And Cooley doesn't think Bruce is insane.  So that's his prevailing theory and they get it done for that reason.   My theory is the same and shared it on this thread probably at least 10 times.   But do I think I am in the majority on this?  Heck no.  From what I've been listening to and reading it doesn't sound good -- so I am hoping and counting on plenty of people to be wrong. 

 

A. Breer doesn't think they get a LTD done.  A. Schefter doesn't think they get a lone term deal done.  Mike Silver doesn't think they get a deal done.  Locally, Mike Jones doesn't think they get a deal done. John Keim has been not fully committal one way or another but his posts are skewed to the negative side on this issue including writing an article today about the uncertainty about Kirk's future and here are the alternatives if Kirk is gone.  JP Finley said he expects Kirk to be back on the tag but no long term deal.  Grant Paulsen doesn't think they will get a deal done.   C. Russell doesn't think they get it done.   Daniel Jeremiah thinks Kirk lands in SF.   Brain McNally isn't optimistic about a deal, and is actually quoted in SF papers about Kirk ending up there.  There are more than these guys, too. 

 

Now that all can change as the news changes.  Mike Jones for example started optimistic about a deal getting done.  Now he isn't.  For optimism to resurface I'd gather Bruce has to put a big offer on the table so the two sides get closer.

 

Good summary I think here by Keim

http://www.espn.com/blog/washington-redskins/post/_/id/30427/redskins-lack-upper-hand-in-kirk-cousins-trade-scenario-with-49ers

The Redskins’ offer to Cousins. Washington has said it wants to sign Cousins long term, but the Redskins haven’t come close to the baseline offer they know his side wants. You can say Cousins is being unreasonable, but that’s irrelevant. The bottom line is that’s what it will take to get it done right now. If the Redskins don’t increase their latest offer of $20 million per year (was told it offered low guarantees) then other teams can read this one way: They won’t sign him to a long-term deal. Therefore, if the Redskins want to get anything for Cousins they’ll have to lower their demands. 

Still waiting between now and draft day to see if KC is dealt. If not, then they have until 7/15 to read a LTD.  If not, a one year rental again this year and GONE in 2018.  If not dealt on the 1st day of draft watch for a QB to be taken in the 2nd or 3rd round.  Again, I want KC on a LTD here in DC.

 

*****  By the way, Nate Peterman Pro Day is tomorrow.  *****

[elkabong82]

1 hour ago, Skinsinparadise said:

 

Good summary I think here by Keim

http://www.espn.com/blog/washington-redskins/post/_/id/30427/redskins-lack-upper-hand-in-kirk-cousins-trade-scenario-with-49ers

The Redskins’ offer to Cousins. Washington has said it wants to sign Cousins long term, but the Redskins haven’t come close to the baseline offer they know his side wants. You can say Cousins is being unreasonable, but that’s irrelevant. The bottom line is that’s what it will take to get it done right now. If the Redskins don’t increase their latest offer of $20 million per year (was told it offered low guarantees) then other teams can read this one way: They won’t sign him to a long-term deal. Therefore, if the Redskins want to get anything for Cousins they’ll have to lower their demands. 

 

Good points made. A bunch of those reporters are back tracking big time from the trade stuff, and even our own players are calling out Breer for false reports on Scot stuff. Kirk has also come out and denied what people were reporting with him asking for a trade. I'm dubious of what a lot of these media guys are reporting currently. As I said in last post, a lot of this mirrors what went on with Von Miller. Speculation was nuts with him too. I was more under the impression though that most of them who did not feel a LTD could get done were saying so because they claimed Cousins didn't want to be here. I didn't realize a bunch were saying they don't think Skins will pony up as reason for no LTD until you pointed it out. I have seen a segment say they will. Hopefully they do. 

[Skinsinparadise]

8 hours ago, elkabong82 said:

 

Good points made. A bunch of those reporters are back tracking big time from the trade stuff, and even our own players are calling out Breer for false reports on Scot stuff. Kirk has also come out and denied what people were reporting with him asking for a trade. I'm dubious of what a lot of these media guys are reporting currently. As I said in last post, a lot of this mirrors what went on with Von Miller. Speculation was nuts with him too. I was more under the impression though that most of them who did not feel a LTD could get done were saying so because they claimed Cousins didn't want to be here. I didn't realize a bunch were saying they don't think Skins will pony up as reason for no LTD until you pointed it out. I have seen a segment say they will. Hopefully they do. 

 

There are still some backing the trade stuff.   But that's from my observation always been a minority and more national reporters on that track not so much local guys with an exception or two.  But yeah I'd say by an overwhelming margin both national and local guys mostly think Kirk's back on a one year deal and doesn't get a long term contract.  As for the reasons why:  its generally a mix of Kirk doesn't want to be here and Bruce isn't willing to pay what he wants.  I don't take the Kirk doesn't want to be here stuff that seriously though because many of those same reporters contradict that by saying well money talks and if he gets a good offer he likely stays. Plus Kirk has in his own statements contradicted that he doesn't want to be here.  The more plausible scenario to me on that front is Kirk doesn't mind leaving.  He's not dying to be a Redskin that he'd take 22 million a year versus 24 million playing for another team.  That also plays into what some have said. 

 

I've always taken Mike Jones and John Keim the most seriously among the beat guys and I don't find they throw stuff against the wall -- usually they ensure their sources are good.  Jones to me is interesting because Jones started with the vibe they'd get it done.  I recall posting about it on this very thread -- he was on 980 saying they want to get it done and he thinks they will, that was back in January.  But from February on he's been negative on it.

 

Do I think the reporters are just making this stuff up?  Not at all.  I bet their sources are telling them what they are reporting.  There is too much smoke IMO for everyone to be wrong.  However, this is just a moment in time.  And I am counting and hoping its a negotiating tactic.  I also think oddly enough all the versions of the Scot/Bruce story should help in the long run.   I agree with Cooley that Bruce isn't insane.  And I think Bruce would have to be insane to follow up that PR bomb with an even bigger PR bomb -- especially with an undercurrent story running about who was the one in the FO who messed up keeping Kirk in the fold -- was it Bruce, was it Scot, both?  If Bruce doesn't get this done, it would 100% support the narrative (whether deserved or not) that Bruce is the one who couldn't figure out how to keep the franchise QB in the fold.  And I think Bruce is too smart and his self-preservation skills are too strong to basically fall on the sword on the Kirk front.  

 

Here's what Jones said yesterday.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/football-insider/wp/2017/03/21/making-sense-of-the-redskins-free-agent-signings-thus-far/?utm_term=.1cf5ae539eab

They have a talented quarterback, but don’t want to pay him what he’s worth, and he’s not budging either, so they probably need to find another guy. Good luck with that. It took all this time to find Kirk Cousins, and they still don’t fully appreciate him.

8 hours ago, Gregpeck99 said:

 

Neither side has incentive to change this status quo.

 

 

I am assuming you mean neither side at this moment has an incentive versus ever?

[Est.1974]

Pretty sure if he plays under the tag in 2017 then he will again in 2018. The draft will be interesting if they snag another QB.

 

Given the potential cap number rolling through for Kirk in 2018, added  with the looming contract situation across the OL add some perspective....maybe....as to why we are holding back some cap. As well as Bruce being tight of course. They really are stuck in a corner.

[goskins10]

27 minutes ago, Skinsinparadise said:

 

There are still some backing the trade stuff.   But that's from my observation always been a minority and more national reporters on that track not so much local guys with an exception or two.  But yeah I'd say by an overwhelming margin both national and local guys mostly think Kirk's back on a one year deal and doesn't get a long term contract.  As for the reasons why:  its generally a mix of Kirk doesn't want to be here and Bruce isn't willing to pay what he wants.  I don't take the Kirk doesn't want to be here stuff that seriously though because many of those same reporters contradict that by saying well money talks and if he gets a good offer he likely stays. Plus Kirk has in his own statements contradicted that he doesn't want to be here.  The more plausible scenario to me on that front is Kirk doesn't mind leaving.  He's not dying to be a Redskin that he'd take 22 million a year versus 24 million playing for another team.  That also plays into what some have said. 

 

edit

 

Here's what Jones said yesterday.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/football-insider/wp/2017/03/21/making-sense-of-the-redskins-free-agent-signings-thus-far/?utm_term=.1cf5ae539eab

They have a talented quarterback, but don’t want to pay him what he’s worth, and he’s not budging either, so they probably need to find another guy. Good luck with that. It took all this time to find Kirk Cousins, and they still don’t fully appreciate him.

 

I am assuming you mean neither side at this moment has an incentive versus ever?

 

Good points. This follows my thoughts pretty closely. I agree the more consistent local media are reporting what they believe. I don't think they are just making it up. But I do think that in just about every case of a contract negotiation like this, the local media just about always take the players side and reports that the team is never going to pay them. And that is probably exactly what the team is telling them. They have until July 15th to change that position. No reason to move now.

 

I know people (not you) scoff at the Von Miller example - but it's a direct comparison. As late as June it was being reported by the local media there that the Broncos were not moving from the guaranteed money (Bronco's offering $39M - Miller wanted $70M). Von Miller said he would sit out before signing that contract. That he didn't feel like the Bronco's wanted him. Yet, when July 15th came they got a deal done - with the team coming all the way to Miller BTW. At this point I have no reason to believed that will not happen here.

 

I also agree with your idea that while Kirk is not asking to get out of here and would be fine signing a LTD for the money he feels he is owed, he is not fiercely loyal to the Redskins. That he understands it's a business and as such you have to be willing to walk away from a deal. So he does not object to moving on.

 

I said this before but will repeat it here. While the Scot separation may have some larger issues, in terms of Kirk alone, this is a positive only in the fact that there is no one to blame but Bruce if a LTD does not get done. It will drive any Redskins conversation the entire year. Ultimately there is no way that ends well for the Redskins. Bruce knows he has to get a LTD done this year or he is likely unemployed unless for some reason Kirk backslides - which I seriously doubt. That was a reasonable approach after last year. Now it is a fools bet.

 

There is a possibility that they are waiting until after the draft - and not for trade reasons. There is a lot of work to do. This is what Scot had been hired to do. They also may be trying to get through the draft them hire a GM before addressing the contract. Since they have until July 15th and nothing is likely to change - while I get fans (including myself) would suggest just get it done. The reality is there is really no reason to work on it now when you will have more time after the draft.

 

Last but not least - the whole trade thing was a national media thing that never had legs in reality. I mean c'mon, they somehow had us trading to get Romo and dallas somehow getting the 49ers 2nd pick or the Redskins 17th pick for him. My guess is that came directly from Romo's agent trying to generate interest. No one bit but the public who wanted to buy it. Even Jerruh said there was never any contact from anyone about trading for Romo.

 

Even Adam Schefter and some others stated that the while there had been some inquiries from other teams about a possible trade for Cousins. the Redskins were emphatic that Cousins was not being shopped and there would not be any trade. What's interesting they would follow that up with we think a trade is probable. Amazing!

 

 

[Skinsinparadise]

26 minutes ago, goskins10 said:

 

I know people (not you) scoff at the Von Miller example - but it's a direct comparison. As late as June it was being reported by the local media there that the Broncos were not moving from the guaranteed money (Bronco's offering $39M - Miller wanted $70M). Von Miller said he would sit out before signing that contract. That he didn't feel like the Bronco's wanted him. Yet, when July 15th came they got a deal done - with the team coming all the way to Miller BTW. At this point I have no reason to believed that will not happen here.

 

I also agree with your idea that while Kirk is not asking to get out of here and would be fine signing a LTD for the money he feels he is owed, he is not fiercely loyal to the Redskins. That he understands it's a business and as such you have to be willing to walk away from a deal. So he does not object to moving on.

 

I said this before but will repeat it here. While the Scot separation may have some larger issues, in terms of Kirk alone, this is a positive only in the fact that there is no one to blame but Bruce if a LTD does not get done. It will drive any Redskins conversation the entire year. Ultimately there is no way that ends well for the Redskins. Bruce knows he has to get a LTD done this year or he is likely unemployed unless for some reason Kirk backslides - which I seriously doubt. That was a reasonable approach after last year. Now it is a fools bet.

 

 

I agree with almost everything in your post my only small pause is I recall Adam Schefter being asked multiple times by Sheehan in 2016 about Kirk getting a LTD deal then and Von Miller getting a deal -- Schefter said as for Kirk he doesn't think so but as to Von Miller and Denver they will get it done, right now its just posturing but both parties want to make it happen.   If I recall though those chats were in the Spring so closer to the deadline.  Likewise here views can change closer to the deadline. 

 

I agree they could be waiting for the draft.  Part of it could be seeing whether SF takes a QB and if so would that dampen Kirk's thoughts about SF.   Yeah as for the Bruce/Scot drama.  I hate it for many reasons.  But I do like it for one reason which is it puts Bruce on the spot.  Bruce would be taking one heck of a risk to trade him or just tag Kirk and let him go after a season.  Teams just don't let their franchise Qbs walk out the door.  And if the Redskins take a left turn that most teams aren't willing to do, the person who made the decision should IMO get canned if it doesn't work out.  The other political layer to this is Shanny.  Would they really just hand them Kirk and give them an opportunity to show up everyone?  The politics behind letting Kirk go to me are too crazy for them to have it go down.