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

[RedskinsMayne]

12 hours ago, Tsailand said:

 

After we transition tag him for $28.7M.

 

It's gonna be hilarious if he signs a one-year contract with Kyle for $32M.

 

 

Yes, but, so what? We still have the first right of refusal. If the market says he is worth 32m we'd have an option.  I agree it wouldn't be preferable or even good, but it's not automatic that cousins is playing somewhere else next year if we don't sign him to an ltd this year.

 

To pete, e.t. all, sure, some people wanted a deal, but they've wanted it at eighteen mil or even less. I said mid way though the 2015 season it was going to take twenty to twenty five mill a year to sign him but that was written off as crazy numbers, now here we are. Also, there were many people still talking about the other guy and in general not behind cousins. surprisingly.  If your wondering why i'm typing all the numbers out it's because my number keys are working sporadically.

[RedskinsMayne]

6 hours ago, Tsailand said:

 

Idiots will respond: "Hindsight is 20/20".

 

really unnecessary.  Stay classy.

 

 

Cherry picked quotes isn't consensus. So, "no one" might of been an exaggeration, but the consensus last year was Yes, sign him, but only for an unrealistically low number based on the qb market and if we decide to make him, prove it, that's reasonable as well. A far cry from "omg we must sign him now" if you ask me.  People might have wanted to get a cheap deal done, but they weren't upset when a deal didn't get done. I believe several champagne toasts were held to "in scot we trust" 

 

Several of the quotes provided as evidence of people upset say basically what's above. So, meh. Glad you were right.

 

Seriously, there are three hundred pages dedicated to if we should let him walk, much less get a deal done.

[TSO]

@RedskinsMayne That's incorrect. Most of us knew it'd take about 20 million/yr last offseason to sign him. We also acknowledged that the team's offer of 16 million/yr was a low ball offer. 

 

The only thing that made me accept not signing him last offseason was the reasoning that it'd cost about another 2-3 million more per year to get it done this offseason. So I accepted the rationale behind paying that much extra for certainty. Even though I was convinced he'd have another very good year. 

 

But now it looks like that assessment was off, and it's likely going to cost 4-5 million. Which, even though I'm bothered by it and wish the team had better foresight, I'll still understand. 

 

If they don't get it done this year I'm going to be extremely annoyed and I don't see how it can be viewed as anything but idiocy on the organization's part. 

[wit33]

More than likely it was guaranteed money being the main reason a deal couldn't get done. 

[Tsailand]

53 minutes ago, RedskinsMayne said:

Cherry picked quotes isn't consensus

 

Oh, absolutely.  Those were the minority opinions. Most fans are almost as dumb about football as Snyder/Allen/Cerrato.

[RedskinsMayne]

12 minutes ago, Tsailand said:

 

Oh, absolutely.  Those were the minority opinions. Most fans are almost as dumb about football as Snyder/Allen/Cerrato.

 

shocking. Well, let  me pat myself on the back and walk out the room then. 

 

32 minutes ago, thesubmittedone said:

@RedskinsMayne That's incorrect. Most of us knew it'd take about 20 million/yr last offseason to sign him. We also acknowledged that the team's offer of 16 million/yr was a low ball offer. 

 

The only thing that made me accept not signing him last offseason was the reasoning that it'd cost about another 2-3 million more per year to get it done this offseason. So I accepted the rationale behind paying that much extra for certainty. Even though I was convinced he'd have another very good year. 

 

But now it looks like that assessment was off, and it's likely going to cost 4-5 million. Which, even though I'm bothered by it and wish the team had better foresight, I'll still understand. 

 

If they don't get it done this year I'm going to be extremely annoyed and I don't see how it can be viewed as anything but idiocy on the organization's part. 

 

 

most of who? Many people were in the 12-15 range...

[Tsailand]

1 hour ago, RedskinsMayne said:

Yes, but, so what? We still have the first right of refusal. If the market says he is worth 32m we'd have an option.

 

Yeah, but it's not an option that leads to a long term deal for us.  Only for Kyle.

[RedskinsMayne]

i'm don't understand the transition tag too well, but if kyle gives kirk a contract for 50mill* a year 2000* mil guaranteed for 27* years, we still have the option to match that contract, correct? And if we don't Kyle has to sign that contract?

 

*exageration

 

can you only do the transition tag once? So if kyle does it for one year this year, we match, then cousins is a free agent the following year? i don't know. By that time the 49ers might have already found there starter, and if not, i'm not sure kyle will be around 3 years from now without a qb and a bad record.

[Tsailand]

Yeah, that's how it works.  The way Kyle screws us is by offering Kirk a one year contract for a few million more than the already ridiculous $28.7M transition tag.  If we match it, it's still just a one year contract that destroys our cap for the year. If we don't match it, Kirk and Kyle will do their long-term deal once he is officially a 49er.

[RedskinsMayne]

but, they still have to play out the first year at whatever he signs for it initially... and to me it seems we are making cap room for next year....

 

so

 

we've created cap room for next year in case kyle does this

we've taken a way two of cousins best targets which should ding his stats a bit

we've forced kyle into a three year waiting game

kirk has to play one one year contracts for the next two years

 

i think everything would have to fall perfectly for kyle for this scenario to work they way you fear.

[Tsailand]

If the player agrees, they can turn some of the salary into bonus, letting them spread it out over the life on the contract.

[RedskinsMayne]

3 minutes ago, Tsailand said:

If the player agrees, they can turn some of the salary into bonus, letting them spread it out over the life on the contract.

 

the life of contract would be one year. We have a right to match that contract. Not refuse a contract that the 49ers never execute.

[Tsailand]

.... this isn't that complicated. 

 

We could match the contract and take an unavoidable $32M cap hit in 2018. And still no longer term solution at QB.

 

Or we can let Kirk go to the 49ers, where they instantly renegotiate it into a six year $160M contract where the first year cap hit is $20M.

[RedskinsMayne]

What you are saying is that the 49ers can offer cousins a contract they have no entention of keeping. And we would be forced to match that contract. Then they could just renegotiate a new contract. I don't think you are correct, since we wouldn't be matching their contract. 

[Tsailand]

There's nothing in the rules preventing it.  A player on a one year deal is free to negotiate a contract extension with his current team.

[Morneblade]

1 minute ago, RedskinsMayne said:

What you are saying is that the 49ers can offer cousins a contract they have no entention of keeping. And we would be forced to match that contract. Then they could just renegotiate a new contract. I don't think you are correct, since we wouldn't be matching their contract. 

 

He's right, you're wrong. Contracts get redone all the time. And there are many ways to do it. Turn part of it into a signing bonus, or give and extension a spread the amount over more years. Happens all the time to make it more cap friendly for teams.

[RedskinsMayne]

i know contracts get redone all the time, but there are special rules for transition tags... i also don't see any source that says you can only use a transition tag once. I also haven't came across any evidence that a transition tag offer can be renegotiated (or has been) they way your describing,

transition tags are so rare i highly doubt anyone here knows all the rules, but why give s team the right of first refusal if the team trying to sign the player can offer a rediculous contract and then change the terms after the fact. Makes approximately zero sense,

[Hail2theSkins24]

9 minutes ago, Morneblade said:

 

He's right, you're wrong. Contracts get redone all the time. And there are many ways to do it. Turn part of it into a signing bonus, or give and extension a spread the amount over more years. Happens all the time to make it more cap friendly for teams.

 

 Actually, you are wrong. Because of the right of refusal the Redskins possess, whatever contract SF signs him at and we don't, they can't negotiate that contract until the year end. 

[RedskinsMayne]

 

 

 

what you are basically saying is that the 49ers could offer cousins a 100mil 1year contract, then once we refuse to sign it, turn it into a 100mil 6 year contract. Seems legit.

[Tsailand]

The player has to agree to any change.  So the other team can't just magically turn an expensive contract into a cheap contract.

[RedskinsMayne]

Just now, Hail2theSkins24 said:

 

 Actually, you are wrong. Because of the right of refusal the Redskins possess, whatever contract SF signs him at and we don't, they can't negotiate that contract until the year end. 

 

 

this makes sense.

Just now, Tsailand said:

The player has to agree to any change.  So the other team can't just magically turn an expensive contract into a cheap contract.

 

 

yeah, but your prefacing your argument on kyle and kirk having a wink wink relationship.

[Tsailand]

1 minute ago, Hail2theSkins24 said:

 

 Actually, you are wrong. Because of the right of refusal the Redskins possess, whatever contract SF signs him at and we don't, they can't negotiate that contract until the year end. 

 

Oh. Do you have a source for this?

[RedskinsMayne]

1 minute ago, Tsailand said:

 

Oh. Do you have a source for this?

 

 

do you?

 

i have been feverishly googling since we've been having this convo and the results is slim.

[Morneblade]

3 minutes ago, RedskinsMayne said:

i know contracts get redone all the time, but there are special rules for transition tags... i also don't see any source that says you can only use a transition tag once. I also haven't came across any evidence that a transition tag offer can be renegotiated (or has been) they way your describing,

transition tags are so rare i highly doubt anyone here knows all the rules, but why give s team the right of first refusal if the team trying to sign the player can offer a rediculous contract and then change the terms after the fact. Makes approximately zero sense,

 

The only special rules are about poison pills. There is nothing that says you can't redo a contract once it is signed.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transition_tag

[goskins10]

5 minutes ago, Morneblade said:

 

The only special rules are about poison pills. There is nothing that says you can't redo a contract once it is signed.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transition_tag

 

Once the contract is signed it becomes fully guaranteed and counts against that years cap. If you remember the team could not negotiate with Kirk for a LTD after July 15th until the end of the season. After the first year they can do what they want.