ESPN.com: Kirk Cousins contract talks with Redskins on positive track

[PartyPosse]

8 minutes ago, Skinsinparadise said:

But yeah your point about 1 year versus 5 is on point relating to the narratives, I don't think in terms of it being a mistake but in terms of not buying fully in, yet.  And by fully in, its about "great".  I've not heard a narrative about them thinking Kirk isn't good. 

Perhaps mistake was the wrong word choice. It was more a statement of it's better to have made the wrong move (i.e he thrives and demands even more) and only suffer the consequences of one year than make the wrong move (i.e. he flops) and have to endure its consequences for half a decade.

7 minutes ago, mbws said:

 

Correct me if I'm wrong, but in that case would The Redskins not be on the hook for the upfront bonus money as it relates the next year's cap?

Good question. Perhaps someone who knows how contracts work could answer that.

[Tay]

6 minutes ago, Skinsinparadise said:

 

I paid attention to the narrative as much as anyone.  Name one of the deals you heard offered for Kirk?  The guy who was talking about these deals was by and large Ian Rappoport.  He was proven wrong multiple times.  JP Finlay asked him about it a few days ago in a podcast, this time he backed off and said yeah there might have been some interest but I don't if it ever translated into any offer. 

 

My interpretation of the JP conversation and other reports was that there was interest, but it didn't get far because the Redskins didn't entertain any offers.

 

Ian also stated that it's difficult to gauge because if a trade doesn't happen, both parties usually deny a conversation took place (excluding the Richard Sherman situation).

[PartyPosse]

17 minutes ago, Tay said:

 

I think it's pretty obvious that it's about the commitment with Kirk. The commitment that Kirk is seeking is given through money. While it's not directly about the money, the money is what sends the message.

100%. He says it's not about money but everything else he claims it's about are all related to the money he wants. He's very smart in how he's wording his side but the bottom line is every issue he's had has had to do with money.

[Dont Taze Me Bro]

4 minutes ago, bowhunter said:

If they TT him next year, we still may not be able to lock him up and trade him. Wouldn't that require KC to actually sign the competing teams offer sheet? If he doesn't agree to SF's offer, than he would simply play out the one year TT price and then become a FA.

 

There is that possibility, no doubt.  I guess if Kirk really wants out that bad and he is not willing to sign an offer from say SF just to screw the Redskins from matching, then so be it.  But I really think it's about the money for him (yes, location plays a part) and there is nothing wrong with maximizing your potential earnings and set-up your family for generations (if done right).  

 

So I think if another team were to make him an offer next year of say 30 mil/yr, which is what is projected that he can get, he would sign and not care if we matched or not.  Because it's more money than the TT will pay that year and it's probably not going to change much (talking from 2018 to 2019 on what he can make long term).  

 

All speculation on my part of course. 

[markmills67]

1 minute ago, Tay said:

 

My interpretation of the JP conversation and other reports was that there was interest, but it didn't get far because the Redskins didn't entertain any offers.

By not entertaining offers surely that means we will sign Cousin's to a LTD, even tweedle dumb and tweedle dee are not that f------ stupid. Oh but then again we are talking about Snyder and Allen aren't we.

 

HTTR 

[Skinsinparadise]

9 minutes ago, Tay said:

 

My interpretation of the JP conversation and other reports was that there was interest, but it didn't get far because the Redskins didn't entertain any offers.

 

When the conversation got into the weeds some, there were narratives relating to two teams, the Browns and 49ers.  The thought was the Browns entertained the idea but weren't sure if Kirk would reup with them in 2018 so they passed.  The other narrative was the team Kirk wanted to go to was the 49ers but the 49ers wanted to rebuild this year and didn't want to give up draft picks, and they figured they have a good shot at him in FA anyway in 2018.  Aside from that, I recall nothing.   As some reporters said its not easy to trade a 24 million dollar QB on a one year deal.

 

 But yeah the idea that Bruce said they didn't want to trade him.  That's true.  If whomever doesn't want to believe that they didn't have a hot trade market for Kirk, that's cool.  I gave another reason for why they didn't want to trade him -- combination of Keim/Finlay's thoughts.  

 

But I don't have the energy and interest to debating on behalf of Mike Jones, Keim, Finlay, etc.  I don't care if people believe their narratives or not.  If people are fired up about it, you can debate those guys on twitter. 

[kleese]

1 hour ago, Skinsinparadise said:

I'll say this, the story on Kirk to me has become clearer to my eyes in recent days if there is merit to these narratives.  Assuming the beat guys are right which is still an "if" to me.  Michael Phillips, Richmond Times just now on 106.7, he goes if Kirk beat the Giants he thinks this deal would have come together.  What he hears is that FO doesn't see him as a Superbowl QB.  They aren't going to pay him as a great QB when they see him as good.  They just aren't sold.   It's a variation of the same narrative of Jones and Russell. 

 

I commented on this if not on this thread than another and that is Bruce has talked repeatedly about how the Giants game was unacceptable and that can't happen again.   It struck me as perhaps an implied shot at Kirk.  If Phillips is on the money, they indeed haven't gotten over that game and it has impacted these negotiations.

 

In short if the deal doesn't happen, its becoming overwhelmingly lopsided in favor of this is a marriage that The Redskins FO is reluctant to jump into versus this being about Kirk's reluctance.  Kirk doesn't come off to me as a BSer and he's been quite clear that he'd like to stay.

 

If this is true, then I actually understand the position of the FO. That was a massive black mark for Kirk. Massive. I still want to sign him because I'm kind of a wuss and I have more fun going 8-8 than 3-13, but I do understand this thinking if indeed that is what Bruce is thinking. 

[XtremeFan55]

This is how I see it.  Cousins is perfectly content to play on the tag.  He would probably still be content playing on any of the two tags next year too.  It is all guaranteed money and more than he ever expected to make in his entire career.  After next year he has even more leverage because he can never be tagged again. He gets his freedom.  He gets to go to a team that might have a better potential than the Redskins.  And...he no longer has to worry or play for money because due to his frugal lifestyle and self-control he has enough to last for the rest of his life.  

 

I think the Redskins know this and know that any contract unless it is so out in left field will be rejected.  Redskins then have two potential problems....one is angering the other owners....two the embarassment of being rejected and also having the fan base turn on them with a vengeance.  So they choose to kick the can to next year and hope Cousins somehow changes his mind.

 

If anyone took the time to look at the 49ers roster....it is very good.  They have a solid offensive line with depth.  A potential great defensive line. Great linebackers.  A running back.  All they really lack is a quarterback,  another reciever and a defensive back.  I can see them having plenty of money next year to fill all three positions.  I can also see them signing Cousins and Pryor to fill two of those positions.

 

If I can see the potential in the 49ers then I am sure Cousins can too.  They are not as bad as everyone in here makes them out to be.  They have an idiot owner but most of the problems centered around Trent Baalke who is gone.  Lynch and Shanahan are going to makes waves in 2-3 years IMO.

[clskinsfan]

55 minutes ago, elkabong82 said:

I'll also say again: why would the team have placed the exclusive tag on Kirk if they didn't want to give him a fair value LTD?

 

They knew his asking price before the tag deadline in February, they knew it was going to take Andrew Luck type contract or higher. We have Schaffer doing contracts, no way he didn't know what size contract they were looking at for Cousins. 

 

They could've done the normal tag to better facilitate a trade.

 

In fairness. We have no idea what they have offered him yet.

36 minutes ago, bowhunter said:

If they TT him next year, we still may not be able to lock him up and trade him. Wouldn't that require KC to actually sign the competing teams offer sheet? If he doesn't agree to SF's offer, than he would simply play out the one year TT price and then become a FA.

Yes. and techinically SF could put a no trade clause in their contract. So if we matched it we couldnt trade him. 

[Skinsinparadise]

11 minutes ago, kleese said:

 

If this is true, then I actually understand the position of the FO. That was a massive black mark for Kirk. Massive. I still want to sign him because I'm kind of a wuss and I have more fun going 8-8 than 3-13, but I do understand this thinking if indeed that is what Bruce is thinking. 

 

I don't.   Its IMO a short sighted old school George Steinbrenner/Yankees style overreaction to a game.  It flows with the narrative of Dan's critics which is he's a Steinbrenner JR. type -- impetuous and emotional and that leads to instability and upheaval.  Though Steinbrenner did mellow later in life. 

 

From your side of it, I understand.  I get it from a fan point of view.  We are emotional but we aren't in charge of the team like a business.  I was upset about the game at the time, too.  I wasn't happy with Kirk in that moment and ditto as to Jay.   But when I settled down and I thought about the whole season and the team/Kirk looking forward I was more than cool with everything.  Kirk excelled with the season on the line in Philly in 2015.  It didn't happen in 2016. Hey stuff happens.   I am not judging a player on one game alone.

[clskinsfan]

26 minutes ago, ExoDus84 said:

So, if a deal doesn't get done, which it looks like it won't, what are the odds Cousins even plays for the team this season? I mean, wouldn't the FO then have to trade him, in order to get something in return? If there's no deal in place by the deadline, I can't see any possible way that Kirk stays next season. You can't franchise him again @ $35 million, and he likely will have felt disrespected enough to just want to go elsewhere. If no deal gets done, you have to deal him somewhere.

They WILL NOT franchise Kirk again next year regardless. They would transition tag him. And he could look for a  better offer on the market. Then the SKins could match any offer he got. The other options are he could just play on the transition tag next year or the Skins could sign him long term as well. Ireally wish they would have just transition tagged him this year. We would have an answer to this never ending drama by now.

[Tay]

3 minutes ago, Skinsinparadise said:

 

I don't.   Its IMO a short sighted old school George Steinbrenner/Yankees style overreaction to a game.  It flows with the narrative of Dan's critics which is he's a Steinbrenner JR. type -- impetuous and emotional and that leads to instability and upheaval.  Though Steinbrenner did mellow later in life. 

 

I understand it from a fan point of view.  We are emotional but we aren't in charge of the team like a business.  I was upset about the game at the time, too.  I wasn't happy with Kirk in that moment and ditto as to Jay.   But when I settled down and I thought about the whole season and the team/Kirk looking forward I was more than cool with everything.  Kirk excelled with the season on the line in Philly in 2015.  It didn't happen in 2016. Hey stuff happens.   I am not judging a player on one game alone.

 

I think the team would be making a mistake if they didn't offer him true market value, but if Kirk is seeking to use his leverage to get AAV/guarantees above market value I understand the team not going for that. While I think Kirk is a franchise QB, I don't know if it's the right decision to pay him over market if the team doesn't feel that he's the type of player that elevates the level of play of the guys around him like the elite QBs in the league.

[NewCliche21]

13 minutes ago, kleese said:

 

If this is true, then I actually understand the position of the FO. That was a massive black mark for Kirk. Massive. I still want to sign him because I'm kind of a wuss and I have more fun going 8-8 than 3-13, but I do understand this thinking if indeed that is what Bruce is thinking. 

 

I could understand his position and think it was unbelievably stupid.  One game.  ONE game.  Yes, it was important, but it was ONE game.  Even Peyton blew it a few times when it counted before he got his.  This would be such a terrible thing to judge his contract-worthiness on.

 

12 minutes ago, XtremeFan55 said:

This is how I see it.  Cousins is perfectly content to play on the tag.  He would probably still be content playing on any of the two tags next year too.  It is all guaranteed money and more than he ever expected to make in his entire career.  After next year he has even more leverage because he can never be tagged again. He gets his freedom.  He gets to go to a team that might have a better potential than the Redskins.  And...he no longer has to worry or play for money because due to his frugal lifestyle and self-control he has enough to last for the rest of his life.  

 

I think the part that we forget is that Kirk could pull a Palmer or even Brees and have a terrible injury at any point.  Hell, it literally happened right in front of him, twice, in his first year.  That would cost him tens of millions because who's gonna spend big money on a guy coming off of a huge injury?  He'd be lucky to get $10 million a year for 3 years with a lot of contingencies if anything at all.  That's the security of a long-term deal and why players don't like playing on the tag.

[Skinsinparadise]

6 minutes ago, Tay said:

 

I think the team would be making a mistake if they didn't offer him true market value, but if Kirk is seeking to use his leverage to get AAV/guarantees above market value I understand the team not going for that. While I think Kirk is a franchise QB, I don't know if it's the right decision to pay him over market if the team doesn't feel that he's the type of player that elevates the level of play of the guys around him like the elite QBs in the league.

 

Tough for me to entertain theories about whether the team gives over market or the Kirk will turn down a market deal stuff until I hear of a market deal actually offered to Kirk.  I grant that ALL the narrative from everyone could be wrong.  But judging by all of it:  at this moment in time:  the Redskins haven't offered a market deal.  And most are saying they won't offer him a market deal.   So until I hear they are all wrong and secretly Kirk has indeed received and turned down a monster deal, I'm not even thinking about that as a plausible scenario.

[carex]

honestly, unless the Skins get the chance to sign someone who's won a Super Bowl I don't want them setting out any record setting contracts and I definitely don't want them doing any never been done stuff like giving a percentage of the cap for anyone

[Jericho]

7 minutes ago, NewCliche21 said:

 

I could understand his position and think it was unbelievably stupid.  One game.  ONE game.  Yes, it was important, but it was ONE game.  Even Peyton blew it a few times when it counted before he got his.  This would be such a terrible thing to judge his contract-worthiness on.

 

 

I think the part that we forget is that Kirk could pull a Palmer or even Brees and have a terrible injury at any point.  Hell, it literally happened right in front of him, twice, in his first year.  That would cost him tens of millions because who's gonna spend big money on a guy coming off of a huge injury?  He'd be lucky to get $10 million a year for 3 years with a lot of contingencies if anything at all.  That's the security of a long-term deal and why players don't like playing on the tag.

 

Weird analogy. Drew Brees had the shoulder injury and still got big money from New Orleans (though it apparently scared off Miami)

[BurgundyBooger]

7 minutes ago, Tay said:

 

I think the team would be making a mistake if they didn't offer him true market value, but if Kirk is seeking to use his leverage to get AAV/guarantees above market value I understand the team not going for that. While I think Kirk is a franchise QB, I don't know if it's the right decision to pay him over market if the team doesn't feel that he's the type of player that elevates the level of play of the guys around him like the elite QBs in the league.

 

We overpaid damn-near every other position over the market. This is the one you put the house on. And knowing Kirk, he's not going to pull an Albert Haynesworth on the franchise and get lazy once the contract is set. He'll not only continue to work his tail off, he'll put it overtime to prove to the detractors that he's worth the big contract. That is the kind of man he his and the QB we need. In addition, there's nothing in Kirk's character to suggest he's holding out for a back-breaking Andrew Luck type contract that would put the team in jeopardy. This smells of something else.

[Est.1974]

I totally buy the Giants game theory. A number of people, me included, noted at the time it was the game he needed to nail to fully 'prove' his worth here.

[TD_washingtonredskins]

28 minutes ago, Skinsinparadise said:

 

I don't.   Its IMO a short sighted old school George Steinbrenner/Yankees style overreaction to a game.  It flows with the narrative of Dan's critics which is he's a Steinbrenner JR. type -- impetuous and emotional and that leads to instability and upheaval.  Though Steinbrenner did mellow later in life. 

 

From your side of it, I understand.  I get it from a fan point of view.  We are emotional but we aren't in charge of the team like a business.  I was upset about the game at the time, too.  I wasn't happy with Kirk in that moment and ditto as to Jay.   But when I settled down and I thought about the whole season and the team/Kirk looking forward I was more than cool with everything.  Kirk excelled with the season on the line in Philly in 2015.  It didn't happen in 2016. Hey stuff happens.   I am not judging a player on one game alone.

 

Great post. It's ridiculous if one game (even a win-and-get-in game) dictated how they wanted to proceed. BUT - let's say that Giant game on New Years did play a  big role. Then WHY on earth are we here on July 13? He should have either not been tagged or tagged and traded if they don't believe in him. 

 

All this says is "we are willing to pay you $24M for one season but we don't actually believe in you" - what a horrible way to spend $24M. 

[NewCliche21]

6 minutes ago, Jericho said:

 

Weird analogy. Drew Brees had the shoulder injury and still got big money from New Orleans (though it apparently scared off Miami)

 

Drew Brees-type injury.

 

 

[Burgundy Yoda]

Oh look, a contract still isn't done. Who would have guessed! Hopefully Darnold doesn't come out until 2019 when Cousins is gone because we'll surely be terrible that year without Kirk. We have the most loyal fanbase by far and put up with so much ineptitude from the front office. When Kirk leaves, I'm sure the finger will be pointed at him by the front office, but 90% of us won't be fooled. Some underlying things have happened in this whole cluster **** of a situation, and it's smelling more and more obvious that Kirk doesn't want to be here and doesn't want to commit to this team.

[wskin44]

KC will sign a LTD Sunday or Monday and then all of this nonsense will go away.

 

[elkabong82]

52 minutes ago, Skinsinparadise said:

 

I paid attention to the narrative as much as anyone.  Name one of the deals you heard offered for Kirk?  The guy who was talking about these deals was by and large Ian Rappoport.  He was proven wrong multiple times.  JP Finlay asked him about it a few days ago in a podcast, this time he backed off and said yeah there might have been some interest but I don't if it ever translated into any offer. 

 

 

OK, by this it sounds that the tag means this market deal is coming for sure.  If so that's cool, I'll relax this weekend.   I think the deal happens but my confidence isn't driven by the 1 year means the same to them as 3-5 years.  That point was already disproven last year.  They did the 20 million dollar tag but turned down a 3 year 19.5 million a year deal.

 

There were plenty of reports of teams' interests in Kirk. The Redskins shot everyone down immediately. Sure there was the Browns rumor, but also there were rumors with San Fran before and on draft day. But, it's kind of hard for a concrete offer to materialize when there is an exclusive tag and the team isn't even listening. Seriously, the idea there wasn't a trade market for Kirk is laughable.

 

The team even said they applied the exclusive tag to show their commitment to Kirk. Likely it's been borught up during negotiations as well. If the team didn't intend on offering a fair deal (and Schaffer knew what that was likely to be before the tag deadline) then why use the exclusive tag and why shoot down everyone's offers immediately? It doesn't make sense. Now, if Skins don't offer a fair deal, then they are morons and I'm not giving them any of my money and will demand Allen's firings, as I'm sure most Skins fans will. Highly doubt Dan wants to see empty seats.

 

The teams' actions run counter to the idea they won't offer a fair deal. So unless they are complete morons, or Kirk is a bold faced liar and it is about money and his asking price is insane, I think the deal gets done. I can recall both Von Miller and Dez Bryant rumors that were similar, how both were going to sit out/demand trades, the teams didn;t think they were worth the koney, etc. etc. Yet those deals got done.

[Tay]

23 minutes ago, BurgundyBooger said:

 

We overpaid damn-near every other position over the market. This is the one you put the house on. And knowing Kirk, he's not going to pull an Albert Haynesworth on the franchise and get lazy once the contract is set. He'll not only continue to work his tail off, he'll put it overtime to prove to the detractors that he's worth the big contract. That is the kind of man he his and the QB we need. In addition, there's nothing in Kirk's character to suggest he's holding out for a back-breaking Andrew Luck type contract that would put the team in jeopardy. This smells of something else.

 

Which contract do you consider over market? Remember that the market isn't based on total dollar, but the % of cap the year the deal was signed along with guaranteed %.

 

I haven't researched, but I don't think we've done much overspending at all since 2010.

[Skinsinparadise]

13 minutes ago, elkabong82 said:

 

There were plenty of reports of teams' interests in Kirk. 

 

Plenty of reports?  What teams?  But I'll play along, Jones is wrong there were teams offering the Redskins good deals left and right but Bruce held firm.   On that same post, I gave two other theories for why they didn't trade him that had nothing to do with the trade market.  Again though, I don't work for Mike Jones if you want to accuse him and others of being liars, fine.  It doesn't matter to me.

 

13 minutes ago, elkabong82 said:

 

Now, if Skins don't offer a fair deal, then they are morons

 

We agree on this.

 

13 minutes ago, elkabong82 said:

The teams' actions run counter to the idea they won't offer a fair deal. 

 

Our thoughts aren't that different as to the bottom line.  Your point seems to be they will absolutely offer a fair market deal.  My thoughts are they likely will.  Your point is they'd have to be dumb not to do it and that's part of your rationale.   I feel the same.  Our only difference is I am not so 100% sold on the idea that they get a deal done to the degree that I can easily just rule out all the theories for why a deal doesn't get done.