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

[skins2victory]

If they can't reach a deal here real soon, do we have the option of dropping the tag, even though Kirk has signed it already?? At that point they could say, we would still like you to be our QB here is the long term deal offer, take it or leave it. I just don't want to see this looming over the teams head for another year.

[Burgold]

4 minutes ago, Voice_of_Reason said:

 

But I think the point is that had the 'Skins NOT franchised him because they are afraid of the open market, other teams probably weren't going to be lining up to pay Krik $24 mil/year.

 

I actually disagree with that sentiment THIS year because the 49ers would have. They have the cap space, and there wasn't as good a prospect in the draft. 

 

Ultimately, the reason that the 'Skins franchised Kirk is they believed they would lose him on the open market.  Which is probably correct.  

Yep, Cousins was the best prospect available... He'd have been a hot commodity if he was made available. At worst, he's been a borderline Probowler two years running. You can say that's because of the system and having a very good supporting cast, but I think that's short sighted. An inaccurate QB can not take advantage of good receivers or a good system. Besides, don't you want a QB who's great in your system? Why on Earth should that be looked on as a negative!

 

At any rate, if Cousins was available he would have been gobbled up in a bidding war. He's not quite good enough that teams were willing to give up two 1sts to sign him, but he's definitely good enough to be a franchise QB. If he wasn't... why the heck did we franchise him twice?

 

I'm annoyed with Cousins because I do think his team has been inflexible. I'm more annoyed with the Redskins because I think they were satisfied with the franchise tag and never put forth the work necessary to make a deal happen. Maybe they couldn't have won Cousins over, but you have to try.

[markmills67]

6 minutes ago, HOF44 said:

And 2 starting wideouts.

And any sign of a brain in the FO.

[Burgold]

Just now, skins2victory said:

If they can't reach a deal here real soon, do we have the option of dropping the tag, even though Kirk has signed it already?? At that point they could say, we would still like you to be our QB here is the long term deal offer, take it or leave it. I just don't want to see this looming over the teams head for another year.

I'm not sure. Cousins has signed the contract. They might be able to tear it up, I suppose, but I suspect not. If Kirk didn't sign they could remove the designation up until 3:59 today, but he did sign.

[MattFancy]

4 minutes ago, Voice_of_Reason said:

 

personally, I would have offered him the Carr deal the day after Carr signed it, just to see if he would take it.  If he did, great.  If not, you know.  

 

I'm with you on that. I think he and Carr are comparable. Carr is younger, but we've seen Cousins produce for 2 straight years now. The team should have offered him the same deal and see what he would have said. I don't think Cousins would say no to that money.

[TD_washingtonredskins]

6 minutes ago, carex said:

looking back over some Redskins seasons.  9-7  and 8-8 were the Skins records in Jason Campbell's first two years as starter before dropping to 4-12.  And when Guss Frerotte was here in the 90s we had a period with the exact same record as our last four years here with the exception of our 4-12 record being beaten by a 6-10 record.

So maybe the FO has a decent reason for deciding 9-7 and 8-7-1 years aren't enough for a record deal

For you and me, those are valid reasons to have guarded optimism. But, if we have high-level front office personnel making decisions based on false hope from 10 and 20 years ago, then we're in trouble. This should be more structured, objective, and emotionless. We should be willing to say (internally) that we want to pay Cousins x and certainly won't exceed y. If we've done that, then I can understand why they didn't get a contract done. 

 

Where I get uneasy (even in that scenario) is that it doesn't look like we even sat down with him or his agent to negotiate. It sounds like they exchanged some very broad ideas months ago and nothing else really happened. The other, more alarming part is that we are willing to pay him $24M THIS YEAR without being convinced he's worth that. It just comes across as disorganized and haphazard. 

[Audible_Red40]

33 minutes ago, jschuck12001 said:

I don't believe there was a market for Kirk over $20 mil per year

Are you kidding?

 

Osweiler got 4 years 72 million and 37 million guaranteed for diddly poo. 1900 yards passing and 10 TDs. 

 

As compared to, previous stats and 1 year of almost 4200 yards 29 TD's and leading the league in completion percentage.  You don't let QB's walk of this kind of production.  You've never seen it before.  Even teams with average QB play would have had to talk about the possibility of offering a contract to Kirk.

 

ETA: And I'm talking about after 2015 and his "market".  Thus for sure the market would be over $20mil after 2016

[TD_washingtonredskins]

2 minutes ago, MattFancy said:

 

I'm with you on that. I think he and Carr are comparable. Carr is younger, but we've seen Cousins produce for 2 straight years now. The team should have offered him the same deal and see what he would have said. I don't think Cousins would say no to that money.

Not to mention, it's decent PR for a team that obviously seems to care what people think. Now, I'll admit that it's possible we'll eventually find out that offers were made, but as it stands now it seems like we haven't offered him a thing since the combine. That doesn't look good - that puts ownership of this outcome on the team, not Cousins. 

[BatteredFanSyndrome]

6 minutes ago, carex said:

 The tag is not supposed to be the base of the negotiations

It is when you are a good QB, the most important position on the field, on your 2nd tag.

[Unbias]

With 2 hours left I'm just feeling 'sad'. I'm not so focused on what playing another year under the franchise tag means, but rather the path this is on and the direction it's heading.  

 

Washington and Kirk have not seen eye to eye for 2 seasons on a long term contract extension. This is oversimplifying it but Washington thinks he's worth less and he thinks he's worth more. If that wasn't the case a deal would have happened long ago.

 

He's had 2 good seasons, so at this point I don't think much will materially change between now and next offseason. That leaves us with 3 options: 

 

1. 1. ~$34M franchise tag
2. 2. ~$28M transition tag, which opens him up to being poached by another team and getting nothing in return (aside from a compensatory pick, which maxes out at a 3rd rounder)
3. 3. Let him walk - Team would definitely get a comp pick, so really not much back in return. 

 

I keep telling myself a long term contract can still happen and this is just a part of the process, but the actual actions that are taking place are pulling me to another conclusion. We'll see what these next couple of hours yield, but overall I'm feeling this will be a confirmation of bad things to come and we are sort of just moving through the long process of a messy divorce. 

[carex]

15 minutes ago, Voice_of_Reason said:

 

If you're in a good spot relationship wise, you go into an honest negotiation without having an artificial floor.  If you're willing to pay him like Derek Carr, but somebody else wants to make him the highest paid player ever, so be it.  

 

 

that's not very wise to me.  I mean he doesn't even have to call the Skins to let them match.  And teams could do stuff like offer him a seven year deal  when all we're offering is a four

[Est.1974]

Can't see Kirks performance this season being impacted by either outcome, so I can live with either scenario of tag or LTD. I can also see the merits of either outcome, I'd suggest it's not a clear cut situation so the tag doesn't kill us off yet. 

 

 

[Dont Taze Me Bro]

5 minutes ago, carex said:

 

Don't people who sign a long term deal from the franchise tag normally take a few million from the first year of the contract?  The tag is not supposed to be the base of the negotiations

 

It is when the QB and his agent say it is.   From their point of view, if the team is willing to tag him and pay him @24 million for one year, then they set his market value by applying the tag and negotiations should start at no less that $24mil/yr on LTDs.   

[Unbias]

14 minutes ago, skins2victory said:

If they can't reach a deal here real soon, do we have the option of dropping the tag, even though Kirk has signed it already?? At that point they could say, we would still like you to be our QB here is the long term deal offer, take it or leave it. I just don't want to see this looming over the teams head for another year.

No. They can only pull the tag if it hasn't been signed. As it stands the team has to account for a Kirk Cousins $23,943,600 fully guaranteed salary on their books. They could still agree upon a longer contract (within the next 1.5 hours), but it has to include that salary number. 

[kleese]

I'm telling you all....all this does is put all of the pressure on the 2017 season, which should be the case anyway considering our progressing since 2014. If we kick arse this year, KC lights it up, we improve in other areas, and win 10+ games then I am VERY confident the contract will be worked out and he will be a Redskin for sure in 2018 and probably beyond. Because at that point, BOTH sides have proven their cases. KC will have proven he's worth it and the FO will have proven they know what they are doing in other areas to make KC want to stay and not bolt for what is likely to be a far worse situation.

 

I don't love the way this all went down either, but to me, the timing actually sorta kinda works out. 2017 is really a make or break year for me on many, many levels. This is about when we should turn a corner if we are going to do so. If we don't, then honestly, losing Kirk isn't that big of a deal to me. Let's say for the sake of argument we go 7-9 this year. 9-7 to 8-7-1 to 7-9 isn't the direction we want to be heading and in that case, I find it hardly "disastrous" to lose a QB under those circumstances.

 

[Audible_Red40]

And whether or not a LTD gets signed before 4pm.  A new thread will open, so that's exciting!

[theTruthTeller]

9 minutes ago, Unbias said:

With 2 hours left I'm just feeling 'sad'....

That leaves us with 3 options: 

 

1. 1. ~$34M franchise tag
2. 2. ~$28M transition tag, which opens him up to being poached by another team and getting nothing in return (aside from a compensatory pick, which maxes out at a 3rd rounder)
3. 3. Let him walk - Team would definitely get a comp pick, so really not much back in return. 

 

More bad news:

Transition tagged players don't count in the compensatory formula per a 2016 agreement between the NFL and NFLPA.  If Cousins goes to SF and the Redskins match, it neither takes away from SF's compensation nor adds to the Skins compensation.

[Unbias]

49 minutes ago, jschuck12001 said:

 

I don't believe there was a market for Kirk over $20 mil per year.  Of course he would get offers, but not Luck and Carr type, my point is concerning the big money not that Kirk cant an offer.

 

I don't think there was a $20M market for Kirk Cousins 2 years ago, but now there certainly is. 

 

Maybe let's take the economics route. You have supply and demand. Let's say he's a top 15 talent at the position (not to debate his ranking, but to agree on a point). All teams have cap space. Some with more, some less. Also, we can agree that QB is the most important position on the football field.

 

Kirk's market value, based on my assumptions = how many top 15 ranked QBs will be available vs. how many teams would prefer a top 15 ranked QB.

 

I'd also add, unless he's getting paid backup money $20M/year is pretty much a low ball offer. There are 14 QBs making over $20M/season and only 3 of those deals (Cousins, Brees and Carr) were in previous offseasons, meaning the salary cap was lower, so their numbers do not take into market inflation which has already happened.    

8 minutes ago, theTruthTeller said:

More bad news:

Transition tagged players don't count in the compensatory formula per a 2016 agreement between the NFL and NFLPA.  If Cousins goes to SF and the Redskins match, it neither takes away from SF's compensation nor adds to the Skins compensation.

 

I 'liked' your comment only because I found it informative. To be clear, I did not 'like' the information you gave me and it only adds to the 'sad'...

 

In that case Washington would actually get something back by letting him walk as opposed to putting the transition tag on him...

[carex]

23 minutes ago, TD_washingtonredskins said:

For you and me, those are valid reasons to have guarded optimism. But, if we have high-level front office personnel making decisions based on false hope from 10 and 20 years ago, then we're in trouble. This should be more structured, objective, and emotionless. We should be willing to say (internally) that we want to pay Cousins x and certainly won't exceed y. If we've done that, then I can understand why they didn't get a contract done. 

 

Where I get uneasy (even in that scenario) is that it doesn't look like we even sat down with him or his agent to negotiate. It sounds like they exchanged some very broad ideas months ago and nothing else really happened. The other, more alarming part is that we are willing to pay him $24M THIS YEAR without being convinced he's worth that. It just comes across as disorganized and haphazard. 

 

13 minutes ago, Dont Taze Me Bro said:

 

It is when the QB and his agent say it is.   From their point of view, if the team is willing to tag him and pay him @24 million for one year, then they set his market value by applying the tag and negotiations should start at no less that $24mil/yr on LTDs.   

 

 

well you know then I'm gonna say they aren't negotiating in good faith and put 0 blame on the FO.

 

And I kind of feel like paying a guy 24 million because the NFL says you have to, rather than you thinking he's worth it is pretty objective and emotionless

 

For me, if I'm the owner and I were required to pay someone 58 mill over two years I wouldn't be paying more than that.  You want to get between 70 and 80 we're talking about years 3 and 4

[Est.1974]

Only way Kirk is playing elsewhere in 2018 is if he sucks this season. No need for too much drama if a deals not done today.

[PartyPosse]

Think of it this way, if Kyle or whomever else truly wanted him and thought he was good enough to sign for 24/25 mil a year then they would have put out serious offers for his services and signed him instead of just waiting for next year when he becomes a FA. Most FO have been taking the same wait and see approach on him as we are however it's considerably easier since they don't have to pay the FT.

[MartinC]

43 minutes ago, Voice_of_Reason said:

 

But I think the point is that had the 'Skins NOT franchised him because they are afraid of the open market, other teams probably weren't going to be lining up to pay Krik $24 mil/year.

 

If the Skins had not franchise tagged him last year then yeah the whole dynamic is different. But that ship has long sailed. Having done that though it then sets off the whole chain of dominos that leads us to where we are.

 

I do think though if we had not tagged him last year he would not have been our QB in 2016.

[Voice_of_Reason]

22 minutes ago, carex said:

 

that's not very wise to me.  I mean he doesn't even have to call the Skins to let them match.  And teams could do stuff like offer him a seven year deal  when all we're offering is a four

 

What's the alternative?  Pay him $34 million next year? Then have him leave the following year because you cant' tag him again?

 

If he wants to leave, he's going to leave.  Better to get it over with.  They blew it 2 years ago when they didn't sign him to $19/year with $30-$40 mil guaranteed. 

 

And if the relationship is in a place where he doesn't even given them a shot to counter, he doesn't want to be here, so no long term deal is possible.  At some point you've got to **** or get off the pot.  

 

 

[carex]

3 minutes ago, PartyPosse said:

Think of it this way, if Kyle or whomever else truly wanted him and thought he was good enough to sign for 24/25 mil a year then they would have put out serious offers for his services and signed him instead of just waiting for next year when he becomes a FA. Most FO have been taking the same wait and see approach on him as we are however it's considerably easier since they don't have to pay the FT.

 

no, this year we put out the exclusive rights tag.  I wonder if we might use a non-exclusive franchise tag next year

[TSO]

1 hour ago, kleese said:

People keep saying if they don't love him then why franchise him? My answer to that is because they probably LIKE him and want to hold out as long as possible before committing to LOVE him. Actually, I feel the same way.

 

Few problems with this: 

 

1) The cap space used when franchising a player is all guaranteed money based on the average of the top 5 salaries of the respective position. So you don't want to hand that out to players you just "like". Especially at QB where the average top 5 is a gigantic sum. And especially not two years in a row! 

 

2) Unused cap space can roll over to subsequent years, so using up all that cap space isn't a one year proposition each time the tag is used. People often make the mistake thinking the one year tag is just that, but it actually has significant long term effects. If the plan wasn't to extend Kirk long term because they (foolishly) don't believe he's worth it, that's a lot of money to risk on a player not in your long term plans that could've been used on other players presently and in the future who are. 

 

3) "Waiting as long as possible before committing to LOVE him" ignores that the "waiting" part includes a rising market that'll only affect said cap space negatively, the assumption that the player is fine with being questioned that entire time, and that it shows a lack of the one main thing a Front Office should be most adept at; foresight. Every contract comes with risk. It is impossible to remove all doubt. But that is what your personnel department, and the head of it (who usually is the top expert in the building at it but in our case we're too smart for such silly little things), gets paid to do. To project. 

 

-----------------

 

Nah, there's a time to be neutral. Things are often nuanced, and right and wrong can be seen occurring on numerous sides. But, in this case, it's pretty clear. 

 

The FO is being stupid. They have been stupid. They are wrong, wrong, wrong. 

 

This isn't hindsight. Last year, when I was absolutely stunned they didn't sign him long term, I accepted the rationale some put forward that it was okay to get one more year out of him proving 2015 was no fluke (didn't have to be great, didn't have to be very good, just basically don't bomb) and, even though it'd cost a few million more per year, they'll sign him with confidence. As long as that bore out, I was fine with it, as crazy as I thought it was. 

 

That is exactly what happened and, yet, here we are. I don't care at this point who thinks what on what side of the table. The results are what they are. It's a complete failure and this has been in the FO's hands from the onset. 

 

All this does for me is further provide evidence for my lack of belief in the two guys running this show, Dan and Bruce. Jay's power has proven to be extremely limited. We don't have an orthodox FO structure with an expert personnel-guy running that department. We can't have proper stability at all the three most important spots in an organization for any length of time: GM, HC, and QB. See who wins anything without that. See who finds and develops a great QB without that. Contrary to popular opinion, environment is arguably everything when it comes to greatness. So-called "elite QBs" don't just become that in a vacuum. Same for coaches. 

 

It's not just about entertainment for me, either. Something you've harped on, and that's totally your right. There's a level of passion that goes deeper than that for me. 

 

I've said before that I don't even care about winning necessarily. I just want to be able to believe in the organization I'm rooting for and the people within it. That's all. That they're at least trying and they've got the right ideas about how to build. That they're respectable and carry themselves with dignity. That they deserve to be where they are or hold whatever title they hold. Right now, I think that's only true for one single person there and that's Jay Gruden. 

 

Instead, we just get a constant flow of villains. Always villains. Poor innocent Dan, surrounded by so many villains. There's always a bad guy who needs to go. Someone the team always provides for the fans to "turn against". Who gets undermined and then smeared. All the while the person/s who made that hire in the first place are alleviated of all guilt, as if - even if it were all true about the evil nature of this new villain - that it's not a direct reflection of the hiring process in the first place. 

 

This is an absolute shame, no doubt about it. There is a reason QBs almost never get tagged, and almost never find themselves on the market if they're even decent, let alone accomplish anything close to what Kirk has. And, no, it's not because the rest of the league is stupid and the Redskins are smart.  

 

There is a reason FO stability, the proper organizational hierarchy, and the right hiring process that has experts of those respective fields being brought in are something you see the consistently successful franchises do. And, again, the Redskins aren't the smart ones doing it another way. 

 

But we'll have this season, I guess. This offseason was a complete disaster regarding the above, which affects the long term outlook of the team in a major negative way, but they did do a good job with player acquisition (no doubt a lingering effect of a more properly structured FO) so 2017 should be good. But it should never be about one season. Not outside of the fanbase. The FO should always be looking ahead, and making decisions based on their long term best interests. This has always been the problem under Dan; extreme short-sightedness which leads to a lack of desire to see any plan through (if there's one at all), emotionalism affecting the entire organization once adversity strikes, and the extreme desire for the (impossible to achieve) "quick fix". 

 

Then again, I'm not sure this doesn't affect the way Kirk plays, his passion for the team, the other player's respect and belief in the team's leadership, etc... this season. I hope not. But I wouldn't be surprised, either. And were that to happen, what a shame it will be to see many fans gleefully proclaim how smart the FO is/was while we do nothing but lose, make more changes with the inevitable creation of the new villain (Jay? Doug? Unlikely to be Bruce before the new stadium crap is finalized), and continue to hire people to work in a poor environment that only accentuates their weaknesses and negates their strengths instead of providing the support/environment that does the opposite. While we await the savior who will be perfect and have no weaknesses to negate or minimize to be hired by the same one/s who never seem to be able to find that person. 

 

Hope I'm wrong, of course. And that this FO is brilliantly paving a new path for all other FOs around the league to follow and look up to! Yup.