elkabong82 Posted June 21, 2017 Share Posted June 21, 2017 8 minutes ago, theTruthTeller said: What don't you understand? Carr is replacing a year in which he is contractually obligated to play for a $1.2M salary with a (prorated) $25M salary, and getting four more years at $25M. If Cousins got the same contract, it would replace a year in which he is contractually obligated to play for $24M with a $25M salary and he would get four more years at $25M. If both signed the same contract, Carr does $22.8M better than Kirk. Or looking at it a different way, Oakland is stepping up to the plate to sign Carr a year before they have to. It will cost them $23.8 to do so. Maybe its stupid, or maybe they don't want a Kirk Cousins problem on their hands. They are doing it now because their QB has become a known, good quantity and it will cost less now than waiting a year and having to give a deal that matches Matt Ryan and Matt Stafford's upcoming deals, both of which will top the market. The Carr deal is a win for both sides in the KC LTD because it sets the market value for Kirk. The team can't low ball, KC can't high ball. KC should get around the same as Carr and neither side can argue legitimately to the contrary. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Califan007 The Constipated Posted June 21, 2017 Share Posted June 21, 2017 15 minutes ago, theTruthTeller said: Let me do the math for you: (25*5+23.8)/5 = 29.76 Sorry I was off by a little bit. Why wouldn't it be (25*4+23.8)/5?...Right now you're taking 6 seasons of salaries and dividing only by 5 seasons. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
theTruthTeller Posted June 21, 2017 Share Posted June 21, 2017 1 minute ago, ConnSKINS26 said: Doesn't it seem strange that Carr would sign a deal (assuming it's this week) before waiting a couple more weeks to see what Cousins gets? The last contract is almost always bigger. Unless the view around the league is that we aren't getting a deal done, this doesn't really make sense. Oakland doesn't need to offer him a contract at all until next year. It's a pretty good deal, assuming he has a $15M bonus or thereabouts, he is probably going to see about $30M a year ahead of time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Califan007 The Constipated Posted June 21, 2017 Share Posted June 21, 2017 13 minutes ago, ConnSKINS26 said: Doesn't it seem strange that Carr would sign a deal (assuming it's this week) before waiting a couple more weeks to see what Cousins gets? The last contract is almost always bigger. Unless the view around the league is that we aren't getting a deal done, this doesn't really make sense. Cousins has a deadline so he can't wait for Carr's deal--Carr doesn't have that restriction. Carr doesn't have the leverage Cousins does, maybe?...If the Raiders didn't do a deal this year and franchised Carr next year, it wouldn't be for $35 mil like it would be with Cousins... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Skinsinparadise Posted June 21, 2017 Share Posted June 21, 2017 9 minutes ago, elkabong82 said: The Carr deal is a win for both sides in the KC LTD because it sets the market value for Kirk. The team can't low ball, KC can't high ball. KC should get around the same as Carr and neither side can argue legitimately to the contrary. I agree. It's why I think potentially this will help move this deal along. I was just checking twitter people there seem to summarize this as a major win for Kirk's side and loss for the FO. But I don't see it that way. This sets the market, it brings clarity. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shmohawk Posted June 21, 2017 Share Posted June 21, 2017 The point of Joe Banner's tweet is that this could and should have been handled last off-season, and he hypothesizes that a more reasonable offer last off-season would have locked up Kirk for considerably less money. I do not think anyone can disagree with that today, although it is certainly an observation made with the benefit of hindsight. I generally agree with his statement, that is all. What did the Redskins gain by waiting? It looks like the general consensus is certainty. I do not know that I would agree Kirk showed much more in 2016 than he showed in 2015, but to the extent that doing it two years in a row helped the Redskins feel more certain about locking him up, then I suppose something was gained. The real question of self-reflection for the Redskins front office that the Banner tweet alludes to is whether gaining that certainty was worth the cost, when doing what was necessary last off-season to lock him up for much less made a lot of sense. Further, they still have yet to even lock him up, and this situation could get even worse. I certainly hope they do get it done with Kirk despite the higher cost, but doing it last year was an option that was not taken. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Califan007 The Constipated Posted June 21, 2017 Share Posted June 21, 2017 21 minutes ago, elkabong82 said: I think Carr deal sets the ceiling on Kirk's deal too. IMO the two are fairly even in terms of production with an edge to Kirk, but Carr is 3 years younger. Whatever Carr gets, Kirk should get around the same. I would think in terms of guarantees, yeah... 9 minutes ago, shmohawk said: The point of Joe Banner's tweet is that this could and should have been handled last off-season, and he hypothesizes that a more reasonable offer last off-season would have locked up Kirk for considerably less money. I do not think anyone can disagree with that today, although it is certainly an observation made with the benefit of hindsight. I generally agree with his statement, that is all. What did the Redskins gain by waiting? It looks like the general consensus is certainty. I do not know that I would agree Kirk showed much more in 2016 than he showed in 2015, but to the extent that doing it two years in a row helped the Redskins feel more certain about locking him up, then I suppose something was gained. I understand what Banner was trying to get at, but he went about it in the wrong fashion. There was something the Redskins wanted before signing Cousins long term, and were willing to pay extra to get it. That's as much a reality as anything else. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
theTruthTeller Posted June 21, 2017 Share Posted June 21, 2017 9 minutes ago, Califan007 said: Why wouldn't it be (25*4)+23.8/5?...Right now you're taking 6 seasons of salaries and dividing only by 5 seasons. Your equation, ignoring the errant order of operations, comes out to less than $25M per year. Are you saying that he's making less than $25M per season because the Raiders are paying him $23,8 more than they are contractually obligated to this season? If your employer offered to pay you an extra $23.8M this year, would you consider that a good thing or a bad thing? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Califan007 The Constipated Posted June 21, 2017 Share Posted June 21, 2017 9 minutes ago, theTruthTeller said: Your equation, ignoring the errant order of operations, comes out to less than $25M per year. Are you saying that he's making less than $25M per season because the Raiders are paying him $23,8 more than they are contractually obligated to this season? If your employer offered to pay you an extra $23.8M this year, would you consider that a good thing or a bad thing? I'm saying your math is ****ed up lol... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
theTruthTeller Posted June 21, 2017 Share Posted June 21, 2017 1 minute ago, Califan007 said: I'm saying your math is ****ed up lol... you'd be wrong. lol x 23,8M Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shmohawk Posted June 21, 2017 Share Posted June 21, 2017 12 minutes ago, Califan007 said: I understand what Banner was trying to get at, but he went about it in the wrong fashion. There was something the Redskins wanted before signing Cousins long term, and were willing to pay extra to get it. That's as much a reality as anything else. Yes, but this still hinges on the Redskins actually locking Kirk up, which has yet to happen. Could the gamble have had any psychological effect on Kirk that negatively impacted his desire to stay? If so, then the Redskins completely blew it. Yes yes, I know, pure and maybe irresponsible speculation on my part that I hope is not true. However, if this doesn't get done by 7/17, then the situation will become much more bleak. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Califan007 The Constipated Posted June 21, 2017 Share Posted June 21, 2017 11 minutes ago, theTruthTeller said: you'd be wrong. lol x 23,8M Bill MitchellVerified account @mitchellvii If Trump gets 18% of the black vote and the black vote is down 20%, that equates to almost 25% of the black turnout for Trump. Are you Bill Mitchell in real life? lol... 9 minutes ago, shmohawk said: Yes, but this still hinges on the Redskins actually locking Kirk up, which has yet to happen. Not really lol...Banner's comment mentioned best and worst case scenarios. The worst case scenario already included the Skins losing Cousins. His best case scenario takes the position that the Skins do end up locking Cousins up with a LTD. We were talking about the best case scenario and what the Skins would have gained. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NewCliche21 Posted June 21, 2017 Share Posted June 21, 2017 2 minutes ago, Califan007 said: Bill MitchellVerified account @mitchellvii If Trump gets 18% of the black vote and the black vote is down 20%, that equates to almost 25% of the black turnout for Trump. Are you Bill Mitchell in real life? lol... Come on man, ES is one of the only escapes from politics. Let's put that in the Tailgate and use some other example. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Califan007 The Constipated Posted June 21, 2017 Share Posted June 21, 2017 6 minutes ago, NewCliche21 said: Come on man, ES is one of the only escapes from politics. Let's put that in the Tailgate and use some other example. I wasn't talking politics, I was talking math lol... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AlvinWaltonIsMyBoy Posted June 21, 2017 Share Posted June 21, 2017 Why don't you guys start a mathlete thread? Like this thread needs more headaches. The Carr deal is good for Cousins. Pony up the 25 per and let's win some ball games. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NewCliche21 Posted June 21, 2017 Share Posted June 21, 2017 1 minute ago, Califan007 said: I wasn't talking politics, I was talking math lol... Cali, you're not dumb, don't act like you don't understand. You could've used literally any example that isn't political, but you chose one that was political. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
theTruthTeller Posted June 21, 2017 Share Posted June 21, 2017 9 minutes ago, Califan007 said: Bill MitchellVerified account @mitchellvii If Trump gets 18% of the black vote and the black vote is down 20%, that equates to almost 25% of the black turnout for Trump. Are you Bill Mitchell in real life? lol... Who is Bill Mitchell? In any case, I don't see how that makes sense. On the other hand, I question how you cannot see that replacing a $1M year with a $25M year is a $24M benefit. It's costing the Raiders $24M that they are not currently contractually obligated to pay and putting the $24M directly in Derek Carr's pocket. If you were David Carr, would you rather start making $25M a year this year or next year? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Califan007 The Constipated Posted June 21, 2017 Share Posted June 21, 2017 9 minutes ago, NewCliche21 said: Cali, you're not dumb, don't act like you don't understand. You could've used literally any example that isn't political, but you chose one that was political. Can you think of any example of someone stating a math equation publicly that is just way off base?...I couldn't. I thought we'd all be grown-ass men here and realize my post had nothing whatsoever to do with Trump, blacks or the vote. Still hanging on to that belief. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shmohawk Posted June 21, 2017 Share Posted June 21, 2017 3 minutes ago, Califan007 said: Not really lol...Banner's comment mentioned best and worst case scenarios. The worst case scenario already included the Skins losing Cousins. His best case scenario takes the position that the Skins do end up locking Cousins up with a LTD. We were talking about the best case scenario and what the Skins would have gained. I highly doubt that actually made you "lol." I was referring to your statement that the Redskins wanted something before locking up Kirk and that they were willing to pay more to get it, and simply saying that the measurement of this particular decision still hinges on Kirk actually signing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
theTruthTeller Posted June 21, 2017 Share Posted June 21, 2017 1 minute ago, Califan007 said: Can you think of any example of someone stating a math equation publicly that is just way off base?...I couldn't. I can...you! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NewCliche21 Posted June 21, 2017 Share Posted June 21, 2017 Just now, Califan007 said: Can you think of any example of someone stating a math equation publicly that is just way off base?...I couldn't. I thought we'd all be grown-ass men here and realize my post had nothing whatsoever to do with Trump, blacks or the vote. Still hanging on to that belief. Oh Jesus, okay, you're right, your post using Trump's black vote had nothing to do with politics. And no, I couldn't find any examples in three seconds. I'm done with the conversation, take your victory lap. Let's sign Cousins. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Califan007 The Constipated Posted June 21, 2017 Share Posted June 21, 2017 14 minutes ago, theTruthTeller said: Who is Bill Mitchell? In any case, I don't see how that makes sense. On the other hand, I question how you cannot see that replacing a $1M year with a $25M year is a $24M benefit. It's costing the Raiders $24M that they are not currently contractually obligated to pay and putting the $24M directly in Derek Carr's pocket. If you were David Carr, would you rather start making $25M a year this year or next year. I'll ask you again: 1) How did you reach the conclusion that Carr's contract is "really like signing a $29.6M/year contract"? 2) Why did you take 6 years of salaries and only divide it by 5 years? 11 minutes ago, shmohawk said: I highly doubt that actually made you "lol." Then you don't know me very well lol (which is obvious, of course)... 10 minutes ago, theTruthTeller said: I can...you! I meant besides you lol... 9 minutes ago, NewCliche21 said: Oh Jesus, okay, you're right, your post using Trump's black vote had nothing to do with politics. And no, I couldn't find any examples in three seconds. I'm done with the conversation, take your victory lap. Let's sign Cousins. It didn't. Could have been about oranges and bowling balls, still would have used it if the math was convoluted. In fact, you're the only one making it about politics so far lol... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Conn Posted June 21, 2017 Share Posted June 21, 2017 OH **** we've gotten to the point in the thread where someone accuses Califan of not actually lol'ing, shut her down. I remember being obsessed with his lol'ing in our disagreements in probably 2010 or so. Drove me ****ing nuts back then Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
goskins10 Posted June 21, 2017 Share Posted June 21, 2017 10 minutes ago, theTruthTeller said: Who is Bill Mitchell? In any case, I don't see how that makes sense. On the other hand, I question how you cannot see that replacing a $1M year with a $25M year is a $24M benefit. It's costing the Raiders $24M that they are not currently contractually obligated to pay and putting the $24M directly in Derek Carr's pocket. If you were David Carr, would you rather start making $25M a year this year or next year. You are missing the point here that the Redskins did not have the same opportunity. To do that, they would have had to sign him before the 2015 season - at which time he expected to be the back-up. Last season - he was not under contract at all. So they had to either work out a deal or tag him. The tag was approximately $19.4M I think (very close). So the Redskins were not in a position to pay him $24M more than he would have made. In fact you could argue that since he was not under contract at all, they paid him $19.4M more than he was due to make. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Est.1974 Posted June 21, 2017 Share Posted June 21, 2017 So Kirks gonna be getting a 25mil p/y deal. Who'd a thought that eh Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.