The Post Franchise Tag 4pm Deadline Deal Or No Deal Fallout Thread

[skins island connection]

3 hours ago, Taylor 36 said:

Allen has said more than once that the FT is in play for next year if a deal isn't reach prior to the deadline come March.  Kirk has made it clear that he has no problem signing/playing on the FT, so what makes you think they won't franchise him if they haven't banged out a LTD prior to the start of the 2018 NFL year? Especially if Kirk balls out this season???

 

I see @purbeast beat me to it.  What he said!

 

 One thing quite a few people seem to be counting on is Kirk having another good season. It may very well happen ,but it could be a disaster as well.

 

 If Kirk doesn't play near as good next season, the FO will use it as a tool to lower the offer, if they in fact offer. I doubt they tag him again, that would show complete incompetence of the FO.

But if he does play good, then the idea of Kirk setting a standard for QBs will kick in, and just might revolve around the higher tag number, which is what, 34 mil? If the FO felt uneasy about making him the offer he wanted for 2017, they will certainly look away from a multi-year 130-140 mil contract, and that would be where his agent goes for the jugular.

7 hours ago, bobandweave said:

 

I am not of the thinking Cousins or any NFL player or sports figure is greedy. These men give there bodies and health to entertain us. They have a responsibility to their own families to do right by them now and for their own future. That means cashing in when they can. The owners aren't taking the risks these players are. They are just financing the operation. Do I feel sorry for a billionaire who has to pay a player like Kirk or any sympathy? Sorry I do not. Who knows? Maybe the child Kirk and his wife are expecting now gets to go to college because of this and goes on to do great things benefiting all of humanity?

 

Cousins is not greedy because some of you are thinking Cousins should be signing a team friendly deal where he only makes his million after reaching certain playing incentives. The game he plays is dangerous, the players put there health and future on the line every game. Why would any of them sign an incentive based contract when they more likely then not would not have to do that?

 

 

 It is a salary cap set by the league, its not a free market where a billionaire can shell out whatever he wants, so that doesn't seem like the right angle to view it from.

Personally, I could have an extremely comfy life with 50-60 million guaranteed, its why people play the lottery.

 Regarding the last paragraph, well, no one put a gun to Kirk's head and said you're gonna play football; he's playing a sport that millions of people would give anything to do, and making a lot of money in the process.

Many companies have deadlines and job completion goals where incentives are given out. The FO and Kirk with his agent could come to a similar agreement that would benefit both sides; hec, its been said that Kirk was betting on himself, so whats the difference in an incentive-based contract which isn't an insult on guaranteed money or years? Frankly, its the only thing that makes sense on both sides. Some say Kirk doesn't have to prove anything, while others say he does; I'm caught in the middle.

[PartyPosse]

9 hours ago, bobandweave said:

Cousins is not greedy because some of you are thinking Cousins should be signing a team friendly deal where he only makes his million after reaching certain playing incentives. The game he plays is dangerous, the players put there health and future on the line every game. Why would any of them sign an incentive based contract when they more likely then not would not have to do that?

I don't think he under any obligation to sign a team friendly deal however he is going to make a lot of money regardless. Thats a given. I also assume he wants to win and if he makes say 22 million a year vs 25 million and that other 3 million is used towards improving the rest of the team, wouldn't that make more sense for him? I mean if the team was offering an ok deal and also up against the cap limit wouldn't it be more beneficial for the team for him to at least consider it? I'm not saying let himself be taken advantage of, but think about whether or not the money the team saves on his deal is used to improve a weaker area.

[BoFriedmanJr]

5 hours ago, Skinsinparadise said:

 

Yeah you got national reporters saying Bruce might tag him again. JP Finlay has been on this pont for awhile saying he has talked to Bruce about it and he thinks he is dead serious as to considering doing it.  Finlay thinks he will do it.

 

I think he will tag him, too. Yeah its nuts to tag him for an outrageous sum but it flows with Bruce's I'll pay any price to rent but will only buy the house if i can get a deal. The irony would be he would have paid about 80 in fully guaranteed over 3 years which would have easily locked in Kirk long term last year by a mile and if the beat reporters are on the money, it would have locked him in this time, too. 

 

If this goes down, I think it would be one heck of a 30-30 special on weird contract approaches, especially if the end game is Kirk playing elsewhere in 2019.

 

 

 

  And that is the thing....what is the end game if they franchise him again?    Are they looking to trade him?    Because they damn sure can't franchise tag him in 2019 where the CBA doesn't even list the exact percentage increases because it was thought that no team would be so foolhardy as to franchise tag a player three straight years but reports have stated that the cost would be north of $50 million for a single season. 

 

 

If you franchise tag him again I think that is the end of any sort of long term deal aspirations and you need to trade him for whatever the best possible offer is.

[Skinsinparadise]

7 hours ago, DC Lumber Co. said:

In the end, I'm confident this will be more of an issue to the fans than it was for any of the parties involved.

 

Our fanbase has it so deeply ingrained in us that anything that happens MUST mean it's a misstep by the front office/ownership

 

4. If the anti-Dan/Bruce camp is right (kill me now) and Kirk really hates them, at the end of the day the transition tag will still ensure Kirk finishes his career in Washington regardless. 

 

 

 

Got no doubt that it means more to the fans than to the FO and Kirk for different reasons. And I think people have explained why in many posts. But that isn't reassuring to many of us, but instead a source of aggravation.

 

As for it being a misstep, you seem to be implying that we the fans are overreacting and the rest of the NFL doesnt see it the same way. It's not so though. Reading and watching some of the coverage on this - most of it (though agree not all) ranges from ridiculing the FO to being greatly mystified by it. That goes double to the press release Bruce put out.

 

I havent noticed anyone (maybe I missed one or two?) that said Kirk didnt sign here because of hating Bruce or Dan. What was said is consistent with the naratives brought out by beat reporters covering the story before the deal didnt go down.

 

A. Kirk wanted a market deal in the Carr, Luck range

B. Team wasnt willing to offer one.

C. So no deal

D. Kirk's side saw the tag as relevant to their price

E. FO saw tag not relevant to the price.

 

Kirk himself in the interview covered some of those points. So I dont get how its some big fog as to what happenned. Bruce even sent out a press release presenting his offer.  Both sides went out of their way to explain what happenned.

 

Only relevancy to Kirk's feelings on the FO according to reporters was that for Kirk (Kirk's agent) to entertain a below market deal they have had to have good will built up. And for a good chunk of the negotiation (both 2016 and 2017) it was the opposite of that.  And in the things he was unsure about that he wanted to see play out is the performance of the current FO.  Keim covered that story too and he is one of the most balanced reporters covering the team.

[Wyvern]

Actually, I'm hoping that both sides can find some middle ground -- especially.on how much the exclusive franchise tag is, or is not, the basis for long term deals.  Because if Cousins agent's position becomes a trend-setter for how much money that future NFL long-term contracts need to be settled -- the NFL will really need to raise the salary cap.

 

As a fan, i hope all sides can eventually acknowledge that exclusive franchise tags contain within them, a monetary premium for short-term nature of a contract along with the continuation of the franchise's exclusive rights to a player, essentially depriving the player the right to test the market. But is it appropriate to require that this short term/ exclusive premium be extended though-out all five years of long term deal? 

 

I tend to feel that if a franchise-tagged player signs a long-term deal, the LTD can assume he's giving back some of that short-term premium -- in exchange for long-term stability, guaranteed portions in his contract, that exceed what he gets by being exclusively-tagged, etc.  Perhaps, the transition tag may be a better baseline to work out LTDs from --especially if the contract is for many years and not void-able after only two years.

 

So, while I understand why Cousins didn't move on the Skins' May offer -- I don't agree with the precedent that his agent is trying to establish on what's the baseline money in LTDs for exclusive FT'd players.  

 

I'll be curious to see where this trend-setting debate goes, because I suspect the owners are going to suggest to the Skins FO, that they hang tough and not agree with Cousins'agent's position.  ...Just another reason why I'm pessimistic about the two sides reaching agreement in 2017.

 

 

 

[wit33]

Has Bill Polian helped some see the light?

[Tsailand]

23 hours ago, bobandweave said:

Tom Brady is a QB who's shown he can play at a high level and is 39 years old today, Cousins is a QB who has also shown he can play at a high level but is only 28 years old today. Tom Brady says he wants to play until he is 45. If Cousins played that long he would have another 16 years of playing this game in front of him.

 

I agreed with 90% of your post, but this is crazy talk.  Brady is not playing till 45 and Cousins sure as hell isn't.

 

I give Cousins another decade in the NFL.  You can win a lot of games in ten years.

 

22 hours ago, Wyvern said:

 It simply means the Skins will try again... with new draftees, new free agents, and the Skins players who are willing to sign on terms the Skins F.O. is comfortable with. But it will still be the same old FO.

 

And it will still be players who are OK signing with a team who has no serious plan to win.  At best, these are guys who are satisfied with being the next Joe Thomas.  At worst, these are guys who aren't good enough to get jobs elsewhere.  Not to mention the guys who stop working once they get paid.

 

19 hours ago, jschuck12001 said:

Best to get that deal done during that month of exclusivity or say goodbye, unless you guys want Kirk playing on 1-year deals forever.

 

Kirk is not going to sign during that month.  There is no reason for him too, even if this was a good situation, which it is not. 

 

Yes, he said he is willing to negotiate during that period.  Negotiate, not sign.  It's like being willing to get engaged to a girl but smart enough to never marry her.

 

He also said that he is willing to play on one year deals for the next decade.  I believe he could be sincere here -- if we make him the highest paid QB every time.

[Lombardi's_kid_brother]

3 hours ago, Tsailand said:

 

I agreed with 90% of your post, but this is crazy talk.  Brady is not playing till 45 and Cousins sure as hell isn't.

 

I give Cousins another decade in the NFL.  You can win a lot of games in ten years.

 

 

And it will still be players who are OK signing with a team who has no serious plan to win.  At best, these are guys who are satisfied with being the next Joe Thomas.  At worst, these are guys who aren't good enough to get jobs elsewhere.  Not to mention the guys who stop working once they get paid.

 

 

Kirk is not going to sign during that month.  There is no reason for him too, even if this was a good situation, which it is not. 

 

Yes, he said he is willing to negotiate during that period.  Negotiate, not sign.  It's like being willing to get engaged to a girl but smart enough to never marry her.

 

He also said that he is willing to play on one year deals for the next decade.  I believe he could be sincere here -- if we make him the highest paid QB every time.

 

As others have pointed out, Kirk has discovered that being franchised as a QB is not actually a punishment.

[wit33]

Still, no one has the light turned on for today's negotiations. 

 

--Bill Polian 

[BatteredFanSyndrome]

13 minutes ago, wit33 said:

Still, no one has the light turned on for today's negotiations. 

 

--Bill Polian 

Maybe I'm missing something but I'm not following on the cryptic Bill Polian stuff.

[AlvinWaltonIsMyBoy]

4 minutes ago, BatteredFanSyndrome said:

Maybe I'm missing something but I'm not following on the cryptic Bill Polian stuff.

What Bill is trying to say, is that people in this thread should get out more often. 

[MartinC]

38 minutes ago, AlvinWaltonIsMyBoy said:

What Bill is trying to say, is that people in this thread should get out more often. 

 

Maybe watch football or something. I'm told the season is not that far away.

[Riggo'sRangers]

Why does the clock move slower as you approach training camp, preseason, and the real thing?  It's maddening and can't wait.  I'm a damn 56 year old kid.....goodness.  Hail

[wit33]

3 hours ago, BatteredFanSyndrome said:

Maybe I'm missing something but I'm not following on the cryptic Bill Polian stuff.

 

Here you go, sir. 

 

 

http://m.redskins.com/news/blog/article-1/Bill-Polian-On-Cousins-The-Redskins-Havent-Lost-Anything/7a4ae956-ac03-438e-9d49-5ed17be380d1

 

 

[BatteredFanSyndrome]

2 minutes ago, wit33 said:

 

Here you go, sir. 

 

 

http://m.redskins.com/news/blog/article-1/Bill-Polian-On-Cousins-The-Redskins-Havent-Lost-Anything/7a4ae956-ac03-438e-9d49-5ed17be380d1

 

 

Oh I've already seen that.  I didn't expect to digest it again from Redskins.com though.  Do any other teams post crap like that, lol?

 

Anyways, I disagree with Polian.  He's pretty much on an island with this take.

[wit33]

48 minutes ago, BatteredFanSyndrome said:

Oh I've already seen that.  I didn't expect to digest it again from Redskins.com though.  Do any other teams post crap like that, lol?

 

Anyways, I disagree with Polian.  He's pretty much on an island with this take.

 

Somewhat self serving on my part, as it falls in line with what I've been saying, but I think more in the NFL come around to this in future years. Different positions, but Leveon Bell and Johnson are doing the same in taking a 1 year deal. Much riskier for position players, but these days, its become much less of a risk, due to the amount of money tags provide (Enough to provide wealth for life). I think we'll see players maximize their earnings directly after their rookie deals for 2-3 years, then sign a deal going into their late to early 30s. QBs it will happen less I believe, as they usually have connections with FO and a together type mentality. 

 

The Skins will have control of their starting QB for a 3rd consecutive year, with potential to do so next year as well. What's the issue with this? Especially when considering Kirk and reps holding strong in negotiations. 

 

 

[BatteredFanSyndrome]

My main issue with this is that it will cost us more money than it would have if we were normal and went out of our way to sign our QB like everyone else.

 

34M is no joke.  If the Skins franchise Cousins next year they will be in to him for nearly 80M over 3 years with no guarantee of a 4th.

 

...and I still can't get over the fact that the team posted that on their official website.  Who does that?  Hey guys, everyone read this article about the one guy that doesn't think we're dumb.  Jeez.

[Skinsinparadise]

 JLC arguably more than any other reporter had the FOs back on the Kirk negotiation before the deadline, assuming it went down.  He goes into a lot of detail including quoting an agent/NFL exec. It takes a detour with an agent coming up with his own proposal, which seems a bit wacky to me.  Entertaining read IMO regardless of where you stand on it. Here's a portion of it.

 

https://www.cbssports.com/nfl/news/one-insider-reveals-the-long-term-contract-redskins-should-have-offered-kirk-

 

Back before he read that ridiculous and misleading statement about his team's negotiations with Kirk "There Is No T In My First Name" Cousins a week ago, and before team brass further complicated this already messy process, Washington team president Bruce Allen was actually on to something.

 

Way back in February, when Allen spoke about how coming up with a fair contract extension with his team's franchise quarterback didn't have to be all that difficult or trying, he had a point.

 

"I don't think it's as complicated as everyone wants to make it," Allen told a local radio station at the time. "And we'll get together with his agent, and I'm sure we'll come to an agreement."

Well … about that second part.

 

The reality was, finding a sweet spot with Cousins didn't have to be an ongoing saga with plot twist after plot twist. It should've been resolved by now. If Washington wants the quarterback as much as they claim to, they should've been Tweeting out photos of him signing his deal years ago.

 

Now, one week after further clouding the situation by treating Cousins more like a scorned outgoing free agent than a man making $24 million to lead their team this season, the football world is still trying to fathom why the franchise made such a meal of these negotiations yet again.

It didn't have to be this way. Not close.

 

...Had Washington been a little creative, rather than offering a trite contract structure that basically only guaranteed one season besides the already guaranteed 2017 -- and yet tried to steal five more years of controlling Cousins for that bargain-basement price -- there may have actually been something for the sides to discuss at the deadline.

 

Had Washington seemed to be really trying to make this work, then maybe Cousins' side would have had reason to offer counter proposals (anyone knocking them for staying quiet and playing this out doesn't get how business is done in the NFL; an offer this low merits no response).

[BatteredFanSyndrome]

For some reason I don't think Redskins.com will be sharing that one...

[bobandweave]

18 hours ago, Tsailand said:

 

I agreed with 90% of your post, but this is crazy talk.  Brady is not playing till 45 and Cousins sure as hell isn't.

 

I give Cousins another decade in the NFL.  You can win a lot of games in ten years

 

Lol oh man I agree just was saying all the silly reports out this year saying that

 

https://www.sbnation.com/2017/5/26/15698576/aaron-rodgers-tom-brady-45-age-retirement

 

Truth is when you look for QBs who played well aged 40 years old and older your list is incredibly shallow. Brett did it one year and fell off the cliff at 41. These guys today think they can do it which I totally don't. Only pointing this out because of the age diff

[bobandweave]

On 7/23/2017 at 8:41 PM, PartyPosse said:

I don't think he under any obligation to sign a team friendly deal however he is going to make a lot of money regardless. Thats a given. I also assume he wants to win and if he makes say 22 million a year vs 25 million and that other 3 million is used towards improving the rest of the team, wouldn't that make more sense for him? I mean if the team was offering an ok deal and also up against the cap limit wouldn't it be more beneficial for the team for him to at least consider it? I'm not saying let himself be taken advantage of, but think about whether or not the money the team saves on his deal is used to improve a weaker area.

 

Derek Carr just did that. The diff imo is that the Raiders rolled out the red carpet for him showering him with love for years. Our teams not done that for Cousins which was a mistake because had they done that he likely would have signed by now. Instead the team didn't want to commit long term to Cousins and haven't they won the same amount of games, with superstar receivers, won the same number of devision titles and playoff games? When teams show love to players they will do what your saying I just think our teams not done that and it's one of the major problems here

[BatteredFanSyndrome]

1 hour ago, bobandweave said:

 

When teams show love to players they will do what your saying I just think our teams not done that and it's one of the major problems here

This is absolutely being discounted by the Cousins detractors and/or those backing the FO.  There's been a lot of insinuation that he's a baby and needs to get over it, he's made XX million dollars, "if 24M is disrespect...", etc.  I'm not sure I can think of any QB outside of Kirk with 2 consecutive good to great statistical seasons under their belt where their team didn't bend over backwards to make a deal happen.  When it's talked about in the media, it's only a matter of how much and how long, because making a deal is a foregone conclusion. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Skinsinparadise]

2 hours ago, BatteredFanSyndrome said:

This is absolutely being discounted by the Cousins detractors and/or those backing the FO.  There's been a lot of insinuation that he's a baby and needs to get over it, he's made XX million dollars, "if 24M is disrespect...", etc.  I'm not sure I can think of any QB outside of Kirk with 2 consecutive good to great statistical seasons under their belt where their team didn't bend over backwards to make a deal happen. 

 

 

 

I was just listening to Schefter's segment on 980 for the first time. Its in the 980 archives. Boy does he play up the point that Kirk not trusting the FO is the core issue.

 

He is another guy who thinks a transition tag wouldn't work.  He says its still too easy to stagger contracts with the transition tag. 

[SkinsFTW]

15 hours ago, BatteredFanSyndrome said:

 

 

34M is no joke.  If the Skins franchise Cousins next year they will be in to him for nearly 80M over 3 years with no guarantee of a 4th.

 

 

And after the 2015 season he could've been had for that over 5 years but those with the credit card didn't (and still don't) trust the coaches, scouts, and GM, obviously, because we're the ONLY team that does stupid **** like this.

 

Every other team with a franchise QB overpays them, shrugs it off, then keeps on winning football games. Not the Redskins, we're going to end up paying the dude twice as much because Snyder and Allen are 2 buffoons who STILL believe that they know more than everybody else in the entire league. 

 

Next year when they throw down the 34Mil Franchise Tag, then proceed to blow smoke up everybody's asses, while offering Cousins 75Mil over 2 years when he then want's at least 100, at least a few of us on here will know it's never going to get done because what they could've had for 80-100Mil for 5 years 2 years ago will then be 150+ because of their own idiocy.

[BatteredFanSyndrome]

29 minutes ago, Skinsinparadise said:

 

I was just listening to Schefter's segment on 980 for the first time. Its in the 980 archives. Boy does he play up the point that Kirk not trusting the FO is the core issue.

 

He is another guy who thinks a transition tag wouldn't work.  He says its still too easy to stagger contracts with the transition tag. 

Yeah, I listened to that live the morning of.  He was pretty much resigned to the fact that the Skins need to find a trade partner.  I can't recall any scenario he presented where Kirk stays in Washington...and he's connected.  Many will say that's because Kirk just doesn't want to be here, but to those same people I say: Why do you think that is?