Will Cousins Play For The Skins In 2018

[NoCalMike]

I am fine with the Redskins offering a deal that "rivals" Stafford's deal, however if they come out of the gate with that as a first offer, it likely is going to be the ceiling.  Honestly, the time for games is over, I know this is a business and you don't necessarily want to show all your cards up front, but because of the past history between the FO & Cousins (regardless of who everyone wants to blame) the situation today is what has to be dealt with.   

 

The front office should just reach out to Cousins's agent ASAP with the highest raw amount of dollars they are willing to sign Kirk for, (details can be worked on during negotiations).  Tell Cousins's agent the team needs some kind of indication from his side as to whether this is a starting point, a non-starter, etc etc etc....

 

The organization can't afford to be strung along for months of negotiations if Cousins doesn't truly intend to possibly come back.  They need some kind of indication as to whether they should mentally turn the page on Kirk and at best, work on some kind of trade package with a willing team so they can slap the transition tag to Kirk on Day 1.

[Tay]

I've been in favor of the transition tag since last year deadline passed without a LTD. My only concern was SF. Once they traded for Jimmy G, I was all for the transition tag.

 

There are not a lot of teams that can structure a deal that we can't match. Only the Browns and the Jets fit into that group. The only way we get material value in return for Kirk's departure is a tag an trade. If another team wants him enough, they'll be willing  to part with reasonable compensation.

[markmills67]

32 minutes ago, NoCalMike said:

I am fine with the Redskins offering a deal that "rivals" Stafford's deal, however if they come out of the gate with that as a first offer, it likely is going to be the ceiling.  Honestly, the time for games is over, I know this is a business and you don't necessarily want to show all your cards up front, but because of the past history between the FO & Cousins (regardless of who everyone wants to blame) the situation today is what has to be dealt with.   

 

The front office should just reach out to Cousins's agent ASAP with the highest raw amount of dollars they are willing to sign Kirk for, (details can be worked on during negotiations).  Tell Cousins's agent the team needs some kind of indication from his side as to whether this is a starting point, a non-starter, etc etc etc....

 

The organization can't afford to be strung along for months of negotiations if Cousins doesn't truly intend to possibly come back.  They need some kind of indication as to whether they should mentally turn the page on Kirk and at best, work on some kind of trade package with a willing team so they can slap the transition tag to Kirk on Day 1.

I've been saying this since our season finished, offer cousin's the best deal your going to go to, and give him a date to make his mind up. Surely it's better for the FO to know asap for the purpose of building the roster.

 

HTTR 

[Skinsinparadise]

1 hour ago, Paul Cumberland said:

 

I've been on record of not liking the thought of either tag - and especially the transition tag if the team were to seek a trade.  In fact, obtaining a trade on either tag has inherent risk.  The only way I see either tag working in a trade scenario is there's some kind of special handshake involved between Kirk's agent and the team that the end result will be a trade - which could end up backfiring when McCartney basically just blows us off and gets Kirk's new team to front-load a contract where we're not able to match (T-tag) or just have Kirk sign the F-tag and do nothing where we're stuck holding a 34.5m bag, which to me, would cripple the team.

 

Thinking about it a little more, both tag & trade possibilities would require Kirk to sign a tag of some type as we'd need to own his rights for a trade to happen.  That basically locks him in to being with the Redskins if no trade is obtained.  I suppose the 28m transition tag would be slightly more palatable than the 34.5m franchise tag.  I just cringe thinking about it, realizing he'll probably just walk the following year if we don't give him another tag in 2019 (ick)...   And there's still the possibility of McCartney agreeing to have Kirk sign the T-tag and then just not having it happen where he goes to the highest bidder and we're not able to match.

 

I've been on the record for ditto not liking either tag.  But all the talk about letting Kirk hit FA and let it roll on that front has made me retract from my position some.  I never saw them letting him hit the market as an option.  Most of the insider types who talk about Kirk hitting FA do not think he's coming back if that happens.  I'd agree.

 

So while trading Kirk isn't my thing.  I want him back.  But there is nothing I hate more than losing him for nothing.  A late 2019 3rd rounder is nothing -- and you might not even get that if you buy other expensive FAs this year to make up for what was lost.  

 

So if they think its too far gone to keep him, then try to tag and trade.   I thought franchise was the only option on that but it seems like the transition tag is a viable option, too.  And Tandler's example of Denver might be the best case as for the transition tag.  Denver likely doesn't want to or can't afford to front load a deal.   And lets say Kirk truly doesn't want to come back and lets say he seriously wants to go to Denver -- then as Tandler said its a win for all parties.  The wild card would be if Kirk isn't really in love with a specific franchise and or the franchise he likes lets say its the Jets can easily front load a deal and make the deal unattractive to the Redskins to match.

 

There are a lot of moving parts.  It's complex.  I still I am not giving this FO an out until they offer Kirk a market deal.  But if they refuse to do so or Kirk won't take it, then plan B IMO can't be losing Kirk for nothing.

 

The only weapon I can see that the Redskins have right now is they can force Kirk to come back on a one year deal.  If Kirk loves a specific team that he's itching to go to.  Maybe those two points converge into a deal.
 

[goskins10]

1 hour ago, NoCalMike said:

I am fine with the Redskins offering a deal that "rivals" Stafford's deal, however if they come out of the gate with that as a first offer, it likely is going to be the ceiling.  Honestly, the time for games is over, I know this is a business and you don't necessarily want to show all your cards up front, but because of the past history between the FO & Cousins (regardless of who everyone wants to blame) the situation today is what has to be dealt with.   

 

The front office should just reach out to Cousins's agent ASAP with the highest raw amount of dollars they are willing to sign Kirk for, (details can be worked on during negotiations).  Tell Cousins's agent the team needs some kind of indication from his side as to whether this is a starting point, a non-starter, etc etc etc....

 

The organization can't afford to be strung along for months of negotiations if Cousins doesn't truly intend to possibly come back.  They need some kind of indication as to whether they should mentally turn the page on Kirk and at best, work on some kind of trade package with a willing team so they can slap the transition tag to Kirk on Day 1.

 

I agree with this 100%. I think most everyone wants Kirk back. But the team needs to know before going into free agency and the draft. That all looks different if Kirk is not going to be here. And this one more year on a tag is even worse IMO than just moving on. 

 

The reason I say that is that another tag is just another 1 yr rental with still no resolution, even if they transition tag him. If they are not willing to give him a big enough contract to get him to sign before the tag deadline, they are not going to match another team that comes with an even bigger contract. Make no mistake, regardless of what fans think he is worth, he will get paid. He will be one of the top paid players in the NFL next year if not the top paid. 

 

It also means they will have to let him hit the open market as a URFA next year as while yes the can technically tag him again it's becomes incredibly costly. So if you can't/will not get a LTD done before the tag deadline just cut your losses and move on. I am so tired of this drama it just sucks the life out of you. And if it has that feeling for fans, imagine how it is actually being the person involved. Yes, I know he has gotten $44M but that does not solve everything. Just remember a time when you worked somewhere that you just were not sure if you boss even liked you much less appreciated you and made comments and decisions that did nothing to make you feel like they gave a ****. It just sucks. 

[Skinsinparadise]

On 1/25/2018 at 12:32 PM, Tay said:

The market doesn't dictate 3. Kirk's feeling is that NFL contracts are like 1 or 2 year deals. He would prefer to have more years guaranteed. So the Redskins offered what the market dictates. Kirk wants to use his leverage (which he's entitled to do) to get more.

 

I didn't argue that most contracts are 2 year deals, I flat out said it was the case.  But its not always the case.  And the Lions relented on that front with Stafford.  The key difference here was 24 million of the guaranteed money for Kirk was already in the tank.  It was already pocketed since he was tagged.  So all we are talking about adding to that is 29 million, which is about what he'd get on the transition tag this year.

 

That's a case in point about what's been said about the negotiation from some insiders -- which is Bruce is more or less ignoring that the tag matters as a point of emphasis in the negotiation.  Kirk's agent believes it does matter.  I've made this point numerous times on these threads. 

[LetThePointsSoar]

18 hours ago, Tsailand said:

 

If that message originated with Browns coaching or management, yeah tampering.  However if it's 100% Joe Thomas speaking his own mind, he is allowed to do that.

 

19 hours ago, SkinsFTW said:

He's a player.

 

I have no idea how Joe Thomas saying anything at all could be tampering considering players play and don't negotiate contracts with other players.

 

I'm no attorney, but I'm pretty sure another player still qualifies as an employee of that organization.  Can't see how this isn't crystal clear cut tampering. 

 

League rules read :

 

The NFL defines tampering as “Any public or private statement of interest, qualified or unqualified, in another club’s player to that player’s agent or representative, or to a member of the news media.’’ “Any interference by a member club with the employer-employee relationship of another club or any attempt by a club to impermissibly induce a person to seek employment with that club or with the NFL’’ isalso a violation of the NFL’s anti-tampering policy.

[Tay]

7 minutes ago, Skinsinparadise said:

That's a case in point about what's been said about the negotiation from some insiders -- which is Bruce is more or less ignoring that the tag matters as a point of emphasis in the negotiation.  Kirk's agent believes it does matter.  I've made this point numerous times on these threads. 

 

That's also generally how the market has been set to operate for tagged players. The team based their initial offer on market precedence. See the article and quote below from Florio.

 

A lot of the local media have feelings regarding the negotiations, but they don't pay attention to what many of the experts say regarding the matters. In my opinion they fall victim to confirmation bias quite often. This leads to a lot of biased information that is heavily anti-team when it comes to the contract negotiations. Now I think the front office has a lot to do with some of the local guys feelings towards them, but I listen to gather information to formulate my own opinion.

 

I also think the team screwed up in 2015, but the amount of backlash they got for decisions going forward has been based on biased information.

 

From Florio:

Quote

In most cases, the player gets his franchise salary plus a 20-percent raise (or a little more) for the next year fully guaranteed at signing.

 

http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2016/07/13/contracts-for-tagged-players-are-easy-to-calculate-but-hard-this-year-to-negotiate/

[Skinsinparadise]

39 minutes ago, Tay said:

 

http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2016/07/13/contracts-for-tagged-players-are-easy-to-calculate-but-hard-this-year-to-negotiate/

 

I don't see how that article helps your case.  The point below is practically an apples to apples scenario to what we got here.  Miller has the leverage. Kirk doesn't?  All these rumors about teams being interested in him are fabrications?  Kirk and his agent aren't dummies -- if they hit the open market they know they can get what they want and maybe even more some.  If Bruce wants to ignore that leverage, then that's up to him but he will pay the price in either losing the player or paying up eventually.

 

http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2016/07/13/contracts-for-tagged-players-are-easy-to-calculate-but-hard-this-year-to-negotiate/

As to the Broncos and linebacker Von Miller, the team has opted to offer a deal that pays out more than what the tag would give Miller over the next two years. Indeed, the Broncos already are willing to fully guaranteed by March 2017 more than what Miller would receive under three years of the tag. Miller has the skill and the leverage to demand something closer to true market value than a contract based on the tag.

 

39 minutes ago, Tay said:

 

A lot of the local media have feelings regarding the negotiations, but they don't pay attention to what many of the experts say regarding the matters. In my opinion they fall victim to confirmation bias quite often.

 

I guarantee you, I've paid at least as much attention to what people have said about Kirk's contract than you have.  To your point, I've listened to the NATIONAL guys plenty, ex-agents, ex team presidents, national insiders like Breer, the whole shebang.   The Kirk contract was practically my hobby last off season.    I wasn't just paying attention to the local take. 

 

But yeah the people here pushing for them to resign Kirk aren't just some dupes who are mindlessly brainwashed by the local media who wouldn't know better otherwise.  We've quoted national guys plenty who have made comments that allude to the contract here being a clown show -- its far from just a local media dynamic.  The guy who has been the most outspoken on the Kirk contract is Joel Corry who I've quoted a gazillion times.  Corry, long time agent, is just about the go to national media person these days as to contracts.  He said recently the Kirk contract is a template for the rest of the NFL for how not to negotiate a contract with your quarterback.   

 

Mike Lombardi ex-FO guy who worked with Bruce years back has made fun of the ineptness of the negotiation.  We can probably fill up a books worth of comments that mocked the negotiation.  Many of that stuff posted here over months.  And yeah much of it was national. 

[Est.1974]

Kirk won't walk for nothing. We'll get something back via trade at the very least. 

 

However inept our FO may be, I will be staggered if he gets out of here with no compensation heading our way. I believe we would pay him 34mil for a one year rental before that happened.

[markmills67]

56 minutes ago, UK SKINS FAN '74 said:

Kirk won't walk for nothing. We'll get something back via trade at the very least. 

 

However inept our FO may be, I will be staggered if he gets out of here with no compensation heading our way. I believe we would pay him 34mil for a one year rental before that happened.

If we pay Cousin's $34m next season will be the exact replica of this year, around 7 wins and out of the running for the top QB'S in 2019 draft. I would rather let him walk and pick up a 3rd in 19 than pay him that much. 

 

HTTR 

[BatteredFanSyndrome]

59 minutes ago, UK SKINS FAN '74 said:

Kirk won't walk for nothing. We'll get something back via trade at the very least. 

 

However inept our FO may be, I will be staggered if he gets out of here with no compensation heading our way. I believe we would pay him 34mil for a one year rental before that happened.

If they pay him 34M for one season, it's being done out of spite and desperation, not for the betterment of the franchise.  The team has no hope of winning a Super Bowl next season with Kirk at a market salary, unless they have a tremendous draft and a lot of luck.  They certainly have no hope of winning a Super Bowl next season with Kirk at 34M dollars.  Even then, he gets to leave on his own accord thereafter.  There is no winning scenario here and again, that is why I can't believe anyone would be of the belief that this is anything other than an epic organizational failure that's breaking new ground in ineptitude. 

[Tay]

1 hour ago, Skinsinparadise said:

I guarantee you, I've paid at least as much attention to what people have said about Kirk's contract than you have.  To your point, I've listened to the NATIONAL guys plenty, ex-agents, ex team presidents, national insiders like Breer, the whole shebang.   The Kirk contract was practically my hobby last off season.    I wasn't just paying attention to the local take. 

 

You are definitely one of the more informed posters on this board. I definitely respect your knowledge about the contract situation. We simply disagree on if the Redskins ever made a market value contract offer and the main sticking point was the amount fully guaranteed. Your points:

 

1. 3 years should be fully guaranteed: The market dictates otherwise. Every quarterback with a 5 year franchise deal gets around 2 years fully guaranteed.

 

2. Bruce didn't acknowledge that Kirk already had $24 in the bag so the full gtd should be higher: The market dictates otherwise. The quote from Florio's article states that  "In most cases, the player gets his franchise salary plus a 20-percent raise (or a little more) for the next year fully guaranteed at signing."

 

3. Von Millers deal is apples to apples: This is not true. Von Miller's franchise tag is based on the linebacker position. Because of his role as a pass rusher, he saw his franchise tag number as undervalued. If you look at his final contract numbers, he got about 19M AAV. His amount fully GTD was 2.2 years. Or the AAV plus a 20-percent raise for the next year fully guaranteed at signing. The only way Kirk's situation could be seen as apples-to-apples would be if he could argue his market AAV last year that was 26% higher than his tag number. He is not in Millers position where his tag number is under valued compared to the role he plays on the team.

 

 

 

 

[BatteredFanSyndrome]

2 minutes ago, Tay said:

 

 

1. 3 years should be fully guaranteed: The market dictates otherwise. Every quarterback with a 5 year franchise deal gets around 2 years fully guaranteed.

 

Kirk's not every quarterback.  Every quarterback signs an extension on the deal they already had in place.  Kirk is a franchised quarterback.  There really is no situation you can point to that will clarify what exactly his market should look like.

[Tsailand]

5 hours ago, HigSkin said:

Cooley's take on what KC should take.

 

 

Yeah, and I'd like a pony.

 

1 hour ago, LetThePointsSoar said:

I'm no attorney, but I'm pretty sure another player still qualifies as an employee of that organization.  Can't see how this isn't crystal clear cut tampering.

 

Here is a link to the full rules. http://www.dawgtalkers.net/uploads/2009 NFL Anti-Tampering Policy.pdf

 

I think you're correct.  I doubt the Browns will be punished.

 

[Tay]

5 minutes ago, BatteredFanSyndrome said:

Kirk's not every quarterback.  Every quarterback signs an extension on the deal they already had in place.  Kirk is a franchised quarterback.  There really is no situation you can point to that will clarify what exactly his market should look like.

 

Actually there is.

 

In 2012 Drew Brees was negotiating a deal off the Franchise Tag. The Franchise tag value that year for Bees was $16.3M. He filed a grievance to determine which tag that was, and what the value of a tag the following year would be. It was determined that the following year's tag would be his 3rd and the value would raise by 44%. After he won the grievance, his final contract included $40M fully guaranteed at signing. That was equivalent to the $16.3 on his current tag plus the $23.5 he would have gotten on the following years tag.

 

In the offer the Skins last year, they used the following years transition tag (20% increase) instead of the following years franchise tag (44% increase). I'm sure there was room for negotiation, but the amount wasn't baseless. It was based on what the market dictated.

[BatteredFanSyndrome]

12 minutes ago, Tay said:

 

Actually there is.

 

In 2012 Drew Brees was negotiating a deal off the Franchise Tag. The Franchise tag value that year for Bees was $16.3M. He filed a grievance to determine which tag that was, and what the value of a tag the following year would be. It was determined that the following year's tag would be his 3rd and the value would raise by 44%. After he won the grievance, his final contract included $40M fully guaranteed at signing. That was equivalent to the $16.3 on his current tag plus the $23.5 he would have gotten on the following years tag.

 

In the offer the Skins last year, they used the following years transition tag (20% increase) instead of the following years franchise tag (44% increase). I'm sure there was room for negotiation, but the amount wasn't baseless. It was based on what the market dictated.

I'm not even quite sure what's being argued anymore.  I said yesterday that the offer made in May wasn't bad when taking context of all that happened between January and May out of play.  If they make that May offer right after the season ends, most likely we aren't talking about this today.  

[skinny21]

@Tay So you're explaining why the market doesn't say Kirk should be paid three times his salary in guaranteed money, right?

 

I think that's a fair point (if I'm reading you right).  

 

Personally, I would use your percentages and create an offer that was based off a 28 mil/year deal - i.e. 56 in guarantees - but offering 23-24/year in salary.  I'd then add a bit more guaranteed money (call it the FO's stupid tax or a mea culpa tax), bumping it to, say 60 mil, and then a bit more to compensate the lower annual salary (65 maybe?).  Finally, I'd go a bit further on the guaranteed money because he has the leverage and we don't want 1) to lose him, and 2) we don't want to start over at qb.  So, maybe 23.5 million with 70 in guarantees.  It becomes very out of whack with your findings, but it's a deal that could make both parties pretty happy, even if it might mess with future qb negotiations for other teams.  I think that amount of guaranteed money might scare off other teams that might be willing to pay him 28/year, but would go with the 2 year model (56 mil) of guarantees.  

[Tay]

6 minutes ago, skinny21 said:

@Tay So you're explaining why the market doesn't say Kirk should be paid three times his salary in guaranteed money, right? 

 

Basically. Based of the market, last year's offer wasn't ridiculous. It was the low end, but it was a serious offer.

 

The numbers you presented aren't completely off base. If we apply the transition tag this year, Kirk should expect at least $64 fully guaranteed at signing. The tag is $29M. The 20% raise for the following year would bring it up to $64M. At this point, the Skins have to decide it they want to pay the new true market rate.

 

$64M would surpass Stafford's deal. I think your numbers for AAV are reasonable, but if Kirk goes to the market that value could go up a bit.

[Skinsinparadise]

3 hours ago, Tay said:

 

You are definitely one of the more informed posters on this board. I definitely respect your knowledge about the contract situation. We simply disagree on if the Redskins ever made a market value contract offer and the main sticking point was the amount fully guaranteed. Your points

 

 

Thanks.  I am not looking for respect but you seemed to go the opposite way with your previous point which seem to imply you are the most informed person on the contract and those who disagree aren't paying attention to the experts like you claim you are.  

 

3 hours ago, Tay said:

 

1. 3 years should be fully guaranteed: The market dictates otherwise. Every quarterback with a 5 year franchise deal gets around 2 years fully guaranteed.

 

You've misunderstood my position on this multiple times now.  I'll let that go.   And I'll just run with this point for the sake of time. 

 

Luck got 2 years and change of fully guaranteed starting in year 2.   Stafford 3 years and change starting in year 2.  Stafford's guaranteed money is big. I don't blame you for not including it in this discussion.  But there is a reason why both local and national reporters continue to cite that contract (not the older ones) as the template for this contract.

 

You talk about confirmation bias.  Lets hit your thought that Bruce's offer for guaranteed money very likely could have all kicked in during year #2.  The problem with that is it doesn't fit how Bruce handled other big contracts here.  It doesn't fit what Bruce said about the contract.  It doesn't fit what Kirk said.  The confirmation bias in my view fits your take here.  The facts don't fit.  But you stick with it as a viable working theory. 

 

I for example have been opposed to the transition tag and didn't see that as an outlet to trade Kirk if they need to trade him.  With more information by informed expert types I changed my mind on that.  I try to stay open minded.    I am not accusing you of confirmation bias but since you brought that up in the context of people like me who are critics of the contract, I don't see how you have a leg up on this point?

 

3 hours ago, Tay said:

 

2. Bruce didn't acknowledge that Kirk already had $24 in the bag so the full gtd should be higher: The market dictates otherwise. The quote from Florio's article states that  "In most cases, the player gets his franchise salary plus a 20-percent raise (or a little more) for the next year fully guaranteed at signing."

 

The same article which you think vindicates your stance in my book does mostly the opposite.  Let alone if you are tuned into the national perspective of things as you intimated -- with due respect its weird to elevate Profootball Talk  of all sources and that goes double in the context of the point you were making there about how you pay attention to the "experts".   Profootball Talk if anything is spoofed by many in the business versus elevated.  But if I want to play up Profootball Talk is akin to the 60 Minutes of Football -- you will be disappointed on that front, too.  Mike Florio is on 106.7 every Friday and he has spoofed Bruce Allen on the Kirk negotiation multiple times.   

 

Now as for the meat of that article:  it basically talks about  why its hard to get a long term deal done with players who are franchised.  It lays out the case for why its hard to get a deal done afterwards.  If anything it's making a case that tagging is a mistake.  That doesn't make Bruce look good. 

 

I gather you think the smoking gun is the line that the franchise tender is the starting point for a long term deal.   Yeah you can take that specific to the idea that guaranteed money in the first year is relevant to the tag.  I agree that point is debatable either way.  But the core point that article and that specific point makes is the franchise tag plus a 20% raise the next season is whats the norm.  Bruce hasn't even met the AAV for the franchise tag number let alone a 20% raise the year after.  

 

Running with the point of that article, that would mean they offered Kirk 25 million in year 1 and then 30 million in year 2.  It's been said to death by people covering this that Bruce doesn't see the tag relevant to the negotiation whereas Kirk's agent does.  That article makes the case for Kirk's agent's side of the story not Bruce.

 

Your point would be more interesting IMO if the AAV didn't matter in the equation.   It would also be more interesting if Bruce's last offer was his first one.  As Joel Corry, said (and Kirk too but he said it more nicely) the last offer Bruce made is what the first offer should be.  It's a starting point in a negotiation.  But that wasn't the first offer. 

 

3 hours ago, Tay said:

 

3. Von Millers deal is apples to apples: This is not true. Von Miller's franchise tag is based on the linebacker position. Because of his role as a pass rusher,

 

 

Yeah pass rushers aren't QBs.   There is reason why pass rushers are considered the 2nd biggest premium position not the first.  What I referred to practically apples to apples pertained to leverage.  What happens if they hit open market.  My point was specific to that point.  All of what you talk about is irrelevant to the point I was making.  I can add more to Von Miller and Kirk Cousins being different dudes but that's not my point. 

 

 

Edit:  Rereading this post, it comes off tougher than I intended.  My point here is that yeah I don't think the sign Kirk people are being misled by beat reporters.  My only interest in beat reporters is any inside information they claim to have relating to both camps.  That's it.  I along with others can arrive at the conclusion that Bruce's handling of this contract was inept irrespective of what reporters think of it.  It happens that most of them see it the same way.  But that's incidental to that point.  And yeah I've paid plenty attention to the national point if view.  It's actually not that different from the local one. 

 

 

[RemoveSnyder]

So we're back to Bruce's "at signing" voodoo economics? 

Fun. 

 

 

"But Kirk would be the highest paid QB in history ... if signed with a fountain pen, during this specific waning phase of Moon, on the 3rd weekend of March, after the migration of wildebeest from the great African basin, but before the planting of major corn crops in the US ..."

 

 

"We're gonna build a wall. It'll be a fabulous, defensive, wall. And, we'll make Mara pay for it!

 

Then we'll get the crotch grabber. It will be an amazing, 1st class, wall. 

 

I'm tired now, let's have some Coors & Crown."

[BRAVEONAWARPATH]

Out of curiosity, what do you feel is reasonable compensation (draft picks) for Kirk, should he be traded?

[BatteredFanSyndrome]

1 minute ago, BRAVEONAWARPATH said:

Out of curiosity, what do you feel is reasonable compensation (draft picks) for Kirk, should he be traded?

Whatever we can get at this point.  The only way you trade him is if he makes it clear he won't sign here long term.  At that point, I think you take the best possible offer.

[Est.1974]

14 minutes ago, BRAVEONAWARPATH said:

Out of curiosity, what do you feel is reasonable compensation (draft picks) for Kirk, should he be traded?

 

If it becomes clear he 100% wants out of here then I'd want a 2nd rounder plus changes in the 2018 draft, minimum. 

 

Waiting on a 3rd rounder in 2019 is like pissing into the wind. Waste of time and energy in sure a high profile scenario.

 

If he wants out, play hard.

[HigSkin]

Yikes!