Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

CRobi21

Alex Smith Trade Thread (Details Inside)

Recommended Posts

2 minutes ago, zoony said:

 

I do think we can shame him mercilessly.  And that we should.  To force fundamental change or to get him to sell.  

 

We are wasting our breath about allen.  

This is why I don't even bother ****ing anymore.

 

3 minutes ago, zoony said:

They do get it, but Snyder can't be fired. He can only sell the team, or die.

We need a massive social media campaign against BA and Danny.

 

Put it together, I'm in.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, JSSkinz said:

This is why I don't even bother ****ing anymore.

 

We need a massive social media campaign against BA and Danny.

 

Put it together, I'm in.

 

The second one isnt my quote, just sayin 

 

Besides im too lazy to start a movement.  Id rather just **** and whine on es

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
38 minutes ago, UKskins said:

Congratulations bro - that sounds like you're having a great week. Good luck to you and your family.

Thank you..I appreciate it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think we should all creepily express our romantic and sexual interest in Dan.  At all times, never criminally, of course.  Send flowers, chocolates, oysters, write love poetry befitting love-besotted teenagers.

 

Repeatedly hint to him that he needs to get his wife out of the picture for us to be together.  All of us.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, JSSkinz said:

"We need a massive social media campaign against BA and Danny."

 

Put it together, I'm in.

I posted in the BA/GM thread about this - my soccer team drove an owner out in the late 90s by protesting outside the stadium on gamedays with banners and flags - the media ran with it and it got a fair bit of coverage. Is it feasible in the USA?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, skins island connection said:

 

 People are going to talk about various trade possibilities regardless. Fine, go ahead.

 What I'm saying is, they are banking on the idea that Cousins will even bother playing this little game by signing some tag or contract so that the FO can attempt to get something for him.

 

Why would he?

The FO all but told him ' we don't believe you're our future here, but we're gonna give you a 1 year deal that has a boatload of money in it.'

The next year, ' well, um, we still don't believe you're the man, so we're gonna do the same thing again, and wait and see.'

 

Cousins wanted to be the highest or close to highest paid QBs in the league. The FO gave him the cold shoulder on that, so that didn't set well with Cousins. And now, people are believing that Cousins will be a' stand-up' guy and sign some contract so the FO can use it as leverage, with the unsettling idea that the FO could very well screw up any deals and KC ends up here for another year, which blows up our salary cap, puts egg [ more egg ] on the face of the FO, and makes the FO an even BIGGER laughing stock.

 

The FO turned their back on Cousins a few years ago when they could have had him for far less money. The FO knows this and Cousins knows this. The 'christian' in Cousins isn't going to come out; he's not going to try and help a FO who never believed in him, he just wants to be paid a lot more money than he's worth. So, fine, let him go somewhere that will pay him the ridiculous amount of money he wants, and leave it be. Karma is a ****, trust me.

 

he doesn't have to sign it.  They can trade his rights, can't they?  And I never liked that contract people are so pissed off the the Skins didn't agree to.  Three years isn't some long term commitment.  It would have ended next year, the same year as the three franchise tags, but also the same year Gruden's original contract would have run out

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/30/2018 at 9:53 PM, Jericho said:

Prove me wrong Bruce!

 

He usually only proves people wrong when they say things like:

 

1. Bruce isn't a problem drinker. 

2. I really believe Bruce is going to make some great decisions for us this year!

3. I guess Bruce really does have some talent!

4. Bruce is a competent GM!

5. Bruce won't take this organization back to the age of letting young drafted talent walk and replacing them with aging free agents.

 

He loves to prove those types of things wrong. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, carex said:

 

he doesn't have to sign it.  They can trade his rights, can't they?  And I never liked that contract people are so pissed off the the Skins didn't agree to.  Three years isn't some long term commitment.  It would have ended next year, the same year as the three franchise tags, but also the same year Gruden's original contract would have run out

 

He can't hit free agency whilst the offer is out there but he cannot be traded until he signs, he is in limbo until he does.  The three year contract would have kicked in before the first tag and so whilst it would expire next year we would then be at the beginning of the whole tag scenario meaning Kirk could not realistically expect to hit FA until he was 32 and so would probably be far more amenable to a new LTD this year or next.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A team doesn't make this trade unless:

 

1 - They believe they're in honest contention for the Superbowl.

2 - They didn't want Cousins and perhaps wanted to send him a message.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi all. Trying to find a answer if someone can help. If we had signed KC to a LTD which was unlikely it most likely cost what the guy from Detroit makes correct? I think he makes $28mil a year. If we tagged KC it would have cost what, 34 mil this year? If we just let him walk which seems to be the most likely scenario then we would have had to draft a QB with out first and at 13 what could we get? Unknown, correct. We would then lose our 1st pick which we could spend on a NT or impact WR that we need desperately. If I am wrong on this please help but Smith will cost us $17 mil this year and that is a savings of approx$11 mil on a KC ltd for 1 year. To me it is a no brainer. With the 11 mil we could get that FA guard and a replacement for Fuller. Sure Fuller was good but he was not HOF good. Please clear me up on this. Thanks boys and girls.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have a feeling we're gonna hear JG praising Smith a lot in the coming months about how he's a pro's pro and willing to do whatever it takes to win, etc....

Jordan Reed better get healthy cause he's gonna get a ton of work, as will Davis. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Taylorcooley1 said:

I appreciate the responses to the questions I had to help me clear up some things....  I am going to go with Kirk will not help the Redskins out and sign anything and just walk away in March.

 

Pretty sure he can't walk if they apply the tag and he refuses to sign it.  The team would then have to rescind the tag first which would allow him to hit the market.  Otherwise, he's out of football for a year and not making anything (if tag is applied and he doesn't sign).  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, stevemcqueen1 said:

A team doesn't make this trade unless:

 

1 - They believe they're in honest contention for the Superbowl.

2 - They didn't want Cousins and perhaps wanted to send him a message.

Every team has to believe they are in contention and the Washington Redskins are not a little league team that has to send a message. This is not grammar school. A team does a deal like this for what makes the world go around, $. Cheers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, 50yrSKINSfan said:

Hi all. Trying to find a answer if someone can help. If we had signed KC to a LTD which was unlikely it most likely cost what the guy from Detroit makes correct? I think he makes $28mil a year. If we tagged KC it would have cost what, 34 mil this year? If we just let him walk which seems to be the most likely scenario then we would have had to draft a QB with out first and at 13 what could we get? Unknown, correct. We would then lose our 1st pick which we could spend on a NT or impact WR that we need desperately. If I am wrong on this please help but Smith will cost us $17 mil this year and that is a savings of approx$11 mil on a KC ltd for 1 year. To me it is a no brainer. With the 11 mil we could get that FA guard and a replacement for Fuller. Sure Fuller was good but he was not HOF good. Please clear me up on this. Thanks boys and girls.

Well sure it’s $11 million savings for one year but next year his cap number jumps to $23.5 which would be somewhere between $5-$8 million in savings. Fuller still had 2 years left on his rookie deal, so we lost a cheap young talented player whose role was likely to be elevated seeing that the Skins initial plan was to let Breeland hit the market. Now the Skins will have to either try to resign Breeland, sign someone else on the FA market, draft someone to replace Fuller or hope that Moreau/Dunbar can fill that role. Plus, IMO, for Alex Smith to succeed and for us to even be able to hope we make the playoffs, we NEED a legit running back and at least one reliable playmaker at WR. So the way I look at it, on it’s face, we saved money if we are just comparing Alex Smiths deal to what Cousins would get but did we really save anything by creating a hole at CB (and I researched CB salaries, CBs the caliber of Breeland and Fuller will make around $7 million a year min) and getting a QB that is even more reliant on the talent around him than Cousins was? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, kingdaddy said:

I have a feeling we're gonna hear JG praising Smith a lot in the coming months about how he's a pro's pro and willing to do whatever it takes to win, etc....

Jordan Reed better get healthy cause he's gonna get a ton of work, as will Davis. 

As will Chris Thompson..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, dahibachi said:

Well sure it’s $11 million savings for one year but next year his cap number jumps to $23.5 which would be somewhere between $5-$8 million in savings. Fuller still had 2 years left on his rookie deal, so we lost a cheap young talented player whose role was likely to be elevated seeing that the Skins initial plan was to let Breeland hit the market. Now the Skins will have to either try to resign Breeland, sign someone else on the FA market, draft someone to replace Fuller or hope that Moreau/Dunbar can fill that role. Plus, IMO, for Alex Smith to succeed and for us to even be able to hope we make the playoffs, we NEED a legit running back and at least one reliable playmaker at WR. So the way I look at it, on it’s face, we saved money if we are just comparing Alex Smiths deal to what Cousins would get but did we really save anything by creating a hole at CB (and I researched CB salaries, CBs the caliber of Breeland and Fuller will make around $7 million a year min) and getting a QB that is even more reliant on the talent around him than Cousins was? 

We don't know what the cap hit will be in the coming years until the details of the contract are released.

 

We don't know if Kirk was going to sign in DC, so the Redskins went out to get a competent starter on a reasonable deal. It was either that or a big question mark.

 

It sucks, but it was the right move if the team wanted to guarantee a chance to compete next year.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What's done is done.  I just wish First-Pick would update the Skins option to reflect the trade.  I get it's not official but drafting for the Skins knowing it's near certainty that they won't need QB, will need slot CB, and won't have a 3rd is not worth it w/o the update. 

 

I stand corrected.  They do reflect the lost 3rd but still continue to show "need QB".  We don't need a QB now.  We will in a couple years.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, UKskins said:

Right on cue - we have the Kirk fans only being able to see one side of the story and making dumb condescending statements to try and paint anyone who speaks against him into the exact corner I've been talking about that is clearly false.

The FO is bad. Not even dumpster fire bad. I visited a trash dump in Gambia once (long story) which was basically a giant field of trash that had no organisation whatsoever and kept getting lit on fire by the sun. That's the level of bad I see the FO. NOBODY is trying to say they didn't get every bit of this wrong at every turn.

 

However, it says in the exact article you posted, Kirk couldn't let go of the fact we didn't love him in 2015/2016 and therefore would never do a deal with us.

 

Capable of differentiating between the quality and effectiveness of dumpster fires and definitively decides that ours is among the worst dumpster fires found anywhere on the planet.

 

Incapable of understanding why a potential HOF level player would rather not willfully attach his future to the very thing that you acknowledge is the biggest group of buffons to run a professional team in the history of sports.

 

Like I said before... :rofl89:

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, Tay said:

We don't know what the cap hit will be in the coming years until the details of the contract are released.

 

We don't know if Kirk was going to sign in DC, so the Redskins went out to get a competent starter on a reasonable deal. It was either that or a big question mark.

 

It sucks, but it was the right move if the team wanted to guarantee a chance to compete next year.

Yeah... it wasn’t a bad deal considering the circumstances and knowing the likelihood Cousins was coming back was slim. But, I’m also looking at the deal in totality. This wouldn’t have been necessary if the FO didn’t screw up to begin with. It has been reported that After the 2015 season, Cousins did counted the Redskins original lowball offer for 4yrs worth $19 mil a year. Had the Skins accepted that deal to begin with, we wouldn’t have had to resort to trading valuable assets for Smith and maybe we would have been able to keep Garçon or Jackson too. To me, this is like BP causing a huge oil spill and doing a good job of cleaning it up. This trade doesn’t excite me, it frustrates me how poorly this FO handles its business and the fact that they just never learn from past mistakes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
51 minutes ago, stevemcqueen1 said:

A team doesn't make this trade unless:

 

1 - They believe they're in honest contention for the Superbowl.

2 - They didn't want Cousins and perhaps wanted to send him a message.

 

Or they know that the majority of their fans are idiots who will get excited when they believe that the team might win 10 games even though it turns out to be 5.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No one can realistically post for or against the financial impact of the Smith trade on our Salary Cap until the contract is made official. Right now everyone is able to support their claim saying Smith will only count $17 million next year, so great! or he will count $23.5 million next year, so boo! 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.