Archived

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

CRobi21

Alex Smith Trade Thread (Details Inside)

Recommended Posts

After processing the trade more it makes me frustrated we didn't trade for Jimmy G.  I'm assuming the FO knew Kirk wouldn't be back a while ago; should have just done this sooner.  Oh well.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, mudpig said:

After processing the trade more it makes me frustrated we didn't trade for Jimmy G.  I'm assuming the FO knew Kirk wouldn't be back a while ago; should have just done this sooner.  Oh well.  

Add that to the long list of things the franchise could have done differently with this situation and been better for it.

 

In March of last year when the Scot news broke, there were rumors of Kirk meeting with Dan demanding trade, and Chicks "Kirk Cousins will never sign a long term deal with Bruce Allen." tweet.  Of course afterwards, Chick deleted the tweet and Kirk smoothed it over by saying the conversation was simply about gauging their plans for him.  There were then rumors about SF offering a haul of picks for Kirk and that DanBruce would have no parts in helping both Kyle and Kirk get what they want.

 

Sure, all that could be a mix of coincidence and BS.  But I always felt like Chicks tweet didn't come from nowhere and that Kirk indeed asked for a trade.

 

Either way, that was the pinnacle of the Redskins leverage with Kirk.  They fooled around and here we are today looking at Kirk walking for no compensation.

 

They could have traded Kirk to SF, got what was rumored to be 2nd, 3rd and 4th round picks.  Turned that 2nd into Garappolo midway through this season.

 

I realize there is a lot that had to happen for that scenario to occur.  But it's just one scenario among many that would have been better than where we are today.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Grant Paulson kicking on Twitter that sources tell him Skins may try to tag and trade after all. JP Findlay saying it makes sense for CLE on a 1 year with their cap space and if no LTD they can transition next year and match any offer. 

 

i think the same would apply for the Jets. 

 

Keim is saying yeah right and the texts he’s gotten have been comical in reaction to the “rumors”

 

Who knows. Probably skins trying to drum up some noise, though Grant did say “rival team sources” 

Share this post


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

They could have traded Kirk to SF, got what was rumored to be 2nd, 3rd and 4th round picks.  Turned that 2nd into Garappolo midway through this season.

NE wouldn't have traded Jimmy G here. He's tight with Shanahan & that's why he traded him to Kyle. The NFL is about relationships. Shanny has been around a long time & built up many of them. Kyle benefitted from one of them, whereas Bill wouldn't piss on us if we were on fire just to high five Shanny while they both chuckled in the corner. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I can't see Clevelands new FO being willing to spend unprecedented money to hold a QB that doesn't want to be there hostage.

 

Even if Kirk doesn't hate Cleveland and their new setup, it doesn't make any sense for him to convey that in any way.

1 minute ago, TK said:

NE wouldn't have traded Jimmy G here. He's tight with Shanahan & that's why he traded him to Kyle. The NFL is about relationships. Shanny has been around a long time & built up many of them. Kyle benefitted from one of them, whereas Bill wouldn't piss on us if we were on fire just to high five Shanny while they both chuckled in the corner. 

SF wouldn't be in the Garrapolo sweepstakes because they'd already have Kirk.  But I agree, I can't see Bill sending a guy he respects to Bruce and the gang.  Another unfortunate side to having BA in charge.

Share this post


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

I can't see Clevelands new FO being willing to spend unprecedented money to hold a QB that doesn't want to be there hostage.

 

Even if Kirk doesn't hate Cleveland and their new setup, it doesn't make any sense for him to convey that in any way.

SF wouldn't be in the Garrapolo sweepstakes because they'd already have Kirk.  But I agree, I can't see Bill sending a guy he respects to Bruce and the gang.  Another unfortunate side to having BA in charge.

Gotcha. I missed where you went all timey wimey with the timeline hypothetical situation there. :) 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, wit33 said:

Does the franchise tag tier system start over with a new team?

 

No, but technically if they used the transition tag the new team could use the exclusive franchise tag the next year I believe.  Still seems nuts to pay a boatload of dough for a QB that doesn't want you.  I can't see the new FO in Cleveland giving Bruce picks to pull a Bruce themselves.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Burgold said:

I think it's pretty obvious that Jay prefers Alex to Kirk if for know other reason that Smith wants to be hear and was willing to sign a long term deal. If Cousins wanted to be hear and was willing to sign a long term deal... Jay might prefer Kirk, but as it was/is... Jay wants certainty enough that he likely signed off on the deal. The deal being made states a preference because once ya got one the other is gone.

 

If Jay wanted Kirk badly enough, it is possible that they would wait for him or transition him and hope to match the contract offer. As things stood, Jay preferred the bird in hand over the hand in the bush despite the familiarity of their working together, their relationship, and Jay's knowledge of Kirk.

 

Totally agree Bur. Pretty clear Jay wanted certainty/clarity at QB. Smith wants to be here long term, demonstrated by the LTD, and fits his offense perfectly. Talent wise it's a bit of a wash I guess, my view is that Smith has more in game instincts and is less methodical/mechanical that Kirk. I think Gruden will prefer that, just my take on it. Sure he'd have taken Kirk back, but it wasn't happening so the point is moot.

 

Go go back a month, one of the first bits of business was locking up Dunbar. He's in the Ryan Grant category of being an out and out Gruden guy. He also happens to be a very solid DB. Then we subsequently trade a DB away for Smith. 

 

Its not not difficult to join the dots up really.

4 hours ago, JamesMadisonSkins said:

Grant Paulson kicking on Twitter that sources tell him Skins may try to tag and trade after all. JP Findlay saying it makes sense for CLE on a 1 year with their cap space and if no LTD they can transition next year and match any offer. 

 

i think the same would apply for the Jets. 

 

Keim is saying yeah right and the texts he’s gotten have been comical in reaction to the “rumors”

 

Who knows. Probably skins trying to drum up some noise, though Grant did say “rival team sources” 

 

Good to see it's not just me then :rofl89:

 

CLE were happy to risk taking Smith on a one year rental. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 hours ago, Bonez3 said:

I've read nothing, nor heard nothing about not trading under transition tag. In fact, before the Smith trade I heard about this.

 

whats your source defending this?

 

Source? It's in the NFL rule book regarding team conductivity. There's no need to hear anything. Transition tag has nothing to do with trading, it's only about matching offers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I wish I knew the exact terms of a 3rd tag.  If, as some have said, we could tag and trade him, I'd love that.   If he didn't sign the tag, he has to sit for a year?  We'd have to make a deal with a trade partner willing to take on the $34M 1 year salary ahead of time.  Send his ass to the Jets for a year and get a pick for it.  Weren't the Browns looking to rent a starter for a year?  Yes, partly to screw Kirk and partly to get something back in this whole mess.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 hours ago, Fat Stupid Loser said:

It took Alex 13 seasons to post one year as good as Kirk's 3 years as a starter. We've downgraded the position and gave up picks and players to do it. Just because it had to be done to make the best of a FO created bad spot, doesn't make it good. 

 

It does make it the best of what it could've been. Skins FO blew it, no argument there. But signing Kirk to a monster deal would have ensured 4-5 years of mediocrity IMO. Things change, sometimes for the worse and sometimes for the better, only time will tell which. WE can sit around and look at the Sky to fall on our heads or hope to fly into the clouds and keep going. 

 

I have been a critic of Jays HC tenure, As I have said the silver lining here is the limited rope Bruce and Jay have now...it puts an end to the tunnel, good or bad. 

32 minutes ago, BatteredFanSyndrome said:

I get the impression many of you live in an alternate universe where the Skins win trades.

 

Hope, it's all you got, or being a Fan just blows. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, UK SKINS FAN '74 said:

CLE were happy to risk taking Smith on a one year rental. 

But now, after Scot, they gonna get Kurt ! :silly:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, sempre_victrix said:

I wish I knew the exact terms of a 3rd tag.  If, as some have said, we could tag and trade him, I'd love that.   If he didn't sign the tag, he has to sit for a year?  We'd have to make a deal with a trade partner willing to take on the $34M 1 year salary ahead of time.  Send his ass to the Jets for a year and get a pick for it.  Weren't the Browns looking to rent a starter for a year?  Yes, partly to screw Kirk and partly to get something back in this whole mess.

 

If Kirk doesn't sign the tag he can sit for a year and earn $00,000,000. Which accounts to losing a guaranteed $28,000,000+ (2018). Why would he do that? It's part of Kirk's image that he's here to play ball and sign the tag. His agent has informed Kirk to sign on demand that the tag is presented, this is a no-brainer. They can tag him on 02/20 and have about 3 weeks to negotiate a trade if he was to sign. There's a lot of talk about Kirk having "leverage" under this situation, actually he gets pressed into a real tight uncomfortable corner that he will kindly accept to earn his cash. If Kirk doesn't sign the tag they can rescind it at any time and get his money off the books. 

 

The Redskins are actually in really good position having secured Alex Smith, and not enough fans are realizing this. 

 

Side-note: you wouldn't be screwing Kirk by sending him to Cleveland. There's actually belief he wouldn't mind playing there at all. It's a 20 minute flight to Michigan, his home. If anyone hasn't noticed yet, he wants one thing only; to get paid $28,000,000 per year and become the highest paid QB of all current time, "winning" comes second. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But if he signs the transition tag he is then free to negotiate with any team he wants and the Redskins get ZILCH in return when he is gone.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think the key is finding a team willing to play ball. The big question is to what degree all three sides needs to cooperate. Kirk certainly can muck the whole thing up if a team wants to try to trade for him and bypass the whole bidding war by not signing. He has little incentive to help the 'skins unless it's a team he already wanted to sign with... and if the team is Kirk's first choice then the question becomes why would that team not prefer to deal with Kirk directly.

 

The 'skins can get ultimate leverage by putting a franchise tag on him, but that only works if the 'skins can find a team willing to pay that and trade for him within seconds of the franchise tag being applied. Kirk has no say at that point. The question there is whether there is any team that thinks that Kirk Cousins is worth that price.

5 minutes ago, BatteredFanSyndrome said:

Well, that's that.  Rocky52MC has spoken.  Clearly Kirk is only worried about the $, he said so.:ols:

Heck, Kirk Cousins won't even conduct an interview unless the station agrees to pay him. :silly:

 

If Cousins will hold up news outlets for a couple thousand why do you think he's going to not care about money when it comes to tens of millions. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'd venture a guess that the interview deal is at the direction of his agent, for whatever reasons he has.

 

I'd also venture a guess that he's out for Kirk's best interests as to what Kirk wants in regards to a new team.

 

While it makes many feel better to believe that Kirk doesn't want to be here as a result of a few million a year, there is nothing to suggest that is the case.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, BatteredFanSyndrome said:

I can't see Clevelands new FO being willing to spend unprecedented money to hold a QB that doesn't want to be there hostage.

 

Even if Kirk doesn't hate Cleveland and their new setup, it doesn't make any sense for him to convey that in any way.

SF wouldn't be in the Garrapolo sweepstakes because they'd already have Kirk.  But I agree, I can't see Bill sending a guy he respects to Bruce and the gang.  Another unfortunate side to having BA in charge.

Not that I see it happening at all, but it’s possible the Browns trade for Cousins for these reasons (thinking he may be willing to sign an extension down the road)

1) they can afford a high salary and losing a pick or two

2) they think there’s a chance they can convince him that they are a team on the rise

3) they show Kirk they have a solid FO

4) the promise of getting a lot of love from fans as he’d be the best qb in ages 

5) a smaller market might mean less BS for him

6) he has a chance to do something unprecedented - help turn the Browns into contenders

7) maybe they trade for Kirk as a one year rental to allow them to better evaluate their roster and to groom a drafted qb.  

 

Why I think there’s very little chance it happens - Kirk isn’t very likely to sign an extension immediately (as part of the trade deal) because, well... it’s the Browns.  They’re in a great spot to draft the/a top qb.  If they’re unsure whether Kirk will sign a LTD/extension, they almost have to draft a qb high, which means Kirk is even less likely to sign one.  If they don’t draft one, playing Kirk likely means they don’t have nearly as high of a draft pick for a qb in the draft next year.  Giving up picks and a lot of money is pretty poor business for a 1 year rental.  

Share this post


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

But if he signs the transition tag he is then free to negotiate with any team he wants and the Redskins get ZILCH in return when he is gone.

 

That's why the transition tag has nothing to do with Kirk Cousins anymore. It's been getting used so frequently in these forums it's getting absurd. (Not saying you were). But people need to understand the difference between the tags. One guarantees you can sign him for the highest price, the other guarantees he's stuck with you for a price, unless you trade him.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
29 minutes ago, Rocky52Mc said:

 

If Kirk doesn't sign the tag he can sit for a year and earn $00,000,000. Which accounts to losing a guaranteed $28,000,000+ (2018).

 

Then which tag we're you talking about here?

Share this post


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

I'd venture a guess that the interview deal is at the direction of his agent, for whatever reasons he has.

 

I'd also venture a guess that he's out for Kirk's best interests as to what Kirk wants in regards to a new team.

 

While it makes many feel better to believe that Kirk doesn't want to be here as a result of a few million a year, there is nothing to suggest that is the case.

 

Here's some homework for you buddy;

 

1. Go read the transcripts of Kirk Cousins last 3 off-seasons and follow them in chronological order. 

2. Study the NFL market cap and the statistics regarding QB contracts and demand.

3. Learn to read between the lines by comparing a persons words to their actions.

4. Estimate the leverage of a player and a team by weighing potential outcomes and best case scenarios.

5. Understand the nature of humans, players, agents, and greed.

 

If you ever played chess, some of this stuff will come naturally to you. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.