Archived

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

CRobi21

Alex Smith Trade Thread (Details Inside)

Recommended Posts

18 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.

 

 

The response I find myself falling back to is, why didnt he at least make a responding offer?  Why didn't his camp throw out, even an outrageous offer, if he was at all interested in signing here?  I wanted to take him at face value, but no actions he took since the offer of $19.5 per year, give me any reason to believe he had any interest in a deal.  He may have hit free agency, and not liked any other offers, and at THAT time decided to come back to us with a deal, but risking that could put us in a really bad place. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 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.

That's a cop out. McCartney is Kirk's employee not the other way around. The buck stops with Cousins.


I don't actually mind them deciding, "No interviews unless you show me some green." I don't think it says all that much, but it does suggest that Kirk wants to milk every cow he comes across. 

 

It would be just as easy to say. Kirk's there to enjoy the game and will only do a limited number of interviews. Tying it to money is a little crass.

Share this post


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

 

Then which tag we're you talking about here?

 

Earning $0 refers to not signing a contract and not playing football (Franchise tag). 

 

Earning $28,000,000+ refers to being traded to his next team.

 

The only tag I've discussed with him is the franchise tag. The transition tag was only ever a option BEFORE we got to this point, assuming they wanted to pay him again.

 

Funny thing is I've been preaching this the entire time about franchising him and shipping him off, and this board has been quoting bad news articles claiming the Redskins have zero leverage.

 

recent:

http://www.nbcsports.com/washington/redskins/redskins-cant-trade-kirk-cousins-now-and-heres-why

http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2018/01/31/washington-wont-be-able-to-trade-kirk-cousins/

http://www.espn.com/blog/nflnation/post/_/id/268259/will-redskins-trade-kirk-cousins-dont-hold-your-breath

 

today:

http://www.espn.com/nfl/story/_/id/22315705/washington-redskins-consider-placing-franchise-tag-kirk-cousins

 

Here's a typical rule about how the Redskins FO operates; they might not look intelligent in the END, but they typically always have a plan of operation in the beginning. The Alex Smith trade was leaked to the public in January, ask yourself why? Kansas City could negotiate for 2 more months in a QB crazy off-season. Because the Redskins wanted the news out for multiple reasons;

 

1. To get teams prepared to take a stab at him.

2. To obtain leverage at the QB position.

 

Even in the most ridiculous scenario (which is unlikely) the Redskins could tag Cousins in 2018 and NOT trade for Smith and you better bet Cousins would sign and play. Would it be a circus? Not the point. I keep saying it; the Redskins have far more leverage in this situation than people are giving them credit for.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So I'm still not seeing how the Redskins tag Cousins for over 34M and then Cousins somehow only sees 28M when he's traded to another team.

Share this post


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

So I'm still not seeing how the Redskins tag Cousins for over 34M and then Cousins somehow only sees 28M when he's traded to another team.

 

they could tag and trade on the transition tag as well

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Anyone else buying into that Bleacher Report. 

 

This thing could get interesting, we could own the rights to the top 2 free agent QB's this offseason so maybe the tag and trade isn't such a crazy idea as I thought it was.

 

 

Share this post


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

 

they could tag and trade on the transition tag as well

 

You can't tag and trade on the transition tag.

Share this post


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

Because I think that ship sailed.

Right, you said he hadn't done anything to indicate he woudln't sign here, that was an example.  Fault of why aside, he had no intention of signing here.  

5 minutes ago, Rocky52Mc said:

 

You can't tag and trade on the transition tag.

why not?  I think it's risky, but i COULD be done.  It's unlikely as you would imagine a team would just make an offer he would accept and bypass us, but we could leverage our ability to sign the contract.. and if he, and his suitor want him, they will offer compensation to prevent us from agreeing to that contract... if he were to play hard ball, we could accept the offer, then trade him to a destination he's not interested in.  It's kind of a gray area but we could do it. 

 

And it's kind of a reckless use of salary cap funds that could end up hurting our free agency period.  

Share this post


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

 

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. 

ok. what about the redskins not signing him for 16, 19.5, and 24?   He may have even taken a three year or four year fully guaranteed deal for less than we paid this year.

 

while interesting, your posts ignores the fact the FO wanted more time to evaluate him. have leaked that they aren’t sure about him as recently as this year. they seem to me like they know he will be good (at football not selling jerseys), they don’t want him, but want to make themselves not look bad. 

Share this post


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

 

Earning $0 refers to not signing a contract and not playing football (Franchise tag). 

 

Earning $28,000,000+ refers to being traded to his next team.

 

The only tag I've discussed with him is the franchise tag. The transition tag was only ever a option BEFORE we got to this point, assuming they wanted to pay him again.

 

Funny thing is I've been preaching this the entire time about franchising him and shipping him off, and this board has been quoting bad news articles claiming the Redskins have zero leverage.

 

recent:

http://www.nbcsports.com/washington/redskins/redskins-cant-trade-kirk-cousins-now-and-heres-why

http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2018/01/31/washington-wont-be-able-to-trade-kirk-cousins/

http://www.espn.com/blog/nflnation/post/_/id/268259/will-redskins-trade-kirk-cousins-dont-hold-your-breath

 

today:

http://www.espn.com/nfl/story/_/id/22315705/washington-redskins-consider-placing-franchise-tag-kirk-cousins

 

Here's a typical rule about how the Redskins FO operates; they might not look intelligent in the END, but they typically always have a plan of operation in the beginning. The Alex Smith trade was leaked to the public in January, ask yourself why? Kansas City could negotiate for 2 more months in a QB crazy off-season. Because the Redskins wanted the news out for multiple reasons;

 

1. To get teams prepared to take a stab at him.

2. To obtain leverage at the QB position.

 

Even in the most ridiculous scenario (which is unlikely) the Redskins could tag Cousins in 2018 and NOT trade for Smith and you better bet Cousins would sign and play. Would it be a circus? Not the point. I keep saying it; the Redskins have far more leverage in this situation than people are giving them credit for.

 

 

I agree with the above. Some of the comments on here and other websites concerning the franchise tag show how uniformed most fans are of the situation. That's not surprising. I mean its the Internet. You get all sorts, including plenty of ill-informed people. But even for hardcore, informed fans this can often get into technical details of the Collective Bargain Agreement and so forth. Something I certainly don't have full knowledge of. No really expects most fans to know all those details. But there's not a ton of downside for the Redskins in using a franchise tag. Let's play it out.

 

If the franchise tag is used, the worst case scenario is that Cousins doesn't sign it and tries to hold the Redskins' cap hostage in an effort to get the team to rescind the tag. If the tag is rescinded, Cousins can sign anywhere. It would then free up the Redskins to sign anyone as well, but the theory is that if the Redskins wait they'll lose out on preferred players. But it's a two-way street. If Cousins holds out, he may screw up the Redskins' plan. But he can also screw himself. Do you think other teams will just sit around indefinitely waiting for Cousins? Take Minnesota. It was reported that Minnesota was Cousin' preferred destination (this may or may not be true). Are they going to wait weeks and weeks hoping the Cousins situation plays out in their favor? Or are they going to make other plans at the QB position? Or would they come to the bargaining table and try to work something out? Cousins can try and wait out the Redskins, but eventually he'll lose possible suitors as well. And he certainly won't have all the options he'd have at the beginning of free agency.

 

From the Redskins' standpoint, they have plenty of cap space now to franchise Cousins. They can even make some other moves while waiting for Cousins to make a decision. Because they only get a compensatory 3rd if they don't become major players in free agency, it's unlikely the team really is looking to sign big names. So it would likely be limited to minor moves and re-signing existing players. Brown? Breeland? etc... Where it gets sticky is when Alex Smith gets involved. he's not officially on the roster or counting against the cap. And nothing says the Chiefs and Skins have to officially make the trade on Day 1. The Chiefs would probably cooperate for a bit in delaying making the trade official. But they could and likely would grow impatient eventually. So ultimately if Cousins holds out long enough, you may need to make a decision on Smith. It's possible to absorb both players at once, just not as ideal.

 

But as of now, the Redskins will get a maximum of a late 2019 3rd round pick for Cousins. And that's assuming the Redskins are not major players in free agency. That's the most they could lose for playing the franchise game. They actually have a ton to gain, as teams have repeatedly paid high prices for QBs. Even when the team trading them had little leverage. The idea that Cousins would sign the franchise tender and "stick" the Redskins with him is ludicrous. There would be a market for Cousins, even on just a one year deal. And that market would likely be better than a 2019 late third rounder (probably much, much better). So the real harm would be losing out on possible free agents. And so it's a game of chicken. It doesn't mean the Redskins will absolutely go this route, but there's a good amount of upside. The downside is there, but not really that bad.

Share this post


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

 

You can't tag and trade on the transition tag.

 

if he signs the tender you can

Share this post


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

Right, you said he hadn't done anything to indicate he woudln't sign here, that was an example.  Fault of why aside, he had no intention of signing here.  

why not?  I think it's risky, but i COULD be done.  It's unlikely as you would imagine a team would just make an offer he would accept and bypass us, but we could leverage our ability to sign the contract.. and if he, and his suitor want him, they will offer compensation to prevent us from agreeing to that contract... if he were to play hard ball, we could accept the offer, then trade him to a destination he's not interested in.  It's kind of a gray area but we could do it. 

 

And it's kind of a reckless use of salary cap funds that could end up hurting our free agency period.  

 

Because a team like Cleveland with $50,000,000+ million in rollover cap that's only good for 2018 can offer Kirk contracts that the Redskins can't even mathematically accept. The NFL won't allow the Redskins to accept a contract placing them over the cap and they will lose many bidding wars. Their best bet is to offer Kirk the franchise tag on February 20th, giving him 3 weeks to negotiate with potential teams to off-set the Smith trade which goes down on March 14th. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^ I thought the Redskins have to make it exclusive if they franchise tag him for a third time, which would mean they can’t trade him to other teams, right?

 

I’m not seeing how a trade is possible unless they transition tag him, which comes with a ridiculous amount of risk. 

Share this post


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

 

Because a team like Cleveland with $50,000,000+ million in rollover cap that's only good for 2018 can offer Kirk contracts that the Redskins can't even mathematically accept. The NFL won't allow the Redskins to accept a contract placing them over the cap and they will lose many bidding wars. Their best bet is to offer Kirk the franchise tag on February 20th, giving him 3 weeks to negotiate with potential teams to off-set the Smith trade which goes down on March 14th. 

and it would be on Kirk to accept that deal.  

 

Just for the record I'm not in favor of the option... but it is an option to try to get something for him.. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 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.

 

 

Why wouldn't they? Cleveland has won one game the last two years and is a bad team. They do have a nice set-up to build. Oodles of cap space and tons of draft picks. But eventually they do have to parlay that into something. And building a team doesn't help much without a good QB. If reports are to be believed, they were major players in possibly trading for Alex Smith. Even though Smith was 4 years older, arguably worse than Cousins, and also only had one year left on his deal. They're willing to make a deal, because they do want to win some next year. Sure, they could roll the dice on a rookie QB, but  there's uncertainty there.

 

If the Redskins tag Cousins and Cousins signs it, but refuses to sign a LTD anywhere. Cleveland still likely makes the trade for him since it is desperate for a QB. I think Cleveland hopes it can convince Cousins to stay long-term. Which helps solve their biggest problem. But worst case scenario is that Cousins walks in 2019. His options for new team in 2019 will be different than this year, but he could still walk. And Cleveland can still net a compensatory 3rd rounder if he does. Which means, wouldn't Cleveland give at least a 2018 3rd rounder to take that risk? There's virtually zero downside

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, HTTRDynasty said:

^ I thought the Redskins have to make it exclusive if the franchise tag him for a third time, which would mean they can’t trade him to other teams, right?

 

I’m not seeing how a trade is possible unless they transition tag him, which comes with a ridiculous amount of risk. 

If I am not mistaken, the Non-exclusive just means he can negotiate with other teams, but if other teams want him then they would be required to give us 2 first round picks... exclusive means he cant negotiate.... neither have anything to do with restricting our ability to trade him once the tag is signed. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
45 minutes ago, OVCChairman said:

 

 

The response I find myself falling back to is, why didnt he at least make a responding offer?  Why didn't his camp throw out, even an outrageous offer, if he was at all interested in signing here?  I wanted to take him at face value, but no actions he took since the offer of $19.5 per year, give me any reason to believe he had any interest in a deal.  He may have hit free agency, and not liked any other offers, and at THAT time decided to come back to us with a deal, but risking that could put us in a really bad place. 

I've said this in a couple other posts. I think by that time Kirk wanted FA to set his value. BA was low balling him, he and his agent felt, as well as most pundits. He didn't want his future decided by one man, who had been basically giving him the finger for 3 years. Doesn't mean he didn't want to be here or would never sign a long term deal. He just didn't trust the one guy to determine his worth. FA eliminates the worth debate and then negotiation from the same page can occur.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, HTTRDynasty said:

^ I thought the Redskins have to make it exclusive if they franchise tag him for a third time, which would mean they can’t trade him to other teams, right?

 

I’m not seeing how a trade is possible unless they transition tag him, which comes with a ridiculous amount of risk. 

 

You can't trade anyone unless they are under contract. So regardless of the type of tag the Redskins use, the Redskins can only trade Cousins once/if he signs the tender. If they franchise him and Cousins signs the one year deal, he is now tradeable. Ditto with the transition tag, if Cousins signs the one year tender, he is then tradeable. Though with the transition tag, it likely makes more sense for Cousins to simply test the market and sign elsewhere. The Redskins get no compensation if he does sign, but they can match any offer. I suspect any team would structure an offer in a way making it difficult for the Redskins to match.

Share this post


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

If I am not mistaken, the Non-exclusive just means he can negotiate with other teams, but if other teams want him then they would be required to give us 2 first round picks... exclusive means he cant negotiate.... neither have anything to do with restricting our ability to trade him once the tag is signed. 

 

Ah, yes, I think you’re right. I just don’t see why any team would trade for him with no guarantee that he would sign an extension. So to me, it might as well be the case that a trade won’t happen if we franchise tag him. 

Share this post


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

Anyone else buying into that Bleacher Report. 

 

This thing could get interesting, we could own the rights to the top 2 free agent QB's this offseason so maybe the tag and trade isn't such a crazy idea as I thought it was.

 

 

I feel validated.

 

Shefty reported it again today and given the absolute certainty that the market for Kurt will manifest a trade along  with then near certainty he won't sit out under the contract (He simply can't afford to 'scorn the Skins' by missing a year of footbal).

 

What I've been saying all along, the overwhelming low risk is well worth the almost certain 2nd rounder and probably 1st rounder in this years draft. I'm willing this into reality people

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, HTTRDynasty said:

 

Ah, yes, I think you’re right. I just don’t see why any team would trade for him with no guarantee that he would sign an extension. So to me, it might as well be the case that a trade won’t happen if we franchise tag him. 

 

Because they would get a year of good QB play, possibly convince him to sign long-term, could try and use a tag on him in 2019 (say a transition tag), and worse case scenario could net a 3rd round compensatory pick if he leaves. No team in the NFL would give up something to take that risk? Not even a third round pick they could eventually recoup? No one? We're talking about the same league that saw a team trade a 2nd round pick for half a season of Jimmy Garoppolo (even though no one know if he was any good), send a first and a fourth round pick for two seasons of Sam Bradford (even though they made the trade right before the season when Bradford had no training camp or opportunity to learn a playbook), and saw a Raiders team give up a first round pick and a conditional 2nd during a mid-season trade for a "retired" Carson Palmer who was admitted, not in football shape. You sure no one would give up anything of value for an above-average NFL QB in his prime?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
30 minutes ago, HTTRDynasty said:

 

Ah, yes, I think you’re right. I just don’t see why any team would trade for him with no guarantee that he would sign an extension. So to me, it might as well be the case that a trade won’t happen if we franchise tag him. 

He can't block the trade. It's the risk of the team taking on the 1 year deal that they take. They are assuming he will transfer it to a LTD. But thats not our problem. Our problem is unloading him on the 1 year deal. what he does after that I could care less.

 

Fact is, any team trading for him for 1 year deal must feel confident there's a mutual agreement by and large and that they have the capability to convert it to a LTD

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Bonez3 said:

I feel validated.

 

Shefty reported it again today and given the absolute certainty that the market for Kurt will manifest a trade along  with then near certainty he won't sit out under the contract (He simply can't afford to 'scorn the Skins' by missing a year of footbal).

 

What I've been saying all along, the overwhelming low risk is well worth the almost certain 2nd rounder and probably 1st rounder in this years draft. I'm willing this into reality people

 

 

It's the one thing that can salvage the Smith move. And it make sense to do. So somehow it will probably be screwed up, but would remove most of the bitter taste in my mouth from the Smith trade.

Share this post


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

 

 

It's the one thing that can salvage the Smith move. And it make sense to do. So somehow it will probably be screwed up, but would remove most of the bitter taste in my mouth from the Smith trade.

Well, if anybody has been following my posts I've been beating that drum for 3 days. 

 

It will make the whole trade almost favorable

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.