Archived

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

CRobi21

Alex Smith Trade Thread (Details Inside)

Recommended Posts

@HardcoreZorn 

 

The intended purpose of the franchise tag is not for teams to place the tag on a player they've moved on from in an effort to get picks out of the deal.  It can be used that way, but that's certainly not the purpose. 

 

You can not give a damn about how many times he's been franchised all you want.  However those other teams certainly do.  It appears you need to brush up on the franchise tag rules before you get carried away with an opinion built on misunderstanding.  Every franchise tag gets more costly and it cannot be placed again after the 3rd time.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Alexa said:

I wonder how Smith would have fared with our line and wr's? I'm guessing he'd have about 12 TD passes and 3,000 yards. 

 

I agree.  IMO its the thing the get Kirk out of town crowd overlooked about him in a big way.  Kirk was playing with garbage for a chunk of the season and was on pace for a big year and just slid some at the end when Thompson got hurt.  He went after the NO game from having one dangerous weapon to no weapons.  And to make it fun he lost his O line, too.  IMO it was his most impressive season for that reason.

 

I am a bigger Kirk fan than most.  I suspect once the honeymoon is over with Alex Smith -- I bet it happens after we have some dispiriting loss and the anger will be directed at him for not being the savior or something like that -- I'll be one of the hold steady bigger Alex Smith guys here.

 

I don't think Alex is as good as Kirk.  But he's close.   We need to surround him with weapons and give him a real running game.  If we do, I think Alex will have a really good year.  if Alex has no weapons and the O line gets decimated like in 2017, I don't think he overcomes it the way Kirk did this year.

 

Again, I don't like the trade from a long view perspective.  But if the idea is to stay in the 8-8 range, it was brilliant.  Alex will help accomplish that.   That's not a knock on Alex its about I don't see QBs as supermen.  For me they got to have a good off season to set Alex up for success.   Alex isn't playing defense.  Alex isn't the featured RB.  And Alex isn't catching his own passes.

 

I do think though there will be a level of desperation to ensure this trade looks good -- and I think if anything that will make them double down on the idea of loading Alex up with weapons.  If they do a good job of that I think he will have a good season.   Like I've said, Alex is a classy dude.  I am rooting for him.  But he's not a one man band.  

Share this post


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

@HardcoreZorn 

 

The intended purpose of the franchise tag is not for teams to place the tag on a player they've moved on from in an effort to get picks out of the deal.  It can be used that way, but that's certainly not the purpose. 

 

You can not give a damn about how many times he's been franchised all you want.  However those other teams certainly do.  It appears you need to brush up on the franchise tag rules before you get carried away with an opinion built on misunderstanding.  Every franchise tag gets more costly and it cannot be placed again after the 3rd time.

 

 

I agree with your point above about the original intended use of the franchise tag, but in actuality there is nothing written in the CBA that says a team cannot franchise tag a player 4 years in a row. It just would never happen because the 4th year tag would be worth 144% of the monetary value of the 3rd tag. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, CutPryorNow said:

I agree with your point above about the original intended use of the franchise tag, but in actuality there is nothing written in the CBA that says a team cannot franchise tag a player 4 years in a row. It just would never happen because the 4th year tag would be worth 144% of the monetary value of the 3rd tag. 

This thread needs one simple breakdown of the tags by someone who has studied the NFL rule book.  I've seen so many different scenarios both true and false, it makes the head spin.  

 

Either way, the point still stands, unless HCZorn is under the impression a team wouldn't mind paying Cousins over 50M for one season to keep him in 2019.

Share this post


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

This thread needs one simple breakdown of the tags by someone who has studied the NFL rule book.  I've seen so many different scenarios both true and false, it makes the head spin.  

 

Either way, the point still stands, unless HCZorn is under the impression a team wouldn't mind paying Cousins over 50M for one season to keep him in 2019.

I totally agree and I was just breaking into the middle of a conversation I haven't read in it's entirety. I just wanted to point out that the CBA does not specify how many years in a row a franchise tag can be used, it just mentions the terms for years 1-3. It's ridiculous to even think about a team spending the cash on a 4th franchise tag...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Alexa said:

I wonder how Smith would have fared with our line and wr's? I'm guessing he'd have about 12 TD passes and 3,000 yards. 

 

Are you serious? You think in 16 games with Jay Gruden's pass-happy offense Smith would have struggled that much? That's interesting. 

 

I'm curious what you expect next year...I think Smith will be right at 4,000 yards and have 23-26 TD passes. 

Share this post


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

I totally agree and I was just breaking into the middle of a conversation I haven't read in it's entirety. I just wanted to point out that the CBA does not specify how many years in a row a franchise tag can be used, it just mentions the terms for years 1-3. It's ridiculous to even think about a team spending the cash on a 4th franchise tag...

Right.  I wasn't saying you're wrong by the way.  Just that it's so crazy it makes the already loony 34.5 seem somewhat sane.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, TD_washingtonredskins said:

 

Are you serious? You think in 16 games with Jay Gruden's pass-happy offense Smith would have struggled that much? That's interesting. 

 

I'm curious what you expect next year...I think Smith will be right at 4,000 yards and have 23-26 TD passes. 

 

Yep, don't think Smith is going to struggle in this offense, especially with a new LG, WR and RB.

Share this post


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

@HardcoreZorn 

 

The intended purpose of the franchise tag is not for teams to place the tag on a player they've moved on from in an effort to get picks out of the deal.  It can be used that way, but that's certainly not the purpose. 

 

You can not give a damn about how many times he's been franchised all you want.  However those other teams certainly do.  It appears you need to brush up on the franchise tag rules before you get carried away with an opinion built on misunderstanding.  Every franchise tag gets more costly and it cannot be placed again after the 3rd time.

 

 

I know how the tag works and I'm not sure why are you latching so hard onto the fact that the tag would be 144% next year. No team is going to do that, I get it. It doesn't change the premise of what I'm saying. The 49er's trading a second round pick for a guy with 5 career starts for half a season with a strong possibility that they would have to at least be on the hook for 1 year 24M to retain his rights is just as big of a risk if not more than paying 34M for Kirk for one season with his body of work. Both the 49er's and any team that trades for Cousins are not going to do so with franchising him again in mind. They would do so with the intention that they could strike a long term deal with them. Something that team MAY not be able to do if he hits the open market and 6,7,8 teams are vying for his services. It's just not that hard to understand.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I feel like we've seen this movie before on numerous occasions.  Where we insert X player into X system in our minds and assume they will jump right in, be awesome and not miss a beat.  Not just at the QB position, but any position.  It was just last year that we assumed Pryor would jump right in and catch near 100 balls for over 1K yards easily.  We assumed RG3 would comeback strong from the injury and really make strides in becoming a pocket QB.  We assumed McNabb, an old crafty vet that had burned our asses on numerous occasions, would jump right into Shanny's system and make Philly weep.  And the list goes on...

 

I'm not sure what makes Alex Smith any different.  I'm not sure why though anyone would expect him to jump right into a pass happy offense and kill it from jump.  The biggest fans of this acquisition admit that he's spent the majority of his career in primarily run-driven offenses and thrived the most when he had both a running game, deep threat and an elite tight end.  Why would he come to Jay's pass happy offense and just jump right in and rip it all over the field?

 

I say all that not to say that it's impossible, only that it's not a given and assuming it is going to be that way is merely looking at it very optimistically.  My hope would be that Jay is aware of just how badly this team needs to emphasize running the ball and acquire a legit running back.  If we do that and get some help at receiver, it makes the optimistic view of what Smith can be here much more realistic.

 

 

Share this post


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

I know how the tag works and I'm not sure why are you latching so hard onto the fact that the tag would be 144% next year. No team is going to do that, I get it. It doesn't change the premise of what I'm saying. The 49er's trading a second round pick for a guy with 5 career starts for half a season with a strong possibility that they would have to at least be on the hook for 1 year 24M to retain his rights is just as big of a risk if not more than paying 34M for Kirk for one season with his body of work. Both the 49er's and any team that trades for Cousins are not going to do so with franchising him again in mind. They would do so with the intention that they could strike a long term deal with them. Something that team MAY not be able to do if he hits the open market and 6,7,8 teams are vying for his services. It's just not that hard to understand.

but it's not... getting Jimmy G. for a 2nd with 5 games left, knowing the tag is an option is a much lower risk than giving up a 2nd for Kirk, paying him $34 mil and KNOWING you have no control over the next season.  

Share this post


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

It's just not that hard to understand.

If it's not that hard to understand, one would think it would be a popular idea.  You're pretty much on an island with a dozen stragglers that desperately want to get something out of Cousins, preferably to a place he doesn't want to be, in a last ditch effort to screw him. 

 

Having a long term deal in mind is one thing.  Having Kirk's agent instruct every interested party that his player will not sign a LTD under any circumstances is another.  Perhaps you're just not reading the threads here but there are folks from every side of the debate (AntiKirks, Kirk "lovers", indifferent) that have explained logically why the juice isn't worth the squeeze on this. Perhaps read some of it from folks that don't have a horse in the race when it comes to Cousins and it will help you wrap your head around it. 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A few things on the Kirk tag & trade discussion....

 

I'm not sure of the official NFL rule, but I've been hearing conflicting reports on if the skins would lose their 3rd round comp pick if they tagged him and then rescinded the tag.  However, if you google "Josh Norman comp pick", you get plenty of articles talking about the 3rd round comp pick CAR received after he left.  Therefore, I assume we'd still get the comp pick if we tagged him and then rescinded it later.

 

If that's the case, then it makes perfect sense to franchise Kirk the 1st day (2/20) and work the phones like crazy to find a trade partner.  If you don't find a single team with interest, then you simply rescind the tag the day before free agency (3/13) and get your 3rd round comp pick.  But this notion of "Just let him go already" is ridiculous to me.  It is their job to use every asset available to improve the team.  That includes everything from our AWOL safety to our "soon to be ex" QB.  

 

Now, plenty are arguing that no team would ever trade any value for a potential one year season at $34M.  I'm not so sure about that.  Before listing any reasons for specific teams, the one obvious reason for all of them is competition.  As an unrestricted free agent, they have to beat out 4-6 other teams.  Trading for him on the franchise tag guarantees you get him in 2018, and gives you until July to negotiate a LTD.  While it's easy to say "Kirk's agent will tell every team he's not interested in signing a LTD if they trade for him on the tag".  You have no idea if that is accurate.  What if he just doesn't want to sign here because of all the BS our incompetent front office has put him through.  Hypothetical here....assuming we're already working the phones with teams....

 

On the 1st day you can apply the tag, Adam Schefter tweets "Redskins & Broncos have agreement to place franchise tag on Cousins and trade him for a 2nd round pick and Aqib Talib" (the rumored offer for Alex Smith).  Broncos players like Von Miller are all tweeting congrats to him.  John Elway calls him and says how much they want him to be a Bronco for the rest of his career.  They'd like to start negotiating a LTD right away.  Do you think Kirk says "No thanks, I want to be a unrestricted free agent.  I'd rather take my chances playing chicken with one of the craziest/dumbest owners in pro sports".  I doubt it.  I think he happily signs the franchise tender knowing he just guaranteed $34M for one more year.  And I also think he'd end up signing a LTD because they'd actually offer him a fair market value contract.....unlike our front office clowns.  

 

Cleveland is another option.  Even more people would say he won't sign a LTD in Cleveland.  However, they do have some attractive qualities....super young team with a bunch of assets.  Can draft Barkley and another stud defensive player like Chub.  Can sign a number of free agents.  New front office with a strong background.  Midwestern kid close to home.  Franchise savior.  yada yada yada.  They were rumored to have offered a 2nd round pick for Smith and didn't want an extension, so for this rant, let's assume that's the trade.  Let's also say they try to sell him on the LTD until draft day and he just won't do it.  So they decide to draft their QB of the future at #1 and get Barkley at #4.  QB sits for a year while the rest of the team gets a few wins under their belt.  The following year, Kirk walks.  Now they have all that cap space again and will get a 3rd round comp pick.  So their "worst case scenario" is delaying $34M for one year, and dropping from a 2nd round pick to a 3rd.  What they got....a few wins for their young guys while their rookie QB learned the system......what they wanted with Alex Smith.  The next year, they still have a boat load of cap space to sign some vets, and the now 2nd year QB starts in a much better situation.    

 

So of course there are some holes in all of this.  But I really don't think it's as crazy as people make it seem.  Skins fans are exhausted of the Kirk Cousins saga and just want it to end.  But it would be foolish to just end it without trying to get some assets in return.  Sam Bradford got the Eagle's a 1st round pick.  QBs are expensive.  There are 4-6 teams that would love a shot at Kirk.  We need to take advantage of it while we still can.  

 

 

Share this post


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

 

So of course there are some holes in all of this.  But I really don't think it's as crazy as people make it seem.  Skins fans are exhausted of the Kirk Cousins saga and just want it to end.  But it would be foolish to just end it without trying to get some assets in return.  Sam Bradford got the Eagle's a 1st round pick.  QBs are expensive.  There are 4-6 teams that would love a shot at Kirk.  We need to take advantage of it while we still can.  

 

 

The holes in all of it really boils down to what Cousins wants and what his agent advises him to do.  Cousins can choose to sign the tag if the Redskins apply it and they can't rescind it, meaning they are risking carrying 50M in QBs if no team bites, leading to a situation that is very likely to force the team to trade him for less than the 3rd round comp pick they could get. The relationship between his agent and Bruce isn't good, or else we wouldn't even be having this discussion.  Free agency is what Kirk wants and it's so close they can smell it.  While I'm sure Kirk has a short list of where he wants to go and sign a LTD, I'm sure both he and his agent want to meet with these teams, see their plans, see what the market bears and then make a decision from there.  The only way to get there is to make it clear that Cousins has no intentions to and will not sign a LTD with any team no matter what happens in the 2018 season.  This will certainly scare teams off from spending 34.5M for 2018 when the only guarantee to have him in 2019 is to pay in excess of 50M with a 4th franchise tag.

 

There is nothing wrong with the Redskins floating the tag and trade rumor hoping to drum up interest, but to actually proceed is very, very risky.

Share this post


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

 

Are you serious? You think in 16 games with Jay Gruden's pass-happy offense Smith would have struggled that much? That's interesting. 

 

I'm curious what you expect next year...I think Smith will be right at 4,000 yards and have 23-26 TD passes. 

It's certainly possible. But history does not suggest that. We'll see...

Share this post


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

I know how the tag works and I'm not sure why are you latching so hard onto the fact that the tag would be 144% next year. No team is going to do that, I get it. It doesn't change the premise of what I'm saying. The 49er's trading a second round pick for a guy with 5 career starts for half a season with a strong possibility that they would have to at least be on the hook for 1 year 24M to retain his rights is just as big of a risk if not more than paying 34M for Kirk for one season with his body of work. Both the 49er's and any team that trades for Cousins are not going to do so with franchising him again in mind. They would do so with the intention that they could strike a long term deal with them. Something that team MAY not be able to do if he hits the open market and 6,7,8 teams are vying for his services. It's just not that hard to understand.

 

The 49ers traded for Garropolo for a half season tryout at a cost of about $400K. They would then control his rights going forward - putting them in the prime position of signing him when he became available. Frankly, they probably overpaid, but Shanahan desperately wanted a QB and Bellichik always gets more than he should in a trade.

 

The philosophy with Kirk would be the same - except you would have the one-year tryout at a cost of $34 Million as opposed to $400K. And you would control him next year, but the franchise tag would then be $50 freaking million.

 

The situations seem similar, but the costs are literally nearly 100 times different.

 

The only team that can possibly do the one-year rental at $34 million is Cleveland. But I don't get why they would offer anything more than a 3rd or 4th when they no the Redskins have no ability to keep him nor any desire to do so.

 

The other factor in play here is that Garropolo had absolutely no say in the matter. If he was traded, he was going.

 

In order for Kirk to get traded, he needs to sign the tender. Until he signs, there is nothing to trade.

 

Now, I think he will eventually sign it, because he's not going to sit out a year for no money when he can sit on a bench for $34 million. However, if I was his agent, I would say, we aren't signing until June.

 

That means, the Skins can't sign any free agents, because that $34 million goes against the cap the second it is offered.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Dont Taze Me Bro said:

 

Colt is 7-13 overall as a starter, over the past 7 years.  He is not a starting QB in the NFL and he is not the answer to anything other than wanting to tank the season to get a higher first round draft pick.  He cannot do things as well as Alex Smith, or he would be starting in the NFL full-time.

 

If you wish the team wouldn't be trading for Smith and extending him with that contract (come March 1st) and rolling with Colt one season as a stop gap to potentially draft a QB in 2019 or get one in FA, that's one thing.  

 

The worst part is this FO has created one big cluster **** of an off-season.  But at the end of the day, when seeking players in FA, they would probably 100% want to play with Alex Smith at QB over signing knowing Colt was the starting QB.  

I would have preferred that the Redskins just cut ties with Kirk, since it wasn't going to work. And instead of going after a 34 year old QB and paying him 70 million, and handing them Fuller and a 3rd rounder, go with Colt for a little while and draft someone. Seattle found their starter in the 3rd round. Why can't we? This is a strong draft for QB's. 

 

This was such a bad trade. And again it's the Redskins on the short end of the stick. This was a Vinny move all the way. 

Share this post


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

I know how the tag works and I'm not sure why are you latching so hard onto the fact that the tag would be 144% next year. No team is going to do that, I get it. It doesn't change the premise of what I'm saying. The 49er's trading a second round pick for a guy with 5 career starts for half a season with a strong possibility that they would have to at least be on the hook for 1 year 24M to retain his rights is just as big of a risk if not more than paying 34M for Kirk for one season with his body of work. Both the 49er's and any team that trades for Cousins are not going to do so with franchising him again in mind. They would do so with the intention that they could strike a long term deal with them. Something that team MAY not be able to do if he hits the open market and 6,7,8 teams are vying for his services. It's just not that hard to understand.

 

It's not the same though.  The 49ers had two second round picks and up until the trade for JG, almost guaranteed top 5 pick in the draft next year.  After the trade, they still have a top 10 pick (either 9 or 10 overall based on coin toss).  The worst that was going to happen to them was him tanking and they still have a top 5 pick and one second round pick or him doing what he did and then refusing to negotiate a LTD and tagging him for one year, under a cheaper tag than it's going to cost for Kirk on his 3rd tag.  

 

But, unlike our FO, after watching him fit right in with their team/offense and winning out (going 7-0 as a starter in his career), they are starting first time negotiations with a really good offer (basing it off the Carr contract), he most likely is going to get offered 24 mil/yr average with 60K+ fully guaranteed.  They are not low balling him on the first offer made.  

 

Plus he's only started in 7 games, so there is very low risk that he would not be willing to negotiate a LTD, and with that offer, most likely sign a contract like that, with very little tweaks from his camp.  

 

So, yes both are very different scenarios.  Ours depends on Kirk helping us out when he has no reason to, which is the very reason we don't attempt a tag and trade.  The time to attempt that was last year.  Not after we trade for another QB and plan to extend his contract for 5 years. 

Share this post


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

 

If I'm not mistaken, if tagged this year would be eligible for transition next year, given team that would trade form him leverage in the contract extensions. If he doesn't sign tender, that would present a problem for the Skins, but him as well. Skins would proceed with signing free agents rendering the tag price to high. But he would have lost time with other teams pursuing free agent QBs, and they will. 

 

 

There is debate - See #7

http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2013/02/28/10-things-to-know-about-the-franchise-tag/

 

Share this post


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

With McCloughan employed by Cleveland, I think we can safely assume Cousins is not in the picture for the Browns. 

 

He favored Mayfield in the draft. Don't think Dorsey will go there either.

Share this post


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

Question for you: Why would any team want to trade for KC if they don't have assurances that they will have him locked in for 3-5 years? Your point about having leverage over him is fine but why would any organization need to bring in the same drama that we've been dealing with? IF I'm another franchise and I trade for KC it would only happen if I know he's signing an extension with my franchise....otherwise, no deal. 

I would think a team may be willing to make a deal with us in a sign and trade if 1). he agreed to sign a long term deal and 2). they wanted to keep him from negotiating with other teams. 

 

FOMO

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.