Archived

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

CRobi21

Alex Smith Trade Thread (Details Inside)

Recommended Posts

1 minute ago, OVCChairman said:

Actually it is.  This would be considered collusion since he's not under contract for 2018 and we cant apply the tag until March 14th, or at least thats the way I understand it.  Kirk is not legally allowed to field offers from other teams until he either signs a transition tag, or he becomes a free agent.  Alex Smith was still under contract so his 'right's are still considered to belong to the Chiefs.  

 

Personally, I think that's a bit naive.  If a team agrees to trade for him before free agency, I'm sure they would be talking behind the scenes.  The trade can be reported first and the deal can be a day after free agency starts.  The Redskins wouldn't complain since they're getting what they want.  

 

Maybe that is actually an issue that won't let this play out.  But I doubt it.

 

Also, I know everything I'm arguing is unlikely to happen.  I hope it does though.  I think it's a premium position so we should do whatever we can to extract an asset out of it.  

Share this post


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

 

Personally, I think that's a bit naive.  If a team agrees to trade for him before free agency, I'm sure they would be talking behind the scenes.  The trade can be reported first and the deal can be a day after free agency starts.  The Redskins wouldn't complain since they're getting what they want.  

 

Maybe that is actually an issue that won't let this play out.  But I doubt it.

 

Also, I know everything I'm arguing is unlikely to happen.  I hope it does though.  I think it's a premium position so we should do whatever we can to extract an asset out of it.  

The same way we figured out how to cap dump in an uncapped year?

 

Share this post


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

Actually it is.  This would be considered collusion since he's not under contract for 2018 and we cant apply the tag until March 14th, or at least thats the way I understand it.  Kirk is not legally allowed to field offers from other teams until he either signs a transition tag, or he becomes a free agent.  Alex Smith was still under contract so his 'right's are still considered to belong to the Chiefs.  

 

you can't sign contracts till the 14th.  But the tags have to be applied by the 6th

Share this post


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

 

you can't sign contracts till the 14th.  But the tags have to be applied by the 6th

Right, but other teams can't have contact with Kirk til he either signs the transition tag or hits free agency.  If we're fielding calls now, and we agree in principle, every team who missed out on the "Kirk Cousins Sweepstakes" might cry collusion and try to press an investigation.  Even if that investigation comes up negative it's going to be yet another bullet in the gun of the anti-Redskins propaganda and rhetoric that we're up against.   The risk is that, if we want to remain clean about it, we can't even field offer, or communicate extensions until Kirk signs the transition tag.  

Share this post


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

Right, but other teams can't have contact with Kirk til he either signs the transition tag or hits free agency.  If we're fielding calls now, and we agree in principle, every team who missed out on the "Kirk Cousins Sweepstakes" might cry collusion and try to press an investigation.  Even if that investigation comes up negative it's going to be yet another bullet in the gun of the anti-Redskins propaganda and rhetoric that we're up against.   The risk is that, if we want to remain clean about it, we can't even field offer, or communicate extensions until Kirk signs the transition tag.  

 

I'm not quite getting your point.  Cousins is technically under contract until Mar. 14th.   The Redskins should be able to field offers about a potential trade before then, but any trade would technically not happen until the 14th, just like then did with Alex Smith.   No, other teams cannot contact Cousins or his agent directly, but they can contact the Redskins.  

 

I don't see how other teams can claim collusion.   The Redskins would maintain his rights in the event of a franchise tag.  Other teams are free to call up the Redskins about trading his rights at any time.

 

Although all this is a moot point because the chance it happens is like 0.1%.

Share this post


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

 

I'm not quite getting your point.  Cousins is technically under contract until Mar. 14th.   The Redskins should be able to field offers about a potential trade before then, but any trade would technically not happen until the 14th, just like then did with Alex Smith.   No, other teams cannot contact Cousins or his agent directly, but they can contact the Redskins.  

 

I don't see how other teams can claim collusion.   The Redskins would maintain his rights in the event of a franchise tag.  Other teams are free to call up the Redskins about trading his rights at any time.

 

Although all this is a moot point because the chance it happens is like 0.1%.

Right, but those teams would not technically be able to speak to Cousins about an extension... which presumably they would want before they spoke to the Redskins about compensation going back the other direction.  Smith is under contract with the Chiefs next season, so he's not entering free agency.  If we were allowed to negotiate trades including an extension during this period, then there would be no point in tagging Cousins, we would just be negotiating with those other teams regarding a sign and trade, forfeiting the need to apply a tag to begin with... which is essentially what we did with Smith.  

 

Sign and trade's generally happen in basketball, but I don't recall them happening in football.  I'd assume its because most teams don't want to send compensation for someone who's on the cusp of free agency, but I have to imagine if a Tag and Trade is possible in this scenario, and a Sign and Trade is an option, then we'd be talking about that instead... less risky.  

Share this post


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

 

I don't think he has to light anything up to be honest. What I'm most excited about with this move is knowing we have a competent guy (you can argue all day if he's top-12, top-15, top-18) locked up at a decent price for five years. That gives us a large enough open window to add the things you've mentioned and build a team. 

When did 24M become a decent price?  We've had people howling on here for 2 years that Kirk isn't worth 18. Cause he isn't elite. Only elite QBs are worth that much and even they aren't. Now we paid Alex OK Smith 24M and its a decent price. The FO is a joke.

Share this post


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

Right, but those teams would not technically be able to speak to Cousins about an extension... which presumably they would want before they spoke to the Redskins about compensation going back the other direction.  Smith is under contract with the Chiefs next season, so he's not entering free agency.  If we were allowed to negotiate trades including an extension during this period, then there would be no point in tagging Cousins, we would just be negotiating with those other teams regarding a sign and trade, forfeiting the need to apply a tag to begin with... which is essentially what we did with Smith.  

 

Sign and trade's generally happen in basketball, but I don't recall them happening in football.  I'd assume its because most teams don't want to send compensation for someone who's on the cusp of free agency, but I have to imagine if a Tag and Trade is possible in this scenario, and a Sign and Trade is an option, then we'd be talking about that instead... less risky.  

 

technically the Skins shouldn't have been able to agree to a deal with Smith

46 minutes ago, Fat Stupid Loser said:

When did 24M become a decent price?  We've had people howling on here for 2 years that Kirk isn't worth 18. Cause he isn't elite. Only elite QBs are worth that much and even they aren't. Now we paid Alex OK Smith 24M and its a decent price. The FO is a joke.

 

check out Smith's winning percentage.  But most fans here haven't said Kirk wasn't worth 24.  Just he wasn't worth a record setting deal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
36 minutes ago, Fat Stupid Loser said:

When did 24M become a decent price?  We've had people howling on here for 2 years that Kirk isn't worth 18. Cause he isn't elite. Only elite QBs are worth that much and even they aren't. Now we paid Alex OK Smith 24M and its a decent price. The FO is a joke.

Have to agree with this.  There is a reason he agreed to the trade with us and it's not because he's looking for a challenge, it's because we gave him the money he was looking for.

 

Personally, I understand that QB salaries constantly inflate, always sound ridiculous when announced, and they aren't necessarily paid by where they rank at their position.  I just know there are a lot of folks that couldn't fathom such a thing with Kirk less than 12 months ago now talking about the Smith deal like it's a bargain.  I actually recall arguing about the fact that Alex Smith was going to want more money on a new deal and was told there wasn't a chance he'd see over 20M per season and low guarantees because of his age.  Uh huh.

Share this post


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

 

technically the Skins shouldn't have been able to agree to a deal with Smith

 

check out Smith's winning percentage.  But most fans here haven't said Kirk wasn't worth 24.  Just he wasn't worth a record setting deal

 

Yeah i dont know anymore, it all is way over my head i guess. Im speculating on all of it, since clearly I'm not a union rep or agent.  It just smells funny to me at times and I really, REALLY don't want us to get punished further because Bruce's vindication outweighed the best interest of the team.... 

Share this post


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

 

Yeah i dont know anymore, it all is way over my head i guess. Im speculating on all of it, since clearly I'm not a union rep or agent.  It just smells funny to me at times and I really, REALLY don't want us to get punished further because Bruce's vindication outweighed the best interest of the team.... 

 

and I'm at the point where I don't care what the league does anymore, the chance to spite them is worth it

Share this post


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

 

and I'm at the point where I don't care what the league does anymore, the chance to spite them is worth it

lol well the Eagles just beat the Patriots in the Super Bowl, so I'd imagine a good number of heads have been exploding at a certain office building in NYC. 

Share this post


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

I'm much too logical to acknowledge a QB's win record as some sort of barometer for how good they are. 

It has to weight out a bit though.  Generally speaking good QBs don't have bad winning %.  I'll admit that winning % can be assisted quite a bit, but the QB still does have to get a job done.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Fat Stupid Loser said:

When did 24M become a decent price?  We've had people howling on here for 2 years that Kirk isn't worth 18. Cause he isn't elite. Only elite QBs are worth that much and even they aren't. Now we paid Alex OK Smith 24M and its a decent price. The FO is a joke.

I think most people would have handed Cousins $24M annually (especially when not all of that is guaranteed). The problem became that his asking price (in both AAV and guarantees) far exceeded what Smith was signed for. 

Share this post


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

It has to weight out a bit though.  Generally speaking good QBs don't have bad winning %.  I'll admit that winning % can be assisted quite a bit, but the QB still does have to get a job done.

I'm not saying its a bad thing to have a high win%.  It's just silly to keep propping it up like it's some end all-be all stat that guarantees Alex Smith is going to be awesome here.

Share this post


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

I'm not saying its a bad thing to have a high win%.  It's just silly to keep propping it up like it's some end all-be all stat that guarantees Alex Smith is going to be awesome here.

I'll agree with that.  He has a hell of a winning %, which is a good thing, but no it doesn't mean hes a lock to win us 11 games next year.  

Share this post


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

I think most people would have handed Cousins $24M annually (especially when not all of that is guaranteed). The problem became that his asking price (in both AAV and guarantees) far exceeded what Smith was signed for. 

By summer 2017, his asking price was a bus ticket out of Washington, not any particular dollar amount.  If Cousins signs for 30M+, I'd agree that it's far exceeding. 

Share this post


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

I'll agree with that.  He has a hell of a winning %, which is a good thing, but no it doesn't mean hes a lock to win us 11 games next year.  

As an example, Donovan McNabb came to the Redskins with a 92-49-1/64% win record.  Andy Reid also sent him here.  Hopefully Smith bucks the trend for us.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Lombardi's_kid_brother said:

 

But why would Kirk agree to this?

1. Why would he limit his suitors from 6 or so to 1?

 

Kirk ain't interested in multiple suitors. Seems like a guy who knows what he wants. He'll narrow it down to 1 himself very quickly.

Share this post


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

I'll agree with that.  He has a hell of a winning %, which is a good thing, but no it doesn't mean hes a lock to win us 11 games next year.  

 

He has a good winning percentage. He also has two coaches who seem to know what they are doing say, "I need someone better than this."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Lombardi's_kid_brother said:

I certainly don't sign immediately, and I let it be known loud and clear when I will sign - probably after a month or so. That sends the message to Denver, Cleveland, NY and company to keep their powder dry for a bit.

 

I think you overestimate how long organisations will hang around waiting. Teams won't sit out a month of FA waiting on securing their QB position. He'd essentially be 'playing' multiple teams as much as he would be us. 

 

Cant see it.

Share this post


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

I think most people would have handed Cousins $24M annually (especially when not all of that is guaranteed). The problem became that his asking price (in both AAV and guarantees) far exceeded what Smith was signed for. 

Has anyone been told what Kirk asked for?  Just because all the pundits say he is worth 30M and will get it doesn't mean Kirk ever asked for that.

Share this post


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

 

I think you overestimate how long organisations will hang around waiting. Teams won't sit out a month of FA waiting on securing their QB position. He'd essentially be 'playing' multiple teams as much as he would be us. 

 

Cant see it.

Yeah, asking every team interested to hold thirty million in reserve while he take his time to pick a team is kind of ridiculous. There's a reason the first week of free agency, and usually the first day of free agency, is the one where all the major contracts are announced.

 

Wanting teams to wait, refusing to negotiate at all with the team that drafted you... hints at a God complex. 

3 minutes ago, Fat Stupid Loser said:

Has anyone been told what Kirk asked for?  Just because all the pundits say he is worth 30M and will get it doesn't mean Kirk ever asked for that.

No. Kirk has refused to negotiate. He never put out any kind of number. At least not publicly.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Lombardi's_kid_brother said:

 

He has a good winning percentage. He also has two coaches who seem to know what they are doing say, "I need someone better than this."

both times he got replaced by a younger, less expensive option.   San Fran has a .420 winning % and that includes the playoff appearance in 2013.  Only time will tell how things go in KC.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.