Alex Smith Trade Thread (Details Inside)

[Dan73]

7 minutes ago, OVCChairman said:

5 SB championships, 8 SB appearances, serious consideration for GOAT for HC and QB....  

 

having drama is one thing, humans are dramatic by nature... but that's a lot different than 'discontent and stupidity.'  

If the articles are true about Brady then GOAT is not  term I would use for him. He seems to be all about himself at the expense of the team now. And isn't that some of what people are upset with Allen for?

[Est.1974]

34 minutes ago, BatteredFanSyndrome said:

 

Sounds better than 23.5 but we'll have to wait and see what the real GTD $ is when the time comes. 

 

My guess is Kirks deal will be 35-40% higher than Smith's in both total money and guarantees.

[Dan73]

4 minutes ago, Skinsinparadise said:

 

Doesn't seem like you are turning it off.  When I turn things off, I typically don't bother debating.  

 

You are working to make a case that there is nothing wrong with how Dan-Bruce operate.   Forgetting our opinion on it -- I gather the local and national media is in on the conspiracy to unfairly stigmatize the Redskins as a punch line.   Heck as I mentioned the Redskins even got mentioned on CNBC recently as a metaphor for how not to run a business.

 

If all these people have it wrong -- it must drive Dan-Bruce nuts about the strange and out of place way all these people from so many corners mislabel them.  Granted the W-L record hasn't been hot during their stewardship.  That's all incidental.  They know what they are doing.  We should chill.   

 

 

You talked about getting frustrated. I am not frustrated by differing opinions.

 

The Cousins drama is almost over.

 

There are some free agents I liked to either see resigned or signed.

 

Then a good draft.

[OVCChairman]

1 minute ago, Dan73 said:

If the articles are true about Brady then GOAT is not  term I would use for him. He seems to be all about himself at the expense of the team now. And isn't that some of what people are upset with Allen for?

lol... he won his team 5 SB... took them to 8.  Statistically he's the GOAT.  He may be the biggest douche in the world but that doesn't mean he may not be the best QB to touch an NFL football.  The difference with him and Bruce, is he's won... Bruce hasn't.  His arrogance and EGO have never stood in the way of the team being successful.. Bruce's has.  Brady also restructures his contract every few years to maintain a balance with the team to maintain success.  He's as successful as anyone that's EVER touched a football field on any level.. You're not understanding what it means to be the 'Greatest of all time.'  the GREATEST OF ALL TIME has NOTHING to do with who you are as a person, and everything to do with what you do when you're on the football field.  Jerk or not, the dude is at MINIMUM the most decorated football player to ever play the game.  

[Tsailand]

48 minutes ago, Dan73 said:

Everyone was so happy after the first season with RGIII. If it had worked out it would have been seen as genius by the fans. 

 

Not everyone.

 

 

[Skinsinparadise]

15 minutes ago, Dan73 said:

You talked about getting frustrated. I am not frustrated by differing opinions.

 

The Cousins drama is almost over.

 

There are some free agents I liked to either see resigned or signed.

 

Then a good draft.

 

You circled the RG3-Kirk drill as just about people being attached to a player.  I said I don't think its that idea for most -- its about how both situations were mishandled by the FO-owner. 

 

I am as into the draft and FA as anyone -- but its hard for me and many others to merrily dismiss the FO dysfunction and history of bad decisions as if we got it all cooking here just as good as any NFL team.  But yeah if I trusted the FO -- I'd feel the same as you -- Kirk or whatever player could take a hike because we trust our FO since they know what they are doing, etc. 

 

Yeah the Patriots and every team have their moments of soap opera.  But there is a reason why this team specifically is flagged for it among the Browns and a few other organizations that are disproportionately clowned on and that is its much more consistent here and you have many more clown FO moves.  

 

Kraft and Belichick might have mishandled Jimmy G.  But it doesn't represent one in a serious of dumb clown level moves.   It's a winning franchise.  Dan's Redskins has been a losing franchise.

[markmills67]

3 hours ago, BatteredFanSyndrome said:

@markmills67 Interesting use of rounding #'s there or has there been updated figures provided?.  Alex Smith's deal is 20M per?  Last I checked its 23.5M APY. 

Was going off Smith's 18 cap figure of 17m, plus Logan and Pugh where what I thought they might bring in FA respectively. Smith's new deal kicks in in 2019 then with the rise in cap his deal at the 23m doesn't look bad going forward. 

 

HTTR 

 

Just looked at the perspective of % of cap figures for Smith which is just under 11% of our cap in 18, to someone like Stafford who in 2018 is taking up 19.5% of the lions cap. I think with Smith we have got a great deal.

 

HTTR 

[CapsSkins]

Garoppolo deal makes me feel way better about our situation for 2 reasons:

 

1) Kirk is gonna command $30M/year if not more. Would MUCH rather have Smith at blended AAV of $22.5M (or whatever it is, his $17M year + extension). A delta of ~$10M a year is a lot

 

2) This makes a tag and trade scenario much more likely. If the Browns already think they'll have to pay Kirk $30-$35M a year, they're much more likely to make a trade to guarantee getting him for a year at $34M.

[HardcoreZorn]

19 minutes ago, CapsSkins said:

Garoppolo deal makes me feel way better about our situation for 2 reasons:

 

1) Kirk is gonna command $30M/year if not more. Would MUCH rather have Smith at blended AAV of $22.5M (or whatever it is, his $17M year + extension). A delta of ~$10M a year is a lot

 

2) This makes a tag and trade scenario much more likely. If the Browns already think they'll have to pay Kirk $30-$35M a year, they're much more likely to make a trade to guarantee getting him for a year at $34M.

Whats hilarious is the same people that knew he was going to command 28+ over multiple years acted like 34M for one year was preposterous, and thus eliminated a trade. But don’t mind me, just enjoying the buffoon life and blindly giving my allegiance to the Bruce and Dan show. 

[HigSkin]

This QB champs chart is pretty enlightening...

 

 

[SkinsFTW]

Because Tom Brady, Aaron Rodgers, Peyton Manning, Ben Roethlisberger, Drew Brees and Sheli, aren't all guys that you'd expect to be paid high numbers every year, and are paid well. 

 

I'd say that what is enlightening is the buffoonery required for them to come to their conclusion that teams should try to win with Flaccos vs Bradys.

[HardcoreZorn]

14 minutes ago, HigSkin said:

This QB champs chart is pretty enlightening...

 

 

Honestly Kirk refusing to negotiate with out “lowball” initial offer might be the best thing for us in the long run. 

 

I truly think Scott was special when it came to  building a culture and selecting personnel. Sure he missed, but that guy knows what he’s doing. And the fact he questioned Kirk was worth that percentage of the cap was very telling to me. 

[Skinsinparadise]

28 minutes ago, HigSkin said:

This QB champs chart is pretty enlightening...

 

 

 

All Jags. Brady.  Big Ben.  Brees.  Peyton.  Rodgers.  Elway.  Favre.  Yuck.  Did I miss it when did Matt Flynn win a Superbowl for a team?

 

Seriously all that chart shows that you need a stud QB to win the big dance.  And its taking awhile for the NFL to catch up to the idea of how critical the position is and you got to pay up -- so now the cap % clearly is rising. so that chart if anything has led to the current philosophy. 

 

We've had similar things in baseball and other sports -- baseball for example with an ace starting pitcher.  The market at some point catches up to hey this position is super valuable.

 

This isn't directed to you.  My thing though on the Kirk drill.  Kirk is headed out.  For those happy about it.  To me it turns to did Bruce play the contract well and better yet did he get rid of Kirk at the perfect time?  Andy Reid for example is known for being a sneaky genius for getting rid of his QBs at the right time for a good haul.  Bravo Bruce for letting Kirk leave in FA in all likelihood versus trading him last year?

 

To me the conversation isn't an abstract discussion about whether Kirk should be paid $30 million or not.  It's how was the whole thing handled -- right down to compensation for Kirk. 

[Rufus T Firefly]

5 hours ago, BatteredFanSyndrome said:

Much of what's been shared by folks like me is based on facts and rationale specifically related to just how poorly the Skins handled him.  Kirk or no Kirk, the team would be in a much better place if they simply crapped or got off the pot a while ago.  Refusing to credit the FO with "making the best" out of a bad situation they created is not being emotional.  The message is consistent with what we've been saying for years now.  If they didn't like Kirk enough to lock him up with a legit contract, then trade him and get some value in return. 

The whole "making the best" context from fans and a lot of media types alike feels so astonishingly indulgent of what should be a career-ending level of malpractice. The attitude towards Bruce seems to akin to "well, sure he punched me in the face, unprovoked, and broke my nose. But let's forget that and talk about what a good job he did finding me a band-aid."

[Tay]

3 minutes ago, Skinsinparadise said:

 

All Jags. Brady.  Big Ben.  Brees.  Peyton.  Rodgers.  Elway.  Favre.  Yuck.  Did I miss it when did Matt Flynn win a Superbowl for a team?

 

Flynn had the highest cap number, but that was Wilson's team. 

 

The chart and all recent result show you need value from the QB contract. All recent final 4 QBs were either playing at an elite level or on a contract below "franchise" value. 

 

There's a lot of evidence that the franchise QB market for less than elite players is over valued. 

[CapsSkins]

@Skinsinparadise, you're choosing to see only one side of the coin.

 

I could just as easily argue championship teams need X% of the cap free to build a top-10 defense and surround the QB with necessary pieces to win. This isn't basketball-- one individual can only drive so much of a football team's success.

 

The fact that the stud QB's on the list only commanded those %'s of the cap in the past is illuminating to me. It signifies that it's not as simple as "find a top 15 QB, pay whatever it takes". If we move to an era where stud QB's command 15% of a team's cap, we might see more Keenum's and Bortles's in championship games for that very reason.

[Skinsinparadise]

5 minutes ago, Tay said:

Flynn had the highest cap number, but that was Wilson's team. 

 

The chart and all recent result show you need value from the QB contract. All recent final 4 QBs were either playing at an elite level or on a contract below "franchise" value. 

 

There's a lot of evidence that the franchise QB market for less than elite players is over valued. 

 

I get the point but its tough for me to look at stud QB after stud QB on the list of winners and argue you don't need a stud QB.  It's like saying you don't need Clooney, Hanks or Tom Cruise to have a blockbuster movie -- then show me a list of the blockbuster movies over the last 10 years and every movie is Cruise, Hanks or Clooney.  And then have a separate conversation about how they get paid more now than they did so the tide could be turning. 

 

At best you got a mixed message if you are trying to sell that point.   

 

7 minutes ago, CapsSkins said:

 

I could just as easily argue championship teams need X% of the cap free to build a top-10 defense and surround the QB with necessary pieces to win. This isn't basketball-- one individual can only drive so much of a football team's success.

 

I agree.  But there is a reason why good QBs are now routinely getting paid 20 million to 27 million or so a year.  It is the key position.  Sarcasm to make a point -- and not directed to you.  I doubt professional GMs are "overpaying" because they simply aren't as sharp as some fans.  They aren't looking at stats and trends?  They are missing the forest for the trees?   They are clearly making calculated decisions that contradict your take.  When Wilson comes up for a contract.  He gets paid.  Stafford -- ditto.  Carr -- ditto.  Eli -- ditto.  On and On and On.    The idea that you sign a guy and you don't instantly win a championship misses the forest for the trees IMO -- its about having a chance to win it all.  There are no guarantees for any team that a signing brings instant Superbowl. 

 

12 minutes ago, CapsSkins said:

 

The fact that the stud QB's on the list only commanded those %'s of the cap in the past is illuminating to me. It signifies that it's not as simple as "find a top 15 QB, pay whatever it takes". 

 

 The pay whatever it takes and the top 15 QB -- IMO that's just using hyperbole to prop one side of the argument by ridiculing the other position on this.  I doubt the debate in the typical front office is how you presented it here.  But I'll give you that, yeah if its whatever it takes, money is no object, and its a top 15 guy versus top 10 -- you win, you are right on that premise.  But that's not how I see the discussion. 

 

17 minutes ago, CapsSkins said:

 If we move to an era where stud QB's command 15% of a team's cap, we might see more Keenum's and Bortles's in championship games for that very reason.

 

Maybe but that has to play out.  From what we've observed thus far, most GMs don't see it your way.  But I grant that the tide could turn.  I don't see how to have an abstract conversation about it without bringing Bruce into this.  Bruce isn't just one among a long list of GMs who operate this way.  He's the guy leading this dance. 

 

Like I said previously maybe Bruce Allen will go down as the great NFL pioneer.  It would be an interesting and fun 30-30.  A little Rockyish -- from the bottom to the top of the heap.  Bruce is the same dude who had a motley crew of QBs who failed in Tampa and ultimately got himself and Gruden fired.  Then came here and traded two high picks for McNabb.  Rode with Beck-Rex.  Traded the farm for RG3.  Then had Kirk and let him walk for nothing.  

 

So that same dude created a new line in the sand.  And the rest of the NFL follows Bruce's lead.   You never know.  But my instinct is he's wrong.  And if I thought the dude was a genius and I just need to let the maestro do his thing -- I'd go for the ride.  But that's not how I feel.  And, I genuinely hope Bruce does prove the league wrong. 

[CapsSkins]

@Skinsinparadise It's funny you bring up blockbuster movies because my job is valuing content for Netflix. Traditional theatrical movie business ain't looking too hot... tide has turned indeed. I used to be an investment banker, too. So this kind of data analysis is in my wheel-house.  

 

I'd answer you the same way I'd answer someone who asks why CEO's can be so M&A-prone when more acquisitions destroy value than create value: you have to consider the human element and the incentive structure. Being in the QB void is a miserable place to be as a GM, and if you stay there long you can bet you'll be fired. Owners are not football people-- but they sure as **** understand the concept of "we don't have a QB-- aren't I paying you to find one?" It's MUCH easier to sell "we found the guy". Owners and shareholders are not rational; management will respond to the incentive structure.

 

To be clear, I'm not saying Bruce Allen is a genius or that he's making decisions for the right reasons. That being said, I'm pretty sure Eric Schaffer is the kind of guy who's aware of the above information. Look, I'd rather have had Kirk at $19M than Alex Smith at $23M, but I'd MUCH rather have Alex Smith at $23M than Kirk at $30M+.

 

And the truth is, not signing Kirk at $19M was a mistake but considering the context I don't think it was a colossal one by any means. Good decisions can yield bad outcomes and bad decisions can yield positive outcomes. Sometimes below average decisions can yield super ****ty outcomes.

 

Regardless, from last off-season on Kirk has been adamant about hitting FA. As his market value has continued to increase, as well as the risk of him leaving, he priced himself out of staying in Washington. Given that situation, we did the best thing we could which was to acquire a guy like Smith and lock him up. Stability and Pro Bowl-caliber QB play at a cap % that is in-line with the above table. That to me is an above average outcome to a bad set of cards, even if losing Kendall stings.

 

 

[CommDownMan]

5 hours ago, Dan73 said:

If the articles are true about Brady then GOAT is not  term I would use for him. He seems to be all about himself at the expense of the team now. And isn't that some of what people are upset with Allen for?

 

Brady won 5 SB and went to 8SB and is all about himself.

 

BA has 8 seasons, 1 playoff appearence (a loss) and is all about himself.

 

Do you really think the only part of this that bothers people is the personality part?

[Vladimir L]

Kirk is going to get 30mil and wont be worth it

 

Makes Alex Smith deal look good besides giving up Fuller.

[joeken24]

5 hours ago, UK SKINS FAN '74 said:

 

My guess is Kirks deal will be 35-40% higher than Smith's in both total money and guarantees.

Kirk better sign with someone before the draft. Otherwise, teams may decide to look towards the future with a young QB. Kirk is 31 and has been to the playoffs once. He has a losing record. And it doesn't appear that anyone is excited about him beside Denver. But their in cap space hell.

 

Jimmy G seems to be considered more valuable than Kirk. So its beginning to look like Kirk will be forced to make that "sacrifice" he so proudly speaks of. 

 

http://www.nfl.com/news/story/0ap3000000915616/article/jimmy-garoppolo-vs-kirk-cousins-which-quarterback-is-more-valuable

[goskins10]

12 hours ago, CapsSkins said:

@Skinsinparadise It's funny you bring up blockbuster movies because my job is valuing content for Netflix. Traditional theatrical movie business ain't looking too hot... tide has turned indeed. I used to be an investment banker, too. So this kind of data analysis is in my wheel-house.  

 

I'd answer you the same way I'd answer someone who asks why CEO's can be so M&A-prone when more acquisitions destroy value than create value: you have to consider the human element and the incentive structure. Being in the QB void is a miserable place to be as a GM, and if you stay there long you can bet you'll be fired. Owners are not football people-- but they sure as **** understand the concept of "we don't have a QB-- aren't I paying you to find one?" It's MUCH easier to sell "we found the guy". Owners and shareholders are not rational; management will respond to the incentive structure.

 

To be clear, I'm not saying Bruce Allen is a genius or that he's making decisions for the right reasons. That being said, I'm pretty sure Eric Schaffer is the kind of guy who's aware of the above information. Look, I'd rather have had Kirk at $19M than Alex Smith at $23M, but I'd MUCH rather have Alex Smith at $23M than Kirk at $30M+.

 

And the truth is, not signing Kirk at $19M was a mistake but considering the context I don't think it was a colossal one by any means. Good decisions can yield bad outcomes and bad decisions can yield positive outcomes. Sometimes below average decisions can yield super ****ty outcomes.

 

Regardless, from last off-season on Kirk has been adamant about hitting FA. As his market value has continued to increase, as well as the risk of him leaving, he priced himself out of staying in Washington. Given that situation, we did the best thing we could which was to acquire a guy like Smith and lock him up. Stability and Pro Bowl-caliber QB play at a cap % that is in-line with the above table. That to me is an above average outcome to a bad set of cards, even if losing Kendall stings.

 

 

 

I get get what you are saying but it skips through a few things.  I and many others agreed that not signing after 2015 at the time was not a bad call. In hindsight maybe. But then it made sense.  

 

But this is not a sign him in 2015 or now only. There is very strong reason to believe they could have signed him for $23M to $25M last year.  And while I agree I like Alex s at $23M over kirk at $30M+, I would much rather have kirk at $25M than Smith at $23M. 

 

Considering they never presented kirk with a market value offer its had to put thus in kirk and say he had no intention to sign after the 2916 season 

 

the biggest issue I have is saying kirk prices himself out of the market other than playing well enough to command that salary. The Redskins just did not want to pay.  He did not put the tag on himself. And someone will pay him.  He is about to be one of the top 3 to top paid QBs. His market is just fine. He only priced himself out of Washington.  

[CapsSkins]

Just now, goskins10 said:

 

I get get what you are saying but it skips through a few things.  I and many others agreed that not signing after 2015 at the time was not a bad call. In hindsight maybe. But then it made sense.  

 

But this is not a sign him in 2015 or now only. There is very strong reason to believe they could have signed him for $23M to $25M last year.  And while I agree I like Alex s at $23M over kirk at $30M+, I would much rather have kirk at $25M than Smith at $23M. 

 

Considering they never presented kirk with a market value offer its had to put thus in kirk and say he had no intention to sign after the 2916 season 

 

the biggest issue I have is saying kirk prices himself out of the market other than listing well enough to command that salary. The Redskins just did not want to pay.  He did not put the tag on himself. And someone will pay him.  He is about to be one of the top 3 to top paid QBs. His market is just fine. He only priced himself out of Washington.  

 

He himself has said essentially there was no scenario in which he signed a LTD last off-season. He didn't even counter; that corroborates that message. He was adamant about hitting FA. I don't blame him, but that also means it was the right call to trade for Smith. To be clear, he WILL get offers at $30M or more-- I, however, think that is overpayment for him. I wouldn't give one of those offers. And I'm glad our management agreed (however they got to that conclusion-- smartly or through dumb luck).

[goskins10]

4 minutes ago, joeken24 said:

Kirk better sign with someone before the draft. Otherwise, teams may decide to look towards the future with a young QB. Kirk is 31 and has been to the playoffs once. He has a losing record. And it doesn't appear that anyone is excited about him beside Denver. But their in cap space hell.

 

Jimmy G seems to be considered more valuable than Kirk. So its beginning to look like Kirk will be forced to make that "sacrifice" he so proudly speaks of. 

 

http://www.nfl.com/news/story/0ap3000000915616/article/jimmy-garoppolo-vs-kirk-cousins-which-quarterback-is-more-valuable

 

Please at least get the facts straight.  Kirk is 29. He will just barely be 30 when the season starts   

 

Not even wasting my time with the nfl.com silliness. Most cannot tell their ass from a hole in the ground.  

[BatteredFanSyndrome]

Just now, goskins10 said:

 

Please at least get the facts straight.  Kirk is 29. He will just barely be 30 when the season starts   

 

Not even wasting my time with the nfl.com silliness. Most cannot tell their ass from a hole in the ground.  

That's kinda his schtick.  Don't feed the troll.  I know right, I'm one to talk.  I fall for their crap too.