Alex Smith Trade Thread (Details Inside)

[Dan73]

6 minutes ago, theTruthTeller said:

To be fair:

 

Sean Payton isn't an athlete with short window.  He;s had an OC or higher job since 2000 and he's only 54.  And he's at a low risk of having his career cut short by injury (in fact, he fractured his tibia during a game in 2011 and coached through it).

 

Paul Kariya was drafted by the Mighty Ducks who made him the 2nd highest paid player in the entire NHL from 1998 to 2001 and the 4th highest paid in 2002. He was released by the MDs in 2003 because of his salary and Colorado presented a better chance to win the Stanley Cup than the MDs.  He did take a low salary, but it certainly wasn't out of loyalty to Colorado.  He had already made his fortune.  I can't say that Washington gives KC much of a chance to do anything but go 8-8 again.

And if Cousins came out and said I don't  see this team being a contender I could understand it.

 

But this has always been about money. I want guys who measure success on how the team does.

 

Giving Cousins the kind of money being discussed means yes 8-8 is the to be hoped for.

[Rufus T Firefly]

5 minutes ago, Taylor 36 said:

Good point!  IT is funny how many people ignore, though, how easy it is to take less than you could when your wife literally makes more a year than any player in any sport.

Peyton Manning, for the record, took a cut his last season. But, between he and Brady, we're talking two guys at the ends of their careers, taking a little less to chase an extra title. An amount, btw, that they would each likely make back in extra endorsements from the successes they could achieve. 

 

I'm never interested in hearing about how people who get what they are entitled to in the free market are "greedy" for doing so. It's what our society is set up to do and what virtually everyone would do in that circumstance. Until you change our whole society, stop complaining about people who take care of themselves and their families the best way they can. 

[goskins10]

4 hours ago, Skinsinparadise said:

 

I was listening the other day to the litany of why Alex Smith is just a guy by the KC radio personality and I actually felt bad for Smith.  He seems to be scapegoated in KC (not just by that radio guy) for KC's inability to stop opposing offenses in key games and is labeled as "unclutch."  And that he only had a big year because of his weapons and isn't much of a QB without them and or a running game.  

 

Granted, I haven't watched Alex Smith a ton.  But I've liked what I've seen.  He's accurate and mobile.  And in interviews he comes off as a super nice guy albeit quiet and unassuming for the typical QB.  But I am not blaming any QB for needing a defense to stop the opponents and or have weapons or a running game.  The argument seemed to a tee the same stuff leveled at Kirk.  So I'll defend Alex the same way.  And its not for a specific liking for Alex and Kirk but just my take on QBs -- they pretty much all need supporting casts.

 

As for you warming up to the deal.  It's understandable.  I've been warm about Alex Smith but not the trade.   I'd love to be proven wrong and by that I don't mean Alex plays well.  I do think Alex does play well.  For me to be proven wrong, they need to win a Superbowl next season or the one after or come close enough where we have one heck of a ride and memorable season. 

 

Because to me you are getting older -- older QB, subtract draft pick, subtract young defender.  It's a win now move.  And to me a win now isn't 8-8 or 9-7 where at best you are one and done in the playoffs.  IMO its not worth sacrificing your future for achieving mediocrity.  With Kirk I could be patient and give them a season or two to build a defense.  Kirk is likely playing at least another 7 seasons.  With Alex we likely got 3 seasons.

 

So I guess I should be more clear - and probably should have from the beginning. First, you have to assume Kirk is not signing here. So I don;t have the trade as I really like Alex Smith. The trade itself is pretty much a waste. They give up a 3rd pick and a young very good CB for a guy 4 yrs older fro the same money that they could have at least offered Kirk last year and put his feet to the fire. 

 

Not sure there is scenario that they "win" this trade. It's a loss. Now they may get lucky and things work out - for example Alex Smith takes us to a SB. But unless they leave the team exactly as it is, who is to say Kirk would not have gotten them there also and still have a few more years to play. Another part of this though is because of the trade they cannot get a thing for Kirk. Their most likely best outcome is a 3rd comp pick in 2019. Not exactly good value for the hottest commodity in the NFL. 

 

So I am with you in that for me there is no way the FO looks "good" regardless of the outcome. What I will give them credit for is once they got there, they probably did about well as they were going to. Not exactly a ringing endorsement. 

[Skinsinparadise]

2 hours ago, Dan73 said:

The reputation of the Redskins was you go there to get paid.

 

The Redskins have shown a changed culture in that regard and a willingness to pay their own players .

 

People wanted a culture change and it takes time. If Breeland has had an attitude adjustment I hope the Skins keep him and pay him.

 

But Cousins has never struck me as being about the team it is always how much is he going to make.

 

For me to buy that Kirk is a mercenary and is only about money requires me also to believe that all the reports about Kirk and his agent having bad blood with Bruce is nonsense.  Bruce and Kirk and the agent all got along fine. Don't believe otherwise.  To each their own but I just don't buy the narrative.  And at this point, this isn't an Alex versus Kirk debate for me.  It's Alex versus drafting a QB debate.

 

And like I said I talked myself into liking the Brunell deal, the trade up for Campbell, McNabb trade, RG3 trade.  I fell hard for each narrative.  I convinced myself each time it was different.  And it felt good.  Better than that -- fun, exciting.  So I understand your mindset.  I am just past that point.  I am not saying this time it doesn't work out.  Got no idea.  

 

But I get the feeling.  Alex = good.  Bruce = good.  Redskins = smart.  Kirk = bad.  It feels good to feel that way.  It doesn't feel good to have that questioned.  I've been on the road.  I've thought it's going to be different.  I've thought people are unfairly raining on the parade and impinging on the high of enjoying the new toy.   

 

And I don't mean any of this sarcastically.  I've made similar posts to the ones you are making now about prior deals.   I am just jaded about all these new beginnings.  I hope you are right.  I wish I was excited.  And this coming from someone who actually likes Alex Smith.

[Skinsinparadise]

19 minutes ago, goskins10 said:

 

So I am with you in that for me there is no way the FO looks "good" regardless of the outcome. What I will give them credit for is once they got there, they probably did about well as they were going to. Not exactly a ringing endorsement. 

 

I get the logic. I like Alex Smith.  From the framework of the team could potentially be a dumpster fire if Kirk was gone and there was no viable replacement -- I like the deal too from that perspective. 

 

But from a long-term perspective, I don't agree with the idea of they got here and did the best they could.  From a long-term perspective, I hate it.  From a short term perspective, this deal keeps the team competitive.  But my point is from the long view it stinks because now you aren't even replacing Kirk with a young pup to groom.  Now, you've instantly joined the group of teams with aging QBs wondering about what's next as to the future.

 

And this trade likely precludes getting compensation for Kirk.  And you lose a high draft pick and a potential building block on defense.

 

To me the only potential redeeming thing that can happen is Alex in the short term makes this team special.  By that I don't mean 8-8, 9-7.  And yes they need to make good moves around him.  It's not purely on his shoulders.

[SWFLSkins]

 

[goskins10]

Just now, Skinsinparadise said:

 

I get the logic. I like Alex Smith.  From the framework of the team could potentially be a dumpster fire if Kirk was gone and there was no viable replacement -- I like the deal, too from that perspective. 

 

But from a long-term perspective, I don't agree with the idea of they got here and did the best the could.  From a long-term perspective, I hate it.  From a short term perspective, this deal keeps the team competitive.  But my point is from the long view it stinks because now you aren't even replacing Kirk with a young pup to groom.  Now, you've instantly joined the group of teams with aging QBs wondering about what's next as to the future.

 

And this trade likely precludes getting compensation for Kirk.  And you lose a high draft pick and a potential building block on defense.

 

Not sure we are really far off here - As I said before - my first option after Kirk was to start Colt and draft a young guy. But while it will cost more, Alex is a definite step up from Colt. Also not sure I agree it keeps them from drafting someone young. If you see the guy you like, draft him. If I heard the Alex contract details right (it's not official but what the mumblings are) there is an off-ramp after 2 yrs of the extension. 

 

I think I stated also that the trade left them with getting nothing for Kirk. That to me is the worst part of the entire ordeal. I could live without Kirk better if say they had gotten a 1st, 2nd and may another pick or a young player in return. But they pissed around and ended up getting nothing. For me that's the most irritating. 

[Rufus T Firefly]

5 minutes ago, SWFLSkins said:

<snip> Alex Smith is Jacked, Pumped and Excited.

 

[Est.1974]

@SWFLSkins love that ride on mower, could just do with that.

 

This team is buried in a 2 or 3 year window. Smith, Trent, Reed, Kerrigan etc. Thats the plan. They will all be done by 2021. That's why the Smith trade makes sense to me.

 

Otherwise, you clear house totally.

[Skinsinparadise]

2 hours ago, KDawg said:

 

But the the grapes are sour because of the way the situation was handled.

 

Getting Smith was the best outcome we could have hoped for in the short term after they mishandled the whole thing, in my opinion. So, having said that, the sour shouldn't be part of a Kirk vs. Smith debate. Throw shade at the FO for their initial botch, sure. But I think they got this part right after the mega screw up. Doesn't "forgive" the mistake, but it's making the best of the bad situation.

 

Why is it an Alex Smith versus Kirk Cousins debate?  This debate started on the Kirk threads pretty intensely weeks before the Alex Smith trade happened.  And the discussion wasn't primairily Alex versus Kirk.  Alex was just one option.  Not the only option.  That option among other options were vetted.  And most (including me) at that point more or less accepted Kirk was likely a goner.  So the options debated were:   

 

A. Draft a QB high in the draft -- even consider trading up

B. Sign a FA

C. Ride with Colt.

E. Trade for Alex Smith or another veteran

 

And we had a discussion about how to get compensation for Kirk.    How this played out wasn't the best case scenario for how some people conceived what could go down.

 

[Est.1974]

Right , probably been discussed before, but now we have Smith on a 5 year 111mil deal, and we have seen Jimmy G getting 85mil plus over 3 years on a 5 year deal worth 137mil, what are you thinking Kirk is worth.

 

No debate over where he should/shouldn't be etc, just numbers. What you paying Kirk?

[wit33]

QBs have always taken less than what a desperate team on an open market would pay. The idea of having to pay way above Franchise Tag money is new (Ex. Niners reportedly paying 10 million above what two franchise tags would’ve paid Jimmy G the first two years). I personally dislike it and goes against why I love watching football— a team sport. 

 

I will root and channel as much positive energy as I can to teams with cheaper/rookie deal QBs to get as many at bats as possible in playoffs and make championship games/Super bowls. 

[Est.1974]

Just numbers, what we all paying Kirk. Lots of discussion. What's he worth, cold hard cash......

[Rufus T Firefly]

7 minutes ago, wit33 said:

QBs have always taken less than what a desperate team on an open market would pay. The idea of having to pay way above Franchise Tag money is new (Ex. Niners reportedly paying 10 million above what two franchise tags would’ve paid Jimmy G the first two years). I personally dislike it and goes against why I love watching football— a team sport. 

 

I will root and channel as much positive energy as I can to teams with cheaper/rookie deal QBs to get as many at bats as possible in playoffs and make championship games/Super bowls. 

[Dan73]

59 minutes ago, Skinsinparadise said:

 

For me to buy that Kirk is a mercenary and is only about money requires me also to believe that all the reports about Kirk and his agent having bad blood with Bruce is nonsense.  Bruce and Kirk and the agent all got along fine. Don't believe otherwise.  To each their own but I just don't buy the narrative.  And at this point, this isn't an Alex versus Kirk debate for me.  It's Alex versus drafting a QB debate.

 

And like I said I talked myself into liking the Brunell deal, the trade up for Campbell, McNabb trade, RG3 trade.  I fell hard for each narrative.  I convinced myself each time it was different.  And it felt good.  Better than that -- fun, exciting.  So I understand your mindset.  I am just past that point.  I am not saying this time it doesn't work out.  Got no idea.  

 

But I get the feeling.  Alex = good.  Bruce = good.  Redskins = smart.  Kirk = bad.  It feels good to feel that way.  It doesn't feel good to have that questioned.  I've been on the road.  I've thought it's going to be different.  I've thought people are unfairly raining on the parade and impinging on the high of enjoying the new toy.   

 

And I don't mean any of this sarcastically.  I've made similar posts to the ones you are making now about prior deals.   I am just jaded about all these new beginnings.  I hope you are right.  I wish I was excited.  And this coming from someone who actually likes Alex Smith.

I didn't want the Skins trading up. I would rather draft White or Rudolph in the 4th and have them work with Smith for the next 3 years.

 

If the Skins had the ILB and NT set for a few years great then go get Mayfield.

[Skinsinparadise]

11 minutes ago, Dan73 said:

I didn't want the Skins trading up. I would rather draft White or Rudolph in the 4th and have them work with Smith for the next 3 years.

 

If the Skins had the ILB and NT set for a few years great then go get Mayfield.

 

My take was (said it before the Alex Smith trade) go get a QB in the draft if they love one.  JP Finlay early on said they didn't like Mayfield then said they did like Mayfield after combine week.  He mentioned they liked Josh Allen.  And Rudolph.  He also said they were afraid to trade up for one because of backlash if they did it and got it wrong because of past mistakes on this.  For at least Rudolph (though am not sold on him personally) they could have taken him without trading up.

 

They probably could have traded into the top 5 with what they gave up for Alex Smith or maybe they'd need to add another pick -- but still the draft capital they would be giving up would be to go cheaper and younger -- not older. 

 

As for taking someone else in the draft, will see.  Tandler said don't count on it especially early in the draft.  Cooley-Sheehan said they heard there was an agreement for whatever team traded for Alex Smith that they wouldn't draft a QB this season -- because Alex didn't want his successor immediately on the roster.

 

[SWFLSkins]

55 minutes ago, Rufus T Firefly said:

yay

 

>_ 

 

[Dan73]

3 minutes ago, Skinsinparadise said:

 

My take was (said it before the Alex Smith trade) go get a QB if they love one.  JP Finlay early on said they didn't like Mayfield then said they did like Mayfield after combine week.  He mentioned they liked Josh Allen.  He also said they were afraid to trade up for one because of backlash if they did it and got it wrong because of past mistakes on this. 

 

They probably could have traded into the top 5 with what they gave up for Alex Smith or maybe they'd need to add another pick -- but still the draft capital they would be giving up would be to go cheaper and younger -- not older. 

 

As for taking someone else in the draft, will see.  Tandler said don't count on it especially early in the draft.  Cooley-Sheehan said they heard there was an agreement for whatever team traded for Alex Smith that they wouldn't draft a QB this season.

 

Mayfield raised his stock with his work ethic at the senior bowl.

 

I could see Smith wanting to be the guy for a couple of years. Not wanting a team to draft a qb in the first 2 rounds may have been requested.

 

But a 4th or 5th rounder is not as much of threat especially as both qbs I mentioned need polish.

 

 

[Skinsinparadise]

12 minutes ago, Dan73 said:

Mayfield raised his stock with his work ethic at the senior bowl.

 

I could see Smith wanting to be the guy for a couple of years. Not wanting a team to draft a qb in the first 2 rounds may have been requested.

 

But a 4th or 5th rounder is not as much of threat especially as both qbs I mentioned need polish.

 

 

 

The way Sheehan-Cooley described it -- didn't sound like a QB being drafted period is going to fly this year.  Will see.  Got my doubts Mike White is there in the 4th but maybe -- as for Rudolph be surprised if he is still there in the 2nd round let alone the 4th.  Granted mocks can be wrong -- but Rudolph seems consistently in the first or worse case 2nd.  QBs tend to rise not fall as draft day approaches of late. 

 

But to your point yeah if someone like Mike White drops to the 4th and they take him and Jay loves the dude -- I'd like that.  But the idea that they are taking a QB in the 4th isn't the vibe i am getting right now. Will see.   The Cooley-Sheehan segment really shook me on this point -- hopefully they are wrong.

[Tay]

50 minutes ago, UK SKINS FAN '74 said:

Just numbers, what we all paying Kirk. Lots of discussion. What's he worth, cold hard cash......

 

I think he's worth 5yr/115. $23/yr. That's basically what was offered last year. He will get more on the open market, but that's what I'd be willing to offer if it were my call. 

[Darrell Green Fan]

3 hours ago, Dan73 said:

Ray Bourque was known to always sign team friendly deals.

 

Sean Payton gave back money to get Gregg Williams. 

Paul Kariya took a real low contract to play in Colorado.

Just to name a few.

Pay more attention so you don't need to be schooled

 

Sorry, I thought we were discussing NFL players in the age of the salary cap.  No on second thought that was exactly what we were discussing and for some reason you believe hockey players from years ago and an assistant coach is relevant.  They are not.

 

Next.  

[Est.1974]

Why do we want to draft a QB high in the draft with Smith here. That's makes no sense at all. Extend Colt, guarantee some moneys this year, add a year on, drop his cap number, then draft a successor in a couple of years. 

3 minutes ago, Tay said:

 

I think he's worth 5yr/115. $23/yr. That's basically what was offered last year. He will get more on the open market, but that's what I'd be willing to offer if it were my call. 

 

Thanks, good to see someone playing ball.

 

My take is 5/120 in true worth. But he may actually want 5/150. 

 

Lets see if anyone else want to talk numbers.

[Dan73]

12 minutes ago, Darrell Green Fan said:

Sorry, I thought we were discussing NFL players in the age of the salary cap.  No on second thought that was exactly what we were discussing and for some reason you believe hockey players from years ago and an assistant coach is relevant.  They are not.

 

Next.  

Sorry want to quote those parameters as they were set.

 

In the meantime see if you can get your job back as the Subway poster boy.

[Skinsinparadise]

14 minutes ago, UK SKINS FAN '74 said:

Why do we want to draft a QB high in the draft with Smith here. That's makes no sense at all.

 

That wasn't the point I was making.  It was draft a QB in the First Rd as opposed to trading Alex Smith.  We debated that in threads for weeks before this trade happened.  I am disagreeing with the premise that trading for Alex Smith was the no brainer best case scenario.  

 

I was agreeing with Dan73 about Mike White in the 4th round and groom the dude -- but I am not sure that's in play for reasons I expressed. 

 

But to play along with your point.  Ask Andy Reid.  He did exactly that.  With the exact same QB.  

 

Personally, I don't think its a theory based conversation at all anyway.  It's player specific.  If for example Jay thinks Josh Allen is a pure stud and he can mold him into the next Wentz and he falls to 13, then heck yeah IMO you draft him.  We got a 34 year old QB.  We are going to have to look for a QB soon enough.  If one you love falls in your lap, IMO you take him.

[Darrell Green Fan]

7 minutes ago, Dan73 said:

Sorry want to quote those parameters as they were set.

 

In the meantime see if you can get your job back as the Subway poster boy.

 

Not sure why you continue with the nasty tone. We were discussing NFL players.  I simply asked for examples of the "many" players outside of Tom Brady who have signed for less money "for the good of the team" as Cousins was supposed to do according to some.  You trotted out exactly 2 examples and they were hockey players from years ago.  Then you threw out an assistant coach for reasons known only to you.  

 

It's really not my fault you can't pull relevant examples as I had requested.  Probably because there aren't many.  Again not my fault, you were the one to make the claim.