Alex Smith Trade Thread (Details Inside)

[Rocky52Mc]

3 minutes ago, SWFLSkins said:

 

 

Don't know if I agree with that at all. It's most likely a 3 year extension, hence why he got $71,000,000 in guaranteed money. 71/3 = $23.67 million per year average. There is no chance you'd eat that kind of money in 2 years, it's more likely spread out a little bit to save them cap THIS YEAR. They're betting that the cap continues to grow and the cost can be off-set in the future. Additionally, Smith's contract is literally built around a rookie sitting behind him for 3-4 years and being in the same situation again at that point. 

[TK]

3 minutes ago, Rocky52Mc said:

 

Cousins doesn't have to want to help anyone but himself. Cousins is 29 playing the long game, no chance he'd sit out 2018 just to not "help" the Redskins. He's under direct orders by his agent to sign any franchise tender offered to him as he'd be guaranteed $34,000,000 to play for us this season. He signs, and gets traded is to his benefit. Redskins can literally franchise Cousins and play him next year and not go through with the KC trade if they so wished, 0% chance Cousins sits himself and risk losing the $100+ million he'd make on his next deal.

Here's the thing on reneging on the agreed upon trade. 

 

It's your reputation & no other team would want to deal with you after that.

[Rufus T Firefly]

1 minute ago, Rocky52Mc said:

 

Don't know if I agree with that at all. It's most likely a 3 year extension, hence why he got $71,000,000 in guaranteed money. 71/3 = $23.67 million per year average. There is no chance you'd eat that kind of money in 2 years, it's more likely spread out a little bit to save them cap THIS YEAR. They're betting that the cap continues to grow and the cost can be off-set in the future. Additionally, Smith's contract is literally built around a rookie sitting behind him for 3-4 years and being in the same situation again at that point. 

A 2 year extension after the year he was already signed for is 3 years.

[RonBurgandy]

Forgive me for i'm a little slow. Can someone give me a straight forward anwser regarding if Cousins walks for free... or are we at least going to get a bag of Chips for this guy? 

[UKskins]

8 minutes ago, Rocky52Mc said:

 

Cousins doesn't have to want to help anyone but himself. Cousins is 29 playing the long game, no chance he'd sit out 2018 just to not "help" the Redskins. He's under direct orders by his agent to sign any franchise tender offered to him as he'd be guaranteed $34,000,000 to play for us this season. He signs, and gets traded is to his benefit. Redskins can literally franchise Cousins and play him next year and not go through with the KC trade if they so wished, 0% chance Cousins sits himself and risk losing the $100+ million he'd make on his next deal.

Yeah, I guess the other factor is we don't have to sign the Smith trade on March 14th either.

 

Now Kirk, here are your options:

 

1) You can play nice and go to Denver in a trade for Aqib Talib that suits everyone and allows you to compete

 

2) You can refuse to sign the tag and sit, helping nobody and making you look like an ass

 

3) You can decide to not play nice and we'll franchise you and send your ass to the Browns or Jets for whatever we can get on the tag (likely a 7th given the hit is so high but taking his options away)

 

The fact that we can't make the Smith trade until FA actually gives us a little bit of leverage here. If we signed off on the Smith trade last night then Kirk does Denver a favour by letting them dump Aqib Talib contract or he goes to highest bidder in FA. With the trade not being signed off, and not having to be signed off immediately on March 14th, we can still play this out further. It's not much, but it's something. We don't have to renege on the Smith deal, as long as one of the Jets or Browns would pick Kirk up at tag value for something (a 7th rounder, a camp fodder player etc). Given a LTD for Kirk is likely to be 30m+ and they'll both be bidding, it's not a ridiculous suggestion.

[Rocky52Mc]

3 minutes ago, Rufus T Firefly said:

A 2 year extension after the year he was already signed for is 3 years.

 

This year is not included in the 71 million. That would be the extension.

[skins2victory]

Just now, RonBurgandy said:

Forgive me for i'm a little slow. Can someone give me a straight forward anwser regarding if Cousins walks for free... or are we at least going to get a bag of Chips for this guy? 

It depends if we tag him now. He can sign the tag, then negotiate a trade with another team. Or, he can not sign the tag and not play or get paid this year. Some on here do not see it this way, but why would we not play that card moving forward.

[The Consigliere]

2 hours ago, SkinsGuy said:

 

I laugh when I read fans writing stuff like this ^^

 

It's so easy to say you are happy to go 3-13 when it's January. 

 

When September and the regular season gets here, you will feel quite differently.  

Actually, no. I was cheering for 0-16 in 1998, 2004, 2008, 2009, 2010 and 2011 and again in 2014. 

 

It was very easy and always is.

 

All you have to imagine is what its been like to be a Bullets fan (and later Wizards fan), or a Redskins fan since Gibbs I ended. There is nothing worse in professional sports than mediocrity. It is the hardest position to crawl out of, especially if you have terrible F.O. management. Even bad management can climb out of 0-16 in a good draft with with an elite QB prospect or two available. 

 

I have no idea why people find this so hard. The prescription these guys are giving us is the same prescription this franchise tried in 1999, 2000, 2004, 2010, and now against in 2018. Short circuit a rebuild by getting a vet on the fly that can fill the seats with 3-4 home wins a year while the team doesn't tank well enough to land the assets to get a truly great QB. 

 

Smart F.O.'s take their medicine, suck big time, and get their franchise changing QB. See the Giants sucking big time, truly big time, for the first time in 2004 and getting a franchise QB, having the same thing happen again in 2017 and getting a franchise QB, see the same thing happening with the Colts in 1998 with Manning and 2012 with Luck, or the Steelers, having one bad season, just one in 2004, and getting a HOF for it. 

 

You tank for the elite QB class. It was why I was screaming bloody murder for the team to trade the extra picks in the 2017 draft class for extra '18 picks to facilitate a trade up for Rosen/Darnold/Allen a year ago.

 

You know what's worse than going 2-14, and 1-15 in back to back years? It's spending 25 years winning 5-9 games every expletive season, never being great or good, rarely being horrific, and NEVER being remotely relevant or anything to fear whatsoever.

 

People need to realize that the 1982-1993 era is long gone and the NFL and players view the redskins, like fans viewed the Lions, and Buccanneers and Cardinals in the 1980's. We're a freaking joke. Every once in a while we make a playoff run. Then immediately vanish for another half-decade, like clockwork: Since 1992 we've been relevant in 1996, 1999, 2005, 2007, 2012, and 2015. That's it. 6 relevant seasons in 25 years. 

 

 

 

[#BgMase76#]

9 minutes ago, NoCalMike said:

 

 

3) Does this mean this team will finally be able to beat the NYGs when they are mediocre? Cousins seems to be the one QB that defense can fluster, confuse, and make look bad no matter what condition their team is in. 

 

DUDE, this alone was enough reason to move on from Cousins. Consecutive years closing out the season w/ a pathetic loss to NYG. One we miss the playoffs and the other gives them their third win of the season. What's that say about Cousins if he can't beat the only QB in our division he's rated better than? I was ready to move on after that loss.

 

[SkinsRx]

20 minutes ago, TK said:

Whole thing is still fluid, but I'm thinking it doesn't happen either because Cousins really doesn't have a need to help the FO out.

 

You're right, Kirk doesn't need to help the FO out.  Probably doesn't want to either.  BUT, what if Denver really wants to sign Kirk and they're worried that the Browns will jump in and make Kirk an offer he can't refuse.  In order to eliminate the Browns from the equation, couldn't Denver approach both Washington and Kirk and get them to participate in a tag and trade deal (assuming Kirk has a desire to play in Denver and the Skins free up enough cap space to execute the $34 mil tag)?  Whether it's the Broncos or the Browns or the Jets, isn't it realistic to think a team would approach the Skins about tagging and trading for Kirk if they're desperate to get him?  I'm sure everybody knows, once Kirk hits free agency, there's going to be a bidding war and no one is going to outbid the Browns.

[Rocky52Mc]

4 minutes ago, TK said:

Here's the thing on reneging on the agreed upon trade. 

 

It's your reputation & no other team would want to deal with you after that.

 

When you're Bruce Allen and floating in the air after your legs have been swept out from under you, what else do you have to work with? 

[skins2victory]

3 minutes ago, UKskins said:

Yeah, I guess the other factor is we don't have to sign the Smith trade on March 14th either.

 

Now Kirk, here are your options:

 

1) You can play nice and go to Denver in a trade for Aqib Talib that suits everyone and allows you to compete

 

2) You can refuse to sign the tag and sit, helping nobody and making you look like an ass

 

3) You can decide to not play nice and we'll franchise you and send your ass to the Browns or Jets for whatever we can get on the tag (likely a 7th given the hit is so high)

 

The fact that we can't make the Smith trade until FA actually gives us a little bit of leverage here. If we signed off on the Smith trade last night then Kirk does Denver a favour by letting them dump Aqib Talib contract or he goes to highest bidder in FA. With the trade not being signed off, and not having to be signed off immediately on March 14th, we can still play this out further. It's not much, but it's something

This is exactly as I see it with one exception. Why do we have to settle for an aging CB in Talib. The Skins have the leverage at this point if we tag him. Get more than that for Kirk. 

[Rocky52Mc]

1 minute ago, skins2victory said:

This is exactly as I see it with one exception. Why do we have to settle for an aging CB in Talib. The Skins have the leverage at this point if we tag him. Get more than that for Kirk. 

 

Precisely. Look at this two ways;

 

1) Kansas City gave us Alex Smith because they don't want to face him 2-3 times a year.

 

or

 

2) They valued Kendall Fuller a lot higher than Aqib Talib.

 

I'll take some picks thank you.

[TK]

32 minutes ago, Rocky52Mc said:

 

When you're Bruce Allen and floating in the air after your legs have been swept out from under you, what else do you have to work with? 

You know what comes from Denver, right?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

That's right. All Elway has to offer him is 

 

[UKskins]

11 minutes ago, skins2victory said:

This is exactly as I see it with one exception. Why do we have to settle for an aging CB in Talib. The Skins have the leverage at this point if we tag him. Get more than that for Kirk. 

Talib is playing at a really high level. Norman getting older, Trent getting older etc - If we're going to put a run together at any point then it needs to be soon. Denver have a desire to dump Talib so it's an easy sell for them, fills our immediate need and gives us the best CB duo in football which we'll need given the level of QBs in our division right now. 

 

Ideally we'd pony up some draft picks instead of Talib, but realistically, that's our best shot at getting this thing done because Denver need to dump Talib to pay kirk. They're currently at 23mill cap space, and I don't think you can convince Elway that Kirk is worth Talib/another player plus picks. You could convince Bruce of that easily enough, but not Elway.

[Rocky52Mc]

2 minutes ago, TK said:

You know what comes from Denver, right?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

That's right. Al Elway has to offer him is 

 

 

 

 

Coors light sounds a lot better than Mark Brunell Light at the moment though!

[Birdlives]

Goodness. No one is trading for Kirk. He’s leaving as an unrestricted free agent. There is literally no scenario where some one and Kirk will agree to  this scenario. We have Zero leverage here. It’s time to stop bogging down this thread and let go. 

[Coolio47]

I wonder how long this has been in the works?  And how involved/aware was Gruden?  Seemed like he loved Kirk as his QB,  but some interviews around the end of the season, in regards to Kirks' contract situation, made it seem like Gruden already knew Kirk wasn't going to be the QB in 2018.

 

[skins2victory]

3 minutes ago, Rocky52Mc said:

 

Precisely. Look at this two ways;

 

1) Kansas City gave us Alex Smith because they don't want to face him 2-3 times a year.

 

or

 

2) They valued Kendall Fuller a lot higher than Aqib Talib.

 

I'll take some picks thank you.

Transition tag Cousins. Now we have the leverage. We lost our nickle CB in Fuller. Tell Denver we want Harris from them, (a slot CB better than Fuller), and there 3rd, a higher 3rd round pick than what we sent to KC. Now all is well.

[Cooooley47]

Just now, RonBurgandy said:

Forgive me for i'm a little slow. Can someone give me a straight forward anwser regarding if Cousins walks for free... or are we at least going to get a bag of Chips for this guy? 

 

I could be wrong, but I believe the Skins will most likely get a comp pick in 2019 depending on how much he signs for and what we do in free agency this year. If he signs a huge deal, which is likely, it would probably be a 3rd, I think. But if the Skins make huge moves, it would be less. Again, I could be wrong, but I think that is the case.

Just now, skins2victory said:

Transition tag Cousins. Now we have the leverage. We lost our nickle CB in Fuller. Tell Denver we want Harris from them, (a slot CB better than Fuller), and there 3rd, a higher 3rd round pick than what we sent to KC. Now all is well.

 

A transition tag only gives the Redskins the right of first refusal to match the offer. If they decline to match, the Skins get nothing.

[HOF44]

18 minutes ago, TK said:

Here's the thing on reneging on the agreed upon trade. 

 

It's your reputation & no other team would want to deal with you after that.

With the way we trade that might not be a bad thing.  

[skins2victory]

2 minutes ago, Birdlives said:

Goodness. No one is trading for Kirk. He’s leaving as an unrestricted free agent. There is literally no scenario where some one and Kirk will agree to  this scenario. We have Zero leverage here. It’s time to stop bogging down this thread and let go. 

Tell me why you would not transition tag Kirk at this point. Why would you just let him walk, when we have the cards to play hard ball. There are multiple teams that want him. He would have to sign the tag if we designated it to him, otherwise he does not play this year.

[evmiii]

1.  The Redskins were not going to Franchise Tag KC again.  The Redskins were not going to pay KC as much as some other team will.  KC was going to leave.

 

2.  I like Fuller.  As a VT grad, I was happy we drafted him.  He is not, what some have implied, an "elite" corner.  Maybe one day he will be, but he's not that now.

 

3.  The Redskins have been telling us, though most were not listening, that KC was not the long term answer.  Had they believed that they would have paid him already. You may not agree, but this deal is consistent with what their actions have been showing.

 

4.  People are bashing Alex Smith out of an emotional panic.  He is not a HOF'er, but he is certainly at least as good as KC.  Based on his agreement to an extensions he wants to be here; I never really got that feeling from KC.

 

i am excessively tired of the KC.saga and will be very happy to roll into a new season with the QB position settled for a couple years.  Best of luck in Kansas City Kendall.

[Tay]

21 minutes ago, Rocky52Mc said:

 

Don't know if I agree with that at all. It's most likely a 3 year extension, hence why he got $71,000,000 in guaranteed money. 71/3 = $23.67 million per year average. There is no chance you'd eat that kind of money in 2 years, it's more likely spread out a little bit to save them cap THIS YEAR. They're betting that the cap continues to grow and the cost can be off-set in the future. Additionally, Smith's contract is literally built around a rookie sitting behind him for 3-4 years and being in the same situation again at that point. 

It depends on the type of guaruntees. Fully vs total. You can structure guarantees in a way that wouldn't count against your cap if the player is cut by a certain date. 

[CommDownMan]

40 minutes ago, Rocky52Mc said:

 

Don't know if I agree with that at all. It's most likely a 3 year extension, hence why he got $71,000,000 in guaranteed money. 71/3 = $23.67 million per year average. There is no chance you'd eat that kind of money in 2 years, it's more likely spread out a little bit to save them cap THIS YEAR. They're betting that the cap continues to grow and the cost can be off-set in the future. Additionally, Smith's contract is literally built around a rookie sitting behind him for 3-4 years and being in the same situation again at that point. 

 

Well, if we could draft a guy and get him ready we could trade Smith again in 2 years.  We'd take any prorated bonus money hit, but the roster/yearly $$ would be on a new team.  Obviously it depends on how well he plays, but that should be the plan of a smart FO.  So, forget I said anything.

 

edit: my thought here is a ~3yr - 20mil/per deal will likely look cheap in 2020 (Smith at 35-36 may not, but teams have done worse things).  23mill average dropped due to signing bonus, we take a 8ish mill cap hit.