ABC freak out

[skinsdad62]

Skins Stats Playing GM: Making Kirk Cousins the Highest Paid Player in the NFL

here are some proposed contracts in which he is the highest paid player in the NFL for the milisecond it lasts

sorry but those contracts varying from 5-7 years are good contracts that fit the proportions of cap space for the position

i am not sure what kind of argument you can make against that

it also addresses the transition tag in 2018 for any alarmist who thinks its a given he is gone in 2018

it all comes down to "is he flashy enough " what more does this guy need to prove ? breaking sonny's td record ? win a playoff game even ?

the skins botched this last season and now they must pay the pieper . i believe that danny boy is the pbstacle in all this . KC isnt flashy enough

 

[Sharkinva]

Skins Stats Playing GM: Making Kirk Cousins the Highest Paid Player in the NFL

here are some proposed contracts in which he is the highest paid player in the NFL for the milisecond it lasts

sorry but those contracts varying from 5-7 years are good contracts that fit the proportions of cap space for the position

i am not sure what kind of argument you can make against that

it also addresses the transition tag in 2018 for any alarmist who thinks its a given he is gone in 2018

it all comes down to "is he flashy enough " what more does this guy need to prove ? breaking sonny's td record ? win a playoff game even ?

the skins botched this last season and now they must pay the pieper . i believe that danny boy is the pbstacle in all this . KC isnt flashy enough

I just posted a link where Antonio Pierce says basically the same thing.

Antonio Pierce says perhaps Redskins owner Dan Snyder doesn't find Kirk Cousins to be enough of a "big name guy" to justify offering him a long-term contract.

What is the holdup with Cousins, Redskins? - ESPN Video

 

[deanpet21]

I thought it was already said that KC wasn't going to sign a long term deal until he gets tagged. So what is the big deal here?

 

[skinsdad62]

I thought it was already said that KC wasn't going to sign a long term deal until he gets tagged. So what is the big deal here?

yeah , you are right , just throwing out some contracts

 

[SoCalWizFan]

I thought it was already said that KC wasn't going to sign a long term deal until he gets tagged. So what is the big deal here?

Analysis | The Redskins have already botched the Kirk Cousins contract

This article/interview with these front office experts really lays out the situation very well. It is not greed but rather common sense & a very unique situation which will almost certainly drag this thing out quite a while. Don't expect anything to be settled for quite a while - perhaps not until sometime in the summer. I can wait.

 

[Buffalo_Nickel_1]

trade him

 

[skinsdad62]

Analysis | The Redskins have already botched the Kirk Cousins contract

This article/interview with these front office experts really lays out the situation very well. It is not greed but rather common sense & a very unique situation which will almost certainly drag this thing out quite a while. Don't expect anything to be settled for quite a while - perhaps not until sometime in the summer. I can wait.

i agree totally he will be tagged and he will get a huge contract before the cut off date

 

[deanpet21]

Analysis | The Redskins have already botched the Kirk Cousins contract

This article/interview with these front office experts really lays out the situation very well. It is not greed but rather common sense & a very unique situation which will almost certainly drag this thing out quite a while. Don't expect anything to be settled for quite a while - perhaps not until sometime in the summer. I can wait.

Great article. So here is my point even if offered eh Luck deal KC is just going to turn it down anyways b/c he can make more on the open market. So we have to trade him b/c even if tagged this year, he is gone in 2018 and we get a 3rd round pick in 2018.

Now if the 49ers jump in and say we want him now and don't want to take the risk of losing him in 2018 then we should be able to get ample draft compensation. So it all comes down to KC if he wants to stay here or not. KC could force a trade to SF and the Redskins would have to honor it b/c he has all the leverage in this deal.

So the only way he signs a long term deal with us is if he takes the Luck deal which is a discount. If KC is all about the money he will either force a trade to SF or play on the tag and become UFA in 2018. Lets hope we get ample draft compensation from SF b/c I don't think KC wants to stay here and win here. This is why I said greed takes over.

Thoughts.

 

[deanpet21]

i agree totally he will be tagged and he will get a huge contract before the cut off date

If Synder is not sold then we are begging the 49ers to take him off our hands or he plays on the 1 year tag and we get a 3rd rounder in 2018. KC's long term contract demands are going to be huge b/c he has way to much leverage.

 

[Sharkinva]

Great article. So here is my point even if offered eh Luck deal KC is just going to turn it down anyways b/c he can make more on the open market. So we have to trade him b/c even if tagged this year, he is gone in 2018 and we get a 3rd round pick in 2018.

Now if the 49ers jump in and say we want him now and don't want to take the risk of losing him in 2018 then we should be able to get ample draft compensation. So it all comes down to KC if he wants to stay here or not. KC could force a trade to SF and the Redskins would have to honor it b/c he has all the leverage in this deal.

So the only way he signs a long term deal with us is if he takes the Luck deal which is a discount. If KC is all about the money he will either force a trade to SF or play on the tag and become UFA in 2018. Lets hope we get ample draft compensation from SF b/c I don't think KC wants to stay here and win here. This is why I said greed takes over.

Thoughts.

I think you are putting way too much in the whole greed thing. Going to the 49ers actually might be better for Kirk. He wont be dealing with a coach subject to being fired because the GM wants some one else. And you are tripping if you dont think Kyle is going to build an offense around him from day one. So it might not be greed so much as trying to force his way out of a toxic situation. Because lets face it, the Redskins can always find a way to fuck up a solid situation. Name me another team that has been searching for a QB for 25 years, finds a good one and decides he just isnt good enough.

 

[skinsdad62]

If Synder is not sold then we are begging the 49ers to take him off our hands or he plays on the 1 year tag and we get a 3rd rounder in 2018. KC's long term contract demands are going to be huge b/c he has way to much leverage.

transition tag buddy and if KC has yet another good season and gets a playoff win or 2 then their is no argument against

any leverage he has is because the FO screwed the pooch

 

[Stymietee]

Great article. So here is my point even if offered eh Luck deal KC is just going to turn it down anyways b/c he can make more on the open market. So we have to trade him b/c even if tagged this year, he is gone in 2018 and we get a 3rd round pick in 2018.

Now if the 49ers jump in and say we want him now and don't want to take the risk of losing him in 2018 then we should be able to get ample draft compensation. So it all comes down to KC if he wants to stay here or not. KC could force a trade to SF and the Redskins would have to honor it b/c he has all the leverage in this deal.

So the only way he signs a long term deal with us is if he takes the Luck deal which is a discount. If KC is all about the money he will either force a trade to SF or play on the tag and become UFA in 2018. Lets hope we get ample draft compensation from SF b/c I don't think KC wants to stay here and win here. This is why I said greed takes over.

Thoughts.

Let me begin with, wanting somebody to correct me if I'm wrong here.

99.9% of folks believe that Kirk holds all the trump cards in this circumstance correct?

Well, based on that alone, how our front office reclaim some of those trump cards now is the question that best serves them right?

Then the logical thing to do, (here's where I'll need that correction) if our big three were on top of things and privately agree that they don't want Kirk at the going or asked for price, would be to agree to his terms then trade him away...right?

Is it true or not that a move like that, virtually guarantees the 2 #1 picks or comparable compensation?

Again, I could be totally off base here, and I'd appreciate some clarity on these points. Thanks in advance!

 

[skinsdad62]

you wont get 2 first rounders for him no one is giving that up

the logical thing is to pay him and continue to move forward

 

[Sharkinva]

transition tag buddy and if KC has yet another good season and gets a playoff win or 2 then their is no argument against

any leverage he has is because the FO screwed the pooch

IM thinking we have two options

Pay Kirk an ungodly amount.. mainly because the front office was still too butt hurt over how he got here to pay him a decent amount last year.

Trade him for what ever we can get that will be higher than a 3rd rounder.

I get the feeling Kirk wont be playing on the tag this year though.

 

[Stymietee]

you wont get 2 first rounders for him no one is giving that up

the logical thing is to pay him and continue to move forward

Oh no Dad, my question is based on us putting ourselves in position to trade him because PRIVATELY he's beyond our budget. Sign him long term, doesn't matter for how much, then trade him for the going rate for someone under contract. @Shark, a little help.

 

[Sharkinva]

Let me begin with, wanting somebody to correct me if I'm wrong here.

99.9% of folks believe that Kirk holds all the trump cards in this circumstance correct?

Well, based on that alone, how our front office reclaim some of those trump cards now is the question that best serves them right?

Then the logical thing to do, (here's where I'll need that correction) if our big three were on top of things and privately agree that they don't want Kirk at the going or asked for price, would be to agree to his terms then trade him away...right?

Is it true or not that a move like that, virtually guarantees the 2 #1 picks or comparable compensation?

Again, I could be totally off base here, and I'd appreciate some clarity on these points. Thanks in advance!

Off base for one reason... if we totally agree to his terms and THEN trade him... we would immediately eat his signing bonus/guaranteed money..... ALL of it. That would be a great deal for the niners even if they had to give up the two first rounders... which I still dont think they would do.

We are backed into a corner here. Either we pay him what he wants in order to keep him here. Or we take what we can get in a trade from the team he wants to go to. Otherwise we watch him walk next year for a 3rd rounder in 2019.

 

[Stymietee]

Off base for one reason... if we totally agree to his terms and THEN trade him... we would immediately eat his signing bonus/guaranteed money..... ALL of it. That would be a great deal for the niners even if they had to give up the two first rounders... which I still dont think they would do.

We are backed into a corner here. Either we pay him what he wants in order to keep him here. Or we take what we can get in a trade from the team he wants to go to. Otherwise we watch him walk next year for a 3rd rounder in 2019.

Thanks!....Well wait, what about a year from now?

 

[Sharkinva]

Oh no Dad, my question is based on us putting ourselves in position to trade him because PRIVATELY he's beyond our budget. Sign him long term, doesn't matter for how much, then trade him for the going rate for someone under contract. @Shark, a little help.

Like I said, if you trade a player.. his entire signing bonus comes due against our cap from the moment the trade is done. Now a player CAN agree to give bonus money back in order to facilitate a trade... but there would be zero reason for Kirk to do this because he would then be locked into a contract with no guaranteed money just to facilitate the trade... and his agent wont sign off on that.

 

[Sharkinva]

Thanks!....Well wait, what about a year from now?

A year from now the only option we would have is to tag him and again try to trade him. At which point we have zero leverage because he would likely take the $34 million and we cant tag him a 4th time.

That or give him the trans tag and settle for the 3rd in 2019. Because if Im his agent at that point, I get the team where he goes to agree to a very front heavy deal that Washington wont want to agree to.

 

[skinsdad62]

Oh no Dad, my question is based on us putting ourselves in position to trade him because PRIVATELY he's beyond our budget. Sign him long term, doesn't matter for how much, then trade him for the going rate for someone under contract. @Shark, a little help.

first of all the 3 contracts i have posted dont blow the budget
2nd budget space isnt an issue its about want at this point

and to sharks point he will play under the tag this year or sign a LTD i have no doubts because the transition tag is in play in 18