Redskins' Kirk Cousins: Still far apart on extension terms

[skinsdad62]

OK. I saw it. I still have never seen the 16 million dollar thing and when that being floated. I believe that may have been the number floated after 2015 which got negotiations off to a rough start as the King article states.

Again, the December thing isn't a big deal. It is another example of BA wanting to buy low when the price is high. That isn't how investments work. If you want a bargain, buy when their stock is low.

GK go to the SM firing thread i think its there

 

[skinsdad62]

And this notion that the Cap Number is a floor in negotiating is ridiculous. I am in agreement with the FO on this one. He was already paid $20 mill on the tag last year, so why should his low number be $24 mill when he hasnt been paid that yet?

ok let me break it down for you VT , KC signed this years tag for 24 mil . the team is on the hook for that no matter what . why would any agent start negotiations for less then what he guaranteed ? . last years tag is done , its history , you are talking about the future and the future says 24 mil by the redskins FO's own hand

 

[Sharkinva]

And this notion that the Cap Number is a floor in negotiating is ridiculous. I am in agreement with the FO on this one. He was already paid $20 mill on the tag last year, so why should his low number be $24 mill when he hasnt been paid that yet?

Because in fact for cap accounting purposes, and in real life. He is already MAKING $24M this year. The only way he doesnt make that is if he signs a long term deal.

But guess what, if the Skins cut him right now, they still have to pay him that $24M

The only other way out of it besides a LTD is for them to trade him to another team who would THEN have to pay him $24M.

By tagging him the team has said, you are worth $24M for us to keep you for this year. Why would he take less??


If I agreed to pay you $500 to be the lead bouncer at the club for one week guaranteed, but then came back and said, I really want to hire you for the year, but I only want to pay you $300 a week and Im basing this on the fact that you were not able to sigle handedly break up the last bar fight.... you taking the job? Or are you going to take your five for the week, then go down the street to the club thats willing to give you $550 a week on the long term deal??

 

[Sleepy T]

OK... he was at 13 on that list with us paying him $20M on the tag. His ask was $20M per year, and with the guaranteed money to be right. And that still would have put him at 13th on the list.

The real question you should be asking is...

who at #14-23 does Kirk NOT deserve to make more than??

You could say Stafford, but aside from him... is there another name Im missing??

You have to remember Shark, this is a snapshot in time. At this time KC had started one season, got us into the playoffs, albeit with a weak schedule, and put up some numbers. Sure, there are a few guys on that list, (namely Brock) I would have taken him over. But put Kirk's resume beside most of the guys#$14-23 at the end of '15 and their overall resume probably still looks better, even with KC getting us to the playoffs. I would say Dalton, Smith, Bradford, Romo, Tannehill, even Kaepernick all had better resumes AT THAT TIME.

 

[skinsdad62]

Ok, Here is what I could find on the average QB salary for the 2016 season. It is already known that KC and his camp were looking for $19-20 APY on a LTD after the 2015 season. We offered him $16, Who on this list would you say (at that time) KC should have been paid better than (his asking price of $19-20 APY)/ Keep in mind prior to the '16 season, KC has not even beat a team with a winning record in 26 starts.

View attachment 161584
View attachment 161585

so if we signed him before 2015 at the 16 he would be 23rd on the list . instead they ended up having him at 13 , and now its top 5

 

[Sharkinva]

You have to remember Shark, this is a snapshot in time. At this time KC had started one season, got us into the playoffs, albeit with a weak schedule, and put up some numbers. Sure, there are a few guys on that list, (namely Brock) I would have taken him over. But put Kirk's resume beside most of the guys#$14-23 at the end of '15 and their overall resume probably still looks better, even with KC getting us to the playoffs. I would say Dalton, Smith, Bradford, Romo, Tannehill, even Kaepernick all had better resumes AT THAT TIME.

Romo was one injury away from retiring. Kaep was benched, Smith and Dalton had better resumes.. on better teams. Bradford.. the Eagles were so sure of him they traded UP to take a rookie and dealt him. And Tannehill has been one bad season away from benched for the last three years.

 

[skinsdad62]

You have to remember Shark, this is a snapshot in time. At this time KC had started one season, got us into the playoffs, albeit with a weak schedule, and put up some numbers. Sure, there are a few guys on that list, (namely Brock) I would have taken him over. But put Kirk's resume beside most of the guys#$14-23 at the end of '15 and their overall resume probably still looks better, even with KC getting us to the playoffs. I would say Dalton, Smith, Bradford, Romo, Tannehill, even Kaepernick all had better resumes AT THAT TIME.

that is all fine and dandy except on thing , supply and demand , or what the market will pay . to go further at THIS TIME not one of them is better the he is

 

[Sharkinva]

You have to remember Shark, this is a snapshot in time. At this time KC had started one season, got us into the playoffs, albeit with a weak schedule, and put up some numbers. Sure, there are a few guys on that list, (namely Brock) I would have taken him over. But put Kirk's resume beside most of the guys#$14-23 at the end of '15 and their overall resume probably still looks better, even with KC getting us to the playoffs. I would say Dalton, Smith, Bradford, Romo, Tannehill, even Kaepernick all had better resumes AT THAT TIME.

Side question on this... How come Dak get the old knob polish and sainted as a future elite QB, when Dallas went 13-3 playing one of the weakest schedules last year with one of the best ground games in the league.

But when Kirk won the Division on a weak schedule, its just proof that he really isnt that good??

 

[Sleepy T]

By tagging him the team has said, you are worth $24M for us to keep you for this year. Why would he take less??


If I agreed to pay you $500 to be the lead bouncer at the club for one week guaranteed, but then came back and said, I really want to hire you for the year, but I only want to pay you $300 a week and Im basing this on the fact that you were not able to sigle handedly break up the last bar fight.... you taking the job? Or are you going to take your five for the week, then go down the street to the club thats willing to give you $550 a week on the long term deal??

No, they don't set the tag value. That's the money they have to pay him to retain his rights and hopefully continue negotiating. By definition it's an average of the Top 5 players at that position. Hate to break it to you but he isn't one of Top 5 QBs. So IMO, that should be the baseline or ceiling for a LT number. Just because he has us by the balls and thinks he is worthy of being one of the highest paid QBs in the league doesn't mean he is. Kirks agent likes to spread his peacock feathers like he is representing Tom Brady don't he.

 

[Sleepy T]

that is all fine and dandy except on thing , supply and demand , or what the market will pay . to go further at THIS TIME not one of them is better the he is

You keep wanting to bring Supply and Demand into the equation sdad. And that's fair, some good points. But another old economic and consumer component is quality over quantity. At the time he was demanding this money we didn't know what kind of long term "quality" QB we were dealing with. To a lesser degree, that's still an unknown.

Does quality of a product not have an effect on its market value or is the supply just so low that even if the quality is somewhat still unknown you have to pay top dollar for the product, so long as it can call a play, take a snap, and throw the ball somewhat accurately for 20 yards??

 

[Sharkinva]

No, they don't set the tag value. That's the money they have to pay him to retain his rights and hopefully continue negotiating. By definition it's an average of the Top 5 players at that position. Hate to break it to you but he isn't one of Top 5 QBs. So IMO, that should be the baseline or ceiling for a LT number. Just because he has us by the balls and thinks he is worthy of being one of the highest paid QBs in the league doesn't mean he is. Kirks agent likes to spread his peacock feathers like he is representing Tom Brady don't he.

OK so lets play it your way. If he isnt one of the top five (which I agree with) they shouldnt have tagged him.

Now I hate to break it to you, but the reality is, moving away from Kirk most likely sets this team back, you know it, I know it and Bruce knows it. Otherwise they wouldnt have tagged him. If it were as easy as some people want to make out to replace Kirk, they would have done it already and damn sure would not have tagged him TWICE.

You can play the what if game all you like, but unless you really think this team is going to finish 2-14, you cant even really count on getting a QB as good as Kirk in next years draft, much less better. Unless of course you are totally willing to risk another RG3 trade.

I think people are hanging onto the contract numbers because signing Kirk long term does take the trade up next year off the table. And if Kirk plays on the tag and walks, I guarantee there will be people all in on trading what ever it takes to trade up to get the #1 QB in next years draft, despite how spectacularly disastrous our last attempt at taking a short cut to elite turned out.

 

[Sharkinva]

No, they don't set the tag value. That's the money they have to pay him to retain his rights and hopefully continue negotiating. By definition it's an average of the Top 5 players at that position. Hate to break it to you but he isn't one of Top 5 QBs. So IMO, that should be the baseline or ceiling for a LT number. Just because he has us by the balls and thinks he is worthy of being one of the highest paid QBs in the league doesn't mean he is. Kirks agent likes to spread his peacock feathers like he is representing Tom Brady don't he.

Also, the team doesnt set the tag value, but by tagging him, they have basically said its worth $24M for us to have you play this year. So again, if he wasnt worth $24M, why tag him??

 

[Sharkinva]

 

[j_y19]

You keep wanting to bring Supply and Demand into the equation sdad. And that's fair, some good points. But another old economic and consumer component is quality over quantity. At the time he was demanding this money we didn't know what kind of long term "quality" QB we were dealing with. To a lesser degree, that's still an unknown.

Does quality of a product not have an effect on its market value or is the supply just so low that even if the quality is somewhat still unknown you have to pay top dollar for the product, so long as it can call a play, take a snap, and throw the ball somewhat accurately for 20 yards??

VT, i get where you are coming from, but I think you logic is a bit skewed. First is about supply and demand. If there were a glut of capable QBs in this league, the salaries would not be escalating as crazy as they are. Second, to you point about quality, its really about value. The FO has already conceded that KC is worth $24M a year to them. Otherwise they would not have tagged him. They believe, by tagging him that they will get $24M worth of value from him this coming year. They set that bar, not KC. But once set, any agent worth his salt does not come off that number, atleast not without receiving concessions elsewhere (guaranteed money for example). Finally, you seem hung up on what they have paid him to date and how that should influence what they pay him going forward. It doesn't work that way. Any LTD will be based on the value that KC will bring the team in the future, during the life of the contract. It is not based on what he has done in the past (or what he has been paid).

You can't look at a snapshot and say when any qb signs a LTD, that they are not slotted correctly at that time. Its like real estate. Lets say you have an average house on your block. 5 years ago, the best house sold for $500K. But prices have really escalated. You put your house on the market and sell it for $600K. Does that imply that your house is better than the perceived best house on the block? No, its just a matter of market timing. When the best house goes on the Market again, it will sell for more than yours (assuming prices continue to escalate due to supply and demand). If Derek Carr signs a deal for 25M/year and becomes the highest paid QB in the league does that mean he is the best QB in the league?

 

[j_y19]

One more point. For those of you that are on the FO side of this thing, let me tell you, they fucked this whole thing up. I can't believe how bad Allen is at negotiating. Both allen and SM let it be known, early on, that they would tag KC if they couldn't come to a LTD. Do you realize how stupid that statement was. Its like going into a car dealership and negotiating on a car price. You are trying to get them down, but you let it be known that if you can't come to a deal, you will pay MSRP. What do you think that dealership is going to do? By making that statement, you set the bar on value to you and that is what Allen did with KC. What an idiot.

 

[Sharkinva]

One more point. For those of you that are on the FO side of this thing, let me tell you, they fucked this whole thing up. I can't believe how bad Allen is at negotiating. Both allen and SM let it be known, early on, that they would tag KC if they couldn't come to a LTD. Do you realize how stupid that statement was. Its like going into a car dealership and negotiating on a car price. You are trying to get them down, but you let it be known that if you can't come to a deal, you will pay MSRP. What do you think that dealership is going to do? By making that statement, you set the bar on value to you and that is what Allen did with KC. What an idiot.

IM just going to add to this, the real stupid part was using the Exclusive rights tag. Basically Bruce was saying, we are not willing to lose you unless some one offers an insane trade. We dont want to risk some one else being willing to give up two first rounders without us having some control over who that team might be. Imagine the shit storm that would have resulted if say, Denver with the #20 pick came in and gave Kirk an offer sheet for what he wants, and worded it in such a way that would make it difficult for Washington to match.

Would you guys have been ok with losing Kirk for the #20 pick this year, and the #20 pick or later next year??

 

[deanpet21]

One more point. For those of you that are on the FO side of this thing, let me tell you, they fucked this whole thing up. I can't believe how bad Allen is at negotiating. Both allen and SM let it be known, early on, that they would tag KC if they couldn't come to a LTD. Do you realize how stupid that statement was. Its like going into a car dealership and negotiating on a car price. You are trying to get them down, but you let it be known that if you can't come to a deal, you will pay MSRP. What do you think that dealership is going to do? By making that statement, you set the bar on value to you and that is what Allen did with KC. What an idiot.

I totally agree with that. I don't know why Allen said that.

 

[deanpet21]

IM just going to add to this, the real stupid part was using the Exclusive rights tag. Basically Bruce was saying, we are not willing to lose you unless some one offers an insane trade. We dont want to risk some one else being willing to give up two first rounders without us having some control over who that team might be. Imagine the shit storm that would have resulted if say, Denver with the #20 pick came in and gave Kirk an offer sheet for what he wants, and worded it in such a way that would make it difficult for Washington to match.

Would you guys have been ok with losing Kirk for the #20 pick this year, and the #20 pick or later next year??

Remember the rumors of the 49ers trade? I remember seeing mock drafts with us picking at #2. We at least we got J. Allen. lol

 

[Sharkinva]

Remember the rumors of the 49ers trade? I remember seeing mock drafts with us picking at #2. We at least we got J. Allen. lol

Those rumors assumed that the Niners would be all over Kirk. And it made sense. But even if that were the case, it would have been a mistake, because if we dealt Kirk, we would not have taken Allen. I realize some of you think a monkey with a limp could do what Kirk has, but the Exclusive tag suggests that despite his ego, Bruce realized on some level this team still needs Cousins if its going to be successful.

 

[deanpet21]

Those rumors assumed that the Niners would be all over Kirk. And it made sense. But even if that were the case, it would have been a mistake, because if we dealt Kirk, we would not have taken Allen. I realize some of you think a monkey with a limp could do what Kirk has, but the Exclusive tag suggests that despite his ego, Bruce realized on some level this team still needs Cousins if its going to be successful.

Lets thinks about that right now. Lets say we got the #2 pick for KC. We could of did the trade with the Bears and took the LSU safety or Thomas at #3. Then at #17 taken Allen. Then have two #2's two #3's and two #4's. Interesting.