Re: Kirk Cousins 24/7 thread
 

The more I read all the things here the more I just don't see him getting any less than 23 million. Ugh. It's more than just about % of cap to me. It's principal. He is not a 23 million dollar a year player. The only reason he'll get that is because of leverage. For every extra dollar we spend on him that's one less dollar we can't spend on someone else. That means his contract directly effects the quality of free agents we can sign in the future. Speaking of Madden, if he does get all that cash, he better get his clutch score way the fuck up. We need a lot more Green Bay and a lot less New York from him when the proverbial lights come on.

Re: Kirk Cousins 24/7 thread
 

[quote=MTK;1162309]I've outlined this before, 3 years of the franchise tag would equal $77m, you can bet that's the starting off point for Kirk's camp. I think it will end up more like 22 or 23 per, but they can make it look as pretty as they want on paper as far as the yearly figure. What really matters is the guaranteed money and how it's all structured.[/quote]


I can see 5 years 115 mil with 50 mil guaranteed. It is all about timing and with a weak QB class coming out of college according to the experts, and Kirk far away the best of the free agents he is going to get paid more than what some of the elites are under contract for.

Re: Kirk Cousins 24/7 thread
 

we've been operating with around 10-12 mil of extra cap space under Scott and the crew. If he takes a piece of that we what is the big deal, we aren't spending it as of now anyway. So why not take a portion of the unused cap to keep our QB.

Re: Kirk Cousins 24/7 thread
 

but then when the elites come up for renegotiation they'll get way more than Cousins.

The Skins should find a way to structure it so they can get away from him in the third year if they need to. Otherwise just pay the freight. If Rodgers were to sign a contract today it'd be $30M per year, easy.

Re: Kirk Cousins 24/7 thread
 

[quote=Buffalo Bob;1162337]I can see 5 years 115 mil with 50 mil guaranteed. It is all about timing and with a weak QB class coming out of college according to the experts, and Kirk far away the best of the free agents he is going to get paid more than what some of the elites are under contract for.[/quote]

For some reason 5 years 115 million sounds way more reasonable than 23 million per year, even though it's the same thing.

Re: Kirk Cousins 24/7 thread
 

[quote=Schneed10;1162345]but then when the elites come up for renegotiation they'll get way more than Cousins.

[B]The Skins should find a way to structure it so they can get away from him in the third year if they need to. [/B] Otherwise just pay the freight. If Rodgers were to sign a contract today it'd be $30M per year, easy.[/quote]

Excellent point! That would enable the Skins to mitigate any unforeseen problems with Kirk's health or performance.

Re: Kirk Cousins 24/7 thread
 

[quote=KI Skins Fan;1162351]Excellent point! That would enable the Skins to mitigate any unforeseen problems with Kirk's health or performance.[/quote]

But wouldn't he have leverage on avoiding that scenario too? If he has leverage to get 23 million + it seems like he could possibly avoid this too.

Re: Kirk Cousins 24/7 thread
 

[quote=sdskinsfan2001;1162334]The more I read all the things here the more I just don't see him getting any less than 23 million. Ugh. It's more than just about % of cap to me. It's principal. He is not a 23 million dollar a year player. The only reason he'll get that is because of leverage. For every extra dollar we spend on him that's one less dollar we can't spend on someone else. That means his contract directly effects the quality of free agents we can sign in the future. Speaking of Madden, if he does get all that cash, he better get his clutch score way the fuck up. We need a lot more Green Bay and a lot less New York from him when the proverbial lights come on.[/quote]Our front office put us in this predicament. Cousins could have been re-signed last year for an average of $20M had the FO bothered to tender a reasonable offer. Agree that Kirk needs to be more clutch in the biggest games, but giving him a running game would help. Our running attack has gone to Hell since the Shanahan's were dismissed.

Re: Kirk Cousins 24/7 thread
 

[quote=sdskinsfan2001;1162353]But wouldn't he have leverage on avoiding that scenario too? If he has leverage to get 23 million + it seems like he could possibly avoid this too.[/quote]

I'm pretty sure Kirk could reject the idea and get away with it. On the other hand, if there was a mutual option in his contract and after three years he was healthy and had played well, then he could opt out of his contract, become a FA, and sign a new, even larger contract.

Re: Kirk Cousins 24/7 thread
 

[quote=KI Skins Fan;1162374]I'm pretty sure Kirk could reject the idea and get away with it. On the other hand, if there was a mutual option in his contract and after three years he was healthy and had played well, then he could opt out of his contract, become a FA, and sign a new, even larger contract.[/quote]

Yeah, that's a good point.

Re: Kirk Cousins 24/7 thread
 

Got into an argument with a fellow Skins buddy of mine, his thought is to have Kirk walk, let McCoy start for 2-3 years, while we groom Sudfeld, I think this is crazy, b/c we still aren't sure what Sudfeld has......just figured I would share, I haven't read thru this entire thread....wasn't sure if this scenario had been mentioned

Re: Kirk Cousins 24/7 thread
 

[quote=NCSUredskin;1162415]Got into an argument with a fellow Skins buddy of mine, his thought is to have Kirk walk, let McCoy start for 2-3 years, while we groom Sudfeld, I think this is crazy, b/c we still aren't sure what Sudfeld has......just figured I would share, I haven't read thru this entire thread....wasn't sure if this scenario had been mentioned[/quote]

I hope "groom Sudfeld" hasn't been mentioned.

Tell your friend if we did this dumbshit scenario, then he cant bitch about double digit loss seasons for 2couple years because that is what we'd be staring at.

Re: Kirk Cousins 24/7 thread
 

[quote=Chico23231;1162416]I hope "groom Sudfeld" hasn't been mentioned.

Tell your friend if we did this dumbshit scenario, then he cant bitch about double digit loss seasons for 2couple years because that is what we'd be staring at.[/quote]

LOL exactly, I am hard on Cousins plenty of times through the season, but I just can't blame him for everything......if we have something better than a damn high school defense we would have won at least 3 of those games we lost......in at least 3 of those games Cousins did his job, it wasn't his fault that our defense couldn't stop a Sr citizen team

Re: Kirk Cousins 24/7 thread
 

[quote=NCSUredskin;1162417]LOL exactly, I am hard on Cousins plenty of times through the season, but I just can't blame him for everything......if we have something better than a damn high school defense we would have won at least 3 of those games we lost......in at least 3 of those games Cousins did his job, it wasn't his fault that our defense couldn't stop a Sr citizen team[/quote]

I feel your pain, but believe it or not, I think our defense is a much easier fix than finding another QB.

Re: Kirk Cousins 24/7 thread
 

[quote=Chico23231;1162418]I feel your pain, but believe it or not, I think our defense is a much easier fix than finding another QB.[/quote]

oh yeah, that's what I'm saying.....we overhaul the defense and sign Cousins

Re: Kirk Cousins 24/7 thread
 

So, with no news on the contract front, I'm assuming the front office is OK with allowing the post season to wrap up before they even consider opening negotiations with Kirk Cousins? My assumption was that they were free to start negotiating with him at any time, or maybe I'm wrong on that?

Re: Kirk Cousins 24/7 thread
 

I thought it was only at the beginning of free agency due to the nature of the franchise tag. Am I wrong on that?

Re: Kirk Cousins 24/7 thread
 

[quote=TheMalcolmConnection;1162423]I thought it was only at the beginning of free agency due to the nature of the franchise tag. Am I wrong on that?[/quote]

I don't know TMC, but if so, that makes sense. I guess I figured that he's still "employed" as a Redskins player until free agency starts, and that the team could re-sign their own at any point.

Re: Kirk Cousins 24/7 thread
 

[quote=metalskins;1162425]I don't know TMC, but if so, that makes sense. I guess I figured that he's still "employed" as a Redskins player until free agency starts, and that the team could re-sign their own at any point.[/quote]

I looked back at articles around Flacco's FT -> contract period, and it looks like they didn't start negotiating till after that year's SB, maybe that was because they won it... But since the FT is in play again this year, I imagine we would have a signed deal in place till right around when the Skins have to make a final decision in March about using the FT a second time.



Is there anyone else who would be worth tagging that might force the Skins hand a little, ie DJax Garcon or Baker?

Re: Kirk Cousins 24/7 thread
 

[url]https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.washingtonpost.com/amphtml/news/football-insider/wp/2017/01/11/here-are-seven-ways-the-redskins-kirk-cousins-contract-negotiations-could-play-out/?client=ms-android-hms-tmobile-us[/url]

Re: Kirk Cousins 24/7 thread
 

I don't understand the talk about getting rid of KC and overhauling the defense. So what that means is we go pay a bunch of free agents with the money he's going to make? Then start McCoy? That might be the stupidest thing the Redskins can do, even stupider than the RG3 trade and Haynesworth. That's going back to the old way of doing business, over paying guys from other teams and not rewarding your own. I can see that type of nonsense with Dan and Bruce. Not SM.

Re: Kirk Cousins 24/7 thread
 

[quote=CRedskinsRule;1162427]I looked back at articles around Flacco's FT -> contract period, and it looks like they didn't start negotiating till after that year's SB, maybe that was because they won it... But since the FT is in play again this year, I imagine we would have a signed deal in place till right around when the Skins have to make a final decision in March about using the FT a second time.



Is there anyone else who would be worth tagging that might force the Skins hand a little, ie DJax Garcon or Baker?[/quote]


Well, after reading the article that Bishop Hammer posted (thanks BH) I guess there won't be anything new to talk about in regards to Kirk Cousins until the Redskins tag him. It sounds like there would be no reason (other than loyalty - yea right) for Cousins to want to rush through negotiations with the Redskins until he's heard from other teams. So, the question comes down to, which tag will the Redskins use?

The more I think about it, the more I like the idea of the non-exclusive tag. It can give the Redskins an idea of how other teams value Kirk Cousins while still giving the Redskins an opportunity to match the offer. And if they don't, they get two first round picks.

I know Scot McCloughan would love the thought of having an extra number one pick this year and next year (or if the team happened to have two number one picks this year they would give up). He could use one to draft BPA and the other to trade for additional picks or also BPA. Or they could negotiate some other type of trade deal. This could be a very tempting route SM would take, but I just don't know, you're talking about a good quarterback, and good quarterbacks are hard to find. Looking at other free agent QBs, the next one on the list after Kirk Cousins is Mike Glennon. I think I would take my chance with Colt McCoy over Glennon.

Re: Kirk Cousins 24/7 thread
 

[quote=skinsfan69;1162435]I don't understand the talk about getting rid of KC and overhauling the defense. So what that means is we go pay a bunch of free agents with the money he's going to make? Then start McCoy? That might be the stupidest thing the Redskins can do, even stupider than the RG3 trade and Haynesworth. That's going back to the old way of doing business, over paying guys from other teams and not rewarding your own. I can see that type of nonsense with Dan and Bruce. Not SM.[/quote]

Well, like I said, if it was the non-exclusive tag, at least the Redskins would be getting something in return for not matching if they chose to let Cousins walk. One of those first rounders could be used on a quarterback with (hopefully) a higher ceiling. I haven't paid much attention to college quarterbacks this year, so I don't know how deep the draft is with QBs.

It's all a gamble. I mean, I remember the Herschel Walker trade that made the Dallas Cowboys dynasty during the 90's. Certainly a different situation with Kirk Cousins and the Redskins, but it's not out of the realm of possibility. I would most certainly be open to the idea of getting as much as I possibly could if Cousins wants to leave.

Realistically, he'll probably be tagged by the exclusive tag, but I would not doubt the Redskins brass is not coming up with some hypotheticals with the nonexclusive.

Re: Kirk Cousins 24/7 thread
 

[quote=TheMalcolmConnection;1162423]I thought it was only at the beginning of free agency due to the nature of the franchise tag. Am I wrong on that?[/quote]

Pretty sure they can negotiate now - after the last regular season game.

Re: Kirk Cousins 24/7 thread
 

[url]https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/football-insider/wp/2017/01/11/here-are-seven-ways-the-redskins-kirk-cousins-contract-negotiations-could-play-out/?utm_term=.c5f64dafa5a0[/url]

Interesting tidbit from this writer is that he feels one of the scenarios is that the Redskins decline to match another team's offer on Cousins, but are compensated with two first round draft picks. I did not think the Redskins valued Cousins high enough to warrant two first round picks.

This article seems to believe that we franchise him again at 24 million, which means he walks in 2018 because i believe you can not use the tag three consecutive times in a row.

Re: Kirk Cousins 24/7 thread
 

[quote=SolidSnake84;1162512][URL]https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/football-insider/wp/2017/01/11/here-are-seven-ways-the-redskins-kirk-cousins-contract-negotiations-could-play-out/?utm_term=.c5f64dafa5a0[/URL]

Interesting tidbit from this writer is that he feels one of the scenarios is that the Redskins decline to match another team's offer on Cousins, but are compensated with two first round draft picks. I did not think the Redskins valued Cousins high enough to warrant two first round picks.

This article seems to believe that we franchise him again at 24 million, which means he walks in 2018 because i believe you can not use the tag three consecutive times in a row.[/quote]

Don't want to rain on your parade but you can use it 3 times in a row, not 4 times in a row though. Next year his tag would be 34 million.

Re: Kirk Cousins 24/7 thread
 

[quote=SolidSnake84;1162512][url]https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/football-insider/wp/2017/01/11/here-are-seven-ways-the-redskins-kirk-cousins-contract-negotiations-could-play-out/?utm_term=.c5f64dafa5a0[/url]

[B]Interesting tidbit from this writer is that he feels one of the scenarios is that the Redskins decline to match another team's offer on Cousins, but are compensated with two first round draft picks.[/B] I did not think the Redskins valued Cousins high enough to warrant two first round picks.

This article seems to believe that we franchise him again at 24 million, which means he walks in 2018 because i believe you can not use the tag three consecutive times in a row.[/quote]

It's the nature of how the nonexclusive tag works. It doesn't have to be two number one picks though. The team that has the tagged player can negotiate a deal where it might be some lower draft picks and a trade or something like that. For instance, let's say that now that the Chargers are moving to LA, Phillip Rivers may not want to play in LA (he's stated such before from what I've read.) Let's say he demands to be traded to another team. Could be a scenario where the Redskins are willing to not match an offer that the Chargers would put in for Kirk Cousins and in exchange, the Redskins get Phillip Rivers and a couple 3rd round picks. It would be a win-win situation. The Redskins would get a quarterback who is a proven franchise quarterback, and some draft picks, Chargers would get a potential franchise quarterback who wants to play for any team willing to pay for him. It doesn't have to automatically be two number one picks with the nonexclusive tag.

Not saying this is likely to happen, but honestly, I've felt that if the Redskins cut Cousins loose, it would only be in a situation where they land an established franchise quarterback who could essentially pick up from where Cousins left it, keep the trajectory heading upward for the Redskins rebuild, and allow Scot McCloughan to continue focusing on building the defense. Phillip Rivers still has several good years left in him, and I think he's wasting his career with the Chargers. Having said that, I don't see this scenario being likely at all, but just to give you an example of how the nonexclusive tag could work. I'm all in favor of keeping Cousins as I think he has potential of being a franchise quarterback for several years to come. And yes, you can tag a quarterback three years in a row, with that third year, he receivers a 44% raise over the cap number of the previous year. You can't tag a non-quarterback three years in a row though.

Re: Kirk Cousins 24/7 thread
 

[quote=metalskins;1162527]It's the nature of how the nonexclusive tag works. It doesn't have to be two number one picks though. The team that has the tagged player can negotiate a deal where it might be some lower draft picks and a trade or something like that. For instance, let's say that now that the Chargers are moving to LA, Phillip Rivers may not want to play in LA (he's stated such before from what I've read.) Let's say he demands to be traded to another team. Could be a scenario where the Redskins are willing to not match an offer that the Chargers would put in for Kirk Cousins and in exchange, the Redskins get Phillip Rivers and a couple 3rd round picks. It would be a win-win situation. The Redskins would get a quarterback who is a proven franchise quarterback, and some draft picks, Chargers would get a potential franchise quarterback who wants to play for any team willing to pay for him. It doesn't have to automatically be two number one picks with the nonexclusive tag.

Not saying this is likely to happen, but honestly, I've felt that if the Redskins cut Cousins loose, it would only be in a situation where they land an established franchise quarterback who could essentially pick up from where Cousins left it, keep the trajectory heading upward for the Redskins rebuild, and allow Scot McCloughan to continue focusing on building the defense. Phillip Rivers still has several good years left in him, and I think he's wasting his career with the Chargers. Having said that, I don't see this scenario being likely at all, but just to give you an example of how the nonexclusive tag could work. I'm all in favor of keeping Cousins as I think he has potential of being a franchise quarterback for several years to come. And yes, you can tag a quarterback three years in a row, with that third year, he receivers a 44% raise over the cap number of the previous year. You can't tag a non-quarterback three years in a row though.[/quote]

Thanks for explaining that. I still think it's silly that our main issue with Cousins is that we don't want to pay him, but yet they are okay with (continuing) to tag him, potentially two more times, which means he only gets paid by us more and more on one year deals. Crazy, to me. You tag him again this year because you have no replacement option, and then next year he starts his negotiations at 34 million....

Re: Kirk Cousins 24/7 thread
 

[quote=SolidSnake84;1162530]Thanks for explaining that. I still think it's silly that our main issue with Cousins is that we don't want to pay him, but yet they are okay with (continuing) to tag him, potentially two more times, which means he only gets paid by us more and more on one year deals. Crazy, to me. You tag him again this year because you have no replacement option, and then next year he starts his negotiations at 34 million....[/quote]

It's one of those situations where you couldn't really predict the future. Last year, had the Redskins decided to be aggressive in getting a long term deal done, it would have cost less, but they would have essentially been the ones gambling on one half of a good season. Had this year proven that the latter half of 2015 was all smoke and mirrors, you're now stuck with a QB (ala' Brock Osweiler) who will have set you back because he isn't as advertised.

Now, the Redskins are free to start negotiating with Cousins now, but unless they offer him exactly what he wants, it's going to be a fruitless negotiation. Even if the Redskins do offer Cousins exactly what he's asking for, then his agent is just going to say, that he wants to see if other teams are willing to beat that offer. The Redskins want to tag Cousins to avoid a bidding war. The only question is, nonexclusive tag verses exclusive.

Re: Kirk Cousins 24/7 thread
 

[quote=SolidSnake84;1162530]Thanks for explaining that. I still think it's silly that our main issue with Cousins is that we don't want to pay him, but yet they are okay with (continuing) to tag him, potentially two more times, which means he only gets paid by us more and more on one year deals. Crazy, to me. You tag him again this year because you have no replacement option, and then next year he starts his negotiations at 34 million....[/quote]

Can you show any public statement by the Redskins that says they don't want to pay him? Not anonymous sources, or even beat writers, an official statement.

Re: Kirk Cousins 24/7 thread
 

[quote=Chief X_Phackter;1162442]Pretty sure they can negotiate now - after the last regular season game.[/quote]

I thought it was after the Super Bowl.

Re: Kirk Cousins 24/7 thread
 

I may be mistaken, but if they tag him again I think they will already be about 2/3 of the way to what he was asking for last year in guaranteed money. It doesn't seem like a good business decision to me. Yeah, you get him for one more year, but it makes even less sense to tag him again next year, from a $$$$$ perspective - and if I were him I would get the fuck out of here and try to find an organization that will appreciate how good he is. For fucks sake what else does he have to prove here? Give him an above average defense and it's a wrap...

Re: Kirk Cousins 24/7 thread
 

[quote=Chief X_Phackter;1162544]I may be mistaken, but if they tag him again I think they will already be about 2/3 of the way to what he was asking for last year in guaranteed money. It doesn't seem like a good business decision to me. Yeah, you get him for one more year, but it makes even less sense to tag him again next year, from a $$$$$ perspective - and if I were him I would get the fuck out of here and try to find an organization that will appreciate how good he is. For fucks sake what else does he have to prove here? Give him an above average defense and it's a wrap...[/quote]

Last year I got their decision to make him prove it again. Now, looking back on it, it feels ridiculous that we thought that way. But he had only been a strong QB for 9 games. I'm glad they took the approach they did.

But the risk of doing that, which was completely understood at the time, was that if he balled out in 2016 his negotiating position would be incredibly strong. And now it is. We're going to have to come up to $22 or $23M per year with lots guaranteed. He bet on himself and his number hit. What more can you say, just gotta pay the man.

Re: Kirk Cousins 24/7 thread
 

[quote=Schneed10;1162552]Last year I got their decision to make him prove it again. Now, looking back on it, it feels ridiculous that we thought that way. But he had only been a strong QB for 9 games. I'm glad they took the approach they did.

But the risk of doing that, which was completely understood at the time, was that if he balled out in 2016 his negotiating position would be incredibly strong. And now it is. We're going to have to come up to $22 or $23M per year with lots guaranteed. He bet on himself and his number hit. What more can you say, just gotta pay the man.[/quote]

Gotta say I think it's incredible that we even have to have this debate. The man ain't no A-A-ron Rodgers but he's good enough to win with a good team around him. That easily makes him better than any qb we've had since Rypien not named Brad Johnson. Just pay the man. Find the line between giving him the money he deserves and not screwing the rest of the team.

Re: Kirk Cousins 24/7 thread
 

[quote=mooby;1162554]Gotta say I think it's incredible that we even have to have this debate. The man ain't no A-A-ron Rodgers but he's good enough to win with a good team around him. That easily makes him better than any qb we've had since Rypien not named Brad Johnson. Just pay the man. Find the line between giving him the money he deserves and not screwing the rest of the team.[/quote]

Until we get to the point where the Skins and KC can negotiate again (which I think is after the SB, but maybe is now) and we start hearing serious hesitation by the front office, I am 100% of the opinion that all this debate is spurred on by fans who worry, or give credence to bogus sources.

The Skins will have KC signed before the FT question even comes into play is my opinion.

Re: Kirk Cousins 24/7 thread
 

[quote=CRedskinsRule;1162556]Until we get to the point where the Skins and KC can negotiate again (which I think is after the SB, but maybe is now) and we start hearing serious hesitation by the front office, I am 100% of the opinion that all this debate is spurred on by fans who worry, or give credence to bogus sources.

The Skins will have KC signed before the FT question even comes into play is my opinion.[/quote]

I agree. The cap space is abundant this year, and they have very little committed in future years. They can afford to marry themselves to Cousins for 3 years via a big guaranteed payday.

At this point I think it's likely that McC and Gruden have both given their thumbs up and it's now into the hands of Allen and Schaeffer to negotiate the best deal possible.

Re: Kirk Cousins 24/7 thread
 

[quote=Chief X_Phackter;1162544]I may be mistaken, but if they tag him again I think they will already be about 2/3 of the way to what he was asking for last year in guaranteed money. It doesn't seem like a good business decision to me. Yeah, you get him for one more year, but it makes even less sense to tag him again next year, from a $$$$$ perspective - and if I were him I would get the fuck out of here and try to find an organization that will appreciate how good he is. For fucks sake what else does he have to prove here? Give him an above average defense and it's a wrap...[/quote]

The more I think about this, the more complicated it is. The Redskins almost have to tag Cousins this year, if they want to keep him long term. Because, Cousins is going to take the best offer. He is not loyal to sticking with the Redskins if they can't offer him the best deal. The Redskins have already paid him $20M in guaranteed money. So, they tag him again, they're paying him $44M in guaranteed money for last year and this year. I think last year, Cousins was wanting something close to $20M/year with about $60M guaranteed. So, you tag him again, he's getting just $16M shy of his original asking price of $60M guaranteed.

So, if you're the Redskins, you probably slap the exclusive franchise tag on him so that he can't negotiate with other teams, and hope you can negotiate a contract where he can get about $30M guaranteed this year, which would be a total of about $50M guaranteed money with what he got last year. The biggest thing would be to negotiate on the yearly base salary. In the end, the Redskins would wind up giving Cousins basically what he was asking for last year with a bit more per year, which is probably the best deal the Redskins could get. I have a feeling though, that yearly salary would probably go up. It would just wind up being a case where the Redskins were willing to give Cousins what he wanted all long (with somewhat of an increase), but they just wanted one more year out of him to make sure he was worth it.

If the 'skins decide to do the nonexclusive tag on Cousins, then that's a big gamble. The upside is that they could see, exactly, what other teams think of Cousins' worth, which would help to decide what type of contract the Redskins must offer Cousins if they want to keep him. If they don't match, they get two first rounders or whatever else is negotiated. At least the Redskins would not leave the table empty handed. The bad news is, if the plan all along is to keep Cousins no matter what, then if a team says they will give Cousins $26/yr with $65M guaranteed, then if the 'skins want to match that, you're looking at having to pay Cousins $85M in guaranteed money (with the tag cost from the previous year), in addition to what his base salary is going to cost. So, all in all, the Redskins will have wound up giving Cousins much more than what Cousins was asking for last year - and as far as the money side of it goes, the Redskins will have gambled and lost.

So, basically, I'm saying that the Redskins are tagging Cousins. If they tag him as exclusive, then that tells me they really want to keep him and negotiate a long term deal. Probably highly likely. If they tag him nonexclusive, they're probably hoping the right team will come by (maybe one that happens to have a franchise quarterback who is unhappy with the team) to offer the right deal that gives the Redskins what they need in order to be OK with moving on from Kirk Cousins. I see this is not very likely, but not out of the realm of possibility.

No tag whatsoever means they're either going to gamble big and hope that Cousins comes down to earth on what he's asking for, or that they already have plans to move on from him and draft a guy they hope has a higher ceiling. I don't see this happening at all. I think the Redskins want Kirk Cousins long term. I think they just want an opportunity to hold negotiations on a level playing field, and tagging him is about the only way to do it.

Re: Kirk Cousins 24/7 thread
 

It's an absolute lock that they'll tag him. I doubt anybody would sign him to a deal knowing they'd have to give up two 1sts. Stranger things have happened I guess, but I don't see it.

He'll either play under the tag this year as a Redskin, or he'll have a long term deal to be here for a while.

Re: Kirk Cousins 24/7 thread
 

[quote=metalskins;1162562]The more I think about this, the more complicated it is. The Redskins almost have to tag Cousins this year, if they want to keep him long term. Because, Cousins is going to take the best offer. He is not loyal to sticking with the Redskins if they can't offer him the best deal. The Redskins have already paid him $20M in guaranteed money. So, they tag him again, they're paying him $44M in guaranteed money for last year and this year. I think last year, Cousins was wanting something close to $20M/year with about $60M guaranteed. So, you tag him again, he's getting just $16M shy of his original asking price of $60M guaranteed.

So, if you're the Redskins, you probably slap the exclusive franchise tag on him so that he can't negotiate with other teams, and hope you can negotiate a contract where he can get about $30M guaranteed this year, which would be a total of about $50M guaranteed money with what he got last year. The biggest thing would be to negotiate on the yearly base salary. In the end, the Redskins would wind up giving Cousins basically what he was asking for last year with a bit more per year, which is probably the best deal the Redskins could get. I have a feeling though, that yearly salary would probably go up. It would just wind up being a case where the Redskins were willing to give Cousins what he wanted all long (with somewhat of an increase), but they just wanted one more year out of him to make sure he was worth it.

If the 'skins decide to do the nonexclusive tag on Cousins, then that's a big gamble. The upside is that they could see, exactly, what other teams think of Cousins' worth, which would help to decide what type of contract the Redskins must offer Cousins if they want to keep him. If they don't match, they get two first rounders or whatever else is negotiated. At least the Redskins would not leave the table empty handed. The bad news is, if the plan all along is to keep Cousins no matter what, then if a team says they will give Cousins $26/yr with $65M guaranteed, then if the 'skins want to match that, you're looking at having to pay Cousins $85M in guaranteed money (with the tag cost from the previous year), in addition to what his base salary is going to cost. So, all in all, the Redskins will have wound up giving Cousins much more than what Cousins was asking for last year - and as far as the money side of it goes, the Redskins will have gambled and lost.

So, basically, I'm saying that the Redskins are tagging Cousins. If they tag him as exclusive, then that tells me they really want to keep him and negotiate a long term deal. Probably highly likely. If they tag him nonexclusive, they're probably hoping the right team will come by (maybe one that happens to have a franchise quarterback who is unhappy with the team) to offer the right deal that gives the Redskins what they need in order to be OK with moving on from Kirk Cousins. I see this is not very likely, but not out of the realm of possibility.

No tag whatsoever means they're either going to gamble big and hope that Cousins comes down to earth on what he's asking for, or that they already have plans to move on from him and draft a guy they hope has a higher ceiling. I don't see this happening at all. I think the Redskins want Kirk Cousins long term. I think they just want an opportunity to hold negotiations on a level playing field, and tagging him is about the only way to do it.[/quote]

I don't know man, it's all a gamble. At this point, to me the franchise tags (either one) are the biggest gambles. They slapped the non-exclusive tag on him last year and he just signed it and took the 20 mil - betting on himself (WIN). I suspect he would do that again this year, knowing it's very unlikely the tag would be used a third time. Then he'll pack up his 45 mil and go get a giant contract elsewhere. Now is the time to lock him up - long term. Use the tag on someone else, PG, DS...

Re: Kirk Cousins 24/7 thread
 

[quote=metalskins;1139378]IF the FO is able to sign Cousins at $10 million per year, you had better hurry up and get a pen in Cousins' hands ASAP!!![/quote]

is it duress if duct tape and hookers are used?