Quote:
Originally Posted by metalskins
Why does it have to be based on any historical evidence? Facing the concept of tagging a player three times in a row is uncharted waters in itself, yet, do you doubt that will happen? I don't doubt it at all. I think it is very much on the table - but with caveats, obviously. I seriously doubt Kirk Cousins is straight up tagged with no plans for any negotiations with other teams. Tagging him with the transition tag gives him less money and no compensation for the 'skins if they choose not to match any deal. Tagging him the exclusive, but then granting him the opportunity to negotiate with other teams gives the 'skins an opportunity to get something from the deal if Cousins finds a team and a offer he likes and the 'skins aren't willing to match. And at the very least/most, Cousins has security, because either way, he knows he's getting PAID in 2018. The 'skins would love to get some high round picks for losing Cousins. Picks in which they could use to move up and grab one of the high round QB draftees, and still have money to sign a free agent QB with playoff experience. This all ONLY works if the Redskins already have a trade partner, or two (Denver or NY Jets) agreeing to dance. And if nobody bites and the offer is accepted, well, then the 'skins can use that to say that nobody was interested in signing Kirk Cousins, so here's the deal. If Cousins refuses the deal, then he plays at $34M.
All of this goes away if and when the Redskins offer Kirk Cousins a LTD after the Super Bowl. But what historical evidence do you have that would make us believe Cousins accepts that deal?
|
You lost me on your first sentence.
You’re saying something is highly likely to happen when there’s no history of it occurring.
What am I missing here.
Could it happen? Sure I guess. Highly likely though? Doubt it.