Jump to content

Kirk Cousins - Should He Stay or Should He Go?


Ghostnote

Recommended Posts

5 minutes ago, The LBC said:

That scenario just isn't plausible though, as Washington has more cap space in 2018 than any QB-needy team except the Jets (and Browns, but I highly doubt that happens).  The only way you're going to put them off is structuring the contract in a way that salaries and bonuses/guarantees (with unfavorable payout schedules) in future years put them in an uncompromising bind.

The Skins were, ironically, helped out in this regard by the Niners trading for Jimmy G because a lot of teams saw the Niners being both the owner of a gargantuan amount of 2018 cap space (more than double what Washington has) AND an in to lure Cousins, and they shied away from clearing space figuring that they'd be up against a hand they flatly couldn't beat out.

 

Washington can match the deal, but if the one year deals are all that were offered then he is an UFA in 2019. If a team just offers the $34 mil the regular tag would be, WAS matches and is SOL if Kirk wants to move on.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Sugashane said:

Washington can match the deal, but if the one year deals are all that were offered then he is an UFA in 2019. If a team just offers the $34 mil the regular tag would be, WAS matches and is SOL if Kirk wants to move on.

You're missing the point.

Other than the Jets, there is no QB needy team that can afford to offer than kind of one year salary, so effective the contention you're making is moot.  But where it's also moot is that, ok, it's a one year contract... so what?  He'd play that one year contract, the Skins would then franchise tag him again in 2019.  One year contracts aren't going to do anything to gain leverage - and they destroy the leverage of the acquiring team to negotiate with the player (Cousins) and his agent because what incentive do they have to not want to hit the open market the following year as well if they're only on a 1-year deal?  At absolute best case scenario, a team using the strategy you're talking about would be committing to franchise tagging Cousins themselves in 2019 at 120% of whatever the final amount they ended up paying him in 2018 on the one-year deal.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Sugashane said:

Washington can match the deal, but if the one year deals are all that were offered then he is an UFA in 2019. If a team just offers the $34 mil the regular tag would be, WAS matches and is SOL if Kirk wants to move on.

They could just franchise tag him the next year and nothing would change. 

Idk why you keep bringing up one year contracts. Cousins isn’t going to sign one under any circumstances. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, Forge said:

The Vikings as well, though the two teams are comparable. Given all three of the Vikings quarterbacks are free agents, they have to at least be mentioned, though I would seriously doubt that they go there. Could be super interesting if they did though. 

True, but I'd kind of ruled out the Vikings because they have certain other non-QB free agents I'm pretty sure they plan (and have been planning) to extend that are going to command a pretty penny; Barr, Floyd, Kendricks, and Diggs are all 2019 free agents - it's a safe bet they've been budgeting to get extensions done on 2-3 of them this offseason.

Edit: Also, Thielen's contract is fresh (extended just last year), but he's outperformed it already and it's only guaranteed through next year, so he's another one that I'd be utterly gobsmacked if his agent wasn't pushing next year for him to get more money (he's only earning sub-$5m AAV over the term of the latest extension).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, AZ_Eaglesfan said:

They could just franchise tag him the next year and nothing would change. 

Idk why you keep bringing up one year contracts. Cousins isn’t going to sign one under any circumstances. 

 

So you say they should utilize the transition tag, then say he won't sign it since it is a one year deal. Makes sense...

20% yearly raises sound like a hell of a plan if they want to keep doing the transition tag. 

 

He signs his tender or sits out. Granted that would be the biggest FU to WAS he could do, but he's not going to miss out on $28 mil minimum. They do it again and it goes to min if $33.6 mil from the 20% boost. Not to mention looking beyond pathetic and desperate. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Option 1. Let him go, if he comes back it was meant to be. If not he's a greedy S.O.B (At least that's what the redskins will say) and the redskins can look forward to Colt McCoy at QB. 

Option 2. Tag him you do not let a top 12ish QB hit the FA market and get nothing in return. Redskins can easily afford either tag and the transition tag might be more beneficial since Cousins might be tempted to sign a deal with *Insert team with QB issues here* If for some reason the Redskins don't tag Cousins.....They're idiots.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Superman(DH23) said:

Not true he can be tagged in perpetuity it just costs alot to do so

 

At least until the NFLPA steps in. I would expect them to do so as they did for Walter Jones when they changed it so the third time a non-QB was franchised it would be at the QB tender. At minimum I would expect them to make the transition tag only usable once, so there would be the 44% increase to force the issue along (assuming that it is not limited).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...