Alex Smith to be traded to Washington for 3rd round pick and CB Kendall Fuller; agrees to extension

[squire12]

1 minute ago, CWood21 said:

His contract is not guaranteed until he signs.  It's a placeholder.  Nothing more.  The Redskins can still negotiate contracts, and if they strike a deal with a FA they want then they can simply rescind that franchise tag.

So Cousins not signing the tag forces WAS to rescind the tag.  Cousins gets what he wants and is a FA.  Cousins has the leverage in the process, WAS have next to no leverage and the most to lose by trying to get a better draft pick a year sooner.

[CWood21]

1 minute ago, iPwn said:

Incorrect

It's NON-GUARANTEED until he signs that contract.  Which means they can rescind it whenever they please.  That means they can't keep him on an unsigned franchise tag AND sign FA.  If they strike a deal with a FA, they simply rescind the tag.  IF they don't strike a deal with a FA, they keep Cousins on the unsigned franchise tag.

[pwny]

Just now, CWood21 said:

I very much doubt that that a team is going to scoff at giving up a 2nd round pick in order to secure a franchise QB.  Is a 2nd round pick and a $25M/year contract really that much to pay, when your alternative is what, Case Keenum?

If they’re willing to give up 50 beans to Washington, that means that if they don’t have to give up 50 to Washington, they would have 50 more beans they would be willing to give to Cousins directly.

[CWood21]

2 minutes ago, Packerraymond said:

That's what I've said since my first post. What happens to Cousins when they rescind that tag? So why is he going to ever sign it?

The only motivation that Cousins has to sign the tag is to force the Redskins to trade him.  He isn't going to sign it, nor should he.  That wasn't the original argument.

[pwny]

Just now, CWood21 said:

It's NON-GUARANTEED until he signs that contract.  Which means they can rescind it whenever they please.  That means they can't keep him on an unsigned franchise tag AND sign FA.  If they strike a deal with a FA, they simply rescind the tag.  IF they don't strike a deal with a FA, they keep Cousins on the unsigned franchise tag.

And you think that Washington has any viable way to make it through Free Agency without signing a big target player?

[CWood21]

1 minute ago, squire12 said:

So Cousins not signing the tag forces WAS to rescind the tag.  Cousins gets what he wants and is a FA.  Cousins has the leverage in the process, WAS have next to no leverage and the most to lose by trying to get a better draft pick a year sooner.

No.  The only way that Washington is FORCED to rescind the franchise tag is if they want to sign a FA.  IF the Redskins strike out or decide that getting a strong return on Kirk Cousins is more important than FA, than the Redskins have no motivation to rescind the franchise tag.  The only way that motivation is applied is if Kirk Cousins signs the franchise tag.

[CWood21]

Just now, iPwn said:

And you think that Washington has any viable way to make it through Free Agency without signing a big target player?

I'm not exactly sure what you're asking here.  I'm not saying they can sign a big named FA AND keep the franchise tag on Cousins.  It's one or the other.

[Packerraymond]

Just now, CWood21 said:

The only motivation that Cousins has to sign the tag is to force the Redskins to trade him.  He isn't going to sign it, nor should he.  That wasn't the original argument.

Well the determining factor of the original argument is if the Skins rescind a tag, do they get a comp pick?

Did the Panthers get one for Josh Norman?

[Jakuvious]

1 minute ago, CWood21 said:

The only motivation that Cousins has to sign the tag is to force the Redskins to trade him.  He isn't going to sign it, nor should he.  That wasn't the original argument.

Okay, now you're just all over the place. Your whole argument is that the Redskins should franchise tag him so that they can trade him and get something back. Several people have pointed out that Cousins has no reason to sign the tag, making it so that the Redskins CAN'T trade him. And now you yourself are saying he won't sign it? You realize you're saying Washington can't trade him then, right?

[CWood21]

2 minutes ago, iPwn said:

If they’re willing to give up 50 beans to Washington, that means that if they don’t have to give up 50 to Washington, they would have 50 more beans they would be willing to give to Cousins directly.

And that would go back to my argument that unless the Redskins are offering for some ridiculous return for Cousins, this scenario won't happen.

[CWood21]

Just now, Packerraymond said:

Well the determining factor of the original argument is if the Skins rescind a tag, do they get a comp pick?

Did the Panthers get one for Josh Norman?

That was the reasoning for the Panthers rescinding their tag on Norman was so that they could receive a compensatory pick for him.  We will find out this year.

[pwny]

Just now, CWood21 said:

And that would go back to my argument that unless the Redskins are offering for some ridiculous return for Cousins, this scenario won't happen.

The Browns ate like $30M in cap space for a 3rd round pick. It won’t take much for the trade to have a tangible impact on Cousins’ contract.

[Packerraymond]

Just now, CWood21 said:

That was the reasoning for the Panthers rescinding their tag on Norman was so that they could receive a compensatory pick for him.  We will find out this year.

So I guess there is no reason to not tag him for S & G's but unless Cousins is a super nice guy that wants to waive his rights to FA, it will all be a waste of time. Let's be real Washington is going to acquire players at some point this off-season.

[CWood21]

Just now, Jakuvious said:

Okay, now you're just all over the place. Your whole argument is that the Redskins should franchise tag him so that they can trade him and get something back. Several people have pointed out that Cousins has no reason to sign the tag, making it so that the Redskins CAN'T trade him. And now you yourself are saying he won't sign it? You realize you're saying Washington can't trade him then, right?

I'm really not.  It's a simple flow chart.  The first question is should the Redskins franchise tag him?  There really isn't a reason not to.  If you don't, you let a pretty good player walk for minimal compensation.  You do, you have just given him $35M.  That next bubble is should Kirk Cousins sign the franchise tag?  Keep going on with it.  Here's how I see it going down.  The Redskins will franchise tag him, but Cousins won't threaten to sign until FA is getting closer to opening.  Whether or not he actually signs that tender depends on whether or not the Redskins can get a deal done.

[CWood21]

1 minute ago, iPwn said:

The Browns ate like $30M in cap space for a 3rd round pick. It won’t take much for the trade to have a tangible impact on Cousins’ contract.

$30M in a dead season is NOTHING comparable.