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

[pwny]

Just now, CWood21 said:

$30M in a dead season is NOTHING comparable.

Cap roll over

[CWood21]

1 minute ago, Packerraymond said:

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.

And I'm not disagreeing with that.  The only time that Washington is motivated to move Cousins if he signs that franchise tag.  Cousins has no motivation to sign that tag if he truly wants to be an UFA.  IF Washington wants to use that cap space, they'll be forced to rescind it.

[Packerraymond]

Just now, CWood21 said:

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.

Again, the literal only way he signs the tag is if Washington trades him to his top choice and they offer him the contract he is looking for.

He has no reason to sign a tag even if Was agrees to a deal, if it's not that scenario. Because he can say no, they'll have to rescind and then he can sign with his choice.

[CWood21]

Just now, iPwn said:

Cap roll over

You can only roll over a finite amount of cap space ever year.  I believe teams have to spend 95% of their cap or something along those lines.

[Jakuvious]

3 minutes ago, CWood21 said:

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.

So, your suggestion, in this thread, is that the Redskins should place a franchise tag that they'll just wind up rescinding, that Cousins can threaten to sign despite having no intention of signing it, so that the Redskins can talk about trading a player they're never going to be able to trade?

Basically, your suggestion is that they should both give each other an extra middle finger in passing on his way out.

[CWood21]

Just now, Packerraymond said:

Again, the literal only way he signs the tag is if Washington trades him to his top choice and they offer him the contract he is looking for.

He has no reason to sign a tag even if Was agrees to a deal, if it's not that scenario. Because he can say no, they'll have to rescind and then he can sign with his choice.

The only reason he has to sign the franchise tag is if they going into the FA period and the Redskins are active in FA talks.  If rumors get out that the Redskins want to sign X or Y, and Cousins immediately signs his tender than Washington is screwed.  But Cousins forfeits his right to be an UFA at that point, because the Redskins can't rescind the franchise tag at that point.

[Packerraymond]

Just now, CWood21 said:

The only reason he has to sign the franchise tag is if they going into the FA period and the Redskins are active in FA talks.  If rumors get out that the Redskins want to sign X or Y, and Cousins immediately signs his tender than Washington is screwed.  But Cousins forfeits his right to be an UFA at that point, because the Redskins can't rescind the franchise tag at that point.

Exactly, so why would he sign? He knows he has to be rescinded for Washington to sign that player. No reason to force their hand, cause he screws himself doing so. Now Washington is picking his next team in that scenario.

[CWood21]

1 minute ago, Jakuvious said:

So, your suggestion, in this thread, is that the Redskins should place a franchise tag that they'll just wind up rescinding, that Cousins can threaten to sign despite having no intention of signing it, so that the Redskins can talk about trading a player they're never going to be able to trade?

Basically, your suggestion is that they should both give each other an extra middle finger in passing on his way out.

Absolutely.  You create leverage simply by creating the illusion of the threat.  If teams don't believe that the Redskins are going to franchise tag, why would they even talk to the Redskins?  Call it a security blanket if you will.  Worst case scenario for Kirk Cousins, the Redskins strike out in FA and don't rescind the franchise tag.  Worst case for the Redskins, they want to sign a FA but Kirk Cousins has signed his franchise tender.  It's one giant game of chicken.  Who is going to blink first?

[CWood21]

Just now, Packerraymond said:

Exactly, so why would he sign? He knows he has to be rescinded for Washington to sign that player. No reason to force their hand, cause he screws himself doing so. Now Washington is picking his next team in that scenario.

I think at this point we're arguing the same thing.  There's no reason for Cousins to sign that franchise tag unless he's trying to give the middle finger to the Redskins.  None.  He wants UFA as much as anyone, so he stands to gain little by signing the franchise tag.

[Packerraymond]

Just now, CWood21 said:

I think at this point we're arguing the same thing.  There's no reason for Cousins to sign that franchise tag unless he's trying to give the middle finger to the Redskins.  None.  He wants UFA as much as anyone, so he stands to gain little by signing the franchise tag.

So the only thing that really comes from franchising Cousins is that all 31 teams get another go at laughing at the Redskins. I'm OK with that I guess.

[pwny]

Just now, CWood21 said:

You can only roll over a finite amount of cap space ever year.  I believe teams have to spend 95% of their cap or something along those lines.

It’s 89% cumulative over four years; 2017-2020. They could have rolled all of that money over.

[CWood21]

Just now, iPwn said:

It’s 89% cumulative over four years; 2017-2020. They could have rolled all of that money over.

I thought that was for the first few years, I thought the last few years had to be closer to 95%.  Do I have it backwards?

[CWood21]

2 minutes ago, Packerraymond said:

So the only thing that really comes from franchising Cousins is that all 31 teams get another go at laughing at the Redskins. I'm OK with that I guess.

I'm not sure how trying to extract value is going to make the Redskins being the laughing stock, but sure.

[pwny]

4 minutes ago, CWood21 said:

Absolutely.  You create leverage simply by creating the illusion of the threat.  If teams don't believe that the Redskins are going to franchise tag, why would they even talk to the Redskins?  Call it a security blanket if you will.  Worst case scenario for Kirk Cousins, the Redskins strike out in FA and don't rescind the franchise tag.  Worst case for the Redskins, they want to sign a FA but Kirk Cousins has signed his franchise tender.  It's one giant game of chicken.  Who is going to blink first?

If this is such a great play, why isn’t Pittsburgh, who doesn’t even play in Free Agency, doing this with Bell? Why didn’t the Lions do it with Suh? Why doesn’t every team do it with every big Free Agent?

[Packerraymond]

Just now, CWood21 said:

I'm not sure how trying to extract value is going to make the Redskins being the laughing stock, but sure.

Because it's obviously going to fail.