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

[CWood21]

41 minutes ago, MKnight82 said:

No one is trading the Redskins anything for Kirk Cousins.  

Why wouldn't a team do so in order to sign Kirk Cousins?

[MKnight82]

Just now, CWood21 said:

Why wouldn't a team do so in order to sign Kirk Cousins?

Because if they are a team that Kirk is willing to sign a long term deal with they can do so for free in a month.

If they're a team Kirk won't sign a long term deal with, why trade for him?

[CWood21]

4 minutes ago, MKnight82 said:

Because if they are a team that Kirk is willing to sign a long term deal with they can do so for free in a month.

If they're a team Kirk won't sign a long term deal with, why trade for him?

So you're telling me that a team wouldn't trade for Kirk Cousins knowing they have exclusive negotiating rights?  I disagree vehemently.

[MKnight82]

Just now, CWood21 said:

So you're telling me that a team wouldn't trade for Kirk Cousins knowing they have exclusive negotiating rights?  I disagree vehemently.

Exclusive negotiating rights for a month?  

Cousins wants to hit FA, he's been tagged two years in a row.  I don't think he would give any team that trades for him a long term deal before the deadline.  He doesn't care about playing on the tag either, and the team's that are competitive can't afford to pay him $35 mil this year.  The only two teams that probably wouldn't care about playing Cousins at that price are the Jets and the Browns, and I don't think he's willing to sign a LTD with either.  

[MKnight82]

http://www.espn.com/blog/nflnation/post/_/id/268259/will-redskins-trade-kirk-cousins-dont-hold-your-breath 

John Keim: It's not going to happen -- or is a big long shot -- for a variety of reasons, as others have also pointed out. I'll get to the tag situations in a minute, but the one thing I was told is that Kirk Cousins won't be doing any favors for the Redskins. That doesn't mean there's bitterness over the situation -- he wasn't going to sign here long term regardless, so it's not as if he somehow now feels scorned. He wanted unrestricted free agency, and he's about to get it. But he has no reason to help them out; in doing so he'd actually hurt his new team.

So for those wondering if they would work out a long-term deal and then trade him, you can forget it. In that scenario, his new team would have to surrender draft picks -- and that means the team Cousins would be joining would have less ability to add talent. Makes no sense. I've heard all along that he doesn't want to cripple whatever team he joins in terms of cap flexibility or the ability to build around him. Yes, he'll still get a lot of money and he's not going to take a ton less.

Now, for the tag portion. If the Redskins used the franchise tag -- and because it's a third tag it must be exclusive, meaning other teams can't talk to him -- it would cost them $34.5 million the minute he signs the contract. That means once the new league year begins, he'd be on their salary cap. And that means they'd be unable to make certain moves until moving him. What happens if they can't trade him? He's on their cap. Obviously, the same is true if there's a transition tag at $28 million.

[CWood21]

2 minutes ago, MKnight82 said:

Exclusive negotiating rights for a month?  

Cousins wants to hit FA, he's been tagged two years in a row.  I don't think he would give any team that trades for him a long term deal before the deadline.  He doesn't care about playing on the tag either, and the team's that are competitive can't afford to pay him $35 mil this year.  The only two teams that probably wouldn't care about playing Cousins at that price are the Jets and the Browns, and I don't think he's willing to sign a LTD with either.  

You're telling me that Kirk Cousins is going to pass up on a long-term deal from a team he wants to go to just to officially be an UFA?

[MKnight82]

Just now, CWood21 said:

You're telling me that Kirk Cousins is going to pass up on a long-term deal from a team he wants to go to just to officially be an UFA?

I'm telling you he could just sign with them as a free agent.  Lets say they have to give up a 2nd round pick for him (it would have to be more compensation than the 3rd round comp pick we're going to get for him or there's no point in us doing a deal), that's a 2nd round WR that team could add, or somewhere else.  Why hurt his new team?  He's shown no interest in helping the Redskins facilitate a trade.  

[CWood21]

Just now, MKnight82 said:

I'm telling you he could just sign with them as a free agent.  Lets say they have to give up a 2nd round pick for him (it would have to be more compensation than the 3rd round comp pick we're going to get for him or there's no point in us doing a deal), that's a 2nd round WR that team could add, or somewhere else.  Why hurt his new team?  He's shown no interest in helping the Redskins facilitate a trade.  

Honestly, I'd make the argument that if they received a 4th round pick this year, it'd be at worst breaking even from what they'd get as a compensatory pick in 2019.  So if they got something like a 3rd round pick and a conditional pick in 2019, that's a HUGE win for the Redskins.  That being said, given your example that 2nd round pick is replenishable.

[MKnight82]

1 minute ago, CWood21 said:

Honestly, I'd make the argument that if they received a 4th round pick this year, it'd be at worst breaking even from what they'd get as a compensatory pick in 2019.  So if they got something like a 3rd round pick and a conditional pick in 2019, that's a HUGE win for the Redskins.  That being said, given your example that 2nd round pick is replenishable.

We'll see.  It would be a pretty unprecedented trade for the NFL.  The only example I can think of is from the NBA, when the Miami Heat's big 3 were formed Lebron and and Bosh actually ended up being traded for some chump change even though they were intending to sign with Miami (but this was done for salary cap reasons in the NBA that differ from the NFL).  

[CWood21]

Just now, MKnight82 said:

We'll see.  It would be a pretty unprecedented trade for the NFL.  The only example I can think of is from the NBA, when the Miami Heat's big 3 were formed Lebron and and Bosh actually ended up being traded for some chump change even though they were intending to sign with Miami (but this was done for salary cap reasons in the NBA that differ from the NFL).  

Corey Williams.  The Packers tagged and traded him with no intention of re-signing him several years ago.

[MKnight82]

12 minutes ago, CWood21 said:

Corey Williams.  The Packers tagged and traded him with no intention of re-signing him several years ago.

Right but you’re saying the redskins should trade him pre-tag.

[CWood21]

3 minutes ago, MKnight82 said:

Right but you’re saying the redskins should trade him pre-tag.

No.  You're negotiating with the looming threat of the tag over his head.

[eagles101]

45 minutes ago, CWood21 said:

Because if he signs the tag, he forfeits any possibility of being an UFA.  If he signs that tag, the Redskins can't rescind the franchise tag.

EDIT: The comparison between Brock Osweiler and Kirk Cousins is really bad.  Nothing at all alike.

If he signs it, it doesnt matter that hes a free agent. He would be able to act like a free agent. He could go to teams find his best deal and demand a trade there. The redskins would have to do it because they would be in a horrible spot to have his and smiths contract going into free agency. Or he could just not play and make however much that would be and have a free year.

 

The oswieler is the same in that they have a highly overpriced qb that they have to trade just to free up cap space. Its actually worse for the skins since they Absolutely would have to get rid of kirk.

[CWood21]

6 minutes ago, eagles101 said:

If he signs it, it doesnt matter that hes a free agent. He would be able to act like a free agent. He could go to teams find his best deal and demand a trade there. The redskins would have to do it because they would be in a horrible spot to have his and smiths contract going into free agency. Or he could just not play and make however much that would be and have a free year.

 

The oswieler is the same in that they have a highly overpriced qb that they have to trade just to free up cap space. Its actually worse for the skins since they Absolutely would have to get rid of kirk.

That's not how it works.  He's an exclusive franchise tag when he's tagged for the 3rd time, so he's not free to talk to other teams unless the Redskins give permission to do so.

[Woz]

12 hours ago, CWood21 said:

The risk isn't there.  I made my point in the response to @OleXmad that the Redskins have 3 FULL weeks to negotiate a trade for Kirk Cousins before FA opens from the time that the franchise tag period opens to when FA officially opens.  That's a lifetime.

Not when the waters have been poisoned so badly over the past couple of years.