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

[eagles101]

8 minutes ago, CWood21 said:

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.

Which they would have to give him since he can just say hes going to sit and on the bench and get paid for it. 

[MKnight82]

5 minutes ago, CWood21 said:

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

?

I guess I'm curious how the logistics would work if we traded Cousins tomorrow.  For instance, the Alex Smith deal isn't even official until March 14 when the league year begins. 

The deadline to tag a player is March 6.  

The Franchise Tag seems like a very unappealing vehicle to trade him with as it carries the $35 1-year price tag.  Also, there's some weird rules for 3rd time tags where it must be exclusive tag, and I'm not sure anyone else can even negotiate a LTD with him on the FT.  

So then we're probably talking Transition Tag, which would be applied March 6, but no trade can be finalized until March 14. 

Making it even weirder is negotiating a long term deal before that date.  This just happened with Alex Smith, the Chiefs essentially negotiated the LTD for the Redskins (because we aren't allowed to negotiate with him), and presumably Smith will sign the deal on March 14.  This is all good because all parties are cool with it, since its just a handshake deal for now.  

Now with Cousins, if we were to trade him before the March 14 date: A) we'd have to designate him with some kind of tag, otherwise he's a FA on March 14, so enter the Transition Tag.  And then B) Cousins would have to agree to work out a long term deal details for the new team through Washington.  This to me is where it falls apart.  Cousins has shown no interest in helping Washington help facilitate a trade, and he knows he's be a FA on March 14.  

Ok, then there's the "threat" of the tag Cousins is supposed to be worried about.  The Transition Tag isn't a threat to him because under that tag he can still go out and talk to other teams and sign any deal he wants.  He knows Washington can't match any offer, so the Transition Tag isn't a threat.  The only threat to him would be the Franchise Tag, which Washington can't really afford if it wants to sign any free agents (and Cousins can threaten to sign it immediately, which he did Day 1 of last year, which would totally screw Washington because then he couldn't be traded).  So there's no real threat here to Cousins.  

So I don't see why Cousins would be motivated at all to help Washington facilitate a trade.  To me, the ONLY value I can see, is if we Transition Tag him and a team wants to trade for the rights to match any other teams offer.  That is literally the only thing of value I can see a team wanting.  

 

 

[Woz]

12 hours ago, CWood21 said:

Except the Redskins are creating their own leverage by essentially treating Cousins as a FA.  You tag him and let Cousins work out a contract with a team (let's say the Broncos).  Once a deal has been worked out between he and the Broncos, the Redskins negotiate with the Broncos on a trade.

Article 10, Section 2, paragraph (b) from the CBA (I'm feeling like a broken record with regards to this clause): https://nfllabor.files.wordpress.com/2010/01/collective-bargaining-agreement-2011-2020.pdf

Quote

Any Club that designates a player as a Franchise Player for the third time shall, on the date the third such designation is made, be deemed to have tendered the player a one-year NFL Player Contract for the greater of: (A) the average of the five largest Prior Year Salaries for players at the position (within the categories set forth in Section 7(a) below) with the highest such average; (B) 120% of the average of the five largest Prior Year Salaries for players at the position (within the categories set forth in Section 7(a) below) at which the player participated in the most plays during the prior League Year; or (C) 144% of his Prior Year Salary. (By way of example, a kicker designated as a Franchise Player for the third time in the 2014 League Year would have a Required Tender equal to the greater of: (i) the average of the five largest 2013 Salaries for quarterbacks; (ii) 120% of the average of the five largest 2013 Salaries for kickers; or (iii) 144% of the player’s own 2013 Salary.) If the Club designates the player as a Franchise Player for the third time, the designating Club shall be the only Club with which the player may negotiate or sign a Player Contract. In lieu of designating such a player as a Franchise Player for the third time, any Club may designate such player as a Transition Player pursuant to Section 3 below.

So, Cousins is legally barred from negotiating with the Broncos on any contract while under the franchise tag. Yes, in theory, the Redskins could waive that restriction, but ...

What does "sign a Player Contract" mean? Does that mean he can only sign the tender with the designating team (in essence, an exclusive franchise tender offer)? If so, why did they separate this paragraph from the exclusive franchise tender (Article 10, Section 2, paragraph (a), subparagraph (ii))? The negotiators felt it was important to specify different compensation schedules than the normal tags in paragraph (a). Is that the only difference?

Or, does this mean that the only team that can sign Cousins to any deal in the 2018 League Year is with the designating club (i.e. the Redskins)? If that is the case, then a tag and trade wouldn't work since only the Redskins could sign Cousins to a long term deal. In this case, if the Redskins trade him, his new team would only have the $35M/one year contract and Cousins would be an unrestricted free agent in 2019. Even a bag of potato chips isn't worth that. Some were asking why Cousins would sign the tender; if this is correct, then getting a guaranteed $35M and guaranteed unrestricted free agency in 2019 might be worth it. If the Redskins decide to trade Cousins to the Browns in a fit of pique because he spiked their cap (per Spotrac right now, even with Alex Smith, they could absorb Cousins' tender but they would have zero maneuvering room for any other free agents), he would be free to choose his team the following year.

Should the Redskins be stupid enough to risk this, I could see this being brought in front of the Special Master for clarification purposes. That takes time and other teams might be leery of risking giving up anything for Cousins if it is going to wreck their cap for a season and have little chance of keeping him beyond that. At that point, the Redskins might end up negotiating a legitimate long term contract for Cousins in order to create some space on the cap plus give teams some reassurance of keeping Cousins beyond the 2018 season. I almost root for this scenario if only to see the Morons actually give Cousins a legitimate long term deal solely to move him out of DC. It would be the first time since he's been here that they would actually value him appropriately.

[Woz]

12 hours ago, CWood21 said:

As I've said, they've got enough cap space to swallow his franchise tag.  It just hampers their maneuverability.  And I personally believe that 3 weeks is more than enough time to hammer out an amicable deal.  Of course Cousins is going to be pissed, he got franchised again.  That doesn't means that a deal can't be made.  The reason a deal will be made is because the Redskins aren't paying Alex Smith and Kirk Cousins a combined $50M.  That leverage wasn't there in previous years.

They've had two plus years to hammer out an amicable deal. Why do you believe that they could find one in a pressure-filled three weeks?

[squire12]

4 minutes ago, Woz said:

Article 10, Section 2, paragraph (b) from the CBA (I'm feeling like a broken record with regards to this clause): https://nfllabor.files.wordpress.com/2010/01/collective-bargaining-agreement-2011-2020.pdf

So, Cousins is legally barred from negotiating with the Broncos on any contract while under the franchise tag. Yes, in theory, the Redskins could waive that restriction, but ...

What does "sign a Player Contract" mean? Does that mean he can only sign the tender with the designating team (in essence, an exclusive franchise tender offer)? If so, why did they separate this paragraph from the exclusive franchise tender (Article 10, Section 2, paragraph (a), subparagraph (ii))? The negotiators felt it was important to specify different compensation schedules than the normal tags in paragraph (a). Is that the only difference?

Or, does this mean that the only team that can sign Cousins to any deal in the 2018 League Year is with the designating club (i.e. the Redskins)? If that is the case, then a tag and trade wouldn't work since only the Redskins could sign Cousins to a long term deal. In this case, if the Redskins trade him, his new team would only have the $35M/one year contract and Cousins would be an unrestricted free agent in 2019. Even a bag of potato chips isn't worth that. Some were asking why Cousins would sign the tender; if this is correct, then getting a guaranteed $35M and guaranteed unrestricted free agency in 2019 might be worth it. If the Redskins decide to trade Cousins to the Browns in a fit of pique because he spiked their cap (per Spotrac right now, even with Alex Smith, they could absorb Cousins' tender but they would have zero maneuvering room for any other free agents), he would be free to choose his team the following year.

Should the Redskins be stupid enough to risk this, I could see this being brought in front of the Special Master for clarification purposes. That takes time and other teams might be leery of risking giving up anything for Cousins if it is going to wreck their cap for a season and have little chance of keeping him beyond that. At that point, the Redskins might end up negotiating a legitimate long term contract for Cousins in order to create some space on the cap plus give teams some reassurance of keeping Cousins beyond the 2018 season. I almost root for this scenario if only to see the Morons actually give Cousins a legitimate long term deal solely to move him out of DC. It would be the first time since he's been here that they would actually value him appropriately.

That is interesting.   IF WAS is the only team that could negotiate a long term contract and then would be able to trade him, WAS would eat the SB as dead cap.  That negatively affects their cap situation and other teams would want some reassurance that the contract is structured in a way that leaves them an out at some point.  

[squire12]

So if WAS applies the tag on the first day they can on Cousins, WAS can go to other teams and try to negotiate a deal for compensation. 

Let’s say   DEN, CLE, JAX and NYJ are all interested.  Let’s say for this process, Cousins only wants to play with JAX, as they have the best team and best chance to win now.

Let’s rank the compensation that WAS can get from these teams

CLE –

DEN-

JAX-

NYJ-

So if Cousins were to sign the tag contract, on March 13^th, the day before FA starts and WAS gives him 24 hours to work out a deal with CLE.  Cousins says I will not sign a long term deal with CLE, that falls through and WAS then says work with DEN on a LTD, give Cousins 24 hours to do so.  Cousins says that he will not sign a long term deal with DEN, and that deal falls through. 

Now the NYJ are already moved onto other options and pull their offer for a package for Cousins.

Now WAS allows Cousins to work with JAX on a long term deal.  What is to stop Cousins from saying you are giving up too much and your team is now less competitive and I won’t do a long term deal.   Go back to WAS and reduce your offer.  I will only sign a deal with JAX, so Cousins and JAX hold all the leverage in this situation. 

WAS is now 3 days into FA and are unable to add talent and are stuck with 2 choices

A.      Take whatever they can get in compensation from JAX which could be a day 3 pick or the previously Cwood mentioned bag of potato chips

B.     Keep Cousins on the tag and effectively waste a year of adding talent in FA (of have to cut other players to clear cap space)

[Woz]

Just now, squire12 said:

That is interesting.   IF WAS is the only team that could negotiate a long term contract and then would be able to trade him, WAS would eat the SB as dead cap.  That negatively affects their cap situation and other teams would want some reassurance that the contract is structured in a way that leaves them an out at some point.  

If it came down to it, I suspect the Redskins would negotiate a sizable roster bonus (say it's due on July 20th) that would then amortize across the remaining contract's life span. They would offer no signing bonus, but that fully guaranteed roster bonus in 2018 would take its place. This way, Cousins gets the safety of knowing that he has guaranteed monies throughout the contract, while the Redskins have nothing remaining on their cap.

[squire12]

17 minutes ago, Woz said:

If it came down to it, I suspect the Redskins would negotiate a sizable roster bonus (say it's due on July 20th) that would then amortize across the remaining contract's life span. They would offer no signing bonus, but that fully guaranteed roster bonus in 2018 would take its place. This way, Cousins gets the safety of knowing that he has guaranteed monies throughout the contract, while the Redskins have nothing remaining on their cap.

Is the roster bonus prorated as a cap hits across the length of the contract?  i thought it was just the SB that was prorated.

[MKnight82]

3 minutes ago, squire12 said:

Is the roster bonus prorated as a cap hits across the length of the contract?  i thought it was just the SB that was prorated.

Ya same here.

[showtime]

Like I'm sure many have said, this is a bad move from the Redskins because their team just got worse and they already aren't a playoff team.  I love this for the Chiefs.  Patrick Mahomes is going to really good and it's great that he's the starter next season.  He just had an entire season and will have this off-season to be ready.  I love Andy Reid with him as well.

 

[Woz]

13 hours ago, CWood21 said:

 If they strike a deal with a FA, they can rescind the franchise tag and collect their compensatory pick in 2019

If I recall from the Josh Norman situation a couple of years ago, if they have him tagged when the 2018 league year begins and then rescind the tag, the compensatory pick goes poof.

[Ketchup]

7 minutes ago, Woz said:

If I recall from the Josh Norman situation a couple of years ago, if they have him tagged when the 2018 league year begins and then rescind the tag, the compensatory pick goes poof.

I believe that’s the case as well because they are essentially releasing him by rescinding the tag. 

[Woz]

1 hour ago, squire12 said:

Is the roster bonus prorated as a cap hits across the length of the contract?  i thought it was just the SB that was prorated.

I vaguely recall that some team (I want to say Dallas with Tony Romo) did that with a roster bonus a few years back.

An alternate way would be to create N roster bonuses of M amount that will fully guarantee if the first roster bonus is activated. It would functionally be the same thing.

[One Punch Man]

I was having a conversation about Kirk Cousins & Alex Smith with a friend and led to one question: just how good is Kirk?

We both started off believing he was at least top 10.. but then we started digging. If age wasn’t a factor, because he would definitely be in the convo for top 10 due to top QBs retiring, but..

Big Ben, Healthy Luck, Wilson, Brady, Brees, Rivers, Matt Ryan, Cam, A-Rod, Stafford

Guys that around around his age or older I’d rather have for a game, for a season. Eliminate Ben, Brady, Brees, Rivers, maybe Ryan and Cam for those on the fence.. left with 4 guys to build a team around. Factor in young guys I’d rather build around/believe have more potential than Cousins?

Watson, Wentz, Jimmy G, maybe Goff, Dak, Mariota and Winston, probably not Carr but there’s an argument.

You’re left with a top 12-16 QB that’s going to be paid like he’s the best. I can justify the Skins not paying Cousins, but to pay Smith THAT much?

Thats still unacceptable. Chiefs win big time.

[Forge]

5 hours ago, Woz said:

If it came down to it, I suspect the Redskins would negotiate a sizable roster bonus (say it's due on July 20th) that would then amortize across the remaining contract's life span. They would offer no signing bonus, but that fully guaranteed roster bonus in 2018 would take its place. This way, Cousins gets the safety of knowing that he has guaranteed monies throughout the contract, while the Redskins have nothing remaining on their cap.

I don't think that you can amortize a roster bonus.