Jump to content
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

***OFFICIAL*** Washington Football Team Thread


dgreen

Recommended Posts

How does the tag and negotiating with other teams work?

If the Redskins tag Cousins, can he sign it and negotiate with other teams? Or can he only go out and negotiate with other teams as long as he doesn't sign? Then when he gets an offer from someone, the two teams work a trade? If that's the case, then I'd tag him in a second because he never counts toward the cap unless he signs. And I don't see him signing in this situation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, dgreen said:

I think the $71M number bothers people. The more knowledgeable fans are correctly saying we need to wait and see how the "guaranteed" money is laid out. It's possible he never sees a good chunk of the supposedly "guaranteed" money. Also, have to wait and see how the cap hits are each year. I think if it's a relatively low cap hit the first couple years and allows them to build other areas, fans should be ok with the contract.

Not only that but this happens EVERY offseason with QB's when it comes time to be paid. 

Everyone threw their hands up in disgust when Dalton got paid. And Luck. And Flacco. And Bradford. And Stafford. Etc, etc. When every QB signing in the NFL is way out of whack..... maybe it's the general public that doesn't understand the market. When Bradford was signed by PHI people said it was the most absurd contract they had ever heard of and PHI was so off base no other team would have made a such a huge mistake. That was a few months before MIN gave up a first rounder AND a conditional day 2 or 3 pick just for the right to pay Bradford that salary. I still remember people saying PHI botched their QB situation so completely when they signed both Daniels, and Bradford, and drafted Wentz. They set their franchise back a decade ZOIKS! Two years later they are in the SB. When QB's are available you go out and get them, and if you end up with too many it's a MUCH easier problem to solve than having too few. Just because Tom Brady is willing to play way, WAY below market value doesn't mean every other QB salary is out of whack.

I have no idea if the $71mil extension is terrible or not. Neither does anyone else. There is a pretty solid chance that SF backs up the Brinks truck to make sure Garropolo never even hears an offer by another team. That is going to reset the FA QB market before FA even starts. Whatever number that is will likely be the STARTING number in negotiating with Cousins in a league where half the league either has no QB or a QB in their mid-to late 30's. So the QB market is going to completely change.... TWICE.... in the next few months.

The same people that are squealing now about the Smith contract will be squealing even louder when they see where QB salaries go in the next few months. If you are better than average NFL QB and become a FA you are going to get paid. A lot of money. It is what it is.

BTW, remember that contact Dalton signed that had people losing their minds a few years ago? He's not even in the top half of the league in terms of QB salary and he's about to get pushed down much further. This reaction happens every single year when it comes to QB salary.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

36 minutes ago, TobiasFunke said:

If we had signed Alex Smith as an unrestricted free agent this offseason for 4/$94 with $71 guaranteed, would people be pleased with the deal?  I honestly don't know.

I think it would have depended on two factors:

- how big the Garropolo/Cousins contracts end up being when all is said and done

- what WAS does with the FA $ they saved to improve the team around Smith

WAS did a great job signing both Zach Brown and Swearinger last year. If they ink Brown long term and use some money to add another value FA like those two there's every reason to think WAS could be .500 or better in 2018. The tough part will be overcoming the losses of both Breeland and Fuller in the secondary and that will be tough to do on the cheap.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I feel like it's important to untangle all of the different issues at play here:

  1. Was it right to move on from Cousins? The fact that they went ahead with the trade indicates they knew he was gone. You can certainly look back at the past couple years and identify plenty of mistakes, but at this point, that ship has sailed.
  2. Is Alex Smith a good pick-up? You could do better, you could do worse. The whole "Andy Reid QBs after he trades them away" thing is a little scary, but overall, I guess he's OK as a Cousins replacement for a year or two (more on that in a second)
  3. Did they give up too much? The third-round pick sounds about right. Giving up a promising slot corner like Fuller on a rookie deal, though, does not seem smart.
  4. Should they have given Smith a four-year extension with $71M guaranteed? I'll let Kristen Wiig handle that one.

Seriously, that last part is absolutely mystifying. Smith would basically have to do something close to what he did last year (in his career year, when he had Andy Reid and much better weapons than what he'll have in DC) for the next four years, at which point he'll be 38. I can't for the life of me imagine why Washington would make that commitment and tie up their cap situation for so long. Plus, it makes it less likely they'll draft a QB of the future in the next couple years.

If they get this wrong, it could really tank the whole franchise.

Edited by zftcg
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't love this trade but I think it may have been making the best of a bad situation. Cousins backed the team into a corner and they were either going pay him 34 million next year or watch him walk away. He hasn't negotiated in good faith the past 2 off seasons and that was not going to change this year. I hate that they had to give up Fuller but they weren't going to get a competent replacement for Cousins for nothing.

Honestly, I'm kinda just relieved that Kirk contract drama is over and we have QB that is committed to the team. Cousins seemed to only care about the money and I know that's not unusual in profootball but I find it so uninspiring. All I got to say is, bye Felicia. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, dgreen said:

What could they have realistically done that would give them a better QB?

Not sure, but given that the league year hasn't even started it's hard to say they explored all the alternatives.

I guess what it really comes down to is where do they expect the franchise to be over the next few years? I feel like trading for Smith and then locking him up for four years makes sense if you have a strong roster everywhere else and just need a competent QB to not screw things up (like Jax or maybe Denver). That's clearly not Washington's situation.

So could they have gotten a better QB for next year? Maybe, maybe not. But even with competent QB play, are they going to win anything next year? Are they going to set themselves back by not drafting a QB of the future before 2020?

I'm basically OK with Smith as a bridge QB. I'm not OK with him as the face of the franchise until 2022.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, Hang 10 said:

Honestly, I'm kinda just relieved that Kirk contract drama is over and we have QB that is committed to the team. Cousins seemed to only care about the money and I know that's not unusual in profootball but I find it so uninspiring. All I got to say is, bye Felicia. 

I too am glad the drama is over. My sense is that with most athletes it's not about the money (which, after all, Cousins has earned plenty of playing on the franchise tag over the past couple years) but rather about respect. And I think he has a pretty good case that Washington has not treated him like the (potential) franchise QB he is. They weren't willing to make a long-term bet on him. Whether or not you think that was the right call, Cousins himself clearly thinks he's worth it, so he is fully entitled to be pissed at them for not sharing that view.

I also think it's kind of unfair to criticize players for trying to maximize their value. For one thing, these guys have an extremely small window -- one that could close at any second -- where they can earn these stratospheric salaries. It's totally rational for them to get it while they can. Second, why does no one ever criticize teams for, say, cutting a decent player to save cap room? It's unrealistic to expect loyalty in either direction. You just hope interests coincide long enough to put together a winner. IMO, Darrelle Revis is a #######ed hero for maximizing his leverage as the game's best CB to squeeze every penny he could out of the Jets, Bucs and Pats.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, TobiasFunke said:

If we had signed Alex Smith as an unrestricted free agent this offseason for 4/$94 with $71 guaranteed, would people be pleased with the deal?  I honestly don't know.

 

If that is what the market set I'd be fine with it. My biggest issue with this is the timing and subsequent effect. This early you are setting the market. I would have much rather given Case Keenum or Bradford that contract and kept Fuller and the picks. And the reality is those guys would have been even cheaper. 

I also don't buy that 71mil number. Let's wait and see how that shakes out. I bet it is more like $50mil.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, dgreen said:

How does the tag and negotiating with other teams work?

If the Redskins tag Cousins, can he sign it and negotiate with other teams? Or can he only go out and negotiate with other teams as long as he doesn't sign? Then when he gets an offer from someone, the two teams work a trade? If that's the case, then I'd tag him in a second because he never counts toward the cap unless he signs. And I don't see him signing in this situation.

Why would another team trade for Cousins when there is zero chance the Redskins will match any offers?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Hang 10 said:

If you turn down 25 mil per, I think it's fair to get criticized. Especially someone who after 57 games has a losing record.  

Especially if they're in an offense geared to making them a prolific passer, with an HC geared to making them a prolific passer, and with (until this year) an OC geared to making them a prolific passer, and with (until this year) two 1000-yard receivers to open up the field for them.

Cousins isn't going to be as supported or propped up in his next gig as he was here. He may have a better or worse team around him, but the "do everything to support Kirk" honeymoon part of his career is over.

Edited by fatness
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Aznflyer14 said:

I guess the Redstinks don't value the CBs highly as other teams do.  For example, they did trade Champ Bailey (when he was entering his prime years) for Clinton Portis.  (Hell, Redstinks gave away their 2nd round pick along with Bailey for Portis.)

I don't think they trade Fuller if they don't have Norman, Breeland, Dunbar, and Moreau.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 minutes ago, Dr. Octopus said:

Why would another team trade for Cousins when there is zero chance the Redskins will match any offers?

Because they'd hold his rights and the only way to get him is to trade for him.

If the Redskins tag Cousins (which I'm not saying is likely), then Cousins can:

  1. Sign it, stay with the Redskins, and probably not play.
  2. Not sign it and play for nobody.
  3. Not sign it, negotiate with other teams, and get them to trade for him.

I don't see Cousins wanting 1 or 2. If they tag him, Cousins would want 3 and it would also benefit Washington.

If they don't tag him, then Cousins can obviously go sign with whoever wants him the most and where he wants to be the most. In that scenario, the Redskins get back a comp pick, depending on what FAs they bring in.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, dgreen said:

Because they'd hold his rights and the only way to get him is to trade for him.

If the Redskins tag Cousins (which I'm not saying is likely), then Cousins can:

  1. Sign it, stay with the Redskins, and probably not play.
  2. Not sign it and play for nobody.
  3. Not sign it, negotiate with other teams, and get them to trade for him.

I don't see Cousins wanting 1 or 2. If they tag him, Cousins would want 3 and it would also benefit Washington.

If they don't tag him, then Cousins can obviously go sign with whoever wants him the most and where he wants to be the most. In that scenario, the Redskins get back a comp pick, depending on what FAs they bring in.

Cousins and the transition tag

Quote

Playing under the transition tag -- essentially a one-year deal -- would net Cousins $28.78 million for 2018

Smith has reportedly been offered a 4 year, $ 94m, contract with $71m guaranteed. It would have to be mighty strong capology to fit that, and almost 29m for Cousins under the cap.

Spotrac is reporting that 2018 cap number for Alex Smith will be 17m but I do not know where they have that from. They are breaking that down into 14.5m salary, 2m roster bonus and a half mil workout bonus. It seems to me there is a signing bonus missing...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, msommer said:

Cousins and the transition tag

Smith has reportedly been offered a 4 year, $ 94m, contract with $71m guaranteed. It would have to be mighty strong capology to fit that, and almost 29m for Cousins under the cap.

Spotrac is reporting that 2018 cap number for Alex Smith will be 17m but I do not know where they have that from. They are breaking that down into 14.5m salary, 2m roster bonus and a half mil workout bonus. It seems to me there is a signing bonus missing...

Right, but does that cap hit count only if he signs? Tagging someone who never signs that offer sheet wouldn't count against the cap, right? A best case scenario for the Redskins, they tag him so they have some control and then trade him when he gets an offer from someone and he's never counting towards their cap.

I'm just trying to convince myself that they have a bigger plan here and there are more moves to come out of this.

ETA: And how does the timing work? Smith trade and contract isn't until new year. When do they tag someone and when can they negotiate? Is that also in the new year?

Edited by dgreen
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, dgreen said:

Right, but does that cap hit count only if he signs? Tagging someone who never signs that offer sheet wouldn't count against the cap, right? A best case scenario for the Redskins, they tag him so they have some control and then trade him when he gets an offer from someone and he's never counting towards their cap.

I'm just trying to convince myself that they have a bigger plan here and there are more moves to come out of this.

AFAIK, as with the franchise tag, you have to have (=reserve) the cap space to be able to offer the tag. But I'm no expert on this stuff.

Logically, assuming the cap doesn't hit until Cousins signs and they don't have the space. Then he just signs the minute they place the tag on him, everybody realizes they can't afford him and I'd assume he becomes a free agent - which would seem pretty silly. 

Edited by msommer
Link to comment
Share on other sites

OK, after thinking about this some more I agree with the people saying wait and see what "$71M guaranteed" actually means. I'm fine with Smith for the next year or two, provided there's a plan in place to draft and develop the QB of the future. If his contract limits their flexibility and prevents them from moving forward with that plan, it will likely be a disaster. But it's not at all clear that it does.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, dgreen said:

 

  1. Sign it, stay with the Redskins, and probably not play.

The transition tag merely gives them the right to match any offer - basically a right of first refusal on Cousins. They are not going to match. If you're suggesting the franchise tag him and then try and trade him - that's a dangerous game they'd be playing. If he does sign it, they would basically be screwed since 2 QBs would be using up close to $60MM of their cap.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

45 minutes ago, zftcg said:

OK, after thinking about this some more I agree with the people saying wait and see what "$71M guaranteed" actually means. I'm fine with Smith for the next year or two, provided there's a plan in place to draft and develop the QB of the future. If his contract limits their flexibility and prevents them from moving forward with that plan, it will likely be a disaster. But it's not at all clear that it does.

Rappaport said on twitter that it's basically a 3 year 71 mil contract. Sounds about right. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, Hang 10 said:

Rappaport said on twitter that it's basically a 3 year 71 mil contract. Sounds about right. 

Yes, but that doesn't necessarily mean $23.67M per year. Could be front-loaded or back-loaded or some of the supposed "guarantees" might not actually be guaranteed. The real question will be, what happens if they want to move on after 2018, 2019, etc. If it will result in a huge cap hit, then they are likely stuck with him.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Cleveland reporter said that the Browns offered a second-round pick for Smith but that the Redskins' desire to extend Smith won the day.  But why would the Chiefs care whether the Skins wanted to extend him?  I don't see anything about Smith having a no-trade clause or something.. Perhaps it was Fuller, not the extension, that put the Skins over the top? Unless I'm missing something?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, TobiasFunke said:

Cleveland reporter said that the Browns offered a second-round pick for Smith but that the Redskins' desire to extend Smith won the day.  But why would the Chiefs care whether the Skins wanted to extend him?  I don't see anything about Smith having a no-trade clause or something.. Perhaps it was Fuller, not the extension, that put the Skins over the top? Unless I'm missing something?

Yeah, that's weird. And wouldn't Cleveland want to extend him, too? I doubt they were willing to trade a 2nd round pick for one year of Smith.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, fatness said:

I don't think they trade Fuller if they don't have Norman, Breeland, Dunbar, and Moreau.

Only Breeland will be without contract once NFL begins 2018 off-season and then will be free agent.  Moreau and Dunbar haven't prove their worth.  Fuller showed his worth in being their slot CB and he is hailed as ascending player.  Even Redskins' former GM didnt think highly of this trade.  And DJ Swearinger didn't like it (his tweets were subsequently deleted after voicing his displeasure)

When this trade is made official on mid-March, Chiefs would be thrilled with addition of Fuller, fortifying their secondary with ball-hawking (and tempestuous) Marcus Peters and Eric Berry (providing a full recovery from torn Achilles).

Edited by Aznflyer14
Link to comment
Share on other sites

44 minutes ago, TobiasFunke said:

Cleveland reporter said that the Browns offered a second-round pick for Smith but that the Redskins' desire to extend Smith won the day.  But why would the Chiefs care whether the Skins wanted to extend him?  I don't see anything about Smith having a no-trade clause or something.. Perhaps it was Fuller, not the extension, that put the Skins over the top? Unless I'm missing something?

http://dailysnark.com/report-chiefs-turned-massive-offer-broncos-qb-alex-smith/

According to this, the browns offered multiple picks and Denver offered a 2nd and Talib. Skins may have not done too bad if that was the going rate. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Sebowski said:

If that is what the market set I'd be fine with it. My biggest issue with this is the timing and subsequent effect. This early you are setting the market. I would have much rather given Case Keenum or Bradford that contract and kept Fuller and the picks. And the reality is those guys would have been even cheaper. 

I also don't buy that 71mil number. Let's wait and see how that shakes out. I bet it is more like $50mil.

It's interesting you bring up Keenum/Bradford. I'm not a Redskin fan but I would have been more interested in seeing what the going rate was going to be for Bridgewater and Tyrod Taylor. They are both younger and have higher potential upside, but that may mean they get offered more money because there are a lot of teams that need a QB right now. Someone will be left without a real starting QB when the music stops.

Really I think this move was made because Bruce Allen and Gruden are worried that they will lose their jobs if they don't make the playoffs in 2018. If my job hinged on the number of regular season wins I got next year I would easily take Alex Smith to get those wins over any of the names here or the rookies available in the middle of the first round. Especially if you are a guy like Gruden and believe that someone just running your offensive system the way it's supposed to be run will be good enough to take the Redskins to the playoffs. It seems like over the past year Gruden has had a completely disgusted face on the sidelines when Cousins would have his annual game-on-the-line-blunders. Snyder set up a move like this by choosing to keep Allen Gruden around. If you wanted to rebuild they should have made a clean sweep of the situation and let the next guys pick the young QB they wanted to build around.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

39 minutes ago, Aznflyer14 said:

Only Breeland will be without contract once NFL begins 2018 off-season and then will be free agent.  Moreau and Dunbar haven't prove their worth.  Fuller showed his worth in being their slot CB and he is hailed as ascending player.  Even Redskins' former GM didnt think highly of this trade.  And DJ Swearinger didn't like it (his tweets were subsequently deleted after voicing his displeasure)

When this trade is made official on mid-March, Chiefs would be thrilled with addition of Fuller, fortifying their secondary with ball-hawking (and tempestuous) Marcus Peters and Eric Berry (providing a full recovery from torn Achilles).

I'm no more than just a fan, but I like what I see with Dunbar. He seems to always get pushed down the depth chart by others, but then he seems to always play well when he's asked to play. Wish he'd get more snaps...maybe he will now.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

58 minutes ago, TobiasFunke said:

Cleveland reporter said that the Browns offered a second-round pick for Smith but that the Redskins' desire to extend Smith won the day.  But why would the Chiefs care whether the Skins wanted to extend him?  I don't see anything about Smith having a no-trade clause or something.. Perhaps it was Fuller, not the extension, that put the Skins over the top? Unless I'm missing something?

The alleged offer was likely contingent on Smith renegotiating.  After all, we got news of the trade and the new contract at basically the same time.

So Smith would have had to agree.  If the Skins offer Smith more but the Chiefs less than the Browns do, Smith can just decline to accept Cleveland's contract terms, knowing that not even the Browns will pay a 2nd for a one-year rental.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Arodin said:

The alleged offer was likely contingent on Smith renegotiating.  After all, we got news of the trade and the new contract at basically the same time.

So Smith would have had to agree.  If the Skins offer Smith more but the Chiefs less than the Browns do, Smith can just decline to accept Cleveland's contract terms, knowing that not even the Browns will pay a 2nd for a one-year rental.

This makes sense, thanks.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, dgreen said:

I'm no more than just a fan, but I like what I see with Dunbar. He seems to always get pushed down the depth chart by others, but then he seems to always play well when he's asked to play. Wish he'd get more snaps...maybe he will now.

I dont disagree with you... But I find it to be difficult to part away a young and potentially ascending CB (with bargain rookie contract) in the league that generally favors passing offense.  Then again, half of teams are desperate for competent QBs and are wiling to spend big.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, TobiasFunke said:

Cleveland reporter said that the Browns offered a second-round pick for Smith but that the Redskins' desire to extend Smith won the day.  But why would the Chiefs care whether the Skins wanted to extend him?  I don't see anything about Smith having a no-trade clause or something.. Perhaps it was Fuller, not the extension, that put the Skins over the top? Unless I'm missing something?

I think you're right. There's also a report that Denver offered a 2nd and Talib.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Aznflyer14 said:
6 hours ago, fatness said:

I don't think they trade Fuller if they don't have Norman, Breeland, Dunbar, and Moreau.

Only Breeland will be without contract once NFL begins 2018 off-season and then will be free agent.  Moreau and Dunbar haven't prove their worth.  Fuller showed his worth in being their slot CB and he is hailed as ascending player.  Even Redskins' former GM didnt think highly of this trade.  And DJ Swearinger didn't like it (his tweets were subsequently deleted after voicing his displeasure)

Let's remember that a year ago Fuller hadn't proven his worth, and that Dunbar has played well whenever he has played. And I've heard multiple times during the season that the coaching staff is high on Moreau.

This is actually a good discussion to be having. When's the last time the Skins had a bunch of good players at a key position?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, fatness said:

Let's remember that a year ago Fuller hadn't proven his worth, and that Dunbar has played well whenever he has played. And I've heard multiple times during the season that the coaching staff is high on Moreau.

This is actually a good discussion to be having. When's the last time the Skins had a bunch of good players at a key position?

24 hours ago?

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Hang 10 said:

Rappaport said on twitter that it's basically a 3 year 71 mil contract. Sounds about right. 

And it’s guaranteed “for injury”. Here’s the tweet:

The #Redskins now have QB Alex Smith under contract for 5 years for $111M. Of that, $71M is guaranteed for injury — basically three seasons. At that point, he’ll be 36.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think I went through the same emotional steps with this trade as I do with a regular season game.

  1. Trade for Alex Smith = We're playing pretty well, got an early lead, maybe we can win this game
  2. Contract extension = Not sure I like these last few plays, but we can hold onto this lead and come out with the W
  3. A 3rd round pick and a player = We're now taking the predictable turn and I think I know where this is going
  4. Rumor: The player is Fuller = Ugh, this is going to suck, but maybe we hold them and make a stop on 4th down or get a turnover and kneel for victory
  5. Fuller says it's not him = It's 4th and 10. We can stop them. All we have to do is get one more stop.
  6. It is Fuller = 4th and 10 converted with a big gain into easy field goal range and we're only up 2. Game over. Got that losing feeling again.
  7. A couple days later I'm pretty much over it and ready to move on to the next game. I don't like how they played or the outcome, but next week is a new game.
  • Like 7
Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 hours ago, fatness said:

Let's remember that a year ago Fuller hadn't proven his worth, and that Dunbar has played well whenever he has played. And I've heard multiple times during the season that the coaching staff is high on Moreau.

This is actually a good discussion to be having. When's the last time the Skins had a bunch of good players at a key position?

You wont get argument from me on Dunbar or any other player on Redskins' roster and the question you posed is actually good one.  Redskins historically always blunder their football decision ever since Dan Snyder bought the team and it is not surprised to see their organization being dysfunctional.  They really blew the opportunity when letting go Scot McCloughan who has proven track history of scouting to draft the right players.   

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 hours ago, dgreen said:

And it’s guaranteed “for injury”. Here’s the tweet:

The #Redskins now have QB Alex Smith under contract for 5 years for $111M. Of that, $71M is guaranteed for injury — basically three seasons. At that point, he’ll be 36.

I'd take that with a grain of salt. Part of the 71m will be fully guaranteed if Alex Smith is not a complete fool. Let's see when the contract is executed

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Quote

Smith's contract is fair: The "four-year, $94 million extension" number got a lot of attention, but it's largely meaningless. Even the $71 million in "guarantees" likely doesn't mean much. NFL Network Insider Ian Rapoport reported that $71 million of Smith's contract will be guaranteed for injury only -- basically three seasons -- which means the Redskins could still cut bait for performance reasons without paying all that money.

Quote

Based on past precedent and league scuttlebutt, the fine print will likely show this is truly a two-year commitment for Smith. What he makes over the next two seasons is almost all that matters in this deal. He'll surely make over $20 million per year over that span, possibly around $25 million per year. That's simply what veteran quarterbacks cost now, and he likely will be passed in compensation by a phalanx of quarterbacks in that time. Cousins is sure to be one of them and could double Smith in real guaranteed money. It won't be a surprise if Smith isn't even among the NFL's top-10 highest-paid quarterbacks by the time he leaves Washington. The salary cap is continuing to rise, and quarterbacks will continue to take a larger share of it. Deal with it.

 

Edited by PinkydaPimp
  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 1/31/2018 at 3:57 PM, TobiasFunke said:

Cleveland reporter said that the Browns offered a second-round pick for Smith but that the Redskins' desire to extend Smith won the day.  But why would the Chiefs care whether the Skins wanted to extend him?  I don't see anything about Smith having a no-trade clause or something.. Perhaps it was Fuller, not the extension, that put the Skins over the top? Unless I'm missing something?

I don't think Smith had a no-trade clause; I think the Chiefs were just being decent to Smith.

http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2018/01/31/browns-offered-a-second-but-not-a-big-contract-for-alex-smith/

Quote

According to Pat McManamon of ESPN.com, the Browns offered the Chiefs a second-round pick for Smith, but weren’t prepared to meet his contract demands.

Quote

The fact they didn’t want to extend Smith also points to the reality (or cements it) that they are going to use the first pick in the draft on a quarterback, and they didn’t want to invest so heavily in Smith just to put him on the same kind of shot clock the Chiefs did on when they picked Patrick Mahomes in the first round last year.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Quote

Technically, Washington can trade Cousins. To do that, however, Washington would have to have Cousins under contract when the window for trades reopens, on March 14. So Cousins would have to sign a new contract (not happening) or Washington would have to apply the franchise tag (at more than $34 million for 2018) or the transition tag (at more than $28 million) and Cousins would have to sign it. Then, Washington could trade Cousins to another team that would give Cousins a long-term deal replacing the one-year guarantee under the franchise or transition tag.

As a source with knowledge of the situation explained it to PFT, those scenarios that would allow Washington to trade Cousins provide zero benefit to Cousins. Indeed, why would he cooperate with Washington to allow Washington to get value for Cousins, when he merely needs to do nothing and become an unrestricted free agent?

PFT

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, fatness said:

I don't think Smith had a no-trade clause; I think the Chiefs were just being decent to Smith.

http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2018/01/31/browns-offered-a-second-but-not-a-big-contract-for-alex-smith/

 

I agree that with others that it's less about the Chiefs than about the Browns. If Smith tells them he won't negotiate a long-term deal, they'd be crazy to give up a second for a one-year rental.

Of course, it's also possible the Chiefs valued a third plus Fuller more than a second. Hell, for all we know they used the leverage from the Cleveland offer to get Washington to include Fuller.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, fatness said:

PFT

I don't know about the transition tag, but if they franchise tag him and he doesn't sign it, he can't play that season for anyone else.  He has to sit a year.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, (HULK) said:

I don't know about the transition tag, but if they franchise tag him and he doesn't sign it, he can't play that season for anyone else.  He has to sit a year.

He'll sign it. It's $35mil guaranteed. He'll sign it before the paper hits the desk.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
  • Create New...