The FINAL Kirk Cousins Saga thread. 5.0

[MTK]

Tagging him keeps coming back to the same problems... he could file a grievance and most of all carrying his $34M on our books indefinitely and effectively shutting down our ability to sign players.

[WillH]

Originally Posted by MTK

Tagging him keeps coming back to the same problems... he could file a grievance and most of all carrying his $34M on our books indefinitely and effectively shutting down our ability to sign players.

Grievance is total BS story line.


Edit: the part of the article 4 section 8b that everyone seems to ignore is what comes after the part about good faith intentions to employ and pay the player at the franchise rate:

"The foregoing shall not affect any rights that a Club may have under the Player Contract or this Agreement, including but not limited to the right to terminate the contract, renegotiate the contract, or to trade the player if such termination, renegotiation, or TRADE is otherwise permitted by the Player Contract or this Agreement."

It actually specifically says the team can trade or rescind the offer for that matter.

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk

[MTK]

Originally Posted by WillH

Grievance is total BS story line.


Edit: the part of the article 4 section 8b that everyone seems to ignore is what comes after the part about good faith intentions to employ and pay the player at the franchise rate:

"The foregoing shall not affect any rights that a Club may have under the Player Contract or this Agreement, including but not limited to the right to terminate the contract, renegotiate the contract, or to trade the player if such termination, renegotiation, or TRADE is otherwise permitted by the Player Contract or this Agreement."

It actually specifically says the team can trade or rescind the offer for that matter.

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk

It very well might not go anywhere, he could still file it and also refuse to sign the tag and totally F up free agency for the team. Bottom line unless all parties are on board with a tag and trade the risk heavily outweighs the benefits

[metalskins]

Originally Posted by WillH

Grievance is total BS story line.


Edit: the part of the article 4 section 8b that everyone seems to ignore is what comes after the part about good faith intentions to employ and pay the player at the franchise rate:

"The foregoing shall not affect any rights that a Club may have under the Player Contract or this Agreement, including but not limited to the right to terminate the contract, renegotiate the contract, or to trade the player if such termination, renegotiation, or TRADE is otherwise permitted by the Player Contract or this Agreement."

It actually specifically says the team can trade or rescind the offer for that matter.

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk

I think there was also a section in there where a grievance could be filed against the player for signing the tag and said player not making an effort toward negotiations on a long term deal. I'm widely paraphrasing, but I remember reading that part. So, I'm not sure why this part hadn't been discussed. Cousins keeps saying he was open to negotiating with team, but then his camp would say things, like, "We're not interested in negotiating until after the tag is signed." I'm sorry, but I think there's been some very dubious dealings with Cousins' agent on this.

[CRedskinsRule]

Originally Posted by WillH

Grievance is total BS story line.


Edit: the part of the article 4 section 8b that everyone seems to ignore is what comes after the part about good faith intentions to employ and pay the player at the franchise rate:

"The foregoing shall not affect any rights that a Club may have under the Player Contract or this Agreement, including but not limited to the right to terminate the contract, renegotiate the contract, or to trade the player if such termination, renegotiation, or TRADE is otherwise permitted by the Player Contract or this Agreement."

It actually specifically says the team can trade or rescind the offer for that matter.

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk

Yes you can trade the player, Miami may do just that with their receiver, no one is questioning the legality of a trade in principle, BUT when the Redskins went out, agreed to a trade in principle for a 10yr starting qb at a rate that makes the tag number prohibitive to our salary cap, any good lawyer will shred the good faith intention part of 4b, or at least keep it in the courts long enough to mess up our FA period.

All for a 2nd rounder instead of a 3rd. It's just not a good return on investment at this point.

The tag and trade ONLY works if all 3 parties work to make it work out. NOTHING from KC's camp implies he will work with the Skins in any way.

20 days left.

[WillH]

Originally Posted by CRedskinsRule

Yes you can trade the player, Miami may do just that with their receiver, no one is questioning the legality of a trade in principle, BUT when the Redskins went out, agreed to a trade in principle for a 10yr starting qb at a rate that makes the tag number prohibitive to our salary cap, any good lawyer will shred the good faith intention part of 4b, or at least keep it in the courts long enough to mess up our FA period.

All for a 2nd rounder instead of a 3rd. It's just not a good return on investment at this point.

The tag and trade ONLY works if all 3 parties work to make it work out. NOTHING from KC's camp implies he will work with the Skins in any way.

20 days left.

This comes immediately after the good faith part, "It shall be deemed to be a violation of this provision if, while the tender is outstanding, a Club insists that such a player agree to a Player Contract at a compensation level during the upcoming season below that of the Required Tender amount."

That section has nothing to do with employing them or not. It's just about the money. In fact, this is probably how/why Cousins and his agent dug in their heals about the Tag number being where negotiations should start.

Anyways, I still don't understand this argument about how this will hurt FA. The Redskins don't go big in FA anymore. So maybe your argument is that we should this year. Fine, but realize if you're going big and you pay too much for FA you are risking that compensatory pick that everyone keeps saying shouldn't be risked. I don't get the logic. Either you think they should make smart FA moves and not overspend which negates the argument about the Tag hindering FA, or you spend big and potentially get no compensation for KC anyways.

I guess my point is, you better have some really vital targets in mind to forgo the chance to get valuable compensation for KC. If you don't, KC will have more urgency to get a deal done if he wants either that big pay day or the right team.

If the team makes some big splashes in FA and they make a big impact to this team then it will have been worth it, but if they have the same low key FA and let him walk... that's some dumb pussy bullshit for a compensatory pick.


Edit: Also, Cousins camp is presumably leaking a lot of threats against him being tagged, while the FO has been silent. It stinks of desperation to me on KCs part. Maybe they won't want to play ball, but they might just have to.

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk

[CRedskinsRule]

Originally Posted by WillH

This comes immediately after the good faith part, "It shall be deemed to be a violation of this provision if, while the tender is outstanding, a Club insists that such a player agree to a Player Contract at a compensation level during the upcoming season below that of the Required Tender amount."

That section has nothing to do with employing them or not. It's just about the money. In fact, this is probably how/why Cousins and his agent dug in their heals about the Tag number being where negotiations should start.

Anyways, I still don't understand this argument about how this will hurt FA. The Redskins don't go big in FA anymore. So maybe your argument is that we should this year. Fine, but realize if you're going big and you pay too much for FA you are risking that compensatory pick that everyone keeps saying shouldn't be risked. I don't get the logic. Either you think they should make smart FA moves and not overspend which negates the argument about the Tag hindering FA, or you spend big and potentially get no compensation for KC anyways.

I guess my point is, you better have some really vital targets in mind to forgo the chance to get valuable compensation for KC. If you don't, KC will have more urgency to get a deal done if he wants either that big pay day or the right team.

If the team makes some big splashes in FA and they make a big impact to this team then it will have been worth it, but if they have the same low key FA and let him walk... that's some dumb pussy bullshit for a compensatory pick.


Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk

First. The cap issue is that we have 48M right now (overthecap.com) KC franchise is 34M. Alex Smith is at least 17M but the new extension pushes it to 19-20M.
Last I checked 34 + 20 is greater than 48. So in order to play the tag game with KC and sign AS we would have to cut 6M in salary cap space for a risky ploy to up a draft spot 1 year and 1 round. And then we still couldn't try to sign our guys like Breeland or Zach Brown who aren't counted in our cap right now.

Further I don't think we need to make a big splash, but IF a player comes available, then it's stupid to sit in a self imposed cap hell and not be able to go after them.

edit:
Redskins FAs not currently counted in the 48M cap (would be lost in failed tag and trade effort)
Shawn Lauvao,
center Spencer Long,
linebacker Zach Brown Will Compton and Chris Carter,
cornerback Bashaud Breeland.
wide receivers Terrelle Pryor Sr. and Brian Quick,
tight end Niles Paul,
kicker Dustin Hopkins, defensive lineman Phil Taylor Sr.,
safety DeAngelo Halland
offensive lineman Tony Bergstrom

Not all of those are critical, but they all have to be accounted for.

[WillH]

Originally Posted by CRedskinsRule

First. The cap issue is that we have 48M right now (overthecap.com) KC franchise is 34M. Alex Smith is at least 17M but the new extension pushes it to 19-20M.
Last I checked 34 + 20 is greater than 48. So in order to play the tag game with KC and sign AS we would have to cut 6M in salary cap space for a risky ploy to up a draft spot 1 year and 1 round. And then we still couldn't try to sign our guys like Breeland or Zach Brown who aren't counted in our cap right now.

Further I don't think we need to make a big splash, but IF a player comes available, then it's stupid to sit in a self imposed cap hell and not be able to go after them.

edit:
Redskins FAs not currently counted in the 48M cap (would be lost in failed tag and trade effort)
Shawn Lauvao,
center Spencer Long,
linebacker Zach Brown Will Compton and Chris Carter,
cornerback Bashaud Breeland.
wide receivers Terrelle Pryor Sr. and Brian Quick,
tight end Niles Paul,
kicker Dustin Hopkins, defensive lineman Phil Taylor Sr.,
safety DeAngelo Halland
offensive lineman Tony Bergstrom

Not all of those are critical, but they all have to be accounted for.

This is a very good argument and why I mostly think "it" won't happen. I do think "it's" possible, there are ways to make some more room and sign some of our guys, and ZB probably will be allowed to test the market, it won't be as high as he thinks but Redskins will match and it'll be all good, if he hasn't already agreed to a team friendly deal. But I said I wouldn't post on this anymore, but thanks for the satisfying debate rather than complaint.

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk