PREDICTIONS on What Will Happen with Cousins

[DarthMonk]

Not what you WANT to happen or what you think SHOULD happen but PREDICTIONS.

I don't think he wants to be here.

We will start negotiating and he will balk. As time runs short we will franchise him. SF/Kyle will step in with an offer sheet that he will sign.

We will not match the offer.

Compensation is negotiable but we will use our last shred of leverage remaining and simply demand (and get) the default of SF's next 2 1st round picks.

Not sure if I want to be right or not.

[Deadskins]

We will start negotiating and he will balk. As time runs short we will franchise him. SF/Kyle will step in with an offer sheet that he will sign.

We will not match the offer.

Compensation is negotiable but we will use our last shred of leverage remaining and simply demand (and get) the default of SF's next 2 1st round picks.

Wouldn't have to demand or use any leverage. The two first-round picks are the contractual compensation for signing a non-exclusive franchise player.

[Burgundy&GoldForever]

I think the team will franchise tag Cousins long enough to try to negotiate a long-term deal.

I think Cousins will reject the deal because it won't be for as much as he thinks he is worth.

I think the team will determine they are not paying him $24MM+ to play for one year and then losing him next off-season.

I think the San Francisco 49ers rumor is just exactly that: A rumor.

I don't believe for a minute they are giving up two first round picks plus for Kirk Cousins.

I think the Redskins offer Cousins a short-term front-loaded contract which allows either the team to opt out or Cousins to renegotiate after two or three seasons.

[Deadskins]

I think the San Francisco 49ers rumor is just exactly that: A rumor.

It's not a rumor, it's speculation that Kyle will want Cousins for his QB when he is named the new HC of the 49ers shortly after the SB.

[Deadskins]

Is there a rule that you can only franchise a player twice in a row?

[Burgundy&GoldForever]

Is there a rule that you can only franchise a player twice in a row?

Yes

[DEHog]

I think he gets tagged again, with the hopes of signing a deal. If not he’s already stated he would play under the tag again. Either way I think he’s our QB in 2017.

[DarthMonk]

We will start negotiating and he will balk. As time runs short we will franchise him. SF/Kyle will step in with an offer sheet that he will sign.

We will not match the offer.

Compensation is negotiable but we will use our last shred of leverage remaining and simply demand (and get) the default of SF's next 2 1st round picks.

Wouldn't have to demand or use any leverage. The two first-round picks are the contractual compensation for signing a non-exclusive franchise player.

I could be wrong but I heard the compensation is negotiable. I believe the default is the 2 1st round picks. If it is negotiable they could say no to that and void the deal. We could stand firm or settle for less.

Again, I could be wrong. I'm sure I heard this but maybe the source was wrong. Anybody ?

[DarthMonk]

Is there a rule that you can only franchise a player twice in a row?

Yes

Don't think so.

I keep hearing we could do it a 3rd time but the price would be around $34 M.

Can a player be given the franchise tag in consecutive years?

Yes, but it’s a costly move for teams. For a player to be given the tag in two straight years, a team has to pay him 120 percent of his previous salary. If a team wants to franchise a player in three straight years, it would have to pay him 144 percent of his previous salary.

24 x 1.44 = 34.56

[Deadskins]

We will start negotiating and he will balk. As time runs short we will franchise him. SF/Kyle will step in with an offer sheet that he will sign.

We will not match the offer.

Compensation is negotiable but we will use our last shred of leverage remaining and simply demand (and get) the default of SF's next 2 1st round picks.

Wouldn't have to demand or use any leverage. The two first-round picks are the contractual compensation for signing a non-exclusive franchise player.

I could be wrong but I heard the compensation is negotiable. I believe the default is the 2 1st round picks. If it is negotiable they could say no to that and void the deal. We could stand firm or settle for less.

Again, I could be wrong. I'm sure I heard this but maybe the source was wrong. Anybody ?

— A non-exclusive franchise tag involves the same salary offer as an exclusive franchise tag, only the player can negotiate with other teams. The player’s current team can match any offer sheet. If the old team declines to match the offer, it gets two first-round picks from the other team as compensation. This is the more commonly used franchise tag.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/ear ... e9c8b265a7

[riggofan]

Is there a rule that you can only franchise a player twice in a row?

Yes

That's not true at all. You could tag a player three or even fours years a row, the math just gets ridiculously expensive. Instead of being 120% of the top 5 average salaries you start getting into 144% of the player's previous salary. There's no rule against it in the CBA.

[riggofan]

I could be wrong but I heard the compensation is negotiable. I believe the default is the 2 1st round picks. If it is negotiable they could say no to that and void the deal. We could stand firm or settle for less.

Again, I could be wrong. I'm sure I heard this but maybe the source was wrong. Anybody ?

No, I think you're 100% right on that DM. The rule is that a team would have to give you 2 1st round picks. But there is no rule saying you couldn't accept less if you wanted.

Honestly, feels kind of crazy to make any predictions right now. These guys are all posturing ahead of negotiations, it would be dumb to believe anything with certainty.

If I had to place a bet on it though, I'd put my money on Cousins playing another year on the tag as the most likely thing. Not what I'd like to see personally, but this is a messy situation right now and the tag may be the only thing everyone can agree on. Its weird but I actually think this is a time I'd like to see Snyder step in and say, "We haven't had a reliable QB option on this team in 25 years. Get the f***ing deal done."

[DEHog]

^^ Not sure about that..if that was the case why would the NFL have this third type of tag...

By applying the transition tag, a team offers the player a salary that is the average of the top 10 salaries at his position. That player can negotiate with other teams. The player’s original team has the right of first refusal to match any offer given to a transition-tagged player by another team. If the original team decides to retain the player, it must agree to the contract terms offered by the other team. If the original team decides not to match the offer and the player leaves, it receives nothing in compensation. A team can use the transition tag only if it hasn’t used the franchise tag in a given offseason.

[Burgundy&GoldForever]

Is there a rule that you can only franchise a player twice in a row?

Yes

That's not true at all. You could tag a player three or even fours years a row, the math just gets ridiculously expensive. Instead of being 120% of the top 5 average salaries you start getting into 144% of the player's previous salary. There's no rule against it in the CBA.

Right. So, they'd be paying Cousins $35.04MM in 2018. That's 20% of the projected cap on one player.

It's not really intellectually honest to say that a team could franchise tag a QB three times in a row, even if technically it's possible.

[DarthMonk]

You could tag a player three or even fours years a row, the math just gets ridiculously expensive. Instead of being 120% of the top 5 average salaries you start getting into 144% of the player's previous salary. There's no rule against it in the CBA.

Right. So, they'd be paying Cousins $35.04MM in 2018. That's 20% of the projected cap on one player.

It's not really intellectually honest to say that a team could franchise tag a QB three times in a row, even if technically it's possible.

Former Seahawks tackle Walter Jones once spent three straight years under the franchise tag, pocketing a total of $20 million and then signing a long-term deal that paid him $20 million more guaranteed, back when $20 million was a very big deal for NFL purposes.

Quarterbacks are protected, too. In the third year of the franchise tag, they get at least a 44-percent raise over their cap number in the prior year.

There is certainly no rule against it.

[markshark84]

No, I think you're 100% right on that DM. The rule is that a team would have to give you 2 1st round picks. But there is no rule saying you couldn't accept less if you wanted.

Correct --- but why would you? A top 10 QB is worth AT LEAST 2 1sts. If I'm the skins FO, I'd honestly want more and I think that a team would give up more --- however that literally can't happen since the franchise conditions mandate that a signing team only has to give up a maximum of 2 firsts.

Honestly, feels kind of crazy to make any predictions right now. These guys are all posturing ahead of negotiations, it would be dumb to believe anything with certainty.

If I had to place a bet on it though, I'd put my money on Cousins playing another year on the tag as the most likely thing. Not what I'd like to see personally, but this is a messy situation right now and the tag may be the only thing everyone can agree on.

I agree with the first paragraph totally. That said, if I'm the FO, I am either signing him long term or exchanging his rights for the 2 picks. I am not franchising him this year with the potential of losing him next year with nothing to show for it. NOT. A. CHANCE. And I doubt Scot would take that chance either. And if I'm the FO, I know that wherever he goes, that 2018 first will be in the 20s. Cousins took two 5-11 teams and made them 9-7 and 8-7-1, respectively. If he goes to another team, they will win 4-5 more games than they did in the prior.

Personally, I am a little pessimistic based on this interview exchange from Cousins during the skill challenge (and I am paraphrasing):
ESPN ANNOUNCER: "Do you want to sign a long term deal and be back playing in DC"
COUSINS: "Under the right circumstances, yes, I would like to return."

Not a good sign. What are these "circumstances"????? And I can almost guarantee they're not money-driven circumstances. Most players that are in a contract year generally just say "yes, I'd love to be back" --- in a show of goodwill and loyalty; whether true or not. Perhaps Cousins is more honest than most and doesn't play the games, but I don't know him personally and can't attest to that specifically. Regardless, not the answer I was looking for.......

Its weird but I actually think this is a time I'd like to see Snyder step in and say, "We haven't had a reliable QB option on this team in 25 years. Get the f***ing deal done."

Sorry, but this is comical. Not your statement, just the thought of Danny boy actually doing something constructive or smart or somewhat logical. That just won't happen. The dude is a straight up buffoon when it comes to football ---- like the type that are so dumb that they are literally incapable of even learning how to improve. It's like me and singing: I could take voice lessons from the greatest voice coach on the planet for a decade ---- and I'd still suck. That's like Danny boy and football ---- but what makes it even worse is that he's too stupid to realize it (which makes him even more dangerous)...... It's best that Danny boy sit in the corner and write the checks. Keep his dumb @ss out of it.

[Deadskins]

I could be wrong but I heard the compensation is negotiable. I believe the default is the 2 1st round picks. If it is negotiable they could say no to that and void the deal. We could stand firm or settle for less.

Again, I could be wrong. I'm sure I heard this but maybe the source was wrong. Anybody ?

No, I think you're 100% right on that DM. The rule is that a team would have to give you 2 1st round picks. But there is no rule saying you couldn't accept less if you wanted.

So what, are you saying a team could say, "No, we just want one of those 1st rounders, you keep the other?"

[Deadskins]

No, I think you're 100% right on that DM. The rule is that a team would have to give you 2 1st round picks. But there is no rule saying you couldn't accept less if you wanted.

Correct --- but why would you? A top 10 QB is worth AT LEAST 2 1sts. If I'm the skins FO, I'd honestly want more and I think that a team would give up more --- however that literally can't happen since the franchise conditions mandate that a signing team only has to give up a maximum of 2 firsts.

I'm pretty sure there is no wiggle room here. No negotiations. If you sign a non-exclusive franchise player, you give up your next two first round picks. End of story. The only negotiations are between the signing team and the player on the deal that the franchising team would need to match to keep the rights.

[SkinsJock]

I think too much has been made out of the whole situation - neither side has really been motivated to make any move at all - the FO seems to be still getting their stuff together about the staff, the plan (short and long term) and about Cousins - Cousins and his people are also trying to figure out what is best for them going forward - there has been no reason yet for either side to really get into things until they both get a better feeling for what they want to do

we'll see what happens after this week - to begin proceedings - the FO needs to make up their minds what they think is best long term with regards to both Kirk Cousins and Jay Gruden and then proceed to do the best they can with that in mind

I don't think the FO is totally sold on Kirk Cousins and I don't think that Cousins is completely happy with staying in DC

No way they will have him play 1 more season and then lose him

I do not agree that having Kirk Cousins play QB means that franchise will win 4 or 5 more games than they would without him - that is just plain stupid - he's not an elite QB yet - COUSINS IS GOOD BUT HE'S NOT THAT GOOD - S T U P I D

[DarthMonk]

So what, are you saying a team could say, "No, we just want one of those 1st rounders, you keep the other?"

Winging it here.

Hypothetical:

Suppose Kirk does not want to be here and we and SF know that. We are in a bind.

We do not want to franchise him. He'd be unhappy and we'd face options like losing him next year with no compensation, paying him $34 M, etc.

We do not want to pay him soooooooooooo much that he'd stay even though he doesn't want to be here and what we are willing to pay is a number he won't accept.

Now what?

SF says, "Tell you what - we don't want to part with 2 1st rounders and you don't want to franchise Kirk or match our offer. How about we sign him to an offer sheet contingent on you taking our 1st and 2nd picks this year?"

I think if there are no negotiations between the teams, team A franchises player X, and then team B signs player X to an offer, THEN team A can match OR say, "No thanks, we will tke the 2 1st rounders."

If we don't negotiate in advance we risk being stuck since SF might be unwilling to give up 2 1st rounders and therefore unwilling to sign him to an offer sheet. The incentive for SF to negotiate in advance is more obvious.

[Deadskins]

So what, are you saying a team could say, "No, we just want one of those 1st rounders, you keep the other?"

Winging it here.

Hypothetical:

Suppose Kirk does not want to be here and we and SF know that. We are in a bind.

We do not want to franchise him. He'd be unhappy and we'd face options like losing him next year with no compensation, paying him $34 M, etc.

We do not want to pay him soooooooooooo much that he'd stay even though he doesn't want to be here and what we are willing to pay is a number he won't accept.

Now what?

SF says, "Tell you what - we don't want to part with 2 1st rounders and you don't want to franchise Kirk or match our offer. How about we sign him to an offer sheet contingent on you taking our 1st and 2nd picks this year?"

I think if there are no negotiations between the teams, team A franchises player X, and then team B signs player X to an offer, THEN team A can match OR say, "No thanks, we will tke the 2 1st rounders."

If we don't negotiate in advance we risk being stuck since SF might be unwilling to give up 2 1st rounders and therefore unwilling to sign him to an offer sheet. The incentive for SF to negotiate in advance is more obvious.

Yes, that is entirely possible and has such a scenario has happened in the past with other players (not with the Redskins). But that negotiation does not include the non-exclusive franchise tag. In that case, we would probably franchise him outright while we negotiated the deal.

[DEHog]

So what, are you saying a team could say, "No, we just want one of those 1st rounders, you keep the other?"

Winging it here.

Hypothetical:

Suppose Kirk does not want to be here and we and SF know that. We are in a bind.

We do not want to franchise him. He'd be unhappy and we'd face options like losing him next year with no compensation, paying him $34 M, etc.

We do not want to pay him soooooooooooo much that he'd stay even though he doesn't want to be here and what we are willing to pay is a number he won't accept.

Now what?

SF says, "Tell you what - we don't want to part with 2 1st rounders and you don't want to franchise Kirk or match our offer. How about we sign him to an offer sheet contingent on you taking our 1st and 2nd picks this year?"

I think if there are no negotiations between the teams, team A franchises player X, and then team B signs player X to an offer, THEN team A can match OR say, "No thanks, we will tke the 2 1st rounders."

If we don't negotiate in advance we risk being stuck since SF might be unwilling to give up 2 1st rounders and therefore unwilling to sign him to an offer sheet. The incentive for SF to negotiate in advance is more obvious.

Wouldn't that be called a trade? If you don't want to get stuck with paying Cousins the big FT contract...you either trade him or use the non-exclusive/transition tag...

[riggofan]

It's not really intellectually honest to say that a team could franchise tag a QB three times in a row, even if technically it's possible.

You're f****g kidding me, right?

The question was: "Is there a rule that you can only franchise a player twice in a row?" The correct answer is NO.

[riggofan]

No, I think you're 100% right on that DM. The rule is that a team would have to give you 2 1st round picks. But there is no rule saying you couldn't accept less if you wanted.

Correct --- but why would you? A top 10 QB is worth AT LEAST 2 1sts. If I'm the skins FO, I'd honestly want more and I think that a team would give up more --- however that literally can't happen since the franchise conditions mandate that a signing team only has to give up a maximum of 2 firsts.

Well I guess you might do it if the 49ers said, "We won't give you two first rounders. But we'll give you a first, a third and a fourth."

I'm not arguing with whether that's a good deal or not, but if you really don't value Cousins very highly I guess it would be better to get something for him than nothing.

[riggofan]

I could be wrong but I heard the compensation is negotiable. I believe the default is the 2 1st round picks. If it is negotiable they could say no to that and void the deal. We could stand firm or settle for less.

Again, I could be wrong. I'm sure I heard this but maybe the source was wrong. Anybody ?

No, I think you're 100% right on that DM. The rule is that a team would have to give you 2 1st round picks. But there is no rule saying you couldn't accept less if you wanted.

So what, are you saying a team could say, "No, we just want one of those 1st rounders, you keep the other?"

Of course not. I'm saying the 49ers could say we don't want to give up two first rounders, but we'll give you one. There isn't a league rule that would stop teams from making that deal if they wanted.