The-Hogs.net - Washington Football Discussion, Redskins to Commanders Era

Deadskins wrote: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.

DEHog wrote: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...

markshark84 wrote:

riggofan wrote: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.

riggofan wrote:

Deadskins wrote: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.

Of course there is wiggle room. All the 49ers would do is say, we don't want to sign him on the tag. We'll trade you a first rounder and a second rounder. The Redskins would remove the tag and trade the player for whatever deal they negotiated.

I heard the radio guys talking about this last week.

DarthMonk wrote:This is great.

DEHog wrote:Wouldn't that be called a trade?

DarthMonk wrote:

DEHog wrote:Wouldn't that be called a trade?

If we tag him, they offer the moon, we don't match, and they aquire him in exchange for 2 1st round picks ... I think that would be called a trade too.
I think SF will want him enough that we can risk tagging him like last year (and it is a risk) and drag our feet until SF comes swooping in with the moon for Kirk and 2 1st rounders for us. It's not what I wanted a year ago but I think it's going to happen.
Just my guess that's worth about

riggofan wrote:

Burgundy&GoldForever wrote: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.

DarthMonk wrote:

DEHog wrote:Wouldn't that be called a trade?

If we tag him, they offer the moon, we don't match, and they aquire him in exchange for 2 1st round picks ... I think that would be called a trade too.



I think SF will want him enough that we can risk tagging him like last year (and it is a risk) and drag our feet until SF comes swooping in with the moon for Kirk and 2 1st rounders for us.

It's not what I wanted a year ago but I think it's going to happen.

Just my guess that's worth about

SkinsJock wrote:

DarthMonk wrote:This is great.

and it's getting better ...

Deadskins wrote:

riggofan wrote:

Deadskins wrote: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.

Of course there is wiggle room. All the 49ers would do is say, we don't want to sign him on the tag. We'll trade you a first rounder and a second rounder. The Redskins would remove the tag and trade the player for whatever deal they negotiated.

I heard the radio guys talking about this last week.

Sure, but that's a trade, not picking up a guy by way of the non-exclusive franchise tag. And we couldn't just "remove the tag and trade the player." The tag is the only thing giving us his rights. First, we would have to sign him to whatever deal, THEN trade him. That wasn't what was being argued at all.

riggofan wrote:Yes, you are completely right on this. Thanks for splitting hairs so effectively.

DEHog wrote:As I understand it, that would be compensation for a free agent signing??

DEHog wrote:But, if the Skins tag him they better be prepared to either pay him long term or pay the tag price...if they don't get any takers.

ferryrich wrote:3 pages for 3 predictions?

DarthMonk wrote:

DEHog wrote:Wouldn't that be called a trade?

If we tag him, they offer the moon, we don't match, and they aquire him in exchange for 2 1st round picks ... I think that would be called a trade too.

Burgundy&GoldForever wrote:

riggofan wrote:

Burgundy&GoldForever wrote: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.

There's a rule that says you don't spend 20% of the cap on one player. 15% is about the cutoff.

In fact, the highest single player cap hit for 2017 based upon a $170MM cap is 14.5% for Tony Romo's $24.7MM cap figure.

So, I'm going to contend that while there is no actual rule against it there is a rule against it.

It's not something anyone is doing.

Deadskins wrote: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.

riggofan wrote:

Deadskins wrote:

riggofan wrote:
Of course there is wiggle room. All the 49ers would do is say, we don't want to sign him on the tag. We'll trade you a first rounder and a second rounder. The Redskins would remove the tag and trade the player for whatever deal they negotiated.

I heard the radio guys talking about this last week.

Sure, but that's a trade, not picking up a guy by way of the non-exclusive franchise tag. And we couldn't just "remove the tag and trade the player." The tag is the only thing giving us his rights. First, we would have to sign him to whatever deal, THEN trade him. That wasn't what was being argued at all.

Yes you are completely right on this. Thanks for splitting these hairs so effectively.

Deadskins wrote:

DarthMonk wrote:

DEHog wrote:Wouldn't that be called a trade?

If we tag him, they offer the moon, we don't match, and they acquire him in exchange for 2 1st round picks ... I think that would be called a trade too.

No, it wouldn't.

Deadskins wrote:

DarthMonk wrote:

DEHog wrote:Wouldn't that be called a trade?

If we tag him, they offer the moon, we don't match, and they acquire him in exchange for 2 1st round picks ... I think that would be called a trade too.

No, it wouldn't.

DarthMonk wrote:I guess it depends on who's doing the calling.

Deadskins wrote:I predict that if Cousins does leave by FA or a trade, we will start to hear calls for Nate Sudfeld to be the starter almost immediately. Speaking of Nate, did anyone hear any news about him at all last year? Did he show anything in practices to make the coaches believe he might take over some day?

Deadskins wrote:I predict that if Cousins does leave by FA or a trade, we will start to hear calls for Nate Sudfeld to be the starter almost immediately. Speaking of Nate, did anyone hear any news about him at all last year? Did he show anything in practices to make the coaches believe he might take over some day?

Burgundy&GoldForever wrote:

Deadskins wrote:I predict that if Cousins does leave by FA or a trade, we will start to hear calls for Nate Sudfeld to be the starter almost immediately. Speaking of Nate, did anyone hear any news about him at all last year? Did he show anything in practices to make the coaches believe he might take over some day?

All I recall hearing is that he's a project.