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

riggofan wrote:They can trade him under the exclusive tag too. I understand what you're saying but its not a clear indication of anything.

It was funny listening to a couple different radio stations this morning where the "expert" opinions were completely at odds. I literally heard four different opinions. Which kind of confirms that nobody really knows what is going to happen and the type of tag - exclusive or non - doesn't really reveal anything at all.

I'm okay with that actually. Cousins has been really shrewd in his negotiation. I think the team has to be as well, and its better if they keep things close to the vest.

Btw whoever was posting about the Redskins' "leverage" is completely deluded. The team has ZERO leverage and everyone in the world knows it. The only thing they have is that Cousins will have to play in Washington this year which he seems content to do. The team can make whatever demands they want. Anybody they're negotiating with just has to say, "No thanks. We will wait one year."

The difference is who is allowed to do the negotiating. Under the exclusive tag only the Redskins can negotiate anything with anyone. That is their leverage.

Also, Cousins won't be getting anywhere near the salary next season he's gotten the last two seasons, regardless of the tag.

There isn't a team anywhere that will guarantee him $22MM a year unless he takes the 2017 Redskins to the Super Bowl.

Burgundy&GoldForever wrote:

riggofan wrote:They can trade him under the exclusive tag too. I understand what you're saying but its not a clear indication of anything.

It was funny listening to a couple different radio stations this morning where the "expert" opinions were completely at odds. I literally heard four different opinions. Which kind of confirms that nobody really knows what is going to happen and the type of tag - exclusive or non - doesn't really reveal anything at all.

I'm okay with that actually. Cousins has been really shrewd in his negotiation. I think the team has to be as well, and its better if they keep things close to the vest.

Btw whoever was posting about the Redskins' "leverage" is completely deluded. The team has ZERO leverage and everyone in the world knows it. The only thing they have is that Cousins will have to play in Washington this year which he seems content to do. The team can make whatever demands they want. Anybody they're negotiating with just has to say, "No thanks. We will wait one year."

The difference is who is allowed to do the negotiating. Under the exclusive tag only the Redskins can negotiate anything with anyone. That is their leverage.

They can negotiate nothing without Kirk’s signature!!

DEHog wrote:They can negotiate nothing without Kirk’s signature!!

Why not? All they have to do is to see if anyone is willing to pay their price.

Then they go to Kirk and say "Here's the deal. You can play for X team in 2017 if you work out a contract with them by X date or you can play for us."

You do realize it's on the team trading for Kirk to work out a long term deal and they can't do that if he's under the exclusive tag, right?

Burgundy&GoldForever wrote:

DEHog wrote:They can negotiate nothing without Kirk’s signature!!

Why not? All they have to do is to see if anyone is willing to pay their price.

Then they go to Kirk and say "Here's the deal. You can play for X team in 2017 if you work out a contract with them by X date or you can play for us."

You do realize it's on the team trading for Kirk to work out a long term deal and they can't do that if he's under the exclusive tag, right?

Yea and when the Skins come to him with the deal he can just say no thanks!! Let's say Cleveland tells Washington they'll give the Skins a first this year and third next year...Skins agree, go to Cousins and tell him he's being traded to the Browns...Cousins has the option of saying no thanks I don't want to play for them and doesn't sign the FT.

Burgundy&GoldForever wrote:

riggofan wrote:They can trade him under the exclusive tag too. I understand what you're saying but its not a clear indication of anything.

It was funny listening to a couple different radio stations this morning where the "expert" opinions were completely at odds. I literally heard four different opinions. Which kind of confirms that nobody really knows what is going to happen and the type of tag - exclusive or non - doesn't really reveal anything at all.

I'm okay with that actually. Cousins has been really shrewd in his negotiation. I think the team has to be as well, and its better if they keep things close to the vest.

Btw whoever was posting about the Redskins' "leverage" is completely deluded. The team has ZERO leverage and everyone in the world knows it. The only thing they have is that Cousins will have to play in Washington this year which he seems content to do. The team can make whatever demands they want. Anybody they're negotiating with just has to say, "No thanks. We will wait one year."

The difference is who is allowed to do the negotiating. Under the exclusive tag only the Redskins can negotiate anything with anyone. That is their leverage.

The Skins can negotiate all they want. The can work a deal to get three first round picks from the Bills in exchange for Cousins. All Kirk has to do is say, "I won't sign a long term deal with the Bills."

If you want to declare that "leverage", so be it.

DEHog wrote:Yea and when the Skins come to him with the deal he can just say no thanks!! Let's say Cleveland tells Washington they'll give the Skins a first this year and third next year...Skins agree, go to Cousins and tell him he's being traded to the Browns...Cousins has the option of saying no thanks I don't want to play for them and doesn't sign the FT.

EXACTLY.

The whole thing about Cousins can't negotiate with other teams is basically nonsense too. No, he can't fly out to San Francisco and meet with the 49ers. But we all know his agent can collude in any back channel he wants as long as he isn't caught.

riggofan wrote:

DEHog wrote:Yea and when the Skins come to him with the deal he can just say no thanks!! Let's say Cleveland tells Washington they'll give the Skins a first this year and third next year...Skins agree, go to Cousins and tell him he's being traded to the Browns...Cousins has the option of saying no thanks I don't want to play for them and doesn't sign the FT.

EXACTLY.

The whole thing about Cousins can't negotiate with other teams is basically nonsense too. No, he can't fly out to San Francisco and meet with the 49ers. But we all know his agent can collude in any back channel he wants as long as he isn't caught.

No only can, but probally already has!!

Burgundy&GoldForever wrote:You do realize it's on the team trading for Kirk to work out a long term deal and they can't do that if he's under the exclusive tag, right?

Nobody is going to trade us picks for Kirk Cousins for just one year. I don't know what the CBA mechanics are - maybe the redskins have to give permission or something - but a team trading for Cousins is going to want to be assured they can get a long term deal with him first.

riggofan wrote:

DEHog wrote:Yea and when the Skins come to him with the deal he can just say no thanks!! Let's say Cleveland tells Washington they'll give the Skins a first this year and third next year...Skins agree, go to Cousins and tell him he's being traded to the Browns...Cousins has the option of saying no thanks I don't want to play for them and doesn't sign the FT.

EXACTLY.

The whole thing about Cousins can't negotiate with other teams is basically nonsense too. No, he can't fly out to San Francisco and meet with the 49ers. But we all know his agent can collude in any back channel he wants as long as he isn't caught.

This is why I thought the Skins should have went the non-exclusive tag way. Then they would have seen his value and had the chance to match it...If Cousins didn't sign the match then you know he doesn't want to be here. Better to find out sooner rather than later your girl doesn't want to be in a long term relationship!!

DEHog wrote:

DarthMonk wrote:What kind of message would the transition tag have sent?

I was just making the point that the Tag the Skins chose was the one where Cousin couldn't seek another deal...I think if they had chosen the Non-Exclusive Tag it would have sent a clear message to Cousins that the Skins weren’t interested in signing him to a LTD??

Hey ... sorry if this came off as picking on anybody. I just literally want to know what people think about the message the transition tag would have sent.

DEHog wrote:

riggofan wrote:

DEHog wrote:Yea and when the Skins come to him with the deal he can just say no thanks!! Let's say Cleveland tells Washington they'll give the Skins a first this year and third next year...Skins agree, go to Cousins and tell him he's being traded to the Browns...Cousins has the option of saying no thanks I don't want to play for them and doesn't sign the FT.

EXACTLY.

The whole thing about Cousins can't negotiate with other teams is basically nonsense too. No, he can't fly out to San Francisco and meet with the 49ers. But we all know his agent can collude in any back channel he wants as long as he isn't caught.

This is why I thought the Skins should have went the non-exclusive tag way. Then they would have seen his value and had the chance to match it...If Cousins didn't sign the match then you know he doesn't want to be here. Better to find out sooner rather than later your girl doesn't want to be in a long term relationship!!

And this is why I wanted the transition tag because then we truly would learn his value from the market. With the "2-first-round-picks tag" it is likely he would have never been made an offer while he certainly would have had multiple offers under the transition tag.

I'd rather have 5 other teams determine his value than I would have his agent determine it as would be the case with either franchise tag.

Of course, someone could then offer him the Sun and the Moon and not matching would mean losing him for nothing ... but it's only money.

riggofan wrote:

Burgundy&GoldForever wrote:Because if they were going to trade him they would use the non-exclusive tag.

They can trade him under the exclusive tag too. This is not a clear indication of anything. ... listening to a couple different radio stations this morning where the "expert" opinions were completely at odds. Which confirms that nobody really knows what is going to happen and the type of tag - exclusive or non - doesn't really reveal anything at all. I'm okay with that actually. Cousins has been really shrewd in his negotiation. I think the team has to be as well, and it's better if they keep things close to the vest.

seems like the FO is not giving Cousins a huge long term deal - maybe someone offers a mega type deal or they sign a reasonable LTD
OR they end up paying him $24M under the tag and getting nothing for him

IF Cousins plays great this season, he gets to go wherever he wants for whatever he wants
IF Cousins just has a good year, he gets to go wherever he wants for a lot less

DarthMonk wrote:
And this is why I wanted the transition tag because then we truly would learn his value from the market. With the "2-first-round-picks tag" it is likely he would have never been made an offer while he certainly would have had multiple offers under the transition tag.

I'd rather have 5 other teams determine his value than I would have his agent determine it as would be the case with either franchise tag.

Of course, someone could then offer him the Sun and the Moon and not matching would mean losing him for nothing ... but it's only money.

Yea I think we are saying the same thing...I don't think we would have lost him for nothing, but your right it wouldn't be two first round picks.

riggofan wrote:

Burgundy&GoldForever wrote:You do realize it's on the team trading for Kirk to work out a long term deal and they can't do that if he's under the exclusive tag, right?

Nobody is going to trade us picks for Kirk Cousins for just one year. I don't know what the CBA mechanics are - maybe the redskins have to give permission or something - but a team trading for Cousins is going to want to be assured they can get a long term deal with him first.

Correct, and since it would be illegal for a team to negotiate that deal with Cousins under the exclusive franchise tag ...

A team would have to violate the CBA and risk the wrath of Roger "I never met a crime I couldn't overpunish" Goodell.

Or

a team would have to negotiate with Bruce Allen before it could do anything with Kirk Cousins.

That's the point in applying the exclusive tag.

The Redskins set the terms, not another team or a player's agent.

They can always call off a deal and fall back on the "you're playing for us this season" tag.

oj wrote: Listen to Cousins, he says he wants to play where he is wanted. Whatever money he wants is guaranteed, how much this guy gets paid is not the issue - he needs to feel he is wanted.

This entire "want to be wanted" shtick is passive aggressive BS. It makes Cousins sound like a whiny b!tch IMHO.

However, when he says that BS line, he is saying two things that go together:
1. I want ownership/FO to show me respect, and
2. I want to get PAID commensurate with that respect.

And the only way to do that is by the FO offering a deal that makes it impossible to cut him within 3-4 years.... and with a market value floor that, as of 3/1, was set by the FO at 24M/year --- the guaranteed portion would have to be AT LEAST 75M. Perhaps more.

After all, last offseason Cousins was forced by our FO to risk his entire future on 1 season. Sure, he got paid well, but on the free market there were teams willing to give him a deal that allowed him multiple years as their QB --- and ones that would have given him a deal with MUCH MORE than $20M guaranteed. Similarly, our FO took a risk by saying "play well and we'll pay you" ---- what they miscalculated was how much more they'd have to pay. That was their stupidity ---- not Cousins'. Cousins did everything he was asked to do. This entire scenario was the CHOICE of our FO ---- not Cousins. They screwed up. As a result, I see no reason why Cousins should concede 1 cent less than what he's worth.

And do you think Cousins gives a flying dump that they "exclusive" franchised him vs. transition or non-exclusive? No way. He doesn't even care about the money. I drive a better car than he does and it will take me nearly a lifetime to make what he has made up to this point. He wants the $$$ to show they respect him and plan to build the team around him. I am 100% confident that if his contract got in the way of signing players in Y2, 3, 4, etc. of his deal, he'd restructure. He has said that multiple times as is.

In the NFL money=respect. Franchise tags, kind words, and verbal commitments don't mean sh!t.

markshark84 wrote:This entire "want to be wanted" shtick is passive aggressive BS. It makes Cousins sound like a whiny b!tch IMHO.

I just think its a dumb argument. You can't separate "show me that I'm wanted" from "pay me" in this case. Its the same thing.

It appears reading this thread people don't understand the exclusive vs non-exclusive tag...

If we placed the Non-exclusive tag on him, the Texans (or a team even further down the draft board) could make him an offer next week...we'd either have to match or get two first rounders. That offer could be horrible too! Remember, we'd be dealing with a lot of teams and therefore, BAD owners who would overpay him or put in a poison pill clause.

The exclusive tag allows you to trade him to anyone...of course, we want a better draft pick so trade him to the Browns or 49'ers or Bears.

Anyone think there's already been discussions with Skins and 49'ers??

markshark84 wrote:This entire "want to be wanted" shtick is passive aggressive BS. It makes Cousins sound like a whiny b!tch IMHO.

However, when he says that BS line, he is saying two things that go together:
1. I want ownership/FO to show me respect, and
2. I want to get PAID commensurate with that respect.

And the only way to do that is by the FO offering a deal that makes it impossible to cut him within 3-4 years.... and with a market value floor that, as of 3/1, was set by the FO at 24M/year --- the guaranteed portion would have to be AT LEAST 75M. Perhaps more.

After all, last offseason Cousins was forced by our FO to risk his entire future on 1 season. Sure, he got paid well, but on the free market there were teams willing to give him a deal that allowed him multiple years as their QB --- and ones that would have given him a deal with MUCH MORE than $20M guaranteed. Similarly, our FO took a risk by saying "play well and we'll pay you" ---- what they miscalculated was how much more they'd have to pay. That was their stupidity ---- not Cousins'. Cousins did everything he was asked to do. This entire scenario was the CHOICE of our FO ---- not Cousins. They screwed up. As a result, I see no reason why Cousins should concede 1 cent less than what he's worth.

And do you think Cousins gives a flying dump that they "exclusive" franchised him vs. transition or non-exclusive? No way. He doesn't even care about the money. I drive a better car than he does and it will take me nearly a lifetime to make what he has made up to this point. He wants the $$$ to show they respect him and plan to build the team around him. I am 100% confident that if his contract got in the way of signing players in Y2, 3, 4, etc. of his deal, he'd restructure. He has said that multiple times as is.

In the NFL money=respect. Franchise tags, kind words, and verbal commitments don't mean sh!t.

I agree with this almost completely. The ONLY beef I have with the above is highlighted. Nobody is perfect but he failed to pull the trigger 1/2 a dozen times at the most important moments of the season - in the final game.

Again, I think the rest is spot on.

fredp45 wrote:It appears reading this thread people don't understand the exclusive vs non-exclusive tag...

If we placed the Non-exclusive tag on him, the Texans (or a team even further down the draft board) could make him an offer next week...we'd either have to match or get two first rounders. That offer could be horrible too! Remember, we'd be dealing with a lot of teams and therefore, BAD owners who would overpay him or put in a poison pill clause.

The exclusive tag allows you to trade him to anyone...of course, we want a better draft pick so trade him to the Browns or 49'ers or Bears.

Anyone think there's already been discussions with Skins and 49'ers??

I certainly know the difference. I think some people accidentally confused the two and I think a few others may not truly understand all the ramifications.

Referring to the highlight above, by horrible, do you mean for so much money that we wouldn't want to match?

I think you are also pointing out something pretty important. If he had been non-exclusively tagged and then signed an offer sheet from a team with late picks, all we'd get by not matching would be two late first rounders.

To me, the transition tag would have been a show of respect. It would have been saying "Go see what you are in fact worth and we will be happy to pay it and then some."

I wish we had done that last year. Better still, I wish we would have simply extended him a lot sooner. We have taken a penny-wise-pound-foolish approach that will end up costing us a ton even if he's gone in a year.

This FO is going to try and get Cousins signed to a long term deal or they will find a way to trade him - nobody, including Cousins, really wants him to play 1 season and leave - I doubt that Cousins contract will affect the FO being able to pay the other players - that they could have signed him for less last year, makes no difference - Cousins and his advisors are just trying to get the best deal they can and they should

Prisco is predicting the 49ers will use the 2 pick on Trubisky - are you kidding me - why would you do that when you could have Cousins

Well looks like you Kirk fans love a mediocre qb more than you do the actual Washington Redskins.

Looks like Danny and Bruce went against Scotts advice and are now forcing Scott out.

So we lose our only competent football mind and may sign a Qb who lays more eggs then the easter bunny.

Oh gee I can't wait to see who Bruce and Danny draft this year.

HEROHAMO wrote:Looks like Danny and Bruce went against Scotts advice and are now forcing Scott out.

Not saying the above is wrong at all. Just wondering what advice you are referring to. With regards to Kirk I though Scot was the one who met with Dan for several hours and convinced him to start Kirk.

DarthMonk wrote:

fredp45 wrote:It appears reading this thread people don't understand the exclusive vs non-exclusive tag...

If we placed the Non-exclusive tag on him, the Texans (or a team even further down the draft board) could make him an offer next week...we'd either have to match or get two first rounders. That offer could be horrible too! Remember, we'd be dealing with a lot of teams and therefore, BAD owners who would overpay him or put in a poison pill clause.

The exclusive tag allows you to trade him to anyone...of course, we want a better draft pick so trade him to the Browns or 49'ers or Bears.

Anyone think there's already been discussions with Skins and 49'ers??

I certainly know the difference. I think some people accidentally confused the two and I think a few others may not truly understand all the ramifications.

Referring to the highlight above, by horrible, do you mean for so much money that we wouldn't want to match?

I think you are also pointing out something pretty important. If he had been non-exclusively tagged and then signed an offer sheet from a team with late picks, all we'd get by not matching would be two late first rounders.

To me, the transition tag would have been a show of respect. It would have been saying "Go see what you are in fact worth and we will be happy to pay it and then some."

I wish we had done that last year. Better still, I wish we would have simply extended him a lot sooner. We have taken a penny-wise-pound-foolish approach that will end up costing us a ton even if he's gone in a year.

For me the problem with the transition tag is…if a team (like was said) makes a crazy offer that you don’t want to match…we get nothing in return. To me that’s more disrespectful to Cousin then saying we believe you are worth 2 first round picks. Which is why I wanted the non-exclusive tag, it lets us know his worth, while insuring we get something in return (two late first round picks are better than nothing). Also isn’t the “poison pill” illegal under the new CBA?

HEROHAMO wrote:Well looks like you Kirk fans love a mediocre qb more than you do the actual Washington Redskins.

Looks like Danny and Bruce went against Scotts advice and are now forcing Scott out.

So we lose our only competent football mind and may sign a Qb who lays more eggs then the easter bunny.

Oh gee I can't wait to see who Bruce and Danny draft this year.

Virtually everyone else thinks Gruden and SM want Cousins, but Allen/Snyder don't like him due to their continued love of the bust they drafted back in 2012.

DEHog wrote:

DarthMonk wrote:

fredp45 wrote:It appears reading this thread people don't understand the exclusive vs non-exclusive tag...

If we placed the Non-exclusive tag on him, the Texans (or a team even further down the draft board) could make him an offer next week...we'd either have to match or get two first rounders. That offer could be horrible too! Remember, we'd be dealing with a lot of teams and therefore, BAD owners who would overpay him or put in a poison pill clause.

The exclusive tag allows you to trade him to anyone...of course, we want a better draft pick so trade him to the Browns or 49'ers or Bears.

Anyone think there's already been discussions with Skins and 49'ers??

I certainly know the difference. I think some people accidentally confused the two and I think a few others may not truly understand all the ramifications.

Referring to the highlight above, by horrible, do you mean for so much money that we wouldn't want to match?

I think you are also pointing out something pretty important. If he had been non-exclusively tagged and then signed an offer sheet from a team with late picks, all we'd get by not matching would be two late first rounders.

To me, the transition tag would have been a show of respect. It would have been saying "Go see what you are in fact worth and we will be happy to pay it and then some."

I wish we had done that last year. Better still, I wish we would have simply extended him a lot sooner. We have taken a penny-wise-pound-foolish approach that will end up costing us a ton even if he's gone in a year.

For me the problem with the transition tag is…if a team (like was said) makes a crazy offer that you don’t want to match…we get nothing in return. To me that’s more disrespectful to Cousin then saying we believe you are worth 2 first round picks. Which is why I wanted the non-exclusive tag, it lets us know his worth, while insuring we get something in return (two late first round picks are better than nothing). Also isn’t the “poison pill” illegal under the new CBA?

Yep. That's the problem.

But the non-exclusive tag really doesn't give us his worth in terms of dollars since it would include the 2 picks. With the transition tag we would only be looking at what other teams are willing TO PAY Kirk.

Also, we would not be saying "You are worth 2 picks." That's what a potential suitor would be saying. Actually, if we failed to match we'd be saying "We'd rather have the 2 picks than you."

Could someone give an example of a "poison pill?"