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

SkinsJock wrote:Cousins camp and the Redskins FO are fully aware of what the market value is for a good QB - hopefully the FO offers Cousins a little more than they think he's worth & Cousins turns them down so he can get a better contract by having a great year

good deal for Cousins and good for the Redskins

riggofan wrote:Nobody is making an argument that Cousins should be paid the same amount as Luck. The point is that Luck's contract could significantly raise the ceiling for that position. Its not like Luck will get that contract and everyone else will just continue to get paid at the 2016 going rate.

If you don't buy that argument, what about the franchise tag? "An "exclusive" franchise player must be offered a one-year contract for an amount no less than the average of the top five salaries at the player's position as of a date in April of the current year in which the tag will apply, or 120 percent of the player's previous year's salary, whichever is greater. Exclusive franchise players cannot negotiate with other teams. The player's team has all the negotiating rights to the exclusive player."

Deadskins wrote:

riggofan wrote:Nobody is making an argument that Cousins should be paid the same amount as Luck. The point is that Luck's contract could significantly raise the ceiling for that position. Its not like Luck will get that contract and everyone else will just continue to get paid at the 2016 going rate.

If you don't buy that argument, what about the franchise tag? "An "exclusive" franchise player must be offered a one-year contract for an amount no less than the average of the top five salaries at the player's position as of a date in April of the current year in which the tag will apply, or 120 percent of the player's previous year's salary, whichever is greater. Exclusive franchise players cannot negotiate with other teams. The player's team has all the negotiating rights to the exclusive player."

Kirk is not an exclusive player, though. Didn't we go the non-exclusive route?

Deadskins wrote:

riggofan wrote:Nobody is making an argument that Cousins should be paid the same amount as Luck. The point is that Luck's contract could significantly raise the ceiling for that position. Its not like Luck will get that contract and everyone else will just continue to get paid at the 2016 going rate.

If you don't buy that argument, what about the franchise tag? "An "exclusive" franchise player must be offered a one-year contract for an amount no less than the average of the top five salaries at the player's position as of a date in April of the current year in which the tag will apply, or 120 percent of the player's previous year's salary, whichever is greater. Exclusive franchise players cannot negotiate with other teams. The player's team has all the negotiating rights to the exclusive player."

Kirk is not an exclusive player though. Didn't we go the non-exclusive route?

If that’s the way the Redskins want to operate moving forward, that’s their choice. Just know, there’s only one Tom Brady, and they are more likely to wind up with a situation that played out for the Baltimore Ravens and Joe Flacco.

You don’t remember? Flacco gambled on himself, the Ravens gambled on being right and themselves. Together, they won a Super Bowl and then Flacco got paid a fortune. Good for him. If there’s anybody that says Flacco’s original post Super Bowl deal didn’t hurt the Ravens, or his current re-negotiated deal, then we need to talk. It’s been and will continue to be a significant issue.

It has robbed the Ravens of valuable depth and the ability to overcome problems like injuries and free agent defections.

riggofan wrote:Chris Russell has the numbers and the math.
"Oh and by the way - they could have had him for $35m fully guaranteed this March. "

riggofan wrote:

Deadskins wrote:

riggofan wrote:Nobody is making an argument that Cousins should be paid the same amount as Luck. The point is that Luck's contract could significantly raise the ceiling for that position. Its not like Luck will get that contract and everyone else will just continue to get paid at the 2016 going rate.

If you don't buy that argument, what about the franchise tag? "An "exclusive" franchise player must be offered a one-year contract for an amount no less than the average of the top five salaries at the player's position as of a date in April of the current year in which the tag will apply, or 120 percent of the player's previous year's salary, whichever is greater. Exclusive franchise players cannot negotiate with other teams. The player's team has all the negotiating rights to the exclusive player."

Kirk is not an exclusive player though. Didn't we go the non-exclusive route?

I don't know but how is that any different? The compensation is still the same. The only difference is that a non-exclusive player can negotiate with other teams.

A "non-exclusive" franchise player must be offered a one-year contract for an amount no less than the average of the top five cap hits at the player's position for the previous five years applied to the current salary cap, or 120 percent of the player's previous year's salary, whichever is greater. A non-exclusive franchise player may negotiate with other NFL teams, but if the player signs an offer sheet from another team, the original team has a right to match the terms of that offer, or if it does not match the offer and thus loses the player, is entitled to receive two first-round draft picks as compensation.

Both the non-exclusive and exclusive compensation would be affected by Luck's contract the same way, don't you think?

Deadskins wrote:Not necessarily. Being non-exclusive kind of sets his market value on it's own. Two #1s is really not that big a price for a top QB in this league, and the fact that he hasn't gotten any offers shows how other teams feel about him to an extent. Even at his age, if Tom Brady was a non-exclusive franchise player, there would be several teams vying for his services.

But the Redskins have to have one thing in the back of their minds that may create some desperation as the deadline gets closer. Breer mentioned the ongoing Andrew Luck contract extension talks. Colts owner Robert Irsay has said that the deal will be “a big number”, which in today’s quarterback market is something in the neighborhood of $25 million per year.

So let’s paint the nightmare scenario for the Redskins, at least in financial terms. The July 15 deadline passes with no deal and Cousins plays on the tag in 2016. Then just before training camp starts the blockbuster deal for Luck is announced at six years, $150 million with $75 million guaranteed.

Suppose Cousins clearly outperforms Luck in 2016. Not necessarily because he’s a better, more talented quarterback than Luck but because he has better weapons and an offense that fits him perfectly.

If that entirely plausible scenario unfolds Mike McCartney, Cousins’ agent, will want to start negotiations in 2017 with Luck’s deal. The Redskins, who could lock up Cousins now for something in the neighborhood of $20 million per year right now, maybe even a bit less, may end up paying more—a lot more.

According to the old adage, patience is a virtue. But perhaps not in this case. Making sure that Cousins gets locked up in the next three weeks might cost them a couple of million more per year than they really want to pay. If they wait it out and Luck resets the market they might end up paying $40 million more over the life of the contract than they might if they act now.

What Luck may or may not do should not dictate what the Redskins and Cousins do. But it is a factor that needs to be considered.

riggofan wrote:Tandler is all over it. I think its worth noting that he's painting the worst case scenario. Up to the team to weigh the risk.

What do you think about this suggestion that Cousins could outperform Luck this year? He writes: "Not necessarily because he’s a better, more talented quarterback than Luck but because he has better weapons and an offense that fits him perfectly."

It may seem crazy to think, but they've put him in great position to be successful this year.

But the Redskins have to have one thing in the back of their minds that may create some desperation as the deadline gets closer. Breer mentioned the ongoing Andrew Luck contract extension talks. Colts owner Robert Irsay has said that the deal will be “a big number”, which in today’s quarterback market is something in the neighborhood of $25 million per year.

So let’s paint the nightmare scenario for the Redskins, at least in financial terms. The July 15 deadline passes with no deal and Cousins plays on the tag in 2016. Then just before training camp starts the blockbuster deal for Luck is announced at six years, $150 million with $75 million guaranteed.

Suppose Cousins clearly outperforms Luck in 2016. Not necessarily because he’s a better, more talented quarterback than Luck but because he has better weapons and an offense that fits him perfectly.

If that entirely plausible scenario unfolds Mike McCartney, Cousins’ agent, will want to start negotiations in 2017 with Luck’s deal. The Redskins, who could lock up Cousins now for something in the neighborhood of $20 million per year right now, maybe even a bit less, may end up paying more—a lot more.

According to the old adage, patience is a virtue. But perhaps not in this case. Making sure that Cousins gets locked up in the next three weeks might cost them a couple of million more per year than they really want to pay. If they wait it out and Luck resets the market they might end up paying $40 million more over the life of the contract than they might if they act now.

What Luck may or may not do should not dictate what the Redskins and Cousins do. But it is a factor that needs to be considered.

http://realredskins.com/2016/06/26/need ... uck-signs/

Burgundy&GoldForever wrote:I think Tandler is reaching for material.

Burgundy&GoldForever wrote:The money really isn't a problem. The salary cap goes up every year. It's gone up $10MM, $10MM, and $12MM in the last three years.

riggofan wrote:

Burgundy&GoldForever wrote:I think Tandler is reaching for material.

Of course he is. Its freaking June.

Burgundy&GoldForever wrote:The money really isn't a problem. The salary cap goes up every year. It's gone up $10MM, $10MM, and $12MM in the last three years.

Sure. Instead of having an extra $10m to sign Chris Baker next year, you're paying Cousins more than you needed to.

riggofan wrote:

Deadskins wrote:Not necessarily. Being non-exclusive kind of sets his market value on it's own. Two #1s is really not that big a price for a top QB in this league, and the fact that he hasn't gotten any offers shows how other teams feel about him to an extent. Even at his age, if Tom Brady was a non-exclusive franchise player, there would be several teams vying for his services.

I don't really understand the squishy point you're making. I'm just talking about math here. If Luck signs a significantly high new contract then the league plugs that new number into the formula to calculate the franchise tag. The number that comes out of the formula will be higher. Exclusive or non-exclusive. Doesn't matter. End of story.

I'm sure there are other finer points about how the contract is negotiated under an exclusive or non-exclusive tag. I'm just talking about the fact that the franchise tag number is going to be reset by a new Luck deal.

riggofan wrote:Nobody is making an argument that Cousins should be paid the same amount as Luck. The point is that Luck's contract could significantly raise the ceiling for that position. Its not like Luck will get that contract and everyone else will just continue to get paid at the 2016 going rate.

Deadskins wrote:Obviously. If Luck's new contract is one of the top 5 in the league, then it will be used in setting the franchise QB numbers. Duh! But that wasn't the point you were making when you said:

riggofan wrote:Nobody is making an argument that Cousins should be paid the same amount as Luck. The point is that Luck's contract could significantly raise the ceiling for that position. Its not like Luck will get that contract and everyone else will just continue to get paid at the 2016 going rate.

DarthMonk wrote:Would $110 M for 6 years with $55 M guaranteed get it done right now?

DarthMonk wrote:Would $110 M for 6 years with $55 M guaranteed get it done right now?

riggofan wrote:

Deadskins wrote:Obviously. If Luck's new contract is one of the top 5 in the league, then it will be used in setting the franchise QB numbers. Duh! But that wasn't the point you were making when you said:

riggofan wrote:Nobody is making an argument that Cousins should be paid the same amount as Luck. The point is that Luck's contract could significantly raise the ceiling for that position. Its not like Luck will get that contract and everyone else will just continue to get paid at the 2016 going rate.

I have no idea what you're talking about. That's exactly the point I was making. What part of "The point is that Luck's contract could significantly raise the ceiling for that position." is confusing to you?

riggofan wrote:

DarthMonk wrote:Would $110 M for 6 years with $55 M guaranteed get it done right now?

I would think so. I don't know about the number of years, etc; but the latest number I read was that his agent is looking for $44m guaranteed.

DarthMonk wrote:

riggofan wrote:

DarthMonk wrote:Would $110 M for 6 years with $55 M guaranteed get it done right now?

I would think so. I don't know about the number of years, etc; but the latest number I read was that his agent is looking for $44m guaranteed.

A year from now, franchise tag money should be over $20 M so it seems like $44 M is essentially 2 years of franchise money. If $44 M is the number I say offer $110 for 6 years with $44 M guaranteed now. $110 M is essentially current franchise money X 6.

If we are not happy after 2 years he's gone and we take one bad hit for the 2nd year - probably just the cap increase. If we are happy we find we have a bargain.

This contract would look small in 2021-2022.

Burgundy&GoldForever wrote:

DarthMonk wrote:Would $110 M for 6 years with $55 M guaranteed get it done right now?

Maybe but to hell with giving a player that kind of contract based upon ten games. If he gets us to a Super Bowl this season ... give him any damn thing he wants.

Burgundy&GoldForever wrote:Why would Cousins even consider taking that contract when he can get that much guaranteed over the next two seasons alone?

riggofan wrote:

Burgundy&GoldForever wrote:Why would Cousins even consider taking that contract when he can get that much guaranteed over the next two seasons alone?

Because he's not "guaranteed" jack in 2017. The chance that he might get franchised again in 2017 if he has a good year isn't a guarantee of anything.

I know people will say he can bet on himself to have a good year and earn a bigger pay day, but there are still things out of his control that could derail that. Trent Williams goes down in the fourth preseason game for example. Jordan Reed gets a concussion. There's more to it than just betting on himself.

Burgundy&GoldForever wrote:

riggofan wrote:

Burgundy&GoldForever wrote:Why would Cousins even consider taking that contract when he can get that much guaranteed over the next two seasons alone?

Because he's not "guaranteed" jack in 2017. The chance that he might get franchised again in 2017 if he has a good year isn't a guarantee of anything.

I know people will say he can bet on himself to have a good year and earn a bigger pay day, but there are still things out of his control that could derail that. Trent Williams goes down in the fourth preseason game for example. Jordan Reed gets a concussion. There's more to it than just betting on himself.

He's not going to get franchise tagged in back to back seasons. It would cost 120% of his 2016 salary. That's $23.94MM guaranteed.

What I meant was he's already guaranteed $19.95MM for 2016. Any contract he gets is going to guarantee him more than another $24.05MM over the next five seasons. A lot more.