The FINAL Kirk Cousins Saga thread. 5.0

Dan. From the CBA article 4 section 8b
This is the rule I was thinking about when I said they would be violating the CBA if they tag KC.


Yes they can try to trade him BUT you can't tag him with the intent to trade himIf Kirk and his agent made it clear they did not want to stay in Washington, then you can say you wanted too.

I don't think once his agent got into his head he had any interest in being a Redskin.

From reports on things said in practice and players talking about mixed messages Kirk has just been tugging on fans heart strings. Especially playing on those who want to hate Snyder and Allen.

Once this is done I will be happy if I hear about Smith putting in the work with is WRs.

Sent from my SM-G955W using Tapatalk

If Kirk and his agent made it clear they did not want to stay in Washington, then you can say you wanted too.

I don't think once his agent got into his head he had any interest in being a Redskin.

From reports on things said in practice and players talking about mixed messages Kirk has just been tugging on fans heart strings. Especially playing on those who want to hate Snyder and Allen.

Once this is done I will be happy if I hear about Smith putting in the work with is WRs.

Sent from my SM-G955W using TapatalkOnce they committed publicly to trading for Alex Smith at a rate(17M + guaranteed money) that would put us over the cap with KC FT any lawyer would be able to say the skins had no intent at the time they imposed the FT to pay him that amount on opening day. What KC says or does or has done has zero relevance to the Skins legal obligation under the CBA

Once they committed publicly to trading for Alex Smith at a rate(17M + guaranteed money) that would put us over the cap with KC FT any lawyer would be able to say the skins had no intent at the time they imposed the FT to pay him that amount on opening day. What KC says or does or has done has zero relevance to the Skins legal obligation under the CBAThere is nothing official from the Skins on the trade yet is there?

Sent from my SM-G955W using Tapatalk

Once they committed publicly to trading for Alex Smith at a rate(17M + guaranteed money) that would put us over the cap with KC FT any lawyer would be able to say the skins had no intent at the time they imposed the FT to pay him that amount on opening day. What KC says or does or has done has zero relevance to the Skins legal obligation under the CBA

Yep, I don't get what's so hard to understand:

when a team applies the franchise tender, the team must intend to employ the player at the amount of the franchise tender for the upcoming season. With Washington already planning to trade for, and to extend the contract of, Chiefs quarterback Alex Smith, there’s no way that Washington intends to employ Cousins at $34.47 million for 2018.

This portion of the labor deal provides Cousins with a silver bullet to block either the franchise tag or the transition tag, which would require Washington to have a good-faith intent to employ Cousins at $28.7 million. The fact that the window for tagging players closes a week before the start of free agency means that Cousins will have seven days to secure a ruling before the market opens. Given the widespread reports of Washington’s plans to acquire and extend Alex Smith, it shouldn’t take seven minutes for an arbitrator to issue a ruling.

CBA gives Kirk Cousins an immediate path to checkmate, if Washington tags him again – ProFootballTalk (http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2018/02/17/cba-gives-kirk-cousins-an-immediate-path-to-checkmate-if-washington-tags-him-again/)

There is nothing official from the Skins on the trade yet is there?

Sent from my SM-G955W using TapatalkI would doubt it mattered in the legal sense if they did or not because KFuller confirmed he is the player to be traded and AS confirmed he is going to be starting for the Skins.

I would doubt it mattered in the legal sense if they did or not because KFuller confirmed he is the player to be traded and AS confirmed he is going to be starting for the Skins.I would still do and have a contract ready to offer exactly the same as was offered to Smith. Then have a trade worked out for March 14th.

Worse thing that happens is either he signs or wins a grievance.

Sent from my SM-G955W using Tapatalk

I would still do and have a contract ready to offer exactly the same as was offered to Smith. Then have a trade worked out for March 14th.

Worse thing that happens is either he signs or wins a grievance.

Sent from my SM-G955W using Tapatalk

Those would be incredibly bad options.

1) If he files a grievance then the 34M would be against our cap until that is resolved. Basically a self inflicted cap penalty for this year. Several things would follow as a result of that:
a) we could not execute the trade for AS, so we would have no qb of note going into the offseason.
b) we could not use the FT on Zach Brown or any other player, so likely would lose at least one player we want to keep
c) if did try to get AS, then we would have zero cap space while the grievance proceeds.

2) I don't see where you think he would sign the AS deal, without a grievance. But even if he did, the relationship would be even worse than what ever it was last year, and that's not a qb you want on your team.

Those would be incredibly bad options.

1) If he files a grievance then the 34M would be against our cap until that is resolved. Basically a self inflicted cap penalty for this year. Several things would follow as a result of that:
a) we could not execute the trade for AS, so we would have no qb of note going into the offseason.
b) we could not use the FT on Zach Brown or any other player, so likely would lose at least one player we want to keep
c) if did try to get AS, then we would have zero cap space while the grievance proceeds.

2) I don't see where you think he would sign the AS deal, without a grievance. But even if he did, the relationship would be even worse than what ever it was last year, and that's not a qb you want on your team.I don't think he would sign an AS deal. But it shows a reasonable offer.

They can use it Feb 20 and do a trade or rescind it march 14th

Sent from my SM-G955W using Tapatalk

I don't think he would sign an AS deal. But it shows a reasonable offer.

They can use it Feb 20 and do a trade or rescind it march 14th

Sent from my SM-G955W using Tapatalk

I don't think you get the point of the section I quoted earlier - it specifically states that's a violation:
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.
By offering the FT tender the Skins would be making the legal declaration that they intend to have KC back on contract on the 1st game of the season AT the tender amount, unless the two sides mutually agree on a long term deal. Having a deal that KC won't sign on the table, and a contract offered to AS which would put us over the cap with the FT amount would seemingly be a no brainer for the grievance judge to find us in violation.

I don't think you get the point of the section I quoted earlier - it specifically states that's a violation:

By offering the FT tender the Skins would be making the legal declaration that they intend to have KC back on contract on the 1st game of the season AT the tender amount, unless the two sides mutually agree on a long term deal. Having a deal that KC won't sign on the table, and a contract offered to AS which would put us over the cap with the FT amount would seemingly be a no brainer for the grievance judge to find us in violation.They can structure the deal so that he is getting his tender offer this year.

Trust me if the Skins have it in place to get a second or higher than they will tag him. There is a reason you have lawyers.

Sent from my SM-G955W using Tapatalk