The Day of Reckoning for DC Sports GM's

The Kirk Cousins contract debacle over the last three years has once again highlighted the complete ineptitude of the Redskins front office to keep high level talent in DC, or get anything close to adequate compensation for his departure.  The flagship team for the Washington DC area is letting their best player at the most important position that they have had in over 40 years walk for almost nothing.  Cousins was a player that developed through this organization, and whatever the truth is about Kirk wanting to sign a long term contract with the Redskins, it is not a good look for the organization when a top player at his position over the last three years is let go.  The Redskins, though, are only the tip of the ice berg in DC when it comes to GM's making decisions about keeping their superstars in town.  The Wizards, Capitals, and Nationals will all have to face decisions in the very near future about whether or not to keep their franchise players here in Washington, and their decisions may have consequences that could undo the Pax Columbiana atmosphere those three teams have enjoyed in the regular season over the last decade.  Let's look at all three teams that will have major decisions to make in regards to their franchise players in the coming seasons, beginning with the Wizards.

The Wiz have most recently signed their Big Three of Otto Porter, Bradley Beal, and John Wall to long term contracts, but in the NBA no one is safe from a trade especially when there is drama in the locker room.  Marcin Gortat did not need a lot of arm twisting to state that the Wizards have been able to move the ball better on offense (in his opinion) without John Wall in the lineup.  In fact, the Wizards are 5-2 since Wall's injury that included a heart breaking loss against the Celtics on Thursday night.  This does not mean that Wall is going anywhere anytime soon, but if this type of fervor continues it could put a lot of pressure on Ernie Grunfeld to alleviate the situation in his own bumbling way.  Even if that does not happen, though, Beal and Porter will become UFA's in 2021.  While that date seems far off, the closer that date gets without any kind of playoff success from this team (i.e. Eastern Conference Finals appearances/championships) the more you may hear of Bradley Beal being moved since he doesn't have a no trade clause or trade kicker in his contract.  This is merely speculation, and the Wizards are the least likely team to break up the band in the near future, but the longer a team goes without success the more the trade rumors of superstars begin to surface.  Just ask the Capitals.

The Capitals futility in the post season came to a head this past spring, and with it came the most fervent push of the "Trade Alex Ovechkin" camp.  The notion of trading the greatest player the Capitals have ever had, and one of the greatest players in the game, seemed unfathomable when Ovechkin signed his mega deal in 2008.  But a decade has passed with Ovechkin winning no championships despite great regular season success, and Ovi realizing he only has three years remaining on his contract.  Couple that with Nick Backstrom and Braden Holtby becoming UFA's in only 2 years, and Brian MacLellan is going to have to face some tough decisions in the not-so-distant future.  Does he pull a Bruce Allen and keep the band together until it disintegrates and his superstars walk away for nothing, or does he try to make moves that will benefit the next iteration of this team post Ovechkin/Backstrom?  Prudence dictates that he at least entertains the latter, but more than likely he will choose to ride with Ovechkin as long as he can.  Keeping Ovechkin, though, will be tough if the Caps are unceremoniously eliminated from the playoffs again this season and the end of Ovechkin's contract looms on the visible part of the horizon.  It is hard to keep a superstar if they want a lot of money and do not produce championships.  Just ask the Nationals.

The Nationals are the team that has the most pressing issue facing it's GM.  Bryce Harper will become a UFA at the end of this season, and Mike Rizzo needs to weigh a lot of choices as it pertains to what to do with the most electrifying player in the DC market.  Does he pay him the GDP of some Third World Countries, or does he trade him away a la Giancarlo Stanton? There is always the patented Bruce Allen method of jerking him around and letting him walk for nothing, but Rizzo seems more saavy than that.  He realizes that Bryce Harper had the fifth highest selling jersey in all of Major League Baseball last season, and he moves merchandise with young kids here in the DC area.  Rizzo realizes that Harper sells tickets for the novice fans who want to see a superstar.  He realizes the Bryce has the ability to make a mega deal worth it through his production.  But the main question is, will it be worth it if the trophy case remains barren.  Recent history has proven that even with the firepower the Nats have been able to muster they still have fallen short of even playing for an NL Pennant. Trading Harper would be prudent if the Nationals know they are unwilling to go as high as Harper wants once negotiations begin, and they can get something in return for his departure.  Or Rizzo could bury his head in the sand and keep Harper knowing they are not going to pay him and make him resentful of this town and the way the Nationals do business.  But what GM would conduct himself in that manner?

Bruce Allen's handling of the Kirk Cousins contract situation has been given a little more perspective since Jimmy Garoppolo signed his contract.  Hindsight has made Allen look a little more prudent in being wary of giving Kirk $140 million, but the problem of letting Kirk walk for nothing still persists.  Luckily for Allen the other Washington GM's will have their chance to botch the handling of their respective superstars' expiring contracts here in Washington.  Ernie Grunfeld will need to decide if having three max players is worth all the childish bickering that may turn into real problems if no championships come.  Brian MacLellan will need to decide if it is worth keeping a legend in the face of persistent playoff futility.  And Mike Rizzo must decide whether or not it is worth breaking the bank for the face of his franchise.  Hanging in the balance is the relevance and relative winning stability these players have brought to the DC area.  These three GM's need to realize that if any one of the Wizards Big Three, Alex Ovechkin, or Bryce Harper are to leave that puts a damper on their ability to be perennial playoff teams, and in turn, sell tickets and merchandise.  The GM's need to keep up the winning atmosphere by getting value in return for these players' possible departure.  These decisions will be playing out over the next three years, and the three teams located outside of Ashburn, Virginia need to realize that their consistency, fortunes, and popularity within the DC Market for the next decade hinge on the handling of their superstars' expiring contracts.  Grunfeld, MacLellan, and Rizzo need to see these decisions for what they are, and make the moves that will secure assets that will help their team for the long term.  Or they could cover themselves in the warm blanket of denial and let these players walk for no compensation.  But what kind of GM would conduct himself in that manner?

Kirk Cousins's Value Is Dropping

Do you believe anything Bruce Allen says?  Good.  This is a quasi rhetorical question but I had to ask it in order for you to be in the right frame of mind to buy into my premise, which is that the teams trading up to take rookie quarterbacks in the first round in the NFL Draft have harmed Kirk Cousins's market value.  It may sound crazy, but ask yourself that question again.  Do you believe anything Bruce Allen says?  Do you believe him when he told JP Finley almost a month ago that the trade rumors surrounding Cousins were false?  One look at that one minute interview gives you an uneasy feeling about Allen's stance on Cousins's contract situation.  So it is not far fetched to think that the rumors stating that the Redskins were talking to the Browns about trading Kirk Cousins held some shred of truth.  It is also likely that, despite Allen's vehement denials, the Redskins may have thrown some lines out to other teams before the Draft to see if they would bite on a trade for Cousins.  If you believe these statements then Cousins and his agent, at the very least, had to assume that the Redskins were looking for trades as well.  If that is the case then Mike McCartney may need to rethink how to approach the calculation Cousin's market value based on the trades that happened in the First Round of the Draft.

The trades the Bears and Texans made to move up in the draft to select rookie quarterbacks have indirectly harmed Kirk Cousins's market value.  Let's assume that the Redskins at least talked to the Texans and Bears about a possible trade for Kirk Cousins before the Draft (remember: Do you believe anything Bruce Allen says?).  The Bears and Texans had ample resources and equally crappy quarterback situations that the Redskins probably exploited in the form of trade talks for Kirk Cousins.  If that is the case then the Texans trade for Deshaun Watson states that Cousins is not worth the 2018 first round pick that they gave up to get Watson.  Maybe the Texans didn't think that the Redskins's 17th pick would be high enough to have Watson still on the board, but it can be reasoned that the Texans were willing to trade their 2018 first round pick for Watson but not for a guy who has had back to back 4500 yard passing season in the NFL.  The Bears trade puts even more of a damper on Cousins's value.

Let's assume that the Redskins reached out to the Bears about a trade for Cousins before the Bears signed Mike Glennon (remember: Do you believe anything Bruce Allen says?).  If that is the case then the Bears trade to get Mitch Trubisky devalues Cousins market value further.  If the Bears declined a trade for Cousins then subsequently gave up only a 3rd and 4th round pick this year, plus their 3rd round next year to the 49ers for another unproven quarterback then it reinforces the notion that Cousins may not be worth giving up high drat picks on the open market.  Now, the Bears gave up those picks knowing they had Glennon on the roster, but if the Redskins offered the Bears a trade for Cousins before the Mike Glennon deal then you would have to assume that the Redskins asked for something higher than what the Bears gave up for Trubisky.  This would show, again, that another team with a questionable quarterback situation was willing to give up draft picks for an unproven rookie rather than for Kirk Cousins.  Both of these situations, if true, could make it so that Cousins may be sobered by his market value a year from now.

The Texans could have traded their 2018 first round pick for Cousins and then see where that took them.  The Bears could have traded their 2018 first round pick to get Cousins AND possibly could have still drafted Trubisky at the third pick this year.  But both teams balked at that notion.  The Redskins could have had a higher asking price in these hypothetical trade scenarios that turned off the Texans and Bears trading for Cousins, but that supports the notion that teams are unwilling to give up a lot for Cousins and are not willing to wait and see if he hits the open market.  Why pay a soon-to-be 30 year old quarterback $24 million per year with $50-60 million plus guaranteed over the next five years when, according to Jason Belzer of Forbes Magazine, the Bears will only have to pay out $29 million total for the duration of Trubisky's rookie contract?  If this is true then this may be the first blemish on Kirk Cousins's master plan.

The pervasive narrative that has surrounded the Kirk Cousins contract negotiations is that Bruce Allen has botched it from the beginning in giving Cousins two consecutive franchise tags.  This weekend's Draft, however, may be hinting that Allen is playing a long game with these tags that may end up in the Redskins favor.  Whether you believe the Redskins offered Cousins in trade to the Texans or the Bears, the fact is now there are two less suitors to help drive up the price for Cousins's services come next off season.  Couple that with one early 2018 mock draft stating that there could be four quarterbacks taken in the first round next year (and that is not counting whether or not Lamar Jackson decides to leave Louisville early), and the cap situation next year for all NFL teams and Kirk Cousins and Mike McCartney may need to have a serious talk about what the actual market value will be come the 2018 off season.  Who is going to pay a 30 year old Kirk Cousins $50-60 million plus in guarantees over 5 years when they can just draft a quarterback for a fourth of that cost?  And if there are a limited amount of teams willing to bid on Cousins's services, then why not bid low and see what happens if the team is looking to spend money elsewhere?  All of this is dependent upon what transpires through this season, but two teams have already passed on Cousins for what seem to be statistically inferior alternatives.  What will happen next year when the rookie talent pool is bigger, better, and the free agent market is a little more flush with talent?  Cousins could be staring down the grim reality that Allen may have manipulated his contract situation through the use of the franchise tags in a way that made him less valuable on the open market when and if he is finally allowed to hit free agency.  The question then may not be whether you believe what Bruce Allen says, it may be "Was Bruce Allen right all along about the market value of Kirk Cousins?".