Interesting article here. Not a huge fan of Verderame but he was at the Super Bowl and he does go to the combine. I think he gets some tips, albeit from Terez (who is a nice guy).
Here is the most interesting part of the article. 2021 and 2022 would be extremely difficult to manage.
Originally Posted by :
What the Chiefs can do with their money
Looking at Kansas City’s cap situation, it can release wide receiver Sammy Watkins and linebacker Damien Wilson, clearing out $18.5 million in space. Combined with rollover money and already existing room, that’s enough cash for Veach to tag Jones, re-sign a few other pending free agents and extend Patrick Mahomes.
Speaking of Mahomes, the 24-year-old quarterback is likely to soon be the highest-paid player in the league. This is another important factor to consider.
Let’s play GM for a moment and do the following to the Chiefs’ roster:
•Cut Sammy Watkins
•Cut Damien Wilson
•Cut Cam Erving
Extend Patrick Mahomes on a five-year, $200 million deal
Use franchise tag on Chris Jones
Allow $10 million for free agents and draft picks
Keep $2 million in emergency space
Using the Jared Goff and Carson Wentz extension structures as a template, Mahomes’ cap hit would approximately be $11 million this season. Factor in Jones’ tag and the $12 million outlined above, and Kansas City is laying out $35 million.
The Chiefs could do it. But while it’s palatable for 2020, what about 2021 and beyond?
If Kansas City gave Mahomes the aforementioned extension, his cap number would be enormous in 2021, potentially the full $40 million figure. If the Chiefs also signed Jones to Clark’s exact deal, the cap number would be $22.7 million in 2021.
If we account for a slight rise in the NFL salary cap both this year and next, it’ll be around $210 million. Under these parameters, Kansas City would be looking at the following cap hits in 2021:
Patrick Mahomes ($40M)
Frank Clark ($24.2M)
Chris Jones ($22.7)
Tyrann Mathieu ($19.7M)
Tyreek Hill ($15.7M)
In total, the top five players on the Chiefs would be earning $122.3 million, or 58 percent of the salary cap.
Going into this offseason with a projected $200 million salary cap, only one team is currently allocating more than 50 percent to their top five players: the Los Angeles Rams at 54 percent.
Kansas City can always create cap space with extensions and releases, but tying up such a large chunk of money in five players is dangerous. The Chiefs would be largely unable to sign any other meaningful free agents for a few years — including their own — while being completely reliant on the draft to restock departing talent.
In his three years at the helm, Veach has proven to believe in acquiring top-shelf talent and filling in around them with low-cost, high-upside veteran deals (see: Damien Williams, Stefen Wisniewski, Mike Pennel) and rookie deals.
Jones certainly fits Veach’s profile. The question is if he fits into Kansas City’s payroll.
Originally Posted by wachashi:
Signing Jones comes with more risk than tagging/trading him for fair value. That's my point. It could work out, but it's riskier.
And you could get nothing from the picks that you get. They aren’t guaranteed superstars or starters. [Reply]
regardless of Jones, you could find cheaper players without much disparity to replace LDT, Colquitt, Erving, Reiter, Okafor, and Sorenson.
You could realistically get away with Rankin, Wiz and Wylie as the IOL. I’d like them to come back with one of our top draft picks pushing to start there. [Reply]
Originally Posted by wachashi:
Signing Jones comes with more risk than tagging/trading him for fair value. That's my point. It could work out, but it's riskier.
It’s also risky to expect a mid to late 1st rounder to have anywhere remotely close to the impact the Jones has. [Reply]
Originally Posted by The Franchise:
And you could get nothing from the picks that you get. They aren’t guaranteed superstars or starters.
You could, but you're spreading the risk out over several players. It's less risky. If you had a crystal ball guaranteeing Jones would stay healthy and continue to be dominant for the next three years, then you'd sign him no question. [Reply]
Originally Posted by staylor26:
It’s also risky to expect a mid to late 1st rounder to have anywhere remotely to close to the impact the Jones has.
But, it's less risky than signing Jones because you can spread the risk out over several players. You can afford to sign multiple players + draft more talent. There's not really right or wrong at this point because we don't know what the future looks like for Jones. If he stays healthy and continues to dominant, then you'd want him on the Chiefs. But there's no way to know that's what will happen. [Reply]
Originally Posted by wachashi:
You could, but you're spreading the risk out over several players. It's less risky. If you had a crystal ball guaranteeing Jones would stay healthy and continue to be dominant for the next three years, then you'd sign him no question.
Seattle just did that with Frank Clark and they ended up with L.J. Collier. They can’t realistically cut him until 2022. And now they have to try and pay Clowney. [Reply]
Originally Posted by wachashi:
You could, but you're spreading the risk out over several players. It's less risky. If you had a crystal ball guaranteeing Jones would stay healthy and continue to be dominant for the next three years, then you'd sign him no question.
What kind of indicators do you have that Jones won’t continue to ascend? [Reply]
Originally Posted by pugsnotdrugs19:
Nate Taylor kinda hinted that the Chiefs may be prioritizing IOL help in the draft during the Time’s Ours from this week. FWIW.
I love Nate but how connected do we think he is? [Reply]
Originally Posted by pugsnotdrugs19:
Nate Taylor kinda hinted that the Chiefs may be prioritizing IOL help in the draft during the Time’s Ours from this week. FWIW.
Originally Posted by BossChief:
What kind of indicators do you have that Jones won’t continue to ascend?
That's possible. And it would suck missing out on that if we traded him. But KC wouldn't be absolutely screwed if that happened because they'd have picks and money. They'd have options.
On the other hand, it would be devastating for the Chiefs to sign Jones to a long-term $20 million/year deal only to see his production fall off for whatever reason. That would be crippling.
The lows of signing Jones are lower than lows of tagging/trading him. But the highs of signing Jones are likely higher than the highs of tagging/trading him.
Risk/Reward. All I'm saying is tying up that much money at the top-end of a roster is riskier than spreading it out through the middle. The players at the top have to produce, otherwise, you've screwed yourself. [Reply]
Originally Posted by wachashi:
But, it's less risky than signing Jones because you can spread the risk out over several players. You can afford to sign multiple players + draft more talent. There's not really right or wrong at this point because we don't know what the future looks like for Jones. If he stays healthy and continues to dominant, then you'd want him on the Chiefs. But there's no way to know that's what will happen.
This.
A 1 plus a 3rd and $20M in cap relief equals about 5 other players.
I also think Daly and Spags' ability to scheme sacks and pressure will improve in year 2 of the 4-3. [Reply]