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 Pasta Giant Meatball:
Sweet five guys that may make next to no impact instead of a disruptive, game changer
Look, this is the new reality. We're no longer tied to a game manager.
Patrick Mahomes is the disruptive game changer from now on. And in any given year with him at the helm, when you are able to field competent starters at just about every position, you're going to contend for a Super Bowl. Probably win it, too.
I said it in the other thread. It's not sexy to trade Jones. But it's probably good business if you get a 1st rounder in the top 16 picks plus some change to go along with it. And it probably sets you up the best in the long run. [Reply]
Originally Posted by The Franchise:
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.
The Seahawks wiffing on a 1:1 R1 replacement for Clark has no real bearing on whether it’d happen to us. [Reply]
Originally Posted by RealSNR:
Look, this is the new reality. We're no longer tied to a game manager.
Patrick Mahomes is the disruptive game changer from now on. And in any given year with him at the helm, when you are able to field competent starters at just about every position, you're going to contend for a Super Bowl. Probably win it, too.
I said it in the other thread. It's not sexy to trade Jones. But it's probably good business if you get a 1st rounder in the top 16 picks plus some change to go along with it. And it probably sets you up the best in the long run.
Serious question: can we really get a top-16 pick for Jones? The only thing I've heard is that the Colts will give a 2nd-rounder . . . which I think shouldn't be considered. If we can't get a decent 1st-round pick for Jones, I'd rather keep him around . . . or multiple 2nd round picks. [Reply]
Originally Posted by Megatron96:
Serious question: can we really get a top-16 pick for Jones? The only I've heard is that the Colts will give a 2nd-rounder . . . which I think shouldn't be considered. If we can't get a decent 1st-round pick for Jones, I'd rather keep him around . . . or multiple 2nd round picks.
You might be able to get one of the late ones like a team that is desperate to win and can't find a game changer there. But yea most teams won't trade a high pick for the right to pay someone 100 mill. [Reply]
Ok so does the transition tag allow a player to "shop" themselves and with the knowledge of a certain trade compensation if they find someone willing to sign them to a long term deal?
This year since we are in the last year of the CBA teams can use both tags if they so choose. [Reply]
Originally Posted by Chief Roundup:
Ok so does the transition tag allow a player to "shop" themselves and with the knowledge of a certain trade compensation if they find someone willing to sign them to a long term deal?
This year since we are in the last year of the CBA teams can use both tags if they so choose.
No. A transition tag allows the player to shop themselves. Once the new team signs them to an offer sheet....the original team has 5 days to match that offer. If not....they lose them with nothing in trade. [Reply]
Originally Posted by The Franchise:
No. A transition tag allows the player to shop themselves. Once the new team signs them to an offer sheet....the original team has 5 days to match that offer. If not....they lose them with nothing in trade.
Boo. That sucks.
I know that they can do that with the Franchise Tag. IIRC that is like 2 1st or something along those lines. I thought that the Transition was like a 1st and a 3rd in compensation. [Reply]
Originally Posted by wachashi:
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.
Riskier from a depth standpoint.
But if they move Jones, they're taking the risk that improving the depth with good-not-great defenders will make the defense better than (or at least at the same level as) keeping their most impactful defender and filling in depth pieces with lesser guys.
Depth helps you weather the sesaon and make the playoffs... but it's playmakers who matter most in the playoffs. [Reply]
Originally Posted by duncan_idaho:
Riskier from a depth standpoint.
But if they move Jones, they're taking the risk that improving the depth with good-not-great defenders will make the defense better than (or at least at the same level as) keeping their most impactful defender and filling in depth pieces with lesser guys.
Depth helps you weather the sesaon and make the playoffs... but it's playmakers who matter most in the playoffs.
Absolutely, you have to have play makers and superstars. The problem is we're already on the hook to pay top money to other players. If we're paying 58% of our salary cap to five players, and we don't get premium production out of each and every one of those players, we're in trouble.
Depth in the NFL is critical. Just look at what happened to our defensive ends this year. MASH unit. [Reply]
Originally Posted by wachashi:
Absolutely, you have to have play makers and superstars. The problem is we're already on the hook to pay top money to other players. If we're paying 58% of our salary cap to five players, and we don't get premium production out of each and every one of those players, we're in trouble.
Depth in the NFL is critical. Just look at what happened to our defensive ends this year. MASH unit.
It's a tough call, for sure. I won't complain no matter which route they go. Keeping Jones makes sense. Trading him makes sense.
It's going to be AWFULLY hard to find someone who can be a real year 1 impact defender in the range they're likely to be picking in the first, even if they can garner a first for Jones, unless you're pairing your two firsts to move up and go get one of the more elite defenders.
MAYBE Zach Baun at LB (playing rush end on passing downs) and Justin Madubuike or Jordan Elliott at DT (at the end of round 2?) gets you some instant impact and makes up for some of the lost pass rush. But still... risky.
The Seahawks are a great example of that. They might have won the Super Bowl themselves had they held on to Clark and had a playmaking DE available to them in the playoffs. [Reply]
Actions speak louder than words, they say, but right now, what Brett Veach says is all we have to go on.
The Kansas City Chiefs general manager recently sat down with team reporter B.J. Kissel for an episode of In The Trenches, the team’s podcast, and answered a number of questions about the team’s recent Super Bowl win, free agency, and the upcoming draft.
Specifically, Kissel asked Veach what he could say publicly about Chris Jones and the team’s ability or interest to retain him. Veach made it very clear that the team was very interested in bringing back the Pro Bowl defensive lineman.
TOP ARTICLES
2/5
LA Rams: Are you comfortable
with John Wolford at quarterback?
“Chris is obviously a great player and he’s a priority. We have a lot of priorities. Look, we know how hard it is to win a Super Bowl and it hadn’t been in done 50 years and we won it with the group we had last year. So I think that as we attack this offseason—and first up is free agency before the draft—our goal and our mindset is to do whatever we can to retain as many players as we can and Chris is at the top of that list because of the talent he is. We have a lot of tough decisions to make, but our goal and our intent is to retain as much of this team as much as possible.”
At this point, the record clearly states that both sides want to work something out, not just for the immediate future, too. Jones has been clear that he wants to stay in Kansas City for his career, and the Chiefs have vocal about bringing back Jones now multiple times.
On the surface, this is very good news. If Veach somehow knew that the Chiefs could not afford Jones for the long-term given his likely contractual demands (perhaps $20 million per season), then Veach could begin to grease the wheels by discussing the financial realities of the modern NFL or he could even refuse to comment. Instead, he increases the expectations of fans by saying the Chiefs want him back, too. [Reply]