Originally Posted by saphojunkie:
Now that we know we can put up 34 points without Mahomes throwing a single touchdown, should we look to trade him?? Think of the haul we could get!
That is the general gist of the argument, yes. [Reply]
Originally Posted by Lzen:
No way. Hill is a generational talent. Plus, if I'm not mistaken we would have a huge dead cap money hit since we just re-signed him.
You are, in fact, mistaken.
Hill's signing bonus is relatively low....for obvious reasons.
His deal is low base salaries with high roster bonuses. So if he's traded or cut, the Chiefs don't pay 'em. He's essentially on a contract with 1 year rolling options (very team friendly).
The signing bonus is under $6 million; that's not terribly significant. The Chiefs could trade him if they wanted to from a strictly cap perspective. It just wouldn't be very smart... [Reply]
Originally Posted by DJ's left nut:
You are, in fact, mistaken.
Hill's signing bonus is relatively low....for obvious reasons.
His deal is low base salaries with high roster bonuses. So if he's traded or cut, the Chiefs don't pay 'em. He's essentially on a contract with 1 year rolling options (very team friendly).
The signing bonus is under $6 million; that's not terribly significant. The Chiefs could trade him if they wanted to from a strictly cap perspective. It just wouldn't be very smart...
Really? I did not know this. Well, that was very clever of Mr Veach. Thanks for the info. :-) [Reply]
Originally Posted by DJ's left nut:
You are, in fact, mistaken.
Hill's signing bonus is relatively low....for obvious reasons.
His deal is low base salaries with high roster bonuses. So if he's traded or cut, the Chiefs don't pay 'em. He's essentially on a contract with 1 year rolling options (very team friendly).
The signing bonus is under $6 million; that's not terribly significant. The Chiefs could trade him if they wanted to from a strictly cap perspective. It just wouldn't be very smart...
In other words, the very team friendly year to year contract Hill is playing under would make it doubly fucking stupid to trade him. [Reply]
Haven't read the whole thread so I don't know where the chips are falling, but my opinion is that the Chiefs shouldn't entertain the idea of trading Hill. Hill makes this offense legendary.
And we're going to need that offensive firepower in January. Look at how every team we've played so far has changed the paradigm. Going for it on fourth downs early. From their side of the field. Trying to out-physical out receivers nearly every play. Trying to establish a physical running game. Trying to convert multiple two-point conversions. And so on.
This is going to be the story for the next ten years or more.
Hill gives the team an X-factor that, as we've seen, can't easily be replaced. Especially in the playoffs.
Besides, we for damned sure don't want to face Tyreek in the playoffs. It makes all the sense in the world just for that reason alone. [Reply]
Originally Posted by chiefzilla1501:
We learned how valuable he is Sunday. Love Watkins but he's a decent WR1... not elite. Demarcus is a scramble drill WR, not a WR you can constantly trust as a WR2 to run perfect routes. Hardman is still a little raw. Tyreek is an elite #1, Watkins becomes an elite #2, Demarcus is one hell of a third option.
Now, if we're talking first round picks... Technically Hardman and speaks would be like giving up a high pick. I wouldn't mind parting with Hardman...
Originally Posted by JakeF:
Yea, Hill bumps all the other receivers down a level that takes our receiving group from good to elite. Hill helps Kelces a lot too by forcings a double and still stretching the field.
That's a great point. Defenses were chipping away at kelce and that's going to get exhausting for him. I also think Damien williams helps us more than we think. I'm not a fan of him as a runner. But I really like him as an extra option besides kelce in the short passing game. Mccoy and darrel are running backs who catch the ball really well. Damien can basically play receiver. [Reply]
Originally Posted by Marcellus:
In other words, the very team friendly year to year contract Hill is playing under would make it doubly ****ing stupid to trade him.
Yep. You keep him for his MAD SKILLS and because he's on a team friendly contract. The end.
Hill is a difference maker and the offense will look much more smooth when he comes back. Teams have to plan for him. I don't think a 4-0 team should be trying to trade anybody because it's Superbowl or bust. [Reply]
Originally Posted by kcclone:
If you can get a LB or CB for Robinson, I think you have to look at it.
His trade value may never be higher.
Really not a big fan of that. I think he's a perfect fit for Mahomes. He's his go-to in the scramble drill. He'll be a far better fit for our offense when we don't need him to do nearly as much in terms of structured route running. He'll be flat out unstoppable as a safety valve once Tyreek comes back. [Reply]
A great corner gets us closer to the super bowl than Hill’s return does. Good teams can play keep away from our offense with the brown bedsheets defense [Reply]
