Sources: The #Seahawks and #Chiefs are deep in talks on a trade to send star Frank Clark to KC. The compensation would include a 1st rounder, a 2020 2nd rounder and a swap of mid-rounders. To complete it, the franchise tagged player and Chiefs must hammer out a deal.
Originally Posted by chiefzilla1501:
No, absolutely not. I just used it to show that we've sacrificed a lot of picks the past two years. But for context... Trading up especially to get a qb is very common. Trading a first rounder straight up for a veteran is much more uncommon and the outcomes have been a little spotty.
He's a dominant-type player at a premium position that is a known NFL quantity and is 25 years old. There is no such thing at #29 in the draft. He should have, at a minimum, 4 years of peak performance barring injury. And guess what? We can get out of the deal by then.
We cleared cap space to be able to make moves like this. The window to be able to do things like this is NOW. In three or four years, we'll have to be thriftier. If you want to win a SB in 2019 and 2020, we needed NFL proven talent, and that costs money.
You've just decided on a narrative, and are casting about to try to fit evidence to that rather than looking at evidence and forming an opinion. [Reply]
Originally Posted by chiefzilla1501:
I didn't say these deals were worse than Berrys or Houstons. I just said on the negotiating end we haven't gotten great deals. Right moves, but gave up too much to do many of them or gotten way too little in return. It's possible to like the strategy but see flaws in some of the execution. Cp is revising history if all of a sudden we think we've been doing a great job the past two years getting market value out of deals. I'm not the only one, except that in our excitement we're misremembering.
That's fine. I'd rather be worse at negotiating if the strategy is right and we still get the player. But let's not fart roses about it.
too little in return? See this is what I'm talking about. You're assuming there was more to be had in the Peters, Ford, or Houston moves. The reality is that there just wasn't. It takes two to negotiate. You're assuming because YOU valued those players highly that the rest of the league did too. The reality is otherwise. But you're emotionally invested in it; they're not.
We got a 2 and a 4 for Peters. If we decided that return was 'not enough' we'd have kept him another year and he walks for a 3.
We got what we could for Ford. You really think anyone else didn't see the flaws we did? You're assuming YOU know what the market is. You don't.
Houston-everyone knew we weren't paying him #22 million. What leverage do you have to negotiate? None. Everyone knew they could just wait and sign him after he was cut. But somehow we should've gotten more!
Berry-nobody's taking that shitshow on. somehow though, DAMIT VEACH!
I've already outlined how Watkins deal looks huge but isn't really what it looks like. Structure and planning is everything.
Your assumption is that YOU know what the market should be. You have no idea what conversations and negotiations are going on between NFL GM's.
We traded the opportunity to acquire essentially one second round talent player this year, and one essentially third round talent player next year to get what is certainly an excellent proven player right now. (oh, and we got an extra 8 slots in this year's third round, too. ) While we're in Mahomes' rookie window. You think that's too much? You're wrong. There were other teams interested. It's what we had to give. Somehow you think there were better deals, but you have no knowledge of any such thing. You're judging shit you have no basis for judging.
I'm done talking to you. It's like arguing with a wall. [Reply]
Originally Posted by Chris Meck:
He's a dominant-type player at a premium position that is a known NFL quantity and is 25 years old. There is no such thing at #29 in the draft. He should have, at a minimum, 4 years of peak performance barring injury. And guess what? We can get out of the deal by then.
We cleared cap space to be able to make moves like this. The window to be able to do things like this is NOW. In three or four years, we'll have to be thriftier. If you want to win a SB in 2019 and 2020, we needed NFL proven talent, and that costs money.
You've just decided on a narrative, and are casting about to try to fit evidence to that rather than looking at evidence and forming an opinion.
Im fine with making an aggressive move. I don't care about the cap charge. I just believe we spent too much and we seem to only get players we want by paying too much. That's better than not trying at all. But let's call it for what it is.
There are a lot of people on cp who were very critical of moves we made the past few years because we paid too much or didn't get enough in return. And now we're suddenly spinning those same deals positively to justify a very comp loaded trade. So who's making the narrative here? Not saying you as I know you've liked a lot of moves we've made. It's just weird to me that I'm being attacked by people who are all of a sudden spinning veach into some kind of consistently great dealmaker. [Reply]
Originally Posted by chiefzilla1501:
Im fine with making an aggressive move. I don't care about the cap charge. I just believe we spent too much and we seem to only get players we want by paying too much. That's better than not trying at all. But let's call it for what it is.
There are a lot of people on cp who were very critical of moves we made the past few years because we paid too much or didn't get enough in return. And now we're suddenly spinning those same deals positively to justify a very comp loaded trade. So who's making the narrative here? Not saying you as I know you've liked a lot of moves we've made. It's just weird to me that I'm being attacked by people who are all of a sudden spinning veach into some kind of consistently great dealmaker.
yeah, well, a lot of people spout bullshit without knowing what the fuck they're talking about. Doesn't make them right.
Originally Posted by chiefzilla1501:
No, absolutely not. I just used it to show that we've sacrificed a lot of picks the past two years. But for context... Trading up especially to get a qb is very common. Trading a first rounder straight up for a veteran is much more uncommon and the outcomes have been a little spotty.
If you break it down...top 64 picks are coveted because they are cheap. There is also the "new toy" hope psychology vs. hand-me-downs. There is no Hill-like surprise with Clark. Chiefs have money to spend...and they are using it. It appears these deals are purposely staggered with "outs" embedded in them.
Ogbah was the #1 pick in the 2nd round (33)....4 picks later than KC just traded. Why arent people more excited about him and his premier draft status? Draft order is arbitrary...#13 is certainly better than #27, right?...like 14 better.
Chiefs just dumped all their over-priced veterans...and replaced them with younger versions. They are using their cheap QB window..
I dont like the practice of giving up high draft capital...but the purpose of keeping it is so you can afford/offset high end players. Chiefs can now afford them due to Mahomes. [Reply]
Ah shit. Thanks for the picks but Frank Clark is a freak. I was hoping we could work out a deal but when he didn’t sign the FT tender I knew his time in Seattle was over. Enjoy a 12 sack per year beast. [Reply]
Originally Posted by Ass Rockah:
Ah shit. Thanks for the picks but Frank Clark is a freak. I was hoping we could work out a deal but when he didn’t sign the FT tender I knew his time in Seattle was over. Enjoy a 12 sack per year beast.
Sources: The #Seahawks and #Chiefs are deep in talks on a trade to send star Frank Clark to KC. The compensation would include a 1st rounder, a 2020 2nd rounder and a swap of mid-rounders. To complete it, the franchise tagged player and Chiefs must hammer out a deal.