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. But we know that the comp was very high by nfl standards. And I showed our history of negotiating not so great deals. Not hard to guess we gave up too much and everyone outside the cp bubble seems to agree.
You've no idea what the market value was for any of these, therefore, you can't "show" or "guess" anything. [Reply]
Originally Posted by chiefzilla1501:
No. But we know that the comp was very high by nfl standards. And I showed our history of negotiating not so great deals. Not hard to guess we gave up too much and everyone outside the cp bubble seems to agree.
Have you ever negotiated for anything bigger than a Toyota? How about something that someone else wanted, maybe as much as you?
You might go a little higher than you originally wanted to, because you want THIS ONE.
But someone else wants it too, and they'll go THIS HIGH.
But you'll go a little further, because THIS ONE IS THE ONE YOU WANT.
And then you win the negotiation, and you get what you wanted.
And some armchair jack-ass on the internet can squeal about how you suck at negotiations. [Reply]
Originally Posted by chiefzilla1501:
No. But we know that the comp was very high by nfl standards. And I showed our history of negotiating not so great deals. Not hard to guess we gave up too much and everyone outside the cp bubble seems to agree.
I don't care if the gave Frank 300 million if he comes in here and wins us a SuperBowl.
Do you want a Championship or Cap space you can save for the next year of missing the playoffs? [Reply]
Originally Posted by TambaBerry:
you're playing a team with a shit qb you dont want to sell out on the pass so stay put stop the run and keenum is not beating you
A) He never stayed put. He was pushing upfield every time. He tried the stunt two more times and got nothing.
B) He did nothing in the run game except miss a tackle on Freeman.
C) Keenum did beat him.
Most of all, I was surprised by how many plays he wasn't even on the field. Entire drives would go by without #55. [Reply]
Originally Posted by MagicHef:
I'm watching the full Broncos/Seahawks 2018 game. Most of the time, Clark is singled up on either Bolles or Heuerman and isn't getting anywhere. He got one sack on a well-designed stunt.
Originally Posted by chiefzilla1501:
Because considering we made a home run trade last year and we're preparing for a future where we have TONS of money loaded into superstars, 2 picks is a pretty big deal. We've lost 4 first - third round picks in 2 years. That's a lot.
In doing so we got one of the best your 4-3 DEs in the game and the 23 year old league MVP. Would you trade that for a couple extra picks? [Reply]
Originally Posted by staylor26:
You do realize that this happens with every team, right?
Elite players typically do not sit out multiple drives. I'm watching the Seahawks/Chiefs game now, and he's playing a lot more, sitting out only sporadically. He's also playing a lot better. [Reply]
Originally Posted by Chris Meck:
No, here's what I realize.
YOU can think whatever the hell you want about what compensation is ENOUGH and what is TOO MUCH.
But you're not privy to the conversations between teams GM's so you don't know. AT ALL. You have no idea. You don't know what the market is for individual players . So you're saying "OH THAT'S TOO MUCH" when you don't know what the market was.
So you are completely speculating a bunch of bullshit and putting that forward as some sort of truth when it isn't.
And so if we DID NOT pay what the Ravens would for Thomas, but we OVERPAID in your opinion for Clark, how can both of those outcomes equal the same story in your mind? They conflict. Either Veach is a cheap-ass and won't pay for talent, or he's a feckless idiot who overpays. Which is it?
The truth is, you have no idea. You have no idea who was bidding and what the price was for anyone or anything.
Cp sure has a revisionist history of how wonderful all these deals we've made the past two years have been.
It's not an either or. Again, if the market asks for $100 and we lost out by bidding $75, that doesn't mean we need to jump to $500. I'm glad we're going aggressive on the bid to get our guy. But my lord do we have homer goggles on if we think we're getting market price on a lot of our deals the past 2 years. And my lord are we devaluing a first round pick in order to put positive spin on the deal. No, I don't know the market value of the deal. What we know is it's one of the biggest comps given for a player in the last decade and that veach has a negotiating track record that many prior to yesterday felt was a little spotty. So yeah, I'm guessing we paid too much. [Reply]
Chiefs kept with the low 1st year salary cap number & ballooning one in the 2nd year with Frank Clark. His 2019 cap number is $4.8M. It's $28.3M in 2020, which screams restructure for cap purposes to me.
Originally Posted by tredadda:
In doing so we got one of the best your 4-3 DEs in the game and the 23 year old league MVP. Would you trade that for a couple extra picks?
Is he complaining about giving up firsts for Mahomes? Teams would give 5+ first round picks for him at 23 years old. All he cost was a late additional 1st/3rd...steal of the decade.
Picks and numbered order is arbitrary...Fournette was the 4th overall pick. All it does is give you an OPPORTUNITY to cheaply get a player you hope is good in a few years. Chiefs just got a DE that they KNOW is good...and will produce from game one.
KC is in a legitimate SB window and has a new defensive scheme... after 50 years, i dont care how they get there. [Reply]
Originally Posted by tredadda:
In doing so we got one of the best your 4-3 DEs in the game and the 23 year old league MVP. Would you trade that for a couple extra picks?
And that's fine. I'm not anti Clark trade. Definitely don't care about his cap number. But let's not spin it like we gave up a "meaningless" first and second round pick. We got a great player but it comes at a huge price. [Reply]
Originally Posted by chiefzilla1501:
Cp sure has a revisionist history of how wonderful all these deals we've made the past two years have been.
It's not an either or. Again, if the market asks for $100 and we lost out by bidding $75, that doesn't mean we need to jump to $500. I'm glad we're going aggressive on the bid to get our guy. But my lord do we have homer goggles on if we think we're getting market price on a lot of our deals the past 2 years. And my lord are we devaluing a first round pick in order to put positive spin on the deal. No, I don't know the market value of the deal. What we know is it's one of the biggest comps given for a player in the last decade and that veach has a negotiating track record that many prior to yesterday felt was a little spotty. So yeah, I'm guessing we paid too much.
OR, maybe you don't understand what you're talking about. MAYBE, if we look at the Watkins deal, for example, the year per money looks like it's a big overpay, but because of how it's structured you can get out of it earlier so it's not quite what it looks like. MAYBE you had to go higher on the total deal money BECAUSE it's not all guaranteed money, and the deal is pretty shrewd if you look at it in terms of long term cap health. Could that be? Or is it more likely that YOU are smarter than the guy they hired to be GM?
And MAYBE you're focused on OMG FIRST ROUND PICK! when it's really a #29 which is essentially a high second in terms of available talent and historically speaking you have like a 35% chance of that pick being a "successful" NFL player, so taking a very good PROVEN NFL player isn't such a bad idea when you have a 2/3 year window on Mahomes' rookie contract and we were six inches from a Super Bowl?
If you don't see that these deals are structured much, MUCH better than, say, Eric Berry's deal was, or Justin Houston's deal, then you are not educated enough to have this discussion. [Reply]
Originally Posted by BlackOp:
Is he complaining about giving up firsts for Mahomes? Teams would give 5+ first round picks for him at 23 years old. All he cost was a late additional 1st/3rd...steal of the decade.
Picks and numbered order is arbitrary...Fournette was the 4th overall pick. All it does is give you an OPPORTUNITY to cheaply get a player you hope is good in a few years. Chiefs just got a DE that they KNOW is good...and will produce from game one.
KC is in a legitimate SB window and has a new defensive scheme... after 50 years, i dont care how they get there.
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. [Reply]
Originally Posted by Chris Meck:
OR, maybe you don't understand what you're talking about. MAYBE, if we look at the Watkins deal, for example, the year per money looks like it's a big overpay, but because of how it's structured you can get out of it earlier so it's not quite what it looks like. MAYBE you had to go higher on the total deal money BECAUSE it's not all guaranteed money, and the deal is pretty shrewd if you look at it in terms of long term cap health. Could that be? Or is it more likely that YOU are smarter than the guy they hired to be GM?
And MAYBE you're focused on OMG FIRST ROUND PICK! when it's really a #29 which is essentially a high second in terms of available talent and historically speaking you have like a 35% chance of that pick being a "successful" NFL player, so taking a very good PROVEN NFL player isn't such a bad idea when you have a 2/3 year window on Mahomes' rookie contract and we were six inches from a Super Bowl?
If you don't see that these deals are structured much, MUCH better than, say, Eric Berry's deal was, or Justin Houston's deal, then you are not educated enough to have this discussion.
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. [Reply]
