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 Chris Meck:
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.
OK, so because we don't know what the market bears veach should be totally without reproach.
We have MULTIPLE deals where cp found the comp to be headscratching or underwhelming. Not critical of the deal, just underwhelmed with what we negotiated. We can either try to individually either justify or in some cases make excuses for each of multiple bad deals. I'm just pointing to a pattern. [Reply]
Originally Posted by TambaBerry:
so whats the reason to have the small cap hit this year?
My guess is a combination of carrying money over to next year for flexibility and blowing a little smoke for the league regarding more moves. I just can't see them give up more draft capital for anyone and I'm not sure who is out there to sign that would be impactful. [Reply]
Originally Posted by BlackOp:
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 high end players. Chiefs can now afford them due to Mahomes.
I'm not opposed to the trade. I get what we're trying to do. But I'm not going to devalue draft picks to make us feel even better about the trade. We got a great player but we gave up a lot. [Reply]
Originally Posted by chiefzilla1501:
I'm not opposed to the trade. I get what we're trying to do. But I'm not going to devalue draft picks to make us feel even better about the trade. We got a great player but we gave up a lot.
We gave up less than you might expect. Draft picks are always a crap shoot. We've seen can't miss prospects that miss and we've seen no-names that become stars. We are trading Dee Ford and a first round pick for one of the best DEs in the league, a player who is in his prime and has no significant injury history. That's not a bad trade. [Reply]
Originally Posted by chiefzilla1501:
I'm not opposed to the trade. I get what we're trying to do. But I'm not going to devalue draft picks to make us feel even better about the trade. We got a great player but we gave up a lot.
If KC landed a serviceable DE at #29 (big if)...who should they have spent the saved money on? It appears they still have enough to take care of Jones and Hill.
Should they just hoard it? They landed a top end, young player...and were a neutral zone infraction away from the SB. [Reply]
I’ve never seen a guy that is massively disruptive on the line and edge and can single handedly influence the outcome of a game with a strip six or a big hit in the backfield. His motor is non stop and we rotate a lot but he stays on the field. We’re gonna take a huge step back defensively in Seattle but I hope we draft well. [Reply]
Originally Posted by frozenchief:
We gave up less than you might expect. Draft picks are always a crap shoot. We've seen can't miss prospects that miss and we've seen no-names that become stars. We are trading Dee Ford and a first round pick for one of the best DEs in the league, a player who is in his prime and has no significant injury history. That's not a bad trade.
Draft picks are a crapshoot if you're expectation is to land frank Clark. Obviously not likely at #29. They dont even need to land a superstar. Let's say we draft a solid WR2. Now not only do we have the $20m money we didn't spend on Clark. We also save $20m because we can cut Sammy Watkins without hurting our offense.
Now with that $40m, what do you do? Fair question and why I'm open to an aggressive trade for Clark. But the other options aren't necessarily bad either. You could spend or trade on multiple players immediately to fill multiple holes. You could frontload the hell out of Chris jones and tyreek (assuming he's good to go) so we have more flexibility to make big moves next year or even after the big mahomes contract. Again, I get why we went with the Clark strategy. But arguably it also puts more pressure to win in the next three years where being more patient gives us a lot more flexibility to extend our window beyond 3 years. [Reply]
If Clark proves to be Jared Allen when he was traded for a much bigger haul to the Minnesota Vikings, no one will be complaining but right now, this trade and contract don't look so good.
Jared Allen was a better player than Frank Clark though when he was traded. [Reply]
Originally Posted by chiefzilla1501:
Draft picks are a crapshoot if you're expectation is to land frank Clark. Obviously not likely at #29. They dont even need to land a superstar. Let's say we draft a solid WR2. Now not only do we have the $20m money we didn't spend on Clark. We also save $20m because we can cut Sammy Watkins without hurting our offense.
Now with that $40m, what do you do? Fair question and why I'm open to an aggressive trade for Clark. But the other options aren't necessarily bad either. You could spend or trade on multiple players immediately to fill multiple holes. You could frontload the hell out of Chris jones and tyreek (assuming he's good to go) so we have more flexibility to make big moves next year or even after the big mahomes contract. Again, I get why we went with the Clark strategy. But arguably it also puts more pressure to win in the next three years where being more patient gives us a lot more flexibility to extend our window beyond 3 years.
You don't even have to try to land a Frank Clark. How many first round picks will be playing in 5 years? According to this article, just over half:
(article is old in terms of rookie contracts but analysis is sound)
An NFL contract is for anticipated future production. It is far more reasonable to believe that Clark will produce in the future than a rookie, even a first round rookie. The nice thing about the Clark contract is that it is essentially a 3 year contract, giving us his best years and allowing us out at a small price if he doesn't work out. The downside is the cost against the cap next year and the following.
Of course, if the defense doesn't shit the bed and Mahomes gets us to the SB, nobody will bitch about the cost. [Reply]