Kansas City is trading its first-round pick Thursday night, along with three other picks in the 2021 and 2022 drafts, to the Baltimore Ravens in exchange for Pro Bowl OT Orlando Brown and one pick in the 2021 draft and another in 2022, per sources.
Originally Posted by DJ's left nut:
Bad news man - if you're a 'good' LT at 25 years old on a championship contender, you're gonna get offered a shitload of money for a very long time by SOMEONE in the league.
The only real leverage the Chiefs have on him is the threat of the franchise tag and the diminished year 1 salary that comes with it for OL. If he signs a LT deal with a hefty bonus that pro-rates over 5 years, he's gonna get a big ass check the moment he signs and that's going to be awfully appealing.
I know that's true. The tag does give 2 years of leverage in my opinion though if you look at the tag value the next 2 years. I'm not sure he'd be sold on a 3 year deal but 2 years of tag leverage and he could still sign another big deal at age 28, I think he might. Of course, I'm just armchair GMing over here. [Reply]
Originally Posted by Shaid:
I know that's true. The tag does give 2 years of leverage in my opinion though if you look at the tag value the next 2 years. I'm not sure he'd be sold on a 3 year deal but 2 years of tag leverage and he could still sign another big deal at age 28, I think he might. Of course, I'm just armchair GMing over here.
Unless/until you get Hill signed to an extension, the tag isn't a viable threat for 2023 because he knows it gets used on Hill instead of him. And ultimately his year 2 franchise figure will probably be near $21 million because of the escalator for 2nd year tagged guys.
So it's not that much of a bargaining chip really. And if I'm the Chiefs and can't get him signed to a long-term deal this season, I strongly consider trading him anyway. He has as much/more value as he did when you acquired him and I think taking a guy to the 2nd year of his tag is always a bad move. So if you can't come to a long-term agreement now, what suggests you'd be able to find common ground the following year?
If that's the case, move him for value and try to find another long-term solution.
I just do not like using the tag on guys with the youth and track record Brown has. There's no point in it. Sign him long-term or acknowledge that you'll never come to an agreement on value and move him. [Reply]
Originally Posted by DJ's left nut:
Unless/until you get Hill signed to an extension, the tag isn't a viable threat for 2023 because he knows it gets used on Hill instead of him. And ultimately his year 2 franchise figure will probably be near $21 million because of the escalator for 2nd year tagged guys.
So it's not that much of a bargaining chip really. And if I'm the Chiefs and can't get him signed to a long-term deal this season, I strongly consider trading him anyway. He has as much/more value as he did when you acquired him and I think taking a guy to the 2nd year of his tag is always a bad move. So if you can't come to a long-term agreement now, what suggests you'd be able to find common ground the following year?
If that's the case, move him for value and try to find another long-term solution.
I just do not like using the tag on guys with the youth and track record Brown has. There's no point in it. Sign him long-term or acknowledge that you'll never come to an agreement on value and move him.
If I had to tag him in year 2, I'd trade him as well. You're probably paying a lot more at that point and could easily get at least a 2 back. I'm just saying I still see it as some leverage because you'd be paying him 21 mil anyways and contracts always give you that extra injury protection. Yes, he is better than half the league has and he's young, I know he's gonna cost a good chunk. I'm just not sold on paying him top 3 LT money. I wouldn't be upset if that's what we ended up doing, I'm just not sold on him. Simple as that.
Maybe I'm wrong, I guess we'll find out in a few years. [Reply]
Originally Posted by Shaid:
If I had to tag him in year 2, I'd trade him as well. You're probably paying a lot more at that point and could easily get at least a 2 back. I'm just saying I still see it as some leverage because you'd be paying him 21 mil anyways and contracts always give you that extra injury protection. Yes, he is better than half the league has and he's young, I know he's gonna cost a good chunk. I'm just not sold on paying him top 3 LT money. I wouldn't be upset if that's what we ended up doing, I'm just not sold on him. Simple as that.
Maybe I'm wrong, I guess we'll find out in a few years.
Say you trade him. Who's your LT moving forward? Because now you're either spending cap space on a FA, who is probably older, or you're spending a high draft pick for a rookie that might not be as good. [Reply]
They're not letting a 25-year old LT who they just traded picks for to leave.
What they gave up in draft picks at this point is inconsequential. It would be foolish to think of it any other way. At some point, the price tag for any player is too high. Some of you I think you would spend $50 on a donut if you were hungry enough. [Reply]
Originally Posted by BWillie:
What they gave up in draft picks at this point is inconsequential. It would be foolish to think of it any other way. At some point, the price tag for any player is too high. Some of you I think you would spend $50 on a donut if you were hungry enough.
It's far from inconsequential. You're looking at it backwards. They're not going to keep him because they traded for him.
They traded for him because they're going to keep him. [Reply]
They didn't trade picks for him so he could have a try out for a year. They traded picks for him because they knew he would fit and they wanted to keep him long term. [Reply]