Yes 55 47.41%

No 61 52.59%

People really go off the rails when these contract negotiations come up.

Imagine you're an NFL player and you're lucky enough to hang on for 10 years. You didn't want to be greedy so you took $4m under market value every year you play.

Now imagine you don't even win a Super Bowl in that 10 years. You're retired, you're 35 and you've already got chronic knee and back pain, not to mention the CTE issues that can pop up at any time.

Looking back, you realize you missed out on $40m lol

For what!?!
[Reply]

Can anyone give a rundown of what Taylor said on the radio?
[Reply]

24 hours and counting . . . . . . . . . . tick, tick, tick . . . . . . . . . . . . .
[Reply]

And if he sits out like he has threatened he loses at least $16M that can never be made back.
[Reply]

That was a good listen. It makes a lot more sense for me now.

It honestly would be a best case scenario for the Chiefs to keep him on the tag and make him earn it this year. Sure, he can hold out, but that's only a risk that a truly ELITE player would take.
---

Let's say we keep him on the tag for 2022:

In 2023, if he plays the same (good, not great) we can:
1) keep him on the tag for the 2nd time for only $20M, which is still less than what he's asking for.
2) draft his replacement
3) pay a FA
4) swing a trade for someone else
5) tag and trade him
6) ... any combination of the above.

In 2023, if he's worse than this year, or injured, we can do the any of the above OR we can:
7) cut bait and let him walk and get a comp pick.

In 2023, if he's better than this year and actually plays GREAT, we can do all of the above OR
8) Pay him and lock him down for years to come.
[Reply]

The Chiefs will get their speed dial on Fisher ready
[Reply]

That's scorched Earth there, though, and I doubt it gets to that.

For anyone who is willing to fight for the extra $4m (or whatever the difference is), it truly makes no sense to sit out an entire year.

I'm moreso laughing at the people who are just like "take less money and win a championship!".
[Reply]

We'll be ready for these schoolboys
They will wet themselves with blood


[Reply]

Here's where he's really given the Chiefs zero reason to be accomodating.

Typically the franchise tag and the guaranteed money over the first 2 years isn't THAT far off of what a team might pay on a LTC, it's just broken out over a signing bonus, etc... that makes the cap hit a little easier to stomach.

But over, say, 5 years - the AAVs come out pretty normal if you tag/tag/extend.

Well that's just not the case here at all. The Chiefs have Brown at roughly $37 million over the next 2 years.

Now lets set the "$30 million/season" stuff aside because I've seen nothing credible to suggest that's what he's going for. Lets instead just say he's looking to get 6/$150 - that's what it would take to 'reset' the LT market.

Well if the Chiefs have him at 2/$37, that's 4/$113 thereafter. That's over $28 million/season on the 'non-controlled' years that come after they have him on the tag for 2 years.

There's ZERO reason to climb into bed with that. 2 years from now that won't be the 'new normal' for LTs and if it is, you find a new plan.

Rather than the old 'home team discount' - he's effectively looking to ignore the fact that he's tagged altogether, act as though he's a UFA and then apply a home-team tax.

He's just overplayed his hand SO badly here.

This was just remarkably easy and he's fucked it up. Start with Stanley's deal, tack on 10%, call it a day. That's roughly 5/$108. Ideally you have that extension start AFTER this year's tag season so its effectively 6/$124 It's steep. It's maybe even more than is smart. But it's tolerable.

But this shit he's pulling gives the Chiefs no incentive to come to the table at all. Tag, tag, let him walk and take the comp pick. There's literally zero upside in agreeing to the terms he's said to be seeking over just having him play on the tag.
[Reply]

This has been obvious from the beginning.
[Reply]

There's just no reason to negotiate if he wants that when you have him on the tag.

He's not an unrestricted FA. They have him tagged. I don't understand his agents logic. They have him for 2 36 mil.

Show us you're an elite LT this year, we'll pay you that way. Makes sense. I hate having to do this whole dance, I'd prefer locking guys down early vs late, but it makes sens.e
[Reply]

I've always thought teams care too much about trying to keep a guy happy. Like they're afraid he'll play worse to spite you or something.

Tag him. He won't like it at first, but he WILL sign it, he WILL play and obviously he'll be playing 110% to earn the long term deal. Locker room cancer or something? I don't buy it. Not in this locker room, Pat and Kelce and Co aren't letting that shit happen, if even he is that guy, which I doubt.

I can't fathom giving a guy 25M a year or whatever when the tag is SO much less. Its different when you're talking about giving a guy a long term deal where the AAV is comparable to the tag.
[Reply]

Yeah I think the bigger question isn't will he play hard but rather will he show up to camp which I think seems extremely not likely.

Him showing up week 2 of the regular season fat and out of shape is a legitimate concern
[Reply]

One of the best GIFs ever!!
Thanks for sharing.
[Reply]

Seems his greatest leverage (only leverage, really) is simply that the organization doesn't want to head into the season with a question mark protecting the $500m asset's blind spot and he's banking on that.
[Reply]