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 Superturtle:
When the average guy does stupid shit like that they just pay the consequences. When a professional athlete does stupid shit it ends up a disastrous hullabaloo with the end result usually being a lengthy suspension for PR reasons. I'd just rather not bring in a guy who's already shown propensity for doing said stupid shit, especially considering what the Chiefs have put up with this last year.
Yeah I get the frustration but which team is trying to trade a comparable DE (25 years old) with a squeaky clean past and zero injury history?
We can’t waive a magic wand, and our window is short with Mahomes on the cheap. [Reply]
Originally Posted by pugsnotdrugs19:
Don’t love the thought of losing Hill at this expense. But if they are just hell bent on not extending him anymore or they at least want to prolong things with the tag, I’m glad they’re swinging big this season while Tyreek is still around.
It's not really losing Hill at Clark's expense, it's more losing Hill because of Hill.
Like it or not. Even if he comes out of this clean, they won't sign him this offseason I doubt.
Originally Posted by O.city:
If any of you listen to Middlekauf, he had some info on it.
The had the money earmarked for Hill, then his shit went down and they pivoted here. They're all in for a SB in the next 2/3 years and the were proactive once they got new info. At the time of the Flowers deals and such, they were in on Earl Thomas and Hill. Well, shit changed.
Better draft some WRs, Veach. Possibly with your top 2nd rounder.
Unless Hill thinks he can’t still get paid OBJ money on the open market. I’d extend him if he realized teams are scared to death of his standing in the NFL right now [Reply]
Originally Posted by RealSNR:
Better draft some WRs, Veach. Possibly with your top 2nd rounder.
Unless Hill thinks he can’t still get paid OBJ money on the open market. I’d extend him if he realized teams are scared to death of his standing in the NFL right now
Until all the investigations are done, they aren't doing anything contractually. [Reply]
Originally Posted by Marcellus:
Do you realize you are contradicting yourself here? We didn't get Earl Thomas because we got outbid but we only get players we overpay for?
Peters was worth a 2nd rounder. End of story.
Ford was worth a second rounder. End of story.
We didn't pay a huge price for Clark. It's been laid out for you repeatedly what the actual picks are equal to and I am guessing you cant even accurately lay out the trade compensation.
You do realize there is a middle ground where you make the right deal without overpaying. If someone bids $100 and you bid $500, it doesn't make you a shrewd negotiator because you won the bid. Veachs track record has not been great from a negotiating front. I like his approach including swinging for the fences for Clark. But let's not oversell his negotiating chops. We've so far had a spotty track record closing out trades for players, most found our comp for Ford and peters (and inability to trade Houston) to be underwhelming, and we've largely overpaid by a lot for second tier free agents while not landing many blue chippers. If we have to overpay because we aren't great negotiators, fine. But lets call a spade a spade. [Reply]
I think after CB, WR is almost as much of a certainty on Friday. They need another horse out there with Watkins cap hit in 2020 and Tyreek’s situation. [Reply]
Originally Posted by chiefzilla1501:
So we weren't in the hunt for Earl Thomas? There weren't tons of credible rumors that the Chiefs were talking trade trade trade at all spring meetings? You think we got the best deal possible for peters and Ford? You think we paid the right price for Watkins and Hitchens? You don't think we paid a huge price for Clark even if you like the trade? Even if you like the moves we made, is there a doubt that for the most part veach has only closed deals where we significantly overpay?
We were certainly in the hunt for Earl Thomas and Veach almost got him on a dream 1-year deal. Kudos to Veach for coming so close before the Ravens aggressively leapfrogged us (and probably overpaid themselves). Not to mention Veach probably would've traded for Thomas at the deadline last year if not for the injury.
Clowney? Collins? Peterson? No reputable source ever offered evidence that we were actively engaged with those guys. So did we miss? Or did you just hyper-obsess about them because you're a member of a Chiefs message board that hyper-obsesses about everything?
You mentioned that we always seemed to miss out on big-time free agents and then claim that we overpaid for Watkins. You'd probably say the same about Matthieu. How many deals for premier players get done at levels that you think "Wow, that's cheap"? Flowers? Collins? Ford? All of those seemed inflated.
The market is the market.
As for the Ford and Peters trades, same thing. The market defines the value. Peters put us in a horrible position and had a limited number of (west coast) teams he would've accepted a trade to. In hindsight given his performance, a second was golden (and I was okay with it at the time too). As for the Ford trade, they totally turned over the defensive coaching staff and he didn't have the same value under the new regime. They flipped him for a decent pick. Did I want them to do better? Absolutely. But it's not like other teams were blind to his injury history and his one-dimensional skillset. Again, the market is the market.
So yes, I think it's all in your mind. The things you're complaining about are the reality of the game for all teams. This isn't just some Chiefs-specific curse. [Reply]
Originally Posted by chiefzilla1501:
We've so far had a spotty track record closing out trades for players, most found our comp for Ford and peters (and inability to trade Houston)
How are you supposed to get more compensation than the market is offering? [Reply]
Originally Posted by chiefzilla1501:
You do realize there is a middle ground where you make the right deal without overpaying. If someone bids $100 and you bid $500, it doesn't make you a shrewd negotiator because you won the bid. Veachs track record has not been great from a negotiating front. I like his approach including swinging for the fences for Clark. But let's not oversell his negotiating chops. We've so far had a spotty track record closing out trades for players, most found our comp for Ford and peters (and inability to trade Houston) to be underwhelming, and we've largely overpaid by a lot for second tier free agents while not landing many blue chippers. If we have to overpay because we aren't great negotiators, fine. But lets call a spade a spade.
Blue chippers hit the market, you pay a fuckload for them. It's the way it is. [Reply]
Originally Posted by O.city:
If any of you listen to Middlekauf, he had some info on it.
The had the money earmarked for Hill, then his shit went down and they pivoted here. They're all in for a SB in the next 2/3 years and the were proactive once they got new info. At the time of the Flowers deals and such, they were in on Earl Thomas and Hill. Well, shit changed.
So we're taking money we had earmarked for a guy who got into trouble with domestic violence and giving it to a guy with a history of domestic violence? Isn't this really REALLY REALLY fucking stupid or am I just hopped up on crazy pills here? [Reply]
Originally Posted by pugsnotdrugs19:
I’m guessing it’s wait and see mode. Play in 2019, see if you can trust him enough to tag or extend him next Spring.
I'm guessing they will see how the legal stuff plays out, if he's clear they tag him. If he'll play under the tag then great, let him go after 2020 season. If he won't, then tag & trade him next offseason. [Reply]