I recall a thread in here or in the Lounge either during the season or last offseason about trading Tyreek but I can't seem to find it.
Anyhow, I thought at the time that the very notion was absurd but now I'm having second thoughts. Then again, maybe it's the few brain cells I still call "active" just bouncing around in the endless space they have available.
I know that KC has a need at WR already but they also have to look at the future. I think about the Vikings trading away Stefon Diggs and I thought how stupid it was until they drafted what may be a better player in Justin Jefferson with the 1st round pick they got and saved a load of money in the process.
Now, the Bills gave up a 1st, 5th, 6th, and future 4th for Diggs and a 7th.
When I think about how dynamic Hill is in terms of being a game-changer in a split second, I think he may bring a bigger return.
So, hypothetical...
Let's say a team calls you up that's in desperate need of a sure-fire playmaker because they just don't possess any. My logical thought for such a thing would be the Atlanta Falcons.
Part I
The Falcons offer you the 8th overall pick and their 3rd round pick #74.
You pretend your Bart and field the call. Do you accept the trade and save $18 million on the cap this year, thus rolling the dice by needing both a #1 and #2 receiver, or do you decline and force your hand to pay this guy at least another 90 million (and likely more) over the next 4 years?
Part II
The Falcons are gun shy and don't want to give up the #8 overall but the Eagles call offering 15 and 83 because they think Hill puts them over the top. Would you still do the deal if you'd do it for #8 or would you back out?
Part III
If you still haven't said no freakin' way, at what point do you say no? [Reply]
Originally Posted by O.city:
Why should he take less than Hopkins?
Why should he make more?
1) Hopkins' contract is ridiculously more than any other receiver contract out there (5.5m per more)
2) Hill is not the best receiver in the NFL. He's HOF caliber good and that speed is special but he's not the best right now. [Reply]
There's just not a package I would take for him while the Chiefs are in this current window. Even if someone offered two firsts, I'd say no thanks.
A rookie WR is going to take time to get up to speed. FA WRs that are available don't stress defenses pre-snap and post-snap the way Hill does. Even if you're adding 2 for the price of a Hill extension, you're suffering a drop-off in explosiveness and are going to lose some of that underneath/intermediate room that is created by teams fearing Hill's ability to get deep.
And throwing the assets gained at the defense doesn't work for me. That's not protecting and reinforcing my investment at QB.
And I'll add that beyond all the on-field stuff, moving a guy like Hill rather than paying him would be an unpopular move in the locker room, too. [Reply]
Originally Posted by kccrow:
Why should he make more?
1) Hopkins' contract is ridiculously more than any other receiver contract out there (5.5m per more)
2) Hill is not the best receiver in the NFL. He's HOF caliber good and that speed is special but he's not the best right now.
I mean…who’s better?
There may be a better route runner, or something similar but in terms of all that comes with it? Nah. [Reply]
Originally Posted by kccrow:
As he sits, he's in the final year of his contract.
So, while it is true that it isn't necessarily "now," it's potentially next year if a deal doesn't get done.
He's one of the few on the roster I'd have a hard time trading but nobody sans Mahomes is untradable for the right price.
Then get a deal done. This is a guy that’s literally always done what’s been asked, he’s always reliable on the field and is the best play making wr in the league. He still has room to improve as well.
Originally Posted by kccrow:
I feel like you guys are all looking at this inside a box like I did when Chargem originally posed the thought. I didn't bring everything up, hoping others would see things differently and add to the conversation more.
What if Tyreek won't get an extension done?
What if he is willing to do an extension but won't convert that roster bonus into a signing bonus to spread the hit out?
Are you going to tag for two years? Are you going to tag and trade in one of the next two years?
There are some solid options out there to mitigate the damages if you do trade Tyreek and I'm just throwing out things that could happen.
I'm 100% with you Hoover, I'd love for Tyreek to do an extension, spread that roster bonus in 2022 out, be reasonable and not expect Hopkins+ money. A lot has to happen though.
The 8th overall is very attractive, but I'd want more than a3rd to make that deal. I'd probably do it for a 2nd in next years draft that could move up to a 1st if Hill reached certain benchmarks.
So I guess you could say I'm looking for two ones. [Reply]
Originally Posted by kccrow:
Why should he make more?
1) Hopkins' contract is ridiculously more than any other receiver contract out there (5.5m per more)
2) Hill is not the best receiver in the NFL. He's HOF caliber good and that speed is special but he's not the best right now.
Report is right now that Adams is going to want $30 million a season. Not to say that he's going to get it but if Adams signs before Hill (and why would Hill do that), he could end up wanting close to that. [Reply]
Originally Posted by The Franchise:
Report is right now that Adams is going to want $30 million a season. Not to say that he's going to get it but if Adams signs before Hill (and why would Hill do that), he could end up wanting close to that.
If I were Veach and looking at future cap implications, I'd have serious reservations about paying that type of money.
I get it, you need playmakers but the question for me is to what extent?
The Patriots won a lot of football games, and SBs, with a couple of $5m per WRs and a HOF caliber TE to go with a HOF QB.
The Chiefs have the QB and TE.
Now, maybe those $5m per guys are now $10m per guys but the theory remains.
Do you drop 30m per on a single WR or do you get a couple of guys like Chark and Kirk for $10-12 per instead?
Then we have the situation where a lot of guys around here want to keep a $30m receiver and then add a $20m+ #2. [Reply]
A couple people in the thread have stated that Hill doesn't really make the offense run any better. Well, we had this scenario a couple years back in 2019. Maybe some here remember the DET and then the IND games when first Hill then Watkins got hurt and didn't play.
To refresh: in the DET game, Hill was still out, and Sammy got dinged up in that game. Only Kelce was healthy enough to play of our top receivers. The offense scored just 3 TDs, none by a receiver. And while Mahomes did throw for 315 yds, he didn't connect on a single passing TD, his completion % was nearly 10 points lower than his season avg (65.9/57.1), his QBR was 10 points lower than his season avg, and his Passer Rating also took a nosedive (105.3/81.0).
In the IND game, with both Sammy and Hill not in the starting lineup and Mecole/Pringle basically taking their places, Patrick's numbers were a little worse. But at least he threw a TD.
However, the offense scored just the one TD in an embarrassing offensive disaster against a defense that would go on to give up 26 to a foundering PIT team, 38 to the inconsistent Bucs, and another 38 to the bottom-feeding Jags.
Hill's such a unique talent for this QB and this offense that I struggle to find a 'fair' trade for him. We've seen what trying to put Hardman into that role has yielded and it ain't great.
That said, perhaps the biggest issue is that in order for their to be a market for him, you'd need all the FA options to dry up. And once that happens, your path to getting a replacement is really shut off.
I guess if you got someone like Godwin signed, you could turn around and work on the Hill deal with his replacement already in hand. But even then the offense is completely different.
Hill and Kelce (plus Mahomes) are just perfect complementary players. I struggle to find a way to truly 'replace' what he brings in, especially during Kelce's remaining championship window. [Reply]
Originally Posted by Megatron96:
A couple people in the thread have stated that Hill doesn't really make the offense run any better. Well, we had this scenario a couple years back in 2019. Maybe some here remember the DET and then the IND games when first Hill then Watkins got hurt and didn't play.
To refresh: in the DET game, Hill was still out, and Sammy got dinged up in that game. Only Kelce was healthy enough to play of our top receivers. The offense scored just 3 TDs, none by a receiver. And while Mahomes did throw for 315 yds, he didn't connect on a single passing TD, his completion % was nearly 10 points lower than his season avg (65.9/57.1), his QBR was 10 points lower than his season avg, and his Passer Rating also took a nosedive (105.3/81.0).
In the IND game, with both Sammy and Hill not in the starting lineup and Mecole/Pringle basically taking their places, Patrick's numbers were a little worse. But at least he threw a TD.
However, the offense scored just the one TD in an embarrassing offensive disaster against a defense that would go on to give up 26 to a foundering PIT team, 38 to the inconsistent Bucs, and another 38 to the bottom-feeding Jags.
'Nuff said.
It's not "enough said" because you're operating under the assumption that trading Hill equates to having a rookie and a few scrubs. That's simply not the case anyone would make in trading Hill.
Originally Posted by DJ's left nut:
Hill's such a unique talent for this QB and this offense that I struggle to find a 'fair' trade for him. We've seen what trying to put Hardman into that role has yielded and it ain't great.
That said, perhaps the biggest issue is that in order for their to be a market for him, you'd need all the FA options to dry up. And once that happens, your path to getting a replacement is really shut off.
I guess if you got someone like Godwin signed, you could turn around and work on the Hill deal with his replacement already in hand. But even then the offense is completely different.
Hill and Kelce (plus Mahomes) are just perfect complementary players. I struggle to find a way to truly 'replace' what he brings in, especially during Kelce's remaining championship window.
This is the near opposite of Megatron's post in that you're looking at only trading Hill if there is a near Hill equivalent signed (top-10 or so WR in Godwin). This would also make little sense unless you think Godwin for some reason were to sign for way less than he's worth. [Reply]