ChiefsPlanet Mobile
Page 4 of 6
< 1234 56 >
Saccopoo Memorial Draft Forum>Revisit: Trade Tyreek
kccrow 06:12 PM 02-17-2022
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]
kccrow 02:18 PM 02-22-2022
I was thinking about some comments made about Tyreek making this offense go...

I remember 2015 when KC inked Maclin to a 5-year, $55 million deal and then he popped off with 87 for 1008 yards and 8 TDs. With only he and Kelce as significant passing weapons, KC went 11-5.

Then in 2016, when the Chiefs went 12-4, they started Maclin (who got a bit banged up and produced half as much) and Chris Conley. They had Hill as a rookie 5th round pick and Robinson as a rookie 4th round pick and Hill picked up some slack.

So, with minimal overall investment in the passing game compared to what we're talking with keeping Tyreek and adding a big-time #2, Reid brought those teams, with Alex Smith at QB no less, to a combined 23-9 record.

Is Tyreek a phenomenal weapon to have? Absolutely. That said, Tyreek Hill doesn't make this offense go. Andy Reid's brain and the overall system are what really make this offense go.

I 100% get clinging to wanting Tyreek to remain in KC as long as possible, but there are certain excuses that I can't wrap my head around.

For the record, I don't see him going anywhere and I see him being a priority re-signing but I think resources could be spent in a different way and there wouldn't be a negative outcome. That's mostly what I'm exploring here.
[Reply]
Chris Meck 07:04 PM 02-22-2022
If we're considering this 'window' one that's based around Hill and Kelce at peak level, you do not close that window by trading away one of your three elite players in the hope that you can draft an elite player.

Bird in the hand. Bird. IN.THE.HAND.

This is a dumb idea. Really.
[Reply]
Bowser 07:42 PM 02-22-2022
It would have to be a Hershel Walker level trade, and that's likely the floor. Tyreek is THAT talented and unique. He is not the route runner Devante Adams is or have the hands D-Hop does, but what Tyreek does to defenses and their looks pre-snap to as the play is unfolding just can't be duplicated, and that's not even speaking to Andy's mind and the crazy shit he thinks up for him specifically. He and Mahomes to go along with Kelce at this point in their careers are just flat untradable.
[Reply]
kccrow 08:02 PM 02-22-2022
Originally Posted by Chris Meck:
If we're considering this 'window' one that's based around Hill and Kelce at peak level, you do not close that window by trading away one of your three elite players in the hope that you can draft an elite player.

Bird in the hand. Bird. IN.THE.HAND.

This is a dumb idea. Really.
Disagree, wholeheartedly, with any presumption that you need to replace him with an elite talent simply because he's an elite talent.

Plus, that bird is getting nearly prohibitively expensive depending on how cap dynamics shake out the next couple of seasons. It's theoretically going to be much cheaper to franchise tag him twice when his contract expires than to actually pay him long-term. Of course, players don't like playing on the tag and especially not a 2nd year. You might lock him for the first one but he may sit on the 2nd forcing a contract or trade anyhow.

I wouldn't champion paying a WR 30+ million per when I already have a QB scheduled for 45+ per. The Chiefs have been kicking the can down the road with Mahomes, and they can for a little while longer, but eventually the bill will actually come due on his contract.

Obviously, the Chiefs don't have to consider trading Tyreek this year and very likely will deal with whatever decision Hill makes regarding an extension and any changes to his current cap hit. That said, the Chiefs will need to be on point with the length and value of any extension they do offer and can't just simply ignore the fact they may need to trade him and explore what teams would offer.
[Reply]
Chris Meck 08:53 AM 02-23-2022
Originally Posted by kccrow:
Disagree, wholeheartedly, with any presumption that you need to replace him with an elite talent simply because he's an elite talent.

Plus, that bird is getting nearly prohibitively expensive depending on how cap dynamics shake out the next couple of seasons. It's theoretically going to be much cheaper to franchise tag him twice when his contract expires than to actually pay him long-term. Of course, players don't like playing on the tag and especially not a 2nd year. You might lock him for the first one but he may sit on the 2nd forcing a contract or trade anyhow.

I wouldn't champion paying a WR 30+ million per when I already have a QB scheduled for 45+ per. The Chiefs have been kicking the can down the road with Mahomes, and they can for a little while longer, but eventually the bill will actually come due on his contract.

Obviously, the Chiefs don't have to consider trading Tyreek this year and very likely will deal with whatever decision Hill makes regarding an extension and any changes to his current cap hit. That said, the Chiefs will need to be on point with the length and value of any extension they do offer and can't just simply ignore the fact they may need to trade him and explore what teams would offer.
NO.
[Reply]
DJ's left nut 11:18 AM 02-23-2022
Originally Posted by kccrow:
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.
Not really.

I'm saying that there IS no real near-equivalent of Hill. They just don't make guys like him. And that if you trade him, you have to essentially resign yourself to a much different type of offense. Probably one where Kelce is even less effective because you lack the field stretcher that Hill provides who can also work the middle of the field (giving Kelce the ability to work the middle OR run the seam, as the patterns and coverages dictate).

If you trade Hill you almost have to commit to essentially a ground-up rebuild of the offense. A completely different animal. For a week or even several weeks, you can get by without someone like Hill because teams won't completely adjust to Hills absence - there's just not enough tape out there to know what that looks like and respond in kind.

But if you TRADE him, teams are gonna get a really long look at what your offense is without Hill and I'm pretty confident this version of it simply does not work without him over any prolonged period.

Now that's not to say this team can't have SOME form of offense that is very dynamic and effective. But as I noted, traded Hill requires a commitment to that re-set.

And for me, while we still have Kelce and Hill out there doing HoF caliber shit, I'm disinclined to do it. And I can't see a scenario where we get adequate value to convince me of it (including the scenarios outlined).
[Reply]
kccrow 09:49 PM 02-23-2022
Originally Posted by DJ's left nut:
Not really.

I'm saying that there IS no real near-equivalent of Hill. They just don't make guys like him. And that if you trade him, you have to essentially resign yourself to a much different type of offense. Probably one where Kelce is even less effective because you lack the field stretcher that Hill provides who can also work the middle of the field (giving Kelce the ability to work the middle OR run the seam, as the patterns and coverages dictate).

If you trade Hill you almost have to commit to essentially a ground-up rebuild of the offense. A completely different animal. For a week or even several weeks, you can get by without someone like Hill because teams won't completely adjust to Hills absence - there's just not enough tape out there to know what that looks like and respond in kind.

But if you TRADE him, teams are gonna get a really long look at what your offense is without Hill and I'm pretty confident this version of it simply does not work without him over any prolonged period.

Now that's not to say this team can't have SOME form of offense that is very dynamic and effective. But as I noted, traded Hill requires a commitment to that re-set.

And for me, while we still have Kelce and Hill out there doing HoF caliber shit, I'm disinclined to do it. And I can't see a scenario where we get adequate value to convince me of it (including the scenarios outlined).
I agree with you that they don't make players like Hill every day, or really ever. I also fully understand that the compensation may have to be significantly higher to consider it. I tried to elicit what it would take.

I'm trying to operate under two major premises:
1) You have Patrick Mahomes at QB so any offense should be good with him throwing the football.
2) If you broke up that $30m+ you expect to pay Hill, you could have at least 2 very good or 3 good receivers for that.

So with the above, I'm trying to detach from the fear of what the offense might look like without him.

I think Reid can develop a scheme that works with whoever is here. I think Hardman could step into the Z role and be effective, so long as there is a significant improvement at the X. We know Hardman cannot fill the X role. Also, Hardman is a UFA next year. I think there are other options that can operate well in that role. Kelce does Kelce things and has before Hill was here with a far shittier QB.

Do I think this team could sign DJ Chark and Michael Gallup for 30 million? Likely. Would this offense not be good with that? Add a guy like Metchie in the 2nd to replace Hardman after next year and you have a pretty good trio.

The greatest fear is fear of the unknown, so I get where Meck is coming from too with the bird-in-the-hand reference. We have Hill, why not pay him and not upset the apple cart? Draft well and you could certainly fix any issue surrounding paying Hill by offsetting the cost. As it stands you then have to get a good X and replace Hardman in the draft all while also needing to fix a defense that is void of talent.
[Reply]
kcbubb 11:09 PM 02-23-2022
Mahomes, kelce and hill will go down in history as one of the best trios ever like aikman, emmitt and Irvin. You don’t trade that kind of chemistry, relationship and production. You keep it at all costs! You might consider trading an aging player if you’re rebuilding but that is obviously not us.
[Reply]
kccrow 11:44 PM 02-23-2022
Originally Posted by kcbubb:
Mahomes, kelce and hill will go down in history as one of the best trios ever like aikman, emmitt and Irvin. You donít trade that kind of chemistry, relationship and production. You keep it at all costs! You might consider trading an aging player if youíre rebuilding but that is obviously not us.
How many receivers did Brady have in NE making over 10 million per season, much less 20 or 30?

I'm pretty certain that Moss eclipsed a cap of 10 once at 10.5 with the next closest being Welker at 9.9 in a tag year.

Even in Tampa, he never had a guy at 20. Godwin was just under 16 on a tag and Evans was under 10 (he hits 20 this year though).

Don't get me wrong here, I really like Hill on this team but I don't know that the "all costs" narrative equates to winning championships.

I'd love to see him re-signed near 20 per, even the 22 Jones got. But to start talkinga bout 27+, 30+? That seems illogical for a WR to me.
[Reply]
DJ's left nut 12:05 AM 02-24-2022
I don't disagree. There's a nut cutting point when it comes to his contract.

But with his tag figures probably being around $20 million and $24 million, the Chiefs have him for 3 more years if they elect to go that route. That's ages 28, 29 and 30.

So he's looking at a starting point of 3/63 or thereabouts? Maybe 3/$66?

Granted, that's some real cutthroat shit, but if he's gonna come looking for $27 million, he'd better get pretty reasonable pretty fast because I don't see his leverage there.
[Reply]
Chargem 01:46 AM 02-24-2022
Originally Posted by DJ's left nut:
Not really.

I'm saying that there IS no real near-equivalent of Hill. They just don't make guys like him. And that if you trade him, you have to essentially resign yourself to a much different type of offense. Probably one where Kelce is even less effective because you lack the field stretcher that Hill provides who can also work the middle of the field (giving Kelce the ability to work the middle OR run the seam, as the patterns and coverages dictate).

If you trade Hill you almost have to commit to essentially a ground-up rebuild of the offense. A completely different animal. For a week or even several weeks, you can get by without someone like Hill because teams won't completely adjust to Hills absence - there's just not enough tape out there to know what that looks like and respond in kind.

But if you TRADE him, teams are gonna get a really long look at what your offense is without Hill and I'm pretty confident this version of it simply does not work without him over any prolonged period.

Now that's not to say this team can't have SOME form of offense that is very dynamic and effective. But as I noted, traded Hill requires a commitment to that re-set.

And for me, while we still have Kelce and Hill out there doing HoF caliber shit, I'm disinclined to do it. And I can't see a scenario where we get adequate value to convince me of it (including the scenarios outlined).
The offense would change without Hill, but I don't think it would be anything close to a ground up rebuild. I agree with you, defenses would stop being totally petrified of Hill over the top and not be in prevent-deep-shots-at-all-costs mode, but that probably means the Chiefs would have MORE successful deep passes per year without Hill than with him, bizarrely.

The narrative that Hill is irreplaceable in terms of his specific skill set is true, but that his production in the Chiefs offense is irreplaceable is pretty much saying you think the Chiefs are a gimmick offense like the Ravens with Lamar, they need some specific chess piece to be successful.

I think we all agree Mahomes is an amazing quarterback, and the Andy is an offensive genius. Amazing QB + Good coach + getting time to throw + receivers who can separate = a very productive offense. It doesn't matter on the specific skillset of the receivers, you just need 2-3 that can get open.

On the tag thing, that's true as long as he is willing to play on the tag for 2 years - I'm not sure he would?

Hill has a LOT of value, and he is probably worth more than the Atlanta offer, but I think the Atlanta offer is about the base level at which the team gets better for having traded him.

KCCrow, please feel free to turn down this request, but how about a mock that includes a Hill trade to Atlanta? It would be great to actually see what could be done to the roster with the extra resources. I understand if you don't wanna put the time and energy into it, people will probably hate it.
[Reply]
kccrow 03:44 PM 02-24-2022
Originally Posted by Chargem:
KCCrow, please feel free to turn down this request, but how about a mock that includes a Hill trade to Atlanta? It would be great to actually see what could be done to the roster with the extra resources. I understand if you don't wanna put the time and energy into it, people will probably hate it.
I looked harder at the logistics of the two teams I chose in my example exercise (they were random stabs) in Philly and Atlanta and neither really have the cap situation to absorb Hill's current deal so it would have to be a trade and extension with the restructuring of 2022 money. Philly would be in a much better position to do that than Atlanta, which has to move some pieces to make it work. That said, they could but would need to move Deion Jones or Calvin Ridley. I don't know that teams will line up for Ridley, which makes their most logical trade piece Deion Jones. I'm not factoring Jarrett in as teams will know he's a cap casualty anyhow and won't be wanting to take on 16.5 million in salary for this year.

I can see what I can put together with such a scenario, just for giggles and shits, and post it in this thread.
[Reply]
kccrow 01:43 AM 02-25-2022
Here you go Chargem, et al, my stab at a Tyreek trade offseason scenario...

Kansas City trades Atlanta WR Tyreek Hill for LB Deion Jones, 2022 1st Round Pick #8, and 2022 3rd Round Pick #74

Atlanta will renegotiate and extend Hill.
Kansas City converts the 2022 $4,567,059 roster bonus in Deion Jones' contract to a signing bonus for hits of 12,423,529 and 15,419,264 in 2022 and 2023 respectively.

The Chiefs also cut DE F. Clark, restructure QB P. Mahomes roster bonus to signing bonus, and restructure TE T. Kelce salary and bonuses to signing bonus.

This leaves the Chiefs cap space at approximately $55m

KC signs their own FAs:
LT O. Brown, Jr. (5y $115m w/ $52m guaranteed - 1st y $14.0m)
CB C. Ward (4y $62m w/ $31m guaranteed - 1st y $10.5m)
WR B. Pringle (Vet Min Cap Benefit + $1.25m)
ERFA tender TE J. Fortson, RB D. Gore, and CB D. Baker.
Vet Minimum deals: FB M. Burton, OL A. Blythe, LB B. Niemann, LB D. O'Daniel, SS A. Watts, RB J. McKinnon

KC signs the following UFAs:
WR D.J. Chark (4y $49.0m w/ $17m guaranteed - 1st y $7.0m)
WR Michael Gallup (4y $49.0m w/ $17m guaranteed - 1st y $7.0m)
OT Geron Christian (3y $12.5m w/ $4.5m guaranteed - 1st y $3.0m)
DT Maliek Collins (2y $11.0m w/ $5.0m guaranteed - 1st y $4.0m)
DE Rasheem Green (3y $23.0m w/ $9.5m guaranteed - 1st y $5.0m)
QB Trevor Siemian (1y vet min)

Draft:
1. ER David Ojabo, Michigan (6'5" 250) f/ATL
1. DT Devonte Wyatt, Georgia (6'3" 315)
2. S Jalen Pitre, Baylor (6'0" 197)
3. ER Sam Williams, Mississippi (6'3" 265) f/ATL
3. WR Alec Pierce, Cincinnati (6'2" 213)
3. CB Jalyn Armour Davis, Alabama (6'2" 192) jc-2a/Poles
4. S Bubba Bolden, Miami (6'2" 205)
7. OG Cole Strange, Tennessee-Chattanooga (6'4" 308)
7. WR Bo Melton, Rutgers (5'11" 190)
7. RB ZaQuandre White, South Carolina (6'1" 215)

Roster:
QB: P. Mahomes, T. Siemian, S. Buechele
RB: C. Edwards-Helaire, D. Gore, J. McKinnon, Z. White
FB: M. Burton
WR: M. Gallup, D. Chark, B. Pringle, M. Hardman, A. Pierce, J. Watson, B. Melton, C. Powell
TE: T. Kelce, N. Gray, J. Fortson
OT: O. Brown Jr., G. Christian, L. Niang, P. Tega-Wanogho
OG: J. Thuney, T. Smith, N. Allegretti, C. Strange
OC: C. Humphrey, A. Blythe

DE: D. Ojabo, R. Green, S. Williams, M. Danna, J. Kaindoh
DT: C. Jones, M. Collins, D. Wyatt, K. Saunders, T. Wharton
LB: W. Gay, N. Bolton, D. Jones, B. Niemann, D. O'Daniel
CB: C. Ward, L. Sneed, R. Fenton, D. Baker, J. Armour-Davis
DB: J. Pitre, J. Thornhill, B. Bolden, Z. Anderson, A. Watts

ST: H. Butker, T. Townsend, J. Winchester

Major emphasis: Rebuilt Defense.
KC revitalizes their pass rush by adding Ojabo, Green, and Williams off the edge and Wyatt on the interior.
Getting Deion Jones from Atlanta gives them a cover linebacker they haven't had here in a long time.
Pitre and Bolden replace Mathieu and Sorensen with Bolden being the likely heir to Thornhill in 2023.
I also added one of the guys I think could be sneaky good at CB coming out of this one in Armour Davis. I think he's alot better than Jobe, but he had those early-career injuries that need vesting.

Offensively, I'd go after Chark (speed) and Gallup (reliable production) with identical deals that should fit in with their market. This team retains serious speed with Chark, Pierce, Hardman, and Melton all able to take the top off.
I wanted desperately to take Brian Robinson in the 3rd but just couldn't bring myself to forgoe adding another edge rusher, so I went with White late who I think can be pretty good if he stays healthy.
[Reply]
duncan_idaho 07:39 AM 02-25-2022
That looks OK-ish.

Question:

Did you consider making Calvin Ridley the player coming back instead of Jones?

That would make sense to me and would make the deal a lot more palatable. Also leaves you with more cap space this year and probably allows aiming higher at DE/free agents.

Take the money from Gallup and Green and plop it on one DE, and I think we like the result.

Second question:

You're picking 8th and Karlaftis and Ojabo are both available. Who do you take?
[Reply]
O.city 08:39 AM 02-25-2022
Man, I just....trading a type of player like Hill doesn't traditionally work out for the team trading him away.
[Reply]
Page 4 of 6
< 1234 56 >
Up