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 The Franchise:
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.
I'm not advocating to trade him NOW. If you go that tag route, you are looking for a viable replacement in the draft, trade, or FA anyways. You have a year to see if what you drafted is good enough or not. The 2nd year tag is where you trade him and you get at least a 2 and possibly a 1 for that. That all depends on what you see in the draft. Maybe you do sign him then, maybe you see good LT option and trading him gives you ammo to move into the top 15 to get who you really want.
This is all just spit-balling. All I'm saying is I'm not sold enough on him to hitch my wagon to him as an elite LT for the next 5 years. I'm down for 3, I'm not for 5. If I'm not sold on him, I'm looking for what my other options are. That's the only reason I start considering trades. If you think he's the guy, sign him. I'm just not sold yet. I wasn't sold on Frank Clark either and his contract made him hard to move on from. [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.
Agreed.
They at least have the leverage this year of the franchise tag and that's a controllable cost. That gives them negotiating power as they go to the table for the extension.
His fair market value is probably $22-23 million a year. Having a cost controlled year at $16-17M helps in those negotiations, too. [Reply]
Originally Posted by Shaid:
I'm not advocating to trade him NOW. If you go that tag route, you are looking for a viable replacement in the draft, trade, or FA anyways. You have a year to see if what you drafted is good enough or not. The 2nd year tag is where you trade him and you get at least a 2 and possibly a 1 for that. That all depends on what you see in the draft. Maybe you do sign him then, maybe you see good LT option and trading him gives you ammo to move into the top 15 to get who you really want.
This is all just spit-balling. All I'm saying is I'm not sold enough on him to hitch my wagon to him as an elite LT for the next 5 years. I'm down for 3, I'm not for 5. If I'm not sold on him, I'm looking for what my other options are. That's the only reason I start considering trades. If you think he's the guy, sign him. I'm just not sold yet. I wasn't sold on Frank Clark either and his contract made him hard to move on from.
Frank Clark has a massive out year this year. His contract was structured near perfectly. [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.
When was the last time we used the tag on anyone other than Dee Ford )who said he wanted it, and then we traded him anyway)? Players hate the tag. The Chiefs go way out of their way to keep happy players. I just can't see them tagging Hill.
Brown - yeah maybe. He's been with the team one year. They could have been upfront about that possibility when they traded for him.
But when people talk about tagging vets like Hill or Mathieu - I just can't see that ever happening. [Reply]
Originally Posted by The Franchise:
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.
Guessing it is a year down the road. Lot more issues to deal with. Hard to worry about it at this time. We were looking for a LT when we found him and he was not our first option. I think we will try to keep him. But you have to be reasonable on the amount. He may just want to go to a power running team and take the highest offer. Not much we can do if that is the case. [Reply]
Originally Posted by The Franchise:
People need to quit with this "Brown at RT" bullshit. It's not happening.
This.
That was the whole reason he 'forced' his way out of Baltimore via trade.
He wasn't willing to move back to RT after being selected as a Pro Bowler at LT for the Ravens when Staley was out. And his dad (who is no longer alive) told him to never settle for anything less than being a LT.
And he made the Pro Bowl THIS year, for the Chiefs, as a LT.
He's not moving off of LT . . . . . . period . . . . . . ever.
Originally Posted by suzzer99:
When was the last time we used the tag on anyone other than Dee Ford )who said he wanted it, and then we traded him anyway)? Players hate the tag. The Chiefs go way out of their way to keep happy players. I just can't see them tagging Hill.
Brown - yeah maybe. He's been with the team one year. They could have been upfront about that possibility when they traded for him.
But when people talk about tagging vets like Hill or Mathieu - I just can't see that ever happening.
If you tag OBJ then you run the risk of increasing his cost next season, pissing him off or not having him in the future at all.
And to the people that say tag him, wait a year and draft one. This team is already light when it comes to the roster and now you're wasting a draft pick on a LT who has to sit for a year and still might not be the guy moving forward. [Reply]
Originally Posted by The Franchise:
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.
That is the goal, but if he wants to much, he wants to much. Be ready to walk away if needed from a long term contract and tag his fucking ass. [Reply]
Originally Posted by BWillie:
That is the goal, but if he wants to much, he wants to much. Be ready to walk away if needed from a long term contract and tag his fucking ass.
Both sides know that's not a realistic option. We'd tag and trade in that scenario. [Reply]