The Chiefs latest dynasty run was a direct product of the Tyreek trade. Now money is tight, draft resources are slim, and the young players from Veach's great recent drafts are getting to the age to be paid so will be leaving soon. And that's aside from the glaring need for a franchise LT.
Any chance we could get back what makes it worthwhile to give him up this offseason? [Reply]
Originally Posted by staylor26:
Low key I think Hicks might be one of those guys too. Just a gut feeling that he's going to take a huge step forward next year.
Trading Tyreek got back multiple high value picks and freed up cash, there was a clear path to the team being better overall if he was traded.
Trading McDuffie makes no sense now, he won't be expensive next year and you aren't getting multiple high value picks back. You'd basically be trading an elite player for a pick and hoping that pick you got turned into an elite player so you break even, as a best case scenario.
Tagging and trading AFTER his rookie deal is over might make more sense, depending on how the team looks a further year down the line, but even then, he would be leaving at the same time as lots of other DBs contracts expire so that would be a lot of turnover. [Reply]
Originally Posted by Chris Meck:
Some of you guys have lost your ****ing minds.
-Best asset in Chiefs history getting embarrassed in SB bc of another horrendous OL performance
-Watching the best asset in Chiefs history morph into the scared risk averse QB that he replaced
-An offensive coach openly admitting that he is a scared risk averse pussy and that Andy won’t get rid of him like he should
Yeah man. I’m losing my fucking mind over this shit. And you should too. [Reply]
Originally Posted by chiefzilla1501:
It isn’t the craziest idea. If we want to rebuild then trading away blue chippers can go a very long way. We only get one more year of his cheap contract and then he’s going to get crazy expensive. And this is a position where the chiefs have been exceptional at finding quality players.
Keep in mind that arguably a big reason we ended up with mcduffie in the first place is because we traded tyreek hill. He’s kind of the only trade chip that could actually haul anything
Veach has been giving out a lot of max contracts lately. Why would he not do that for McDuffie? He signs next off season, you can have year 5 to help spread the money over the length of the contract. [Reply]
Originally Posted by RunKC:
-Best asset in Chiefs history getting embarrassed in SB bc of another horrendous OL performance
-Watching the best asset in Chiefs history morph into the scared risk averse QB that he replaced
-An offensive coach openly admitting that he is a scared risk averse pussy and that Andy won’t get rid of him like he should
Yeah man. I’m losing my fucking mind over this shit. And you should too.
Losing your mind over a game you cannot control? Come on, man. [Reply]
Originally Posted by BigRedChief:
Veach has been giving out a lot of max contracts lately. Why would he not do that for McDuffie? He signs next off season, you can have year 5 to help spread the money over the length of the contract.
It’s not a matter of money, but it is a side benefit if we were to make a blockbuster trade. Losing him gives you the cap space to add another veteran. So you’re not just trading him for picks (I get that it’s more complicated because he’s still on rookie contract).
It’s more about positional value. We’ve had tremendous success losing DBs and finding them even with our draft position. We havent figured out how to do that at LT yet. For many years we had shit QBs and we insisted that we draft guys like geno even if they came from underwhelming draft classes. It took a big and bold move to finally get out of our draft spot to pick a qb of the future after decades of trying.
Again, I’m not supporting this move. I’m just saying it’s not the craziest idea if you have confidence to get a guy you really like at a position we’ve otherwise struggled to figure out [Reply]
