Legend of AC 269 Posted February 23, 2018 Share Posted February 23, 2018 Trading Peters sends a strong message to the players of what the Chiefs are trying to build. No player is above the team, and if you consistently act out, as we saw with Peters of late, there’s no room for you on this team. The Patriots and Bill Belichick have employed the same mindset for the past 15 years. This is a team game. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dablueguy 0 Posted February 23, 2018 Share Posted February 23, 2018 Unless it's for 2 1's, or the equivalent, it sure does show what the Chiefs are trying to build. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
West 6,714 Posted February 23, 2018 Share Posted February 23, 2018 ...another idea is its about locking in Elite Talent at a reasonable price. Marcus Peters view far exceeded the Chiefs View.... The only thing more important than the NFL being a Team Game is The NFL is about the $$.. w Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WichitaZRide 321 Posted February 23, 2018 Share Posted February 23, 2018 I guess Clark Hunt and Davis Glass got together and decided that they wanted to decrease attendance and merch sales by getting rid of all their most marketable players....and oh yeah WINNING... Having both your cities primary sports teams decide to go into rebuilding mode at the same time freaking blows... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mloe68 1,521 Posted February 23, 2018 Share Posted February 23, 2018 Unless it's for 2 1's, or the equivalent, it sure does show what the Chiefs are trying to build. Only two teams had any interest which is shocking to me. And the Browns had zero. That says something in itself. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dablueguy 0 Posted February 23, 2018 Share Posted February 23, 2018 Only two teams had any interest which is shocking to me. And the Browns had zero. That says something in itself. We don't know that for sure. But it's largely irrelevant, since we didn't have to trade Peters It says that Peters should not have been traded for a package way below the value to the Chiefs of Marcus Peters. Lets say Peters threatened to retire unless traded. Who cares, call his bluff. He had Zero leverage. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Legend of AC 269 Posted February 23, 2018 Author Share Posted February 23, 2018 We don't know that for sure. But it's largely irrelevant, since we didn't have to trade Peters It says that Peters should not have been traded for a package way below the value to the Chiefs of Marcus Peters. Lets say Peters threatened to retire unless traded. Who cares, call his bluff. He had Zero leverage. And what happens if the Chiefs had extended him to a huge deal and his behavior got worse? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dablueguy 0 Posted February 23, 2018 Share Posted February 23, 2018 And what happens if the Chiefs had extended him to a huge deal and his behavior got worse? They had him for the next 4 years. 2 at massively below market value. That would have been long term enough. You NEED to get bowled over by an offer to give up that control. A #23 and maybe a mid rounder doesn't qualify. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mloe68 1,521 Posted February 23, 2018 Share Posted February 23, 2018 And what happens if the Chiefs had extended him to a huge deal and his behavior got worse? It's very obvious we weren't going to give him a huge contract for that reason. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chiefsfan1963 1,101 Posted February 23, 2018 Share Posted February 23, 2018 We don't know that for sure. But it's largely irrelevant, since we didn't have to trade Peters It says that Peters should not have been traded for a package way below the value to the Chiefs of Marcus Peters. Lets say Peters threatened to retire unless traded. Who cares, call his bluff. He had Zero leverage.We know as much about interest in Peters as you know there wasn't. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Legend of AC 269 Posted February 23, 2018 Author Share Posted February 23, 2018 They had him for the next 4 years. 2 at massively below market value. That would have been long term enough. You NEED to get bowled over by an offer to give up that control. A #23 and maybe a mid rounder doesn't qualify. We had him for the next two years on his rookie deal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chiefsfan1963 1,101 Posted February 23, 2018 Share Posted February 23, 2018 We had him for the next two years on his rookie deal.No, he had him this year. In the I want society he would have caused troubles next year looking for a new contract, just look at his past. Then the Chiefs wouldn't have gotten shit for him. Get rid if him when you can if the price is right. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dablueguy 0 Posted February 23, 2018 Share Posted February 23, 2018 We had him for the next two years on his rookie deal. And then 2 years on the tag. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DieHard 2,061 Posted February 23, 2018 Share Posted February 23, 2018 They had him for the next 4 years. 2 at massively below market value. That would have been long term enough. You NEED to get bowled over by an offer to give up that control. A #23 and maybe a mid rounder doesn't qualify. 4? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Legend of AC 269 Posted February 23, 2018 Author Share Posted February 23, 2018 And then 2 years on the tag. Regardless, a huge gamble for a guy whose behavior was bad when he wanted to be here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dablueguy 0 Posted February 23, 2018 Share Posted February 23, 2018 No, he had him this year. In the I want society he would have caused troubles next year looking for a new contract, just look at his past. Then the Chiefs wouldn't have gotten shit for him. Get rid if him when you can if the price is right. That's the key. If we have the Rams #1 this year and next year PLUS, then the price was right. I'm sure we'll know more soon, but his worth to the Chiefs was EXTREMELY high, whether he wanted out or not. He had no leverage. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dablueguy 0 Posted February 23, 2018 Share Posted February 23, 2018 4? Minimum of 3. If his play warranted it, tag him again. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DieHard 2,061 Posted February 23, 2018 Share Posted February 23, 2018 And then 2 years on the tag. The tag is no longer limited to 2 year I believe, correct? This part I don’t understand. 2018 for 1.7 2019 (optional year) but for how much? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kkuenn 3,605 Posted February 23, 2018 Share Posted February 23, 2018 The tag is no longer limited to 2 year I believe, correct? This part I don’t understand. 2018 for 1.7 2019 (optional year) but for how much? You can tag a player 3 times Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dablueguy 0 Posted February 23, 2018 Share Posted February 23, 2018 The tag is no longer limited to 2 year I believe, correct? This part I don’t understand. 2018 for 1.7 2019 (optional year) but for how much? Realistically it is, because the increase in the 3rd tag year is too much, ala Kirk Cousins. We could have realistically controlled Peters for 4 years, 2 at massively below market rate, one at market rate, one above it if his play still warranted it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DieHard 2,061 Posted February 23, 2018 Share Posted February 23, 2018 How is that optional year’s salary determined? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shadow 10 Posted February 23, 2018 Share Posted February 23, 2018 These kind of moves is why we won't sniff a Super Bowl any time soon, unless it's a 1st, 3rd, 5th this year, and 2nd nxt yr it ain't worth it you don't trade your best defensive player for a bag of peanuts SMDH!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dablueguy 0 Posted February 23, 2018 Share Posted February 23, 2018 How is that optional year’s salary determined? I believe it's based on the players draft position. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DieHard 2,061 Posted February 23, 2018 Share Posted February 23, 2018 I believe it's based on the players draft position. Thanks. I couldn’t find a number anywhere. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Legend of AC 269 Posted February 23, 2018 Author Share Posted February 23, 2018 These kind of moves is why we won't sniff a Super Bowl any time soon, unless it's a 1st, 3rd, 5th this year, and 2nd nxt yr it ain't worth it you don't trade your best defensive player for a bag of peanuts SMDH!! We weren’t sniffing a SB with Peters. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.