liquidfriend 1,151 Posted February 24, 2018 Share Posted February 24, 2018 The deal isn’t done, it’s really that simple. This is the case. Chiefs really hoping for another team to jump in at the last minute. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dablueguy 0 Posted February 24, 2018 Share Posted February 24, 2018 $9 million for a 5th year option is not cheap. You do NOT reward guys like Peters with more money for acting the way he did. That’s what dumb franchises do. Of course it is. For a player the caliber of Peters. Dumb franchises trade great, cheap, cost certainty players, for pennies on the dollar, because a meddling owner doesn't like him, or some Coaches don't like him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jollyredjj 3 Posted February 24, 2018 Share Posted February 24, 2018 As far as keeping it legit goes, you don’t at all KNOW that to be true. Speculate based on your limited resources as you wish, but you are not part of that locker room. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jollyredjj 3 Posted February 24, 2018 Share Posted February 24, 2018 By all accounts, Marcus is very well liked BY PLAYERS, in the locker room. The locker room cancer nonsense is just that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Biggjliv4 1,292 Posted February 24, 2018 Share Posted February 24, 2018 Jeff Smith @JSM8ith Source just said the #Chiefs are receiving 4th and 7th round #NFL draft picks this year, and a conditional 3rd rounder next year from #Rams in deal for Marcus Peters. 1:57 PM · Feb 24, 2018 https://twitter.com/JSM8ith/status/967488579890044933 If this is remotely true, this is a horrible deal regardless which side you fall on worry Peters. If that's all we get, then you keep the player 2 years and ride it out. I'll take 2 years of elitish play and turnovers versus a few unknown late draft picks any day. I don't care if you have to bench Peters half the season, I'll take the 7 turnovers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sonder 47 Posted February 24, 2018 Share Posted February 24, 2018 By all accounts, Marcus is very well liked BY PLAYERS, in the locker room. The locker room cancer nonsense is just that. “More players than you realize see this as the right move for the club.” https://mobile.twitter.com/mattderrick/status/967127002326151168 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jollyredjj 3 Posted February 24, 2018 Share Posted February 24, 2018 “More players than you realize see this as the right move for the club.”https://mobile.twitter.com/mattderrick/status/967127002326151168 This. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dablueguy 0 Posted February 24, 2018 Share Posted February 24, 2018 It says that he is such a significant problem that only 1 team wanted him. Anyone paying attention can clearly see that Marcus Peters is an enormous problem that no team wants to seriously invest in. Anyone paying attention can clearly see that a meddlesome owner wanted a great player gone for whatever price, for non football reasons. There was no need to seriously invest in Peters. We had him for the next 3 years at about 9 million per year on average. Then we could have evaluated if further investment was wise. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jollyredjj 3 Posted February 24, 2018 Share Posted February 24, 2018 Anyone paying attention is STILL speculating. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dablueguy 0 Posted February 24, 2018 Share Posted February 24, 2018 As far as keeping it legit goes, you don’t at all KNOW that to be true. Speculate based on your limited resources as you wish, but you are not part of that locker room. No I'm not. But I follow people that are, and that know. And that's what they say. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jollyredjj 3 Posted February 24, 2018 Share Posted February 24, 2018 Still 3rd party (or more as far as you know). Speculate on. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sonder 47 Posted February 24, 2018 Share Posted February 24, 2018 Anyone paying attention can clearly see that a meddlesome owner wanted a great player gone for whatever price, for non football reasons. There was no need to seriously invest in Peters. We had him for the next 3 years at about 9 million per year on average. Then we could have evaluated if further investment was wise. This is patently false. Out of 31 other owners and GM’s, only ONE wanted to talk seriously about a trade. No better way to see what a players value and reputation is than putting them on the market....and Peters market was horrific. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Legend of AC 269 Posted February 24, 2018 Author Share Posted February 24, 2018 Lol this is great. I can rest easy with my scotch now Good call! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
soonerborn77 276 Posted February 24, 2018 Share Posted February 24, 2018 Lol this is great. I can rest easy with my scotch now Lol this is great. I can rest easy with my scotch now Double pours is always great Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dablueguy 0 Posted February 24, 2018 Share Posted February 24, 2018 This. Of course, when challenged, the guy had no comeback. Terez A. Paylor Verified account @TerezPaylor Feb 23More Already hearing some rumblings about some current Chiefs being upset about this potential Marcus Peters trade. Compensation will be interesting 208 replies515 retweets1,067 likes Reply 208 Retweet 515 Liked 1.1K Direct message Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChiefsGuyInRI 0 Posted February 24, 2018 Share Posted February 24, 2018 I mean what would we get with Quinn? Realistically would it be just Quinn and 1st this year or next? If not Quinn then 1st this year and 3rd with a future pick of some kind next year? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dablueguy 0 Posted February 24, 2018 Share Posted February 24, 2018 This is patently false. Out of 31 other owners and GM’s, only ONE wanted to talk seriously about a trade. No better way to see what a players value and reputation is than putting them on the market....and Peters market was horrific. That's false, but it's also irrelevant. If his market value was "horrific", then you keep him. Unless the owner said you can't for reasons that have nothing to do with football. Or trying to win. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mloe68 1,521 Posted February 24, 2018 Share Posted February 24, 2018 Why is it ludicrous? The Rams tagged CB Trumaine, a good player, but not as good as Peters, for 2 years. If "nobody really wanted Peters", which of course is not true, but let's assume it is. Then the simple solution is to keep a great player for the next 3 years at cost certainty. Not give him away for whatever. Unless the meddling owner insists he be gone for whatever. Tagging players is a massive waste of money and pisses players off. Doing it with Peters would be a disaster. You are completely taking human element out of this. I’ll concede this though. Minus getting the Rams 1st pick, this is a bad deal for the Chiefs even if we know he won’t be here more than one more year. We should have sold him on idea of being model citizen one season in return for trade to west coast team. We could have pumped up his market value. We did a great job of selling Alex’s value at its highest point and a bad job of selling Peters while it was at its lowest point. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sonder 47 Posted February 24, 2018 Share Posted February 24, 2018 That's false, but it's also irrelevant. If his market value was "horrific", then you keep him. Unless the owner said you can't for reasons that have nothing to do with football. Or trying to win. https://mobile.twitter.com/RapSheet/status/967150500012609536 Here’s proof that only one team was serious about trading for Peters. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
xen 1,010,220 Posted February 24, 2018 Share Posted February 24, 2018 I mean what would we get with Quinn? Realistically would it be just Quinn and 1st this year or next? If not Quinn then 1st this year and 3rd with a future pick of some kind next year? Speculation is it's not close to that. All just hot wind at this point. We know no facts other than rams and chiefs have agreed to a trade in principal. Motivations, compensation and all the rest is 'who knows?' so far. People are letting their imaginations run wild which always happens when there are no facts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dablueguy 0 Posted February 24, 2018 Share Posted February 24, 2018 https://mobile.twitter.com/RapSheet/status/967150500012609536 Here’s proof that only one team was serious about trading for Peters. It actually "proves" the opposite. At least 3 teams had interest. That we know of. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
reesebobby 5,663 Posted February 24, 2018 Share Posted February 24, 2018 It actually "proves" the opposite. At least 3 teams had interest. That we know of. Serious question. If Peters is a "future hall of famer" with such a great contract, why would there only be one to three teams interested? That makes no sense to me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dksww 484 Posted February 24, 2018 Share Posted February 24, 2018 Tagging players is a massive waste of money and pisses players off. Doing it with Peters would be a disaster. You are completely taking human element out of this. I’ll concede this though. Minus getting the Rams 1st pick, this is a bad deal for the Chiefs even if we know he won’t be here more than one more year. We should have sold him on idea of being model citizen one season in return for trade to west coast team. We could have pumped up his market value. We did a great job of selling Alex’s value at its highest point and a bad job of selling Peters while it was at its lowest point. Wouldn't this be the best time to trade Peters? 3 years of control and a 5th year option still available. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sonder 47 Posted February 24, 2018 Share Posted February 24, 2018 It actually "proves" the opposite. At least 3 teams had interest. That we know of. “It was all LA and KC when it came down to it.“ Just stop dude this has been confirmed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dablueguy 0 Posted February 24, 2018 Share Posted February 24, 2018 Tagging players is a massive waste of money and pisses players off. Doing it with Peters would be a disaster. You are completely taking human element out of this. I’ll concede this though. Minus getting the Rams 1st pick, this is a bad deal for the Chiefs even if we know he won’t be here more than one more year. We should have sold him on idea of being model citizen one season in return for trade to west coast team. We could have pumped up his market value. We did a great job of selling Alex’s value at its highest point and a bad job of selling Peters while it was at its lowest point. Who cares if it pisses a player off? Marcus already plays with a chip. He'd just have a bigger one, which is great. If they're interested in maximizing their NFL career, at worst, they bluster, holdout, report at the last possible minute, and play their asses off. To make more money next year. Our own recent examples prove this in Houston and Berry. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.