sith13 1,746 Posted February 24, 2018 Share Posted February 24, 2018 The deal isn’t done, it’s really that simple. That seems to be the case. I guess someone leaked it too early and the sides weren't close to an agreement. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dablueguy 0 Posted February 24, 2018 Share Posted February 24, 2018 What I don't understand is if we can't get a 1st rounder for him and the Rams don't have a 2nd then why are we settling for a 3rd? He is at least worth a 2nd to a team trying to win the SB in the next 2 years correct? Of course. The Chiefs had no need to make this trade. Unless the owner/Head Coach insisted it be made, no matter what, so we were already in a position of weakness/desperation. Stupid way to run a Football team. Or at least one that cares about winning. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dksww 484 Posted February 24, 2018 Share Posted February 24, 2018 Of course. The Chiefs had no need to make this trade. Unless the owner/Head Coach insisted it be made, no matter what, so we were already in a position of weakness/desperation. Stupid way to run a Football team. Or at least one that cares about winning. Or until it comes out the Rams initiated trade discussions with the Chiefs for Peters. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dablueguy 0 Posted February 24, 2018 Share Posted February 24, 2018 Or until it comes out the Rams initiated trade discussions with the Chiefs for Peters. Sure. Then a smart team that's interested in winning says, Your number 1 this year, your number 1 or 2 and 3 next year, and let's begin the discussion. Not, Sure, we'll take whatever you want to give us. Yeah, I know we don't know the compensation, and we're not allowed to speculate, blah blah blah. "Trading Marcus Peters is a huge mistake and if he is traded it should be for a 1st and 2nd round pick. Anything else is unacceptable" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SEMO 6,812 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 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mloe68 1,521 Posted February 24, 2018 Share Posted February 24, 2018 Peters is a 3 year, cost certainty player, at worst without an extension. Peters isn't the holdup, IMO. He's thrilled to be leaving. [/quote. 15 plus million dollar franchise tag as a plan is ludicrous. And exactly why nobody really wanted Peters even if they were willing to risk attitude implosion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jollyredjj 3 Posted February 24, 2018 Share Posted February 24, 2018 There’s no way that you could wrap a business case around that little compensation. I’d like to the first to call a giant BS. IF and only IF this were validated to be true, then that screams aloud that the organization thinks even far less than I do of Marcus Peters, AND that absolutely no other team was willing to offer Any more. All the more reason to rid the locker room of him. Bye philacio. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dksww 484 Posted February 24, 2018 Share Posted February 24, 2018 Sure. Then a smart team that's interested in winning says, Your number 1 this year, your number 1 or 2 and 3 next year, and let's begin the discussion. Not, Sure, we'll take whatever you want to give us. Yeah, I know we don't know the compensation, and we're not allowed to speculate, blah blah blah. "Trading Marcus Peters is a huge mistake and if he is traded it should be for a 1st and 2nd round pick. Anything else is unacceptable" I did say that. I also said they were dumbasses for trading him. But that was the homer in me way over-valuing him. After days of researching other non QB trades, the only players worth that in today's NFL are elite QBs. I still think the Chiefs will do very well in this trade. I wouldn't have traded him. If they were able to get what they could off Alex Smith then they should be find in trading Peters. Don't worry, if it's dog$hit in return I'll join you in bashing the trade. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kkuenn 3,604 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 Who is Jeff Smith? I will be missed it this is the case. I rather have him here for a couple years and get a 3rd round comp pick Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
xen 1,010,220 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 Rams don't have a 7th. Fake news. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kkuenn 3,604 Posted February 24, 2018 Share Posted February 24, 2018 Rams don't have a 7th. Fake news. Lol this is great. I can rest easy with my scotch now Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kkuenn 3,604 Posted February 24, 2018 Share Posted February 24, 2018 Rams don't have a 7th. Fake news. Lol this is great. I can rest easy with my scotch now Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jollyredjj 3 Posted February 24, 2018 Share Posted February 24, 2018 Dejavu? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dablueguy 0 Posted February 24, 2018 Share Posted February 24, 2018 Peters is a 3 year, cost certainty player, at worst without an extension. Peters isn't the holdup, IMO. He's thrilled to be leaving. [/quote. 15 plus million dollar franchise tag as a plan is ludicrous. And exactly why nobody really wanted Peters even if they were willing to risk attitude implosion. 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Palangi 788 Posted February 24, 2018 Share Posted February 24, 2018 Of course. The Chiefs had no need to make this trade. Unless the owner/Head Coach insisted it be made, no matter what, so we were already in a position of weakness/desperation. Stupid way to run a Football team. Or at least one that cares about winning. Or if the player made the initial move to force his way out? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SEMO 6,812 Posted February 24, 2018 Share Posted February 24, 2018 Rams don't have a 7th. Fake news. Raiders beat writer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dablueguy 0 Posted February 24, 2018 Share Posted February 24, 2018 I did say that. I also said they were dumbasses for trading him. But that was the homer in me way over-valuing him. After days of researching other non QB trades, the only players worth that in today's NFL are elite QBs. I still think the Chiefs will do very well in this trade. I wouldn't have traded him. If they were able to get what they could off Alex Smith then they should be find in trading Peters. Don't worry, if it's dog$hit in return I'll join you in bashing the trade. What trades did you research that would be anywhere close to this one? A cheap, cost certainty for 3 years, top of the league player. That type player is rarely traded this early in their careers in recent history, AFAIK. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sith13 1,746 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. May be they thought they could do more with a 1st and some other picks in the draft. Otherwise it's simply better to keep a great CB on the roster for the next 3-4 year with the first 2 being very cheap. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dablueguy 0 Posted February 24, 2018 Share Posted February 24, 2018 Or if the player made the initial move to force his way out? He can't force his way out. He can threaten to do whatever, but Chiefs had all the leverage. Peters had none. Unless he's not interested in an NFL career. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jollyredjj 3 Posted February 24, 2018 Share Posted February 24, 2018 I dont know, holdout?, young/ new player influence?, locker-room cancer when his world is suddenly lame duck?, shit tackling? Coach-conflicts in full view?, loss in value as time goes along?, being even less intriguing to other teams? Did I miss much? Didn’t even have to mention what some believe is the ONLY reason. Hmmmmmm Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jollyredjj 3 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sonder 47 Posted February 24, 2018 Share Posted February 24, 2018 What I don't understand is if we can't get a 1st rounder for him and the Rams don't have a 2nd then why are we settling for a 3rd? He is at least worth a 2nd to a team trying to win the SB in the next 2 years correct? 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Palangi 788 Posted February 24, 2018 Share Posted February 24, 2018 He can't force his way out. He can threaten to do whatever, but Chiefs had all the leverage. Peters had none. Unless he's not interested in an NFL career. Oh there are things he can do. Sure it is still up to the club, but still. Let's not make peters an innocent by standard here Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sonder 47 Posted February 24, 2018 Share Posted February 24, 2018 May be they thought they could do more with a 1st and some other picks in the draft. Otherwise it's simply better to keep a great CB on the roster for the next 3-4 year with the first 2 being very cheap. $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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dablueguy 0 Posted February 24, 2018 Share Posted February 24, 2018 I dont know, holdout?, young/ new player influence?, locker-room cancer when his world is suddenly lame duck?, shit tackling? Coach-conflicts in full view?, loss in value as time goes along?, being even less intriguing to other teams? Did I miss much? Didn’t even have to mention what some believe is the ONLY reason. Hmmmmmm 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...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.