PDA

View Full Version : Chiefs Vikings may put off the trade until after the Draft...


Direckshun
04-20-2008, 09:48 AM
ABSENT TRADE, VIKES “LIKELY” TO SIGN ALLEN AFTER DRAFT
Posted by Mike Florio on April 20, 2008, 8:47 a.m.
We received a text message and a phone call late Saturday/early Sunday from a league source who shared with us a curious development regarding the Minnesota Vikings’ ongoing efforts to acquire Kansas City Chiefs defensive end Jared Allen.

Per the source, the Vikings are “likely” to sign Allen to an offer sheet after next weekend’s draft, if a “fair” trade can’t be worked out before then.

The move meshes with the idea that came us to like an acorn to a blind squirrel on Saturday. With the Chiefs reportedly wanting a first-round pick and a second-round pick for Allen, why not simply nab Allen with a poison-pilled offer sheet and foist on the Chiefs the Vikings’ first-round picks in 2009 and 2010?

The fact that the Vikes apparenty plan to pursue this tactic is a strong indication that Allen’s visit to the Twin Cities has resulted in an agreement between the player and the Purple regarding the money that will be paid to the NFL’s sack leader in 2008.

But there’s a wild card in this scenario. The Tampa Bay Buccaneers are reportedly interested in Allen, and could be squeezed into besting the Vikings’ pre-draft trade offer if the Bucs know that Allen would otherwise be poised to sign a post-draft offer sheet in Minnesota.

Then again, if Allen has made up his mind that he wants to play in the land of 10,000 lakes (but hopefully not 0.10 percent BAC), the Bucs will be out of the picture, and the question will be whether the Vikings get him before the draft, or after it.

A couple of readers have asked us whether the Vikings could sign Allen to an offer sheet right now, since it’s less than seven days before the first day of the draft. But even though a team with a franchise player has up to seven days to decide whether to match an offer sheet that he signs, the team can also decide before the seven days expire to not match it. In this case, doing so would give the Chiefs the Vikings’ first-round picks in 2008 and 2009.

And since the Chiefs would surely prefer to get extra draft picks for Allen right now (especially since G.M. Carl Peterson might not be around to use picks in 2009 and/or 2010), it’ll be critical for the Vikings to dust off the poison pill, if they want to be sure to acquire Allen. Otherwise, the Vikes will have merely negotiated on the Chiefs’ behalf Allen’s long-term contract to stay in Kansas City.

Permalink | Comments Back to Top
VIKES CAN SIGN ALLEN POST-DRAFT
Posted by Mike Florio on April 19, 2008, 11:04 p.m.
Earlier on Saturday, we floated the possibility of the Minnesota Vikings signing Kansas City Chiefs defensive end Jared Allen to an offer sheet after the 2008 draft. If the Chiefs choose not to match the offer, they would be stuck with the Vikings’ first-round draft picks in 2009 and 2010.

Several readers asked whether such a move would be permissible, citing the Friday, April 18 deadline for signing players to offer sheets. Though vague, the CBA seemed to indicate that the pre-draft deadline applies only to restricted free agents, and not to franchise players. NFL spokesman Greg Aiello confirmed for us that there is no pre-draft deadline for signing franchise players to offer sheets.

Thus, if the Vikings believe that the team is going to be a solid contender over the next few years in a so-so NFC North (especially after Brett Favre’s retirement), why not make the run at Allen after the draft? The first-round picks in 2009 and 2010 will be low.

They’ll be even lower if the players whom the Vikes land in a 2008 draft that is deep but not top-heavy become solid contributors.

In our view, it’s a no-brainer. The Vikings should sign Allen to an offer sheet with a poison pill the moment after exercising the 17th overall selection in round one.

Direckshun
04-20-2008, 09:49 AM
I can't help but think the Vikes would have to be retards to take this approach.

Acquiring a franchise DE is a good deal no matter what you give up, but you'd want to minimize its effect on your franchise by basically giving away picks from one Draft, not multiple #1s in your future.

Fat Elvis
04-20-2008, 09:51 AM
Ha Ha.

FU Carl.

kstater
04-20-2008, 09:52 AM
Awesome, to an extent. Although I'd like a first and second/third this year, two firsts could be good as well. Yeah it's a year and two years down the line, but the Vikings could suck those two years or they could be good. I don't know what to think.

Direckshun
04-20-2008, 09:53 AM
Awesome, to an extent. Although I'd like a first and second/third this year, two firsts could be good as well. Yeah it's a year and two years down the line, but the Vikings could suck those two years or they could be good. I don't know what to think.
I think it's a great deal for the Chiefs. You want two firsts, I'd say.

I just think the Vikes would have to be straight-up foolish to mortgage their future on JA.

the Talking Can
04-20-2008, 09:53 AM
fine by me

kstater
04-20-2008, 09:54 AM
I think it's a great deal for the Chiefs. You want two firsts, I'd say.

I just think the Vikes would have to be straight-up foolish to mortgage their future on JA.

O, I agree with you. Just watch Carl trade JA after the draft for a 1st and 2nd. :cuss:

Mr. Laz
04-20-2008, 09:55 AM
I can't help but think the Vikes would have to be retards to take this approach.

Acquiring a franchise DE is a good deal no matter what you give up, but you'd want to minimize its effect on your franchise by basically giving away picks from one Draft, not multiple #1s in your future.

not really .... depends on the Viking's plans.

maybe they are making a push now and don't want to lose draft picks now.

wait until after the draft .... offer the chiefs their 1st round picks in 2009 and 2010. Then they have their draft picks this year and don't have to worry about a poison pill etc.

eazyb81
04-20-2008, 09:56 AM
I was concerned about this when we were talking about it yesterday, but it's dumb for Minny or anyone to think they're getting such a great deal by giving us two future 1st round picks. Having two 1st round picks in 2009 and 2010 is perfect for a team trying to rebuild like us.

Of course I'd love to have the extra picks this year, but it will feel pretty next year.

Direckshun
04-20-2008, 09:57 AM
O, I agree with you. Just watch Carl trade JA after the draft for a 1st and 2nd. :cuss:
:cuss:

ChiTown
04-20-2008, 09:57 AM
wake me up when I'm supposed to give a shit.............

siberian khatru
04-20-2008, 09:59 AM
I dunno, why do all the picks have to be in this year's draft? Is this draft sooo deep that that that's the one to mine? IMO, we're not one draft away from being competitive anyway, so what's the urgency? It would be nice to have multiple 1st-round picks (ours and Minny's) the next two years. It allows us to plan, gives us flexibility to draft players or trade the picks to get more picks or move up to get somebody we want.

DaWolf
04-20-2008, 10:01 AM
Awesome, to an extent. Although I'd like a first and second/third this year, two firsts could be good as well. Yeah it's a year and two years down the line, but the Vikings could suck those two years or they could be good. I don't know what to think.

Considering Childress is their head coach and Tavaris Jackson is their QB, I wouldn't be surprised if they did suck one of those years. Depends if their RB can stay healthy.

blueballs
04-20-2008, 10:05 AM
With Gruden running the ship
I'd rather have Tampa's 2009 and 2010 1sts

Mr. Laz
04-20-2008, 10:09 AM
I dunno, why do all the picks have to be in this year's draft? Is this draft sooo deep that that that's the one to mine? IMO, we're not one draft away from being competitive anyway, so what's the urgency? It would be nice to have multiple 1st-round picks (ours and Minny's) the next two years. It allows us to plan, gives us flexibility to draft players or trade the picks to get more picks or move up to get somebody we want.

2 reasons ....

1. a future draft pick is general considered to be worth less in trade value by 1 round per year delayed. So a 1st in 2009 and 2010 for a player they receive THIS year would have a basic trade/market value of tradeing Jared Allen for a 2nd and 3rd rounder.

2. getting Jared Allen this year will make the Vikings a better team in 2009 and 2010 so those picks are going to be lower in the draft ... reducing their value further.

Sfeihc
04-20-2008, 10:10 AM
Florio is an idiot.

blueballs
04-20-2008, 10:11 AM
Those picks will be nice to use
while Allen is setting at home in Minny on suspension

jjchieffan
04-20-2008, 10:12 AM
I don't know. I am torn about this. On one hand, I want to see the rebuild happen quicker. Last year was awful and I want to see the Chiefs back in winning form ASAP. Two extra first day picks this year would most certainly expedite that. Also, the Viqueens are a team on the rise. It is likely that they will be picking later in the next 2 drafts. On the other hand, I have little faith in Carl Petersucker to use the picks effectively, and if the picks are delayed, then the possibility that a new GM will get to use them excites me. I am sure that many top GM candidates would be more interested to come here knowing that they are going to have extra first round picks to help them rebuild.

Mr. Laz
04-20-2008, 10:14 AM
if the picks are delayed, then the possibility that a new GM will get to use them excites me. I am sure that many top GM candidates would be more interested to come here knowing that they are going to have extra first round picks to help them rebuild.

good point

ROYC75
04-20-2008, 10:16 AM
Carl is going to get bent over on this one ...........

Hoover
04-20-2008, 10:17 AM
Since we are rebuilding and that process is going to take a few years anyway having 2 first round picks next year and in 2010 seems to fit really well with a rebuilding play.

My concern for having so many picks this year isn't getting them signed, its making it reasonable to resign then after their rookie contracts if they pan out. Chicago had issues when they needed to resign both Urlacker and Kruets in the same offseason but couldn't tab both players.

Mr. Laz
04-20-2008, 10:18 AM
Carl is going to get bent over on this one ...........

so what else is new?!?

seriously ...... carl gets bent over more than goatse at a gay pride parade.

Guru
04-20-2008, 10:21 AM
Since we are rebuilding and that process is going to take a few years anyway having 2 first round picks next year and in 2010 seems to fit really well with a rebuilding play.

My concern for having so many picks this year isn't getting them signed, its making it reasonable to resign then after their rookie contracts if they pan out. Chicago had issues when they needed to resign both Urlacker and Kruets in the same offseason but couldn't tab both players.

Offset the contracts so you don't have to deal with multiple players at the same time.

blueballs
04-20-2008, 10:24 AM
Miami really bent Carl over
oh wait

jjchieffan
04-20-2008, 10:28 AM
Since we are rebuilding and that process is going to take a few years

I don't know why this opinion is so strong around here. Why does it have to take several years? When Carl came to KC, the cupboard was bare, the team was awful. He hired Marty, drafted DT, and had the team competitive again in one season. Several other teams have gone from worst to first in recent years. I for one am not resigned to watching the Chiefs turn into the faiders and continue to lose for the next 5 years. Call me a homer, but, I am hoping for a win every time they play.

sparkky
04-20-2008, 10:34 AM
I think I would prefer picks this year. I agree they are most likely a team on the rise.
Look at their division, Detroit, Chicago and Green Bay (without Favre).
I see them as winning the NFC north without much trouble. That does not assure them of a great season but it's not a bad start, IMHO.

milkman
04-20-2008, 10:52 AM
I don't know why this opinion is so strong around here. Why does it have to take several years? When Carl came to KC, the cupboard was bare, the team was awful. He hired Marty, drafted DT, and had the team competitive again in one season. Several other teams have gone from worst to first in recent years. I for one am not resigned to watching the Chiefs turn into the faiders and continue to lose for the next 5 years. Call me a homer, but, I am hoping for a win every time they play.

Actually, when you look back at that team, the cupboard really wasn't bare.

The Chiefs already had a solid O-Line, Neil Smith and one of the best secondaries in the league.

Add a playmaker in DT and a HC, who for all his other faults, teaches toughness and discipline, and you have the formula for a quick turnaround.

The fact is, the team was on the rise under John MacKovic.

They took a downward swing when Lamar Hunt fired him and hired a moron in Frank Ganz.

The cupboard is bare now.

stlchiefs
04-20-2008, 10:55 AM
I didn't even realize we had a cupboard. I think Vermeil took it with him for his wine cellar.

mikeyis4dcats.
04-20-2008, 11:01 AM
I really don't understand all the JA hate after last years lovefest.

I think we'd be stupid to let him go. Even a rebuilding team needs SOME stability.

Baconeater
04-20-2008, 11:04 AM
I think this deal blows.

milkman
04-20-2008, 11:08 AM
I really don't understand all the JA hate after last years lovefest.

I think we'd be stupid to let him go. Even a rebuilding team needs SOME stability.

Hate?

I'm pretty sure that most would rather see Allen re-sign, but that isn't likely to happen.

So our best case scenario is to get something for him now, rather than wait and not get anything.

T-post Tom
04-20-2008, 11:10 AM
Is it too late for the Chiefs to change the franchise designation to "exclusive" franchise player? If they could do that, then the Vikes would be screwed. The only downside that I know of is that they would have to base Allen's salary off of top DE salaries asof April 2008 vs. last year's salaries. I'm not sure this would be such a huge impact. BTW, didn't the Viqueens try to do this to us with Dale Carter? Peterson must have a short memory.

MTG#10
04-20-2008, 11:13 AM
I really don't understand all the JA hate after last years lovefest.

I think we'd be stupid to let him go. Even a rebuilding team needs SOME stability.
He's leaving eventually anyways, whether you can accept it or not - might as well get something in return while we still can.

beach tribe
04-20-2008, 11:15 AM
HOLD FIRM.

R&GHomer
04-20-2008, 11:16 AM
O, I agree with you. Just watch Carl trade JA after the draft for a 1st and 2nd. :cuss:

If the Vikes play it like that, I don't think they'll have a choice. It will be two first rounders. Carl would be out of his ****ing mind to accept anything less.

R&GHomer
04-20-2008, 11:18 AM
Hate?

I'm pretty sure that most would rather see Allen re-sign, but that isn't likely to happen.

So our best case scenario is to get something for him now, rather than wait and not get anything.

I'm not hating, he did great for the Chiefs. I just don't like the way he is going about it. Dude is going to get paid, no reason this can't be done out of the spotlight.

Iowanian
04-20-2008, 11:19 AM
I hate the Vikings.

Has anyone forgotten a couple of years ago how shitty they were to our visiting fans, as they kicked our asses?

They wear a purple helmet for a reason...its symbology for what they are.

I hope the Chiefs find a way to break a cork off in them if this goes down.

CanadaKC
04-20-2008, 11:20 AM
It's really hard as a Chiefs fan to accept this as well...but there are too many things working against us. One...Peterson and Allen have reached the point of no return with each other...that happens all the time in sports (see Chad Johnson) Two...we are in a rebuiding mode..the first time since I can remember...and we'll be able to maximize our return for Allen as he's in the prime of his career...maybe the only time he'll be at such high value. And three...like it or not...the guy is a risk. A stud...but a risk. I'm all for rebuilding this team...take it in the chin a couple years...and watch our team finally reach the level of competitivenes we've all be hoping for for many seasons to come. But thansk JA...for many great memories. :clap:

Sully
04-20-2008, 11:43 AM
I'd rather it happen after the draft and get the future #1s.
A) GIves us more flexibility.
B) Minny may be better, or may not. But I don't think they'll be substantially better. They have one of the best RBs in the league, but a poor QB, and no real receivers, IMO.
C) At the very least, this shows that the rebuild will be past CP's time here, which is a good thing.
D) We already have 10 picks this year. Add that to 2 #1s next year, and 2 #1s after that, and we should have 3 solid drafts. That should be enough to build a long-term contender on, rather than going for the quick fix.

el borracho
04-20-2008, 11:43 AM
If we are going to lose him future first round picks would be the best scenario. With any luck, Carl and Herm will be long gone and we can actually put the picks to good use.

Brock
04-20-2008, 11:47 AM
If the Vikings look at this as being a smart move, well, that's why they're the Vikings.

Mojo Rising
04-20-2008, 11:51 AM
I would rather have 2 #1's in '09 and '10 when Carl is gone. The only risk is that Clark replaces him with one of his underlings. And if that happens we have bigger problems to worry about.

Are we at risk of Minnesota pulling what they did with Hutchinson and Seattle a couple years ago? Could they sign Allen to a contract that gives him an extra $10 a year any year he plays more than 5 games in Missouri? That way we couldn't match.

eazyb81
04-20-2008, 11:58 AM
Are we at risk of Minnesota pulling what they did with Hutchinson and Seattle a couple years ago? Could they sign Allen to a contract that gives him an extra $10 a year any year he plays more than 5 games in Missouri? That way we couldn't match.

Um, that's what we want to happen. If we don't match we get two 1st round picks.

J Diddy
04-20-2008, 12:00 PM
Um, that's what we want to happen. If we don't match we get two 1st round picks.

yeah I think it'd be silly settling for first and a 3rd this year when we can do nothing and get two 1sts

Adept Havelock
04-20-2008, 12:03 PM
I think it's a great deal for the Chiefs. You want two firsts, I'd say.

I just think the Vikes would have to be straight-up foolish to mortgage their future on JA.

I'm inclined to agree. I'd take two low firsts over a mid round first and a third every time.

Um, that's what we want to happen. If we don't match we get two 1st round picks.

Yep. Sorry about giving you so much sh*t the other day. It was a combination of me being 1) pissed off about JA, 2) frustration at having been laid up for a few days, and 3) not making it clear that I wasn't claiming that other people would stay away from Arrowhead just because I did. My sincere apologies.

If we are going to lose him future first round picks would be the best scenario. With any luck, Carl and Herm will be long gone and we can actually put the picks to good use.

If we have to part ways with JA (and it looks like we do)...

siberian khatru
04-20-2008, 12:29 PM
2 reasons ....

1. a future draft pick is general considered to be worth less in trade value by 1 round per year delayed. So a 1st in 2009 and 2010 for a player they receive THIS year would have a basic trade/market value of tradeing Jared Allen for a 2nd and 3rd rounder.

2. getting Jared Allen this year will make the Vikings a better team in 2009 and 2010 so those picks are going to be lower in the draft ... reducing their value further.

I understand that thinking, but it's not based on any inherent truth. It's basically: One in the hand is worth two in the bush. The only reason current picks are valued higher than future picks is because we KNOW what the current picks are worth. You're being penalized for speculating on the future.
Yet, just because we KNOW what the 1st and 2nd (or 3rd) are worth this year, doesn't mean they are inherently better to a 1st in 09 and 1st in 2010 -- because those picks could turn out to be of equal or greater value. (Actually, I think it's safe to say that unless the Vikes go to the Super Bowl the next two years, that one of those 1sts is going to be of higher real value than a 2nd in 08.)

So it comes back to this: Is it worth taking what you know to be now, in a draft that isn't necessarily super deep, or do you settle for having multiple 1st-round picks in the future which gives you several options? I'm still intrigued by having 4 1st-round picks the next two years in the middle of a massive rebuild.

Chiefnj2
04-20-2008, 01:25 PM
I would say that if Derrick Harvey falls to the Vikings in the draft the deal would be over with KC.

That would be a great outcome. There'd be lots of tension on the team.

KC Tattoo
04-20-2008, 01:55 PM
I want the draft picks for JA just to make this draft day better. At the same time I'll be sad for JA to leave us, so I'll buy him a beer :toast: Here's to you #69 Allen

Valiant
04-20-2008, 02:57 PM
ABSENT TRADE, VIKES “LIKELY” TO SIGN ALLEN AFTER DRAFT
Posted by Mike Florio on April 20, 2008, 8:47 a.m.
We received a text message and a phone call late Saturday/early Sunday from a league source who shared with us a curious development regarding the Minnesota Vikings’ ongoing efforts to acquire Kansas City Chiefs defensive end Jared Allen.

Per the source, the Vikings are “likely” to sign Allen to an offer sheet after next weekend’s draft, if a “fair” trade can’t be worked out before then.

The move meshes with the idea that came us to like an acorn to a blind squirrel on Saturday. With the Chiefs reportedly wanting a first-round pick and a second-round pick for Allen, why not simply nab Allen with a poison-pilled offer sheet and foist on the Chiefs the Vikings’ first-round picks in 2009 and 2010?

The fact that the Vikes apparenty plan to pursue this tactic is a strong indication that Allen’s visit to the Twin Cities has resulted in an agreement between the player and the Purple regarding the money that will be paid to the NFL’s sack leader in 2008.

But there’s a wild card in this scenario. The Tampa Bay Buccaneers are reportedly interested in Allen, and could be squeezed into besting the Vikings’ pre-draft trade offer if the Bucs know that Allen would otherwise be poised to sign a post-draft offer sheet in Minnesota.

Then again, if Allen has made up his mind that he wants to play in the land of 10,000 lakes (but hopefully not 0.10 percent BAC), the Bucs will be out of the picture, and the question will be whether the Vikings get him before the draft, or after it.

A couple of readers have asked us whether the Vikings could sign Allen to an offer sheet right now, since it’s less than seven days before the first day of the draft. But even though a team with a franchise player has up to seven days to decide whether to match an offer sheet that he signs, the team can also decide before the seven days expire to not match it. In this case, doing so would give the Chiefs the Vikings’ first-round picks in 2008 and 2009.

And since the Chiefs would surely prefer to get extra draft picks for Allen right now (especially since G.M. Carl Peterson might not be around to use picks in 2009 and/or 2010), it’ll be critical for the Vikings to dust off the poison pill, if they want to be sure to acquire Allen. Otherwise, the Vikes will have merely negotiated on the Chiefs’ behalf Allen’s long-term contract to stay in Kansas City.

Permalink | Comments Back to Top
VIKES CAN SIGN ALLEN POST-DRAFT
Posted by Mike Florio on April 19, 2008, 11:04 p.m.
Earlier on Saturday, we floated the possibility of the Minnesota Vikings signing Kansas City Chiefs defensive end Jared Allen to an offer sheet after the 2008 draft. If the Chiefs choose not to match the offer, they would be stuck with the Vikings’ first-round draft picks in 2009 and 2010.

Several readers asked whether such a move would be permissible, citing the Friday, April 18 deadline for signing players to offer sheets. Though vague, the CBA seemed to indicate that the pre-draft deadline applies only to restricted free agents, and not to franchise players. NFL spokesman Greg Aiello confirmed for us that there is no pre-draft deadline for signing franchise players to offer sheets.

Thus, if the Vikings believe that the team is going to be a solid contender over the next few years in a so-so NFC North (especially after Brett Favre’s retirement), why not make the run at Allen after the draft? The first-round picks in 2009 and 2010 will be low.

They’ll be even lower if the players whom the Vikes land in a 2008 draft that is deep but not top-heavy become solid contributors.

In our view, it’s a no-brainer. The Vikings should sign Allen to an offer sheet with a poison pill the moment after exercising the 17th overall selection in round one.

Hopefully homer talk..

I believe the NFL did away with poison pills..

Also multiple teams are interested in Allen so this kills their theory that it would be for 09 and 10 picks because we would just trade him to somebody else..

The dumbshits think they are the only one that has a shot at signing him..

Raiderh8ter77
04-20-2008, 03:23 PM
will make the draft more exciting

el borracho
04-20-2008, 03:32 PM
I understand that thinking, but it's not based on any inherent truth. It's basically: One in the hand is worth two in the bush. The only reason current picks are valued higher than future picks is because we KNOW what the current picks are worth. You're being penalized for speculating on the future.
Yet, just because we KNOW what the 1st and 2nd (or 3rd) are worth this year, doesn't mean they are inherently better to a 1st in 09 and 1st in 2010 -- because those picks could turn out to be of equal or greater value. (Actually, I think it's safe to say that unless the Vikes go to the Super Bowl the next two years, that one of those 1sts is going to be of higher real value than a 2nd in 08.)

So it comes back to this: Is it worth taking what you know to be now, in a draft that isn't necessarily super deep, or do you settle for having multiple 1st-round picks in the future which gives you several options? I'm still intrigued by having 4 1st-round picks the next two years in the middle of a massive rebuild.

not true. Future picks are inherently worth less because they don't help you at the moment. In essence, we would be paying now (giving them Allen) for something we don't get until later (future pick) which is a retarded way to finance anything.

Think about this: If future picks were worth the same as current picks then I guess we could offer all our picks in the year 5,000 and 5,001 and 5,002 for the rights to Randy Moss. After all, New England would have to be crazy not to take 21 picks for one player, right?

DTLB58
04-20-2008, 03:34 PM
http://www.nfl.com/news/story?id=09000d5d806a3052&template=with-video&confirm=true

April 19: Owner Zygi Wilf attempted to downplay talk the Vikings were on the verge of working out a trade with Kansas City or a multiyear contract for Allen, according to the Star Tribune. "You have to deal with Kansas City, you have to deal with Jared," said Wilf. "It's a whole aspect, and you have to weigh that with what's best for the club. That's ultimately what's most important." Head coach Brad Childress said the Vikings would not sign Allen to an offer sheet, giving up two first-round picks if the Chiefs decide not to match.

kstater
04-20-2008, 03:43 PM
not true. Future picks are inherently worth less because they don't help you at the moment. In essence, we would be paying now (giving them Allen) for something we don't get until later (future pick) which is a retarded way to finance anything.

Think about this: If future picks were worth the same as current picks then I guess we could offer all our picks in the year 5,000 and 5,001 and 5,002 for the rights to Randy Moss. After all, New England would have to be crazy not to take 21 picks for one player, right?

If the Chiefs' weren't in the shape they are in right now, I'd be inclined to agree with you. But the fact of the matter is the Chiefs' will not be competing this year or next. That's with 1 1st this year or 10 1sts this year. I'm of the opinion that two first round choices next year and the year after(short of Minnesota going deep into the playoffs the next 2 years) help this team tremendously more when they ARE ready to compete than a 1st and a 2nd/3rd this year.

el borracho
04-20-2008, 03:50 PM
Oh, I've already said that, if we are to lose Allen (and I hope we do not), then future #1s would be the best case scenario. I was just debunking the idea that future picks are equally valuable as current picks; they most certainly are not.

BigRock
04-20-2008, 03:52 PM
This is so stupid, it almost sounds like something an angry, red-faced Carl would do.

"OH YEAH? So you think I'm gonna give up a first AND second round pick for that guy? Well, here's my offer: you can kiss my rosy red ass! I'll give you TWO first round picks for him and that's final."

BigRock
04-20-2008, 03:56 PM
I was just debunking the idea that future picks are equally valuable as current picks; they most certainly are not.
That's because everyone wants instant gratification. But a year from now, if we have 2 first round picks, is anyone going to be questioning the value of the deal? How about in 2010?

And if the Vikings don't win the Super Bowl the next two years, what kind of value did they get from it?

siberian khatru
04-20-2008, 04:01 PM
not true. Future picks are inherently worth less because they don't help you at the moment. In essence, we would be paying now (giving them Allen) for something we don't get until later (future pick) which is a retarded way to finance anything.

Think about this: If future picks were worth the same as current picks then I guess we could offer all our picks in the year 5,000 and 5,001 and 5,002 for the rights to Randy Moss. After all, New England would have to be crazy not to take 21 picks for one player, right?

You're arguing from absurdity. I can do that too: 30 7th round picks in 08 are more valuable than 30 1st round picks in 2009 or 2010, just because we're getting them now, not later. Is that what you want to do?

The fact that you acknowledged that given our rebuilding that you'd rather have the two 1sts anyway undercuts your argument about inherent value. The value is whatever means the most to the Chiefs. If you think it's better to have two firsts than a 1st and and 3rd, then the future picks are worth more.

As for retarded financing (paying now for what you might get later): Isn't that what a long-term contract is? A downpayment on future gains?

el borracho
04-20-2008, 04:06 PM
It won't matter what we get in return- when a 4-12 team trades away a young, talented, popular player like Allen people are going to question the deal. Personally, I think it is a mistake to trade Allen (even for two 1sts) but, if we are going to trade him, two 1sts are the most we could hope for.

el borracho
04-20-2008, 04:17 PM
You're arguing from absurdity. I can do that too: 30 7th round picks in 08 are more valuable than 30 1st round picks in 2009 or 2010, just because we're getting them now, not later. Is that what you want to do?

The fact that you acknowledged that given our rebuilding that you'd rather have the two 1sts anyway undercuts your argument about inherent value. The value is whatever means the most to the Chiefs. If you think it's better to have two firsts than a 1st and and 3rd, then the future picks are worth more.

As for retarded financing (paying now for what you might get later): Isn't that what a long-term contract is? A downpayment on future gains?

30 7ths in 2008 are not worth more than 30 1st in 2009 nor 2010 but they are worth more than 30 7ths in 2009 and 2010. I'm sorry, I can't explain it any better than I already have. If you don't believe me, ask around.

I say two future 1sts would be preferable because I do not trust Tweedle Dee and Tweedle Dum to orchestrate a rebuild. Hopefully, this will be the last year we have to suffer through Carl and Herm.

Think about what the interest you pay on a home loan. In exchange for delivering the product in advance of full payment the seller charges a severe interest. For it to be an equitable deal the Chiefs would have to either a) charge more as interest or b) have some other motivating factor for selling on credit (future picks). I have stated many times that I would not wish to lose Allen but, if that is an inevitability, then it would be best to get the picks after Carl and Herm are gone.

stlchiefs
04-20-2008, 04:52 PM
I understand that thinking, but it's not based on any inherent truth. It's basically: One in the hand is worth two in the bush. The only reason current picks are valued higher than future picks is because we KNOW what the current picks are worth. You're being penalized for speculating on the future.
Yet, just because we KNOW what the 1st and 2nd (or 3rd) are worth this year, doesn't mean they are inherently better to a 1st in 09 and 1st in 2010 -- because those picks could turn out to be of equal or greater value. (Actually, I think it's safe to say that unless the Vikes go to the Super Bowl the next two years, that one of those 1sts is going to be of higher real value than a 2nd in 08.)

So it comes back to this: Is it worth taking what you know to be now, in a draft that isn't necessarily super deep, or do you settle for having multiple 1st-round picks in the future which gives you several options? I'm still intrigued by having 4 1st-round picks the next two years in the middle of a massive rebuild.

If this is the logic you're working with send me $1,000 now and I'll gladly return your $1,000 next year at this same time. The value is the same right?

Wrong.
1) you don't know the exact value of future picks (it's contingent on the Vikings)
2) you are forgoing a positive now for a positive later, while the other team receives a current positive
3) A players is an INVESTMENT. He takes time to learn the system and mature into an NFL caliber player, is this not a process that is better to start sooner.
4) there are many more points to continue with, but if you don't understand the basic premise of Time Value of Money or any other economic good it's not even worth discussing.

siberian khatru
04-20-2008, 05:00 PM
If this is the logic you're working with send me $1,000 now and I'll gladly return your $1,000 next year at this same time. The value is the same right?

Wrong.
1) you don't know the exact value of future picks (it's contingent on the Vikings)
2) you are forgoing a positive now for a positive later, while the other team receives a current positive
3) A players is an INVESTMENT. He takes time to learn the system and mature into an NFL caliber player, is this not a process that is better to start sooner.
4) there are many more points to continue with, but if you don't understand the basic premise of Time Value of Money or any other economic good it's not even worth discussing.

So I guess the Herschel Walker trade was bad business because it involved future considerations. That involved picks spread out over four separate drafts (1990-93).

J Diddy
04-20-2008, 05:06 PM
This is so stupid, it almost sounds like something an angry, red-faced Carl would do.

"OH YEAH? So you think I'm gonna give up a first AND second round pick for that guy? Well, here's my offer: you can kiss my rosy red ass! I'll give you TWO first round picks for him and that's final."


how true

ROFL

J Diddy
04-20-2008, 05:10 PM
It won't matter what we get in return- when a 4-12 team trades away a young, talented, popular player like Allen people are going to question the deal. Personally, I think it is a mistake to trade Allen (even for two 1sts) but, if we are going to trade him, two 1sts are the most we could hope for.


I think more people question why we didn't

Mecca
04-20-2008, 05:12 PM
So I guess the Herschel Walker trade was bad business because it involved future considerations. That involved picks spread out over four separate drafts (1990-93).

Obviously Jimmy Johnson had no idea what he was doing.

J Diddy
04-20-2008, 05:14 PM
Hopefully homer talk..

I believe the NFL did away with poison pills..

Also multiple teams are interested in Allen so this kills their theory that it would be for 09 and 10 picks because we would just trade him to somebody else..

The dumbshits think they are the only one that has a shot at signing him..


Agreed, I think the only thing that excites us about Minnesota is that they have more draft picks this year than TB.

If they want to play the next year game I think we'll trade him elsewhere as well

Gonzo
04-20-2008, 05:16 PM
42...the answer is 42 Jared Allen threads.

This has got to beat all the Ty Law threads.

J Diddy
04-20-2008, 05:22 PM
42...the answer is 42 Jared Allen threads.

This has got to beat all the Ty Law threads.


no way

Ty law threads spanned two off seasons

blueballs
04-20-2008, 05:25 PM
He can still get a DUI on a snowmobile
the John Deere might be different though

KCChiefsMan
04-20-2008, 06:34 PM
$100 casino dollars says that we don't trade JA even though the Vikings would have given up a 1st and 3rd. JA plays for the Chiefs this year, Carl offers JA a 6 yr deal worth $18 mil and tells JA to take it or leave it, then JA hits the open market in free agency and the Vikings get him without having to give up any picks. The Chiefs get nothing but another year of JA's tremendous services in a rebuilding year.

any takers?

milkman
04-20-2008, 06:38 PM
Hopefully homer talk..

I believe the NFL did away with poison pills..

Also multiple teams are interested in Allen so this kills their theory that it would be for 09 and 10 picks because we would just trade him to somebody else..

The dumbshits think they are the only one that has a shot at signing him..

The problem is that if Allen decides he'd rather be a Viking than a Buc, all he has to do is sign a contract with them after the draft, and unless the Chiefs match the Vikings offer, they won't have any rights to Allen.

And if they do match, they won't be able to trade him at all.

Mr. Laz
04-20-2008, 06:44 PM
$100 casino dollars says that we don't trade JA even though the Vikings would have given up a 1st and 3rd. JA plays for the Chiefs this year, Carl offers JA a 6 yr deal worth $18 mil and tells JA to take it or leave it, then JA hits the open market in free agency and the Vikings get him without having to give up any picks. The Chiefs get nothing but another year of JA's tremendous services in a rebuilding year.

any takers?
of course then you(and others) will be screaming about how we should of just "taken what we could get" back when we could get it.

because a mistake next year means that this year was a mistake too.

Chiefs fans are so programmed to be losers they would trade a million dollars for a thousand dollars just because they were afraid of paying the taxes on a million. :shake:


Carl should be shot in the groin for no other reason than that .... making Chiefs fans think they deserve failure.

Mojo Rising
04-20-2008, 07:29 PM
$100 casino dollars says that we don't trade JA even though the Vikings would have given up a 1st and 3rd. JA plays for the Chiefs this year, Carl offers JA a 6 yr deal worth $18 mil and tells JA to take it or leave it, then JA hits the open market in free agency and the Vikings get him without having to give up any picks. The Chiefs get nothing but another year of JA's tremendous services in a rebuilding year.

any takers?

We could just tag him again next year.

'Hamas' Jenkins
04-20-2008, 07:46 PM
We could just trade him for the two firsts and then have the KC Mafia execute him.

SBK
04-20-2008, 08:27 PM
There's a reason Minnesota hasn't won anything, and it's starting to show itself again.

I really hope that 2 #1's is what we get.....When this whole thing blows up in their face that 2nd #1 is going to be pretty high.

J Diddy
04-20-2008, 08:32 PM
There's a reason Minnesota hasn't won anything, and it's starting to show itself again.

I really hope that 2 #1's is what we get.....When this whole thing blows up in their face that 2nd #1 is going to be pretty high.

I would hope but they would have a beast of a defensive line

SBK
04-20-2008, 08:39 PM
I would hope but they would have a beast of a defensive line

No QB. If their QB continues to suck it up, and they do not have #1's for 2 years.....yikes.

They're about to lose their LT, if they were to get an injury or 2 along the offensive line, or to AP they're screwed. No QB, no WR's, no TE. They could be a team with a defense that holds teams to 10 points and still loses.

RedThat
04-20-2008, 08:44 PM
Well if this is true, it's not a bad option?

You don't know how good Minnesota will be with JA. But one thing, their defensive line would look awfully good.

either way, imo, I think the deal will get done. Whether it'd be a 1st and a 2nd? A 1st and a 3rd? Or their 2 first rounders for the next 2 years?

The more I read these reports, and keeping hearing about it, it seems as if Minnesota is desperate for Allen. You take what you could get? Building a team takes patience and time. I know one thing, 2 first rounders is better then a 1st and a 2nd, or a 1st and a 3rd. Their is no rush. Why rush? you want quick picks to fix your team? it's no guarantee those picks are the real deal anyway? if youre KC it's not like there going to be any good any time soon. I think KC has some leverage here.

Mojo Rising
04-20-2008, 11:41 PM
Maybe they are going for the NY Giants copy cat plan. Great D Line and pass rush.

Valiant
04-21-2008, 12:24 AM
Maybe they are going for the NY Giants copy cat plan. Great D Line and pass rush.

Except for the Giants have a decent QB, decent well hell besides Shockey bitching the Giants are decent on offense also.. They are nothing like the Giants..

AP has already been hurt, their Offense is very one-dimensional if AP is not blowing up huge yards.. Granted I like Taylor, but they are just to weak on O to win games 13-10..

Mojo Rising
04-21-2008, 01:04 AM
Actually he is AD - All Day.

Little Manning was squat before last December.

My point was that the Giants won because of their D Line. The Vikes have 2 of the best DT's in the game. Maybe their thought is that by adding Allen they can catch lighning in a bottle like the Giants and go somewhere.

It is a copycat league.

Tribal Warfare
04-21-2008, 01:11 AM
Actually he is AD - All Day.

Little Manning was squat before last December.

My point was that the Giants won because of their D Line. The Vikes have 2 of the best DT's in the game. Maybe their thought is that by adding Allen they can catch lighning in a bottle like the Giants and go somewhere.

It is a copycat league.


Well, it's a fundamental line of thought that the game is won in the trenches. Every team who ever played on any level tries to achieve the goal of dominate O-Line and D-lines.

blueballs
04-21-2008, 01:28 AM
Tikii Barber doesn't get a ring
sorry but that never gets old

Buehler445
04-21-2008, 08:33 AM
Tikii Barber doesn't get a ring
sorry but that never gets old

ROFL. Well played.