It certainly does when it's time for a new contract.

Signing him to a new contract is incremental to us, as opposed to signing with a new team.

How so? His new contract and salary cap hit will affect us the same way it'd affect any team. Right now, part of his salary might be sunk because of the way the cap works, but certainly none of his new contract could possibly be a sunk cost.

With the holes this team has and with it looking more and more like LJ is going to be the next Wilbur Montgomery? Yeah, I would.

I disagree that there is ample evidence of it happening. People are given a soundbite and go with it without asking questions about previous # of carries, history of injury, age of the back, what about backs that had that many carries once you consider postseason carries, etc.?

He already counts against our cap. A new contract would replace the old contract and the old cap hit. If his current contract costs $800K against the cap and his new contract costs $3.2M against the cap, we're actually only using up an additional $2.4M worth of cap space, as opposed to a new team using up the full $3.2M.

In addition, we're not giving up draft picks to sign him.

EDIT

Eh, maybe not. A first and a fourth, with us swapping second or third rounders, and giving away a sixth rounder the next year sounds better.

The simple fact that it happened is really all it takes to start the ball rolling.

If you think his record-setting season won't weigh on the minds of potential suitors, you're wrong.

Wait a minute. Are you saying it's silly to take a low first for him, but suitors won't want to offer that much anyway?

Is a low first better than a second and a fifth, ala Marshall Faulk to St. Louis?

Yeah, but presumably the acquiring team doesn't get an extra roster spot, and will most likely dump a running back, who may just have an 800k salary cap hit.

I never said it wouldn't weigh in the minds of suitors, I also don't know enough about the previous backs or the other questions I raised to see if it is a fair point or not.

That's EXACTLY what I'm saying.

He's worth more than a single, low 1st-round draft pick to the Chiefs, if for no other reason than we already know he can play in the NFL and at a high level. You can't say that about any draft pick with 100% certainty.

Furthermore, it's likely that most teams will offer less than that (ie. the Faulk deal you mentioned) which further reinforces the idea that it would be pretty dumb to trade LJ at this point.

I understand that. We have two different points.

You're wanting to know if the concern about his future is valid or invalid.

IMO, it doesn't matter if it is or isn't - the simple fact that the info is out there decreases his trade value.

For instance Emmit Smith had 373 regular season carries in his third season in the NFL. That year Dallas won 3 postseason games (including the Super Bowl). I don't have the specific #'s for postseason carries that year, but it is safe to assume in those 3 games Smith easily broke the 400 yard carry mark. He had a lustrious career after that.

The little factoid that Whitlock is throwing around may be used by another GM, but without a detailed analysis of the situation it might amount to nothing and not result in a decrease in trade value.

How about this...

Swap #23 and LJ to the Texans for #8 and #39.

#8 Could land us a top player at one of several positions. And 2 second rounders could fill what is left over from not being taken at #8.