Justin Houston Contract Rumor...

[ChiefGator]

Yeah, yeah.. Bleacher report.

http://bleacherreport.com/articles/2...ey-from-chiefs

Says Justin Houston wants a JJ Watt type contract from the Chiefs. Watt signed a six year 100 million deal with Houston.

http://www.spotrac.com/nfl/houston-texans/j.j.-watt/

Those numbers actually seem fairly reasonable, assuming Houston keeps at his trade. Probably ends up being a little bit less guaranteed, but I could certainly live with that salary cap hit year-by-year.

[The Franchise]

Originally Posted by MGM

Yeah but, the smart thing to do would be for Dorsey to wait. Everyone knows he's not going to duplicate what he did last year. If he doesn't want to take what you are offering now. offer the same deal in March and it will probably look pretty good.

There is no reason to sign him now unless he is really cooperating and wants the fair deal.

And when Houston hits 15-18 sacks next season and then refuses to sign a 6 year, $75 million deal? Franchise him again and completely kill the relationship that the team has with him? That's ****ing stupid.

[DJ's left nut]

Originally Posted by Rausch

I don't think that's happening now.

I'm suggesting that if he plays this year without a contract he isn't coming back. He won't want to come back. We'd THEN have to overpay after pissing the guy off and I don't see that happening either...

Eh, that's a possibility. But again, you're overlooking the fact that the Chiefs will tag him and the Chiefs will be willing to come to the table and again make him a very large offer.

Perhaps the damage to his pride will be too much to bear, he'll sit out the season, lose the $15 million he was offered on the tag and/or the long-term security he'd have been offered in the 2016 offseason so he can get to FA in 2017. He'd now be a 28 yr old who hasn't played football in a year and is banking on having the same earning potential he had at 27 coming of a (presumably) strong season, but it's certainly an avenue available to him.

I don't think it gets that personal. I think the Chiefs would remain in the cat birds seat to sign him. The franchise tag gives teams so much leverage.

[Rausch]

Originally Posted by Pestilence

And when Houston hits 15-18 sacks next season and then refuses to sign a 6 year, $75 million deal? Franchise him again and completely kill the relationship that the team has with him? That's ****ing stupid.

This.

Any good will would be gone...

[Tribal Warfare]

Originally Posted by penbrook

Per Marty McDonald

Justin Houston Update: Sides are targeting a 6-7 year deal. In other J-Hou news, he took a morning dump.

https://twitter.com/1_ChiefsKingdom/...37254129065984

[Rausch]

Originally Posted by DJ's left nut

Eh, that's a possibility. But again, you're overlooking the fact that the Chiefs will tag him and the Chiefs will be willing to come to the table and again make him a very large offer.

Perhaps the damage to his pride will be too much to bear, he'll sit out the season, lose the $15 million he was offered on the tag and/or the long-term security he'd have been offered in the 2016 offseason so he can get to FA in 2017.

I don't think Dorsey would pay him under the tag next year. It makes no sense for a player you know you won't be keeping.

I happens now our it won't happen. We might tag him next year but it would only be to trade him...

[keg in kc]

Cooperating and taking the fair deal. Translation from true fan: accepting a contract below what the market dictates. Because trying to get what he's actually earned is greedy. Team players will always acquiesce to whatever the organization wants because Kansas City is a hotspot. Filled with merchandising opportunities, it's a privilege just to be here, unlike quaint, off-the-beaten-path locales like New York and Miami. Who wouldn't take less to play here!

[DJ's left nut]

Originally Posted by Rausch

I don't think Dorsey would pay him under the tag next year. It makes no sense for a player you know you won't be keeping.

I happens now our it won't happen. We might tag him next year but it would only be to trade him...

Sure it does - you do it to lock him into a poorer negotiating position. If you just let him hit the market, you have zero leverage at all in discussions for a long-term deal. If you put the tag on him, he now has to make that 'sit out for a year or take the $50 million in guarantees sitting in front of me...'

If we have gobs of cap space as you insist, why wouldn't we use it to tag Houston? If he doesn't play, it goes unused and turns into rollover for 2017 that could be used on Poe, Kelce, etc...

There's zero downside to tagging Houston next year and the Chiefs will absolutely do so.

[O.city]

Originally Posted by DJ's left nut

It is, but if you're interested in cost certainty and you're dealing with a guy who's still so young that this contract could take him through his entire prime, coming up with a contract that you could actually keep him playing under without having to rip it up every 2 years is just a smart practice.

Yes, but if he's in his prime and playing at this current level, you're probably not too worried about paying him that money. He'd easily bring that value and be worth it.

Basically what th cards did with holliday. If the guys war and money match up, it's not a problem

[The Franchise]

If you don't think that Pioli would ****ing trip over his own dick to offer Houston 6 years $100+ million dollars to play in Atlanta.....you're ****ing crazy.

[Chiefnj2]

Tagging him for two years in a row would be stupid.

6 years for 50 guaranteed, or 2 years for 30 (if tagged 2x). Wrap up the guy that YOU developed and that you know fits your system to a T.

[Rausch]

Originally Posted by DJ's left nut

There's zero downside to tagging Houston next year and the Chiefs will absolutely do so.

I'd bet about anything that would lead to him refusing to sign a long term deal. Perhaps demanding to be traded.

The player wants the protection of a long term deal...

[The Franchise]

7 years - $115 million. $16.5 average and he's locked up until he's 33 (the last two years of his deal not guaranteed). I'm fine with that.

[DJ's left nut]

Originally Posted by O.city

Yes, but if he's in his prime and playing at this current level, you're probably not too worried about paying him that money. He'd easily bring that value and be worth it.

Basically what th cards did with holliday. If the guys war and money match up, it's not a problem

Exactly.

Best case scenario is that you offer him a deal that starts at FMV in his first season with no poison pills throughout. It's then very slightly backloaded to ensure that it stays within market but again - no poison pills so if he doesn't play to that level, you can cut him.

At that point, he's getting fair wages and is still incentivized to bust his ass to perform and ensure future bank.

Now that never happens because of the wonkiness of the signing bonus structure, but it's why I HATE heavily backloaded deals or contracts where they try to keep money out of year 1. It makes later seasons extremely difficult to deal with and puts the player in a position where perhaps his salary is out of whack with his production even if he continues to produce at the same level. Then the team goes and asks him to take a paycut and the relationship gets acrimonious.

I love Watt's present deal with Houston. It pays him fairly and almost certainly in line with the market and his production for every year of the deal. It's a contract that both sides should be able to play under, keeping the annual mud-slinging contract battles to a minimum. It's a great deal for both sides and I would love to see Houston agree to a similar one.

[milkman]

If Houston somehow hit the FA market and was lost to the Chiefs, Bob Sutton, who was praised for his work last year, would be vilified by Chiefs fans again, like he was when Houston was lost for much of the latter half of the '13 season.

[DJ's left nut]

Originally Posted by Rausch

I'd bet about anything that would lead to him refusing to sign a long term deal. Perhaps demanding to be traded.

The player wants the protection of a long term deal...

So?

They'll negotiate towards a long-term deal before the franchise deadline. If they can't get one done, they're not just going to shrug, walk away and try to battle in the trenches with the other 31 NFL teams. They'll tag his ass and take their chances.

If he demands a trade then he demands a trade. The Chiefs can choose to trade him or they can call his bluff in the manner I just discussed. In either event, the Chiefs are in a much MUCH better position than if they just let him go into the market.