You've no idea what the market value was for any of these, therefore, you can't "show" or "guess" anything.

Have you ever negotiated for anything bigger than a Toyota? How about something that someone else wanted, maybe as much as you?

You might go a little higher than you originally wanted to, because you want THIS ONE.

But someone else wants it too, and they'll go THIS HIGH.

But you'll go a little further, because THIS ONE IS THE ONE YOU WANT.

And then you win the negotiation, and you get what you wanted.

And some armchair jack-ass on the internet can squeal about how you suck at negotiations.

I don't care if the gave Frank 300 million if he comes in here and wins us a SuperBowl.

Do you want a Championship or Cap space you can save for the next year of missing the playoffs?

A) He never stayed put. He was pushing upfield every time. He tried the stunt two more times and got nothing.

B) He did nothing in the run game except miss a tackle on Freeman.

C) Keenum did beat him.

Most of all, I was surprised by how many plays he wasn't even on the field. Entire drives would go by without #55.

Lol yea it’s bc he sucks :rolleyes:

In doing so we got one of the best your 4-3 DEs in the game and the 23 year old league MVP. Would you trade that for a couple extra picks?

You do realize that this happens with every team, right?

Elite players typically do not sit out multiple drives. I'm watching the Seahawks/Chiefs game now, and he's playing a lot more, sitting out only sporadically. He's also playing a lot better.

Cp sure has a revisionist history of how wonderful all these deals we've made the past two years have been.

It's not an either or. Again, if the market asks for $100 and we lost out by bidding $75, that doesn't mean we need to jump to $500. I'm glad we're going aggressive on the bid to get our guy. But my lord do we have homer goggles on if we think we're getting market price on a lot of our deals the past 2 years. And my lord are we devaluing a first round pick in order to put positive spin on the deal. No, I don't know the market value of the deal. What we know is it's one of the biggest comps given for a player in the last decade and that veach has a negotiating track record that many prior to yesterday felt was a little spotty. So yeah, I'm guessing we paid too much.

<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">Chiefs kept with the low 1st year salary cap number &amp; ballooning one in the 2nd year with Frank Clark. His 2019 cap number is $4.8M. It&#39;s $28.3M in 2020, which screams restructure for cap purposes to me.</p>&mdash; Joel Corry (@corryjoel) <a href="https://twitter.com/corryjoel/status/1121112655987503104?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">April 24, 2019</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

Is he complaining about giving up firsts for Mahomes? Teams would give 5+ first round picks for him at 23 years old. All he cost was a late additional 1st/3rd...steal of the decade.

Picks and numbered order is arbitrary...Fournette was the 4th overall pick. All it does is give you an OPPORTUNITY to cheaply get a player you hope is good in a few years. Chiefs just got a DE that they KNOW is good...and will produce from game one.

KC is in a legitimate SB window and has a new defensive scheme... after 50 years, i dont care how they get there.

And that's fine. I'm not anti Clark trade. Definitely don't care about his cap number. But let's not spin it like we gave up a "meaningless" first and second round pick. We got a great player but it comes at a huge price.

OR, maybe you don't understand what you're talking about. MAYBE, if we look at the Watkins deal, for example, the year per money looks like it's a big overpay, but because of how it's structured you can get out of it earlier so it's not quite what it looks like. MAYBE you had to go higher on the total deal money BECAUSE it's not all guaranteed money, and the deal is pretty shrewd if you look at it in terms of long term cap health. Could that be? Or is it more likely that YOU are smarter than the guy they hired to be GM?

And MAYBE you're focused on OMG FIRST ROUND PICK! when it's really a #29 which is essentially a high second in terms of available talent and historically speaking you have like a 35% chance of that pick being a "successful" NFL player, so taking a very good PROVEN NFL player isn't such a bad idea when you have a 2/3 year window on Mahomes' rookie contract and we were six inches from a Super Bowl?

If you don't see that these deals are structured much, MUCH better than, say, Eric Berry's deal was, or Justin Houston's deal, then you are not educated enough to have this discussion.

No, absolutely not. I just used it to show that we've sacrificed a lot of picks the past two years. But for context... Trading up especially to get a qb is very common. Trading a first rounder straight up for a veteran is much more uncommon and the outcomes have been a little spotty.

I didn't say these deals were worse than Berrys or Houstons. I just said on the negotiating end we haven't gotten great deals. Right moves, but gave up too much to do many of them or gotten way too little in return. It's possible to like the strategy but see flaws in some of the execution. Cp is revising history if all of a sudden we think we've been doing a great job the past two years getting market value out of deals. I'm not the only one, except that in our excitement we're misremembering.

That's fine. I'd rather be worse at negotiating if the strategy is right and we still get the player. But let's not fart roses about it.