The Bengals in 2021 gave him a 1 year $7M deal and he played pretty well for them with 7 sacks and 49 tackles. The Chicago Bears signed him this offseason for a 3 year $40M deal, but Bears called it off when Larry failed the physical because of foot.

I wonder if he was in the Dominican Republic prior to the doctor's exam. (Look up Bashaud Breeland foot injury)

Sorry...he actually injured it against the LV Raiders and it required surgery.

Yep, Especially with our schedule.

If that were actually the equation, of course.

It's not even close to being the equation, though.

He would be a Chicago Bear but he failed their physical. It's a no-go.

Yeah, it's called dealing with reality.

I didn't want to trade Tyreek. I'm sure Veach didn't either.

We now know Tyreek wanted to be the highest paid WR in football, and the money just wasn't going to work if we were going to improve the team.

So we can wring our hands and clutch our pearls, or we can embrace that fact that at least we got a big haul of picks, freed up some cap space, and we move on.

I was a hell no, don't trade Tyreek until it happened. It happened. I understand why it was necessary. Now it is what it is. Better to embrace it than cry and complain.

:bravo:

Man, you just really don't get it.

Hill wanted a new deal or wasn't going to play. He wanted the deal he got in Miami. We offered good, aggressive deals, and it wasn't enough. He wanted more than Adams.

so Hill would've been NO value whatsoever to us. If we gave him the deal he wanted, he would've crippled the team moving forward into the next few years.

Talking about Clark's deal just shows that you understand nothing. In 2022, it's like $1m more to keep him than cut him. MVS is not expensive either. You keep insisting that this is MVS and Clark vs. Hill and that's so far from being true it's ridiculous.

You're in full on reerun territory. In fact, you're so far into reerun territory that it's now renamed KING territory.

:thumb:

Hill would have held out at a cap hit of $21M on his current deal.

MVS' cap hit for this year is less than $5M.

It's just a dumb argument.

But they could.


And that's why all of us had us keeping him.

I would have gave him that deal he got in Miami. It's $23mil a year. Yeah I would do that for the 2nd best WR in the league that literally alters how defenses line up.


I think you had the same stance until the trade happened. Even when you were presented with the financial aspect of re-signing him, you were still firmly on that side. But now...

What? Did you crunch the numbers again after the trade to see why it was "necessary"?

Hills cap hit if resigned would have been lowered.


How come none of you were on the "we can't afford that contract" side until AFTER the trade? In fact, some of you had the right numbers (23mil a year) and were adamant that we need to re-sign him and now that same 23 a year would have been too much? Which is it and how come you guys didn't realize this until after the trade happened?

This year.

His cap hit next year is $31M.

Stop focusing on AAV. AAV is meaningless.

Woof. Look at those skill positions outside of Kelce. That's bottom of the barrel type shit.

And edge rusher? Secondary is a big question mark, too.. I think I'm going to throw up.

We are definitely going to find out how truly great Reid and Mahomes are next season.

Dude your understanding of the deal is severely lacking.

Yes, they would have changed the structure. They wouldn't have taken only 6 this year and the full 31 next year. You even it out and make it fit your situation.

<blockquote class="twitter-tweet"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">Tyreek Hill’s <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/Dolphins?src=hash&amp;ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">#Dolphins</a> Extension<br>- 4 yrs, $120M<br>- $52.5M guaranteed at sign<br>- Another $19.6M in March ’23<br>- ’23 restructure likely<br>- 4 yrs, $95.4M practical<br><br>Cap Hits<br>2022: $6.4M<br>2023: $31.2M<br>2024: $24.8M<br>2025: $28M<br>2026: $50.1M<br><br>Full Breakdown: <a href="https://t.co/xE4LWx76aE">https://t.co/xE4LWx76aE</a></p>&mdash; Spotrac (@spotrac) <a href="https://twitter.com/spotrac/status/1506766966467538948?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">March 23, 2022</a></blockquote> <script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

What part?

Here's the breakdown of it

<blockquote class="twitter-tweet"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">Tyreek Hill’s <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/Dolphins?src=hash&amp;ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">#Dolphins</a> Extension<br>- 4 yrs, $120M<br>- $52.5M guaranteed at sign<br>- Another $19.6M in March ’23<br>- ’23 restructure likely<br>- 4 yrs, $95.4M practical<br><br>Cap Hits<br>2022: $6.4M<br>2023: $31.2M<br>2024: $24.8M<br>2025: $28M<br>2026: $50.1M<br><br>Full Breakdown: <a href="https://t.co/xE4LWx76aE">https://t.co/xE4LWx76aE</a></p>&mdash; Spotrac (@spotrac) <a href="https://twitter.com/spotrac/status/1506766966467538948?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">March 23, 2022</a></blockquote> <script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>



How much money were you willing to go to to re-sign him? At what point did he get too expensive and would have ruined the chiefs cap?

But add Hill and minus JSS and poof it’s a super star roster?

https://media1.giphy.com/media/bU2nZ...giphy.gif&ct=g

You’re forgetting Ward and Mathieu, but, yeah..

QB aside, we had a top 10 roster last year at the very least. This roster looks like it could be bottom 10.

Ward i would agree on but Matthieu…I think he is on the down side - kinda glad he isn’t coming back as a starter.

man, you just don't pay whatever they demand. Tyreek was wanting to be the highest paid WR in football. Doing that directly means minus 5 draft picks (including a #1, #2, two #4's, and a #6) plus the $75m in cap space over the next 3 years that we won't be paying Hill. That's a huge difference. This team wasn't good enough to get it done the last two seasons. Keeping Hill would've meant treading water. Better to rip the bandaid off and restock the cupboard.

I'm sorry you are still pissed. I didn't want to trade him either. But he's gone, and selling high like that brought a hell of a haul, and the team will be better off. I totally get why Veach and Andy did it, and I'm impressed, actually; I was expecting Andy to be sentimental and hold on to these guys for too long.

This is how you compete for championships for the entirety of your generational QB's career. You sell high, you buy low, and you draft well.

Better get used to it. It'll be Jones next off-season, bank on it.

And that'll be okay, too.

Well Chris Jones barely gives you solid production much less elite production so there's a tad bit difference between him and Tyreek.

And how is keeping hill mean treading water? Does that apply to Kelce too? Or Mahomes? That literally makes no sense.

They lost a Superbowl because Eric Fisher got injured the previous game and the O-line was a ****ing mess and because Patrick Mahomes literally forgot how to play football in a half and the defense couldn't pressure the worst line in football. How does that equal Tyreek being a reason this team is "treading water"?

Yep. i'm done.

This is all kinda selective memory.

We had a dominant record in 2020 but we were hardly a dominant team. Our margin of victory in the latter part of the season was infinitesimally small yet we found ways to win. Great team or great luck? In 2021, we had major pockets of inconsistency on both sides of the ball at various points throughout the season. Half the people here didn't think we'd win the AFC West in late October and that didn't seem far-fetched. We nearly lost to the Bills in a game that would've dramatically changed the narrative about just how close we were.

The Raiders got Jones and Adams. The Chargers got Jackson and Mack amongst others. The Broncos got Wilson and Gregory.

Even if we were able to keep the same team from the prior year - which we couldn't due because of cap limitations - we would've been treading water in a division and conference which was going all in.

We weren't good enough. Not deep enough, too many weak spots, too many underperforming players on big contracts (not Tyreek) and too many scrubs playing too many minutes.

With the Tyreek haul of draft picks and the cap space, we might get as many as...what...6 or 7 good players? if Veach hits on his draft percentage from last year, plus a couple or three FA's? That's a huge influx of talent.

This TEAM needs to be better. This is a great way to remake your roster in a meaningful and FAST way. Sorry to see him go, but it allows a rebuild on the fly.

Why did you have none of these thoughts until AFTER he was traded?

Someone wrote a long post about why he should be traded including the financial reasons and your response was an adamant
What changed? Break out the calculator again?

Good thing we cut the underperforming player then...


And trading 28 (as if 3 weeks ago) superstars isn't rebuilding on the fly. Do you guys think he was going to fall off in 3 years or something?

Everything I've posted since details my stance. But I'll put it here, in one post for you, and then I'm done talking about it, as it's a waste of time. What's done is done, and complaining ad nauseum about it is stupid.

I was against trading Hill. What? Why would you trade your second best player!? Hell no.

And yet they did. So I looked closer.

This team was in clear decline. Play-off caliber still, but the last two years showed it was not good enough. The other teams in the AFC were loading up with WR and Edge talent to beat KC. Even Denver would have a legit QB now. Cinci was attacking their OL situation; and we couldn't beat them in two tries as is. Raiders added Adams. Bills added Miller. Chargers loading up, too. All of these teams, going all in, to beat KC.

Could we pay Hill the top WR money and still keep him? Yeah, we could. Could we do that and add to the roster enough to stay/get ahead of these other contenders? No, probably not, but definitely not without pushing a lot of money forward. Thing about that is, the bill always comes due. So in a couple of seasons, With Mahomes at around 28 years old, we'd have to gut it all.

OR-what Veach did was just rip the band-aid off now. This team had shown it wasn't good enough as is for two seasons. We got spanked in that Super Bowl, and this past season Cinci beat us twice in what, 4 weeks? That's not good enough. And they're going to get better, along with The Bills, The Chargers, The Donkeys and even the damned Raiders.

So we could roll on for a couple of years, not getting significantly better, not able to make big changes, just maintaining status quo (treading water) with diminishing returns; and have to cut or trade guys like Hill in a couple of years, getting less or nothing in return for them.

OR what Veach did-sell high. Remake your roster on the fly FAST with 8 picks in the first four rounds, an influx of cap dollars not allocated to Hill, and try and get the team OVERALL in a better spot, with a healthier cap situation so that we can continue to contend even in the ridiculously loaded AFC.

No, I didn't want to trade Hill. I'm sure Veach didn't want to either. In hindsight, once I got over the shock, I understood. I get it. Too many holes, not enough talent, not enough cap dollars to spread it around without ****ing the future which you don't want to do with a 26 year old elite QB in the saddle. Moving Hill makes that possible. This is playing the long game. This is how you keep the SB window open for a decade or more.

So we won't have Hill, but the last two SB winners haven't had Tyreek Hill either, so it's not like it can't be done.

I was against it. Once it was done, I considered WHY and what the return was. And I embrace it. We weren't good enough the last two years. This is what The Patriots did for two decades of dominance. Sell high. Draft well. Build every year's team around your HOF QB and roll on.

You want to whine about it, whine on. It's pointless. It's done. What Veach and Andy do in this draft will mean everything going forward. Will we be The Patriots of 2000-2018? Or will we be Seattle?

I'm betting on Veach, Reid, and Mahomes.

It will be different going forward, but I think it can be BETTER overall.

Oh, so you really did crunch the numbers again LMAO

I voted to keep Tyreek but for me what changed is the overall view of the roster and how limited they were in FA.

We keep Tyreek then we pretty much have no money and our defense looks like it did under Bob Sutton again talent wise with nothing Spags can do. The draft picks and free’d up money will certainly help the roster overall.

We shot our shot for a run and did well. Now time to reload.

Well, sure if you want to say it concisely.
:LOL:

:thumb:

Among other considerations, yeah. If that's the only part of it you understand, that's fine with me.

It sucks trading away players of Tyreek's caliber. I hate it.

But numbers wise, I'm just whatever with it. At some point, if he wanted to stay he could have taken a little less. I wouldn't so I don't begrudge him at all for it.

It is what it is.

Yep. And all the pearl clutching in the world won't change it. The only thing worth talking about is what to do moving forward.

But a Tyreek extension would have freed up money too.

What's all this revisionist history that his extension would have somehow broke us? Would we not have still afforded Reid and Juju?

And it's not like we're using the money anyway...

If this were the NBA, of course you'd keep Tyreek over drafting several players.

However, there's 22 starters in the NFL. You can't afford to have many JAGs in the lineup. If your QB is a stud, he doesn't necessarily need Pro Bowl receivers at every position. Just get him a better defense. That's something he can't control.

They’re about to get James Bradberry per reports. But you need to see the other side of this: rookie contracts.

Take a look at our corner, safety and DL. The whole damn defense. Ward is gone, Clark is only here bc of dead money, Chris Jones is getting older and has 1 year after this one left. Who is our starting DE opposite Clark? Who is our 3rd safety? Who is replacing Ward?

So my question for you is this: how we fixing the defense with limited money and only 1 draft pick in the top 60?

It's a change in philosophy, and you're going to have to get used to it. A Tyreek extension would free up money in the short term, pushing it forward, and the bill DOES come due. We might have eked out one more season, maybe two, and then we'd be screwed with the cap and have Mahomes, Hill, and a bunch of scrubs.

You're not going to see much of that anymore. No more getting stuck with contracts like Clark's. It's better to sell HIGH, get a haul of picks and free up cap money and spread out your resources.

Getting over the hump to a SB and maintaining a legit championship contender are different things.

We are now in category 2.

Don't panic that we're not spending enough in FA; the FA big spenders are almost never the last guys standing in February. We'll get several contributors on prudent deals, and we'll draft our future stars.

And when they get expensive, we'll flip them for a bunch of picks like we just did. And it'll be smart then, too.

Yep. Pay the bill early, get more return. It's sound investment strategy.

Don't bring back Clark. Use that 1.2 million that everyone is so happy about to attract some UDFAs. Restructure Mahomes. Re-sign Ward. Sign Reid. Go into the draft only NEEDING a DE. Not a DE, a WR1, and CB2.

Pretty much the same ideas you and everyone else had before you guys suddenly had this revelation that Tyreek was going to break the salary cap....after he was traded.

They tried to bring Ward back and were unsuccessful. Who are you paying to replace Clark?

Your plan is terrible bc the Chiefs have several needs on defense now and in the next 2 years and no resources to do that.

I'm bringing in 2 UDFA DEs or roster bubble DEs to replace Clark. Worst case they give me about the same level of production and are much cheaper and younger. Best case, they pop. Isn't that the whole point of rebuilding/younger movement?

And how is creating another hole by trading the 2nd best player on the team really helping the team? Are we assuming that he's going to hit on every draft pick and that will fill the big holes in the team including Tyreek being gone?

Your plan is to bring in fringe roster bubble players and UDFA’s to replace and a roster bubble DE that is only here bc of dead money and lack of talent?

Realy? Wow dude. I have to say that’s terrible considering our division and conference is way better now

Because Frank Clark is better than some UDFAs? And his future is potentially better than taking a chance on them?

Remember Charvarious Ward? He was one of those UDFA roster bubble guys. Wouldn't you rather take another chance of hitting on a guy like that than try to hype yourself up over the 4 coverage sacks Frank Clark will get this season?

ROFL

Good luck actually fielding a defense. Good God.

Yes, UDFAs! That's the way to go.

In your scenario, you know we need 2 DEs, right? And how do we "just re-sign" Ward? Do we have enough then for JuJu?

Seems like in your world, we would need DE1, DE2, and WR2. And we'd have fewer picks and less cap flexibility to make it all work.

Brilliant plan as always! I'm sure some of those UDFAs you're so excited about will be day 1 starters and fill all necessary holes.

So you're questioning about Veach hitting on draft picks but are just going to assume that UDFA DEs are going to come in and actually give this defense something?

You're pushing all of that money down the road.

Clark's $1.2m is NOTHING. Just disregard that. It's SO not important, and harping on it just shows that you're reacting emotionally and not logically. Emotionally, I want that ****er GONE, I'm so sick of his shit. Logically, I understand that we're paying $1.2m this season for a rotational DE piece rather than having to fill TWO spots as we would if we released him. Clark is no longer important. He's filling a space for $1.2m. Re-sign Ward for what, $14m per? WAIT YOU SAY-JUST STRUCTURE THIS YEAR'S HIT TO BE LOWER!-yeah, well, that means next year or the year after the cap hit is huge. Pay now, or pay later, but either way, YOU GOT TO PAY.

Reid is 25, cheaper than what Mathieu wanted, so we got younger, bigger, faster, and cheaper. THAT is a good signing.

I've made my opinions about paying second contracts at market value for boundary corners pretty clear, I think, so no way I pay Ward that. But if you do, you pretty much guarantee that you won't be able to pay Sneed when it's time, because you had to push Ward's money out to fit it in '22-and I would stand on the table and argue loudly that Sneed is a more important piece because of his versatility. So you can pay Ward now, or Sneed later, but probably not both.

Do you understand now? No, I guess not.

I'm tired of arguing with you, because you're just stubbornly refusing to see logic. I was VERY surprised that Veach and Andy went this way, but I'm impressed as hell that they were able to see that it needed to be done.

The defense was predicated on bringing Frank Clark back?

When you were for re-signing Tyreek, did you not have a plan for the defense?

He doesn't understand that for every 1 Charvarious Ward that hits, there are 100 UDFAs that don't even make the active roster because they're not remotely good enough.

But he thinks those guys couldn't be any worse than Frank Clark. Riiiiiight...

Yeah....that plan for fixing the defense was going to take 2 years because we didn't have a ton of money or a ton of picks.

It definitely wasn't "throw some UDFA DEs" on the roster and roll to another Super Bowl.

Yeah I understand you're pushing money down the road. That's literally why Mahomes structured his contract the way he did. So that until 2027, we always have 5 years to spread out the hit.

If pushing money down the road was such a concern, why did we restructure Thuneys contract? That adds more per year to the cap than if we restucured Mahomes seeing as how he only has 4 years left on his deal.

And if money is a concern, you're not bringing Frank Clark back and having him cost you extra money next year when he's off the roster. That's just stupid if your whole thing is getting cheaper and younger. Clark is neither of those and worst of all, he's not even good. Not even average.

I also would draft a DE in the first round so I'm not all the way reliant on those UDFA DEs. If they pop, great. If they don't, oh well, can't produce any less than Frank Clark. So what's the loss?

Sweet....so now you've got what....a rookie, Danna and Kaindoh as your DEs....plus throw in some UDFA DEs to round it out.

How are you fixing the CB position? Because you aren't bringing back Ward and signing Reid.

You know what....lay out your perfect off season with cap numbers so we can see what amazing team you would have built.

Dude.

UDFA's or FOUR TOP 60 PICKS.

What do you think is more likely to hit?

Oh they can ABSOLUTELY produce less than Clark.

Clark hasn't lived up to his contract, but he's still a legitimate NFL player. He's just not great.

UDFA's are, for the most part, not legitimate NFL players. That's why they were undrafted.

I can't believe this has to be explained to you.

Something like this would do:

https://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/showthread.php?t=342563

It’s not about the loss. It’s about what can you gain.

This draft is deep with talent at WR, DE and DB. Guess what our biggest needs are? WR, DL and DB

Now we have 3 top 50 picks to get quality players to fill those holes for cheap the next 4-5 years.

Look at what Veach did with his early picks recently? Nick Bolton, Willie Gay and Creed Humphrey (unfortunately had a miss on Clyde).

You realize how much better we can be if he drafts good players with those picks? You realize how much money that frees up?

WITH. WHAT. MONEY.

I see King is just continuing to make himself look like a complete ****ing moron.

Yeah that's why you take a chance on them.

You're really defending bringing back the most underperforming and most overpaid player on the team right now. And paying him next year also when he 100% won't be on the team. That's wild.

Dude...you posted my own mock offseason like it's some gotcha moment.

Go back and look at those numbers I had. I had Christian Kirk at $10 million a season and Ogbah at around $12 million. They blew those numbers out of the water.

They pushed A LITTLE money down the road. Not a lot. You want to push A TON of money down the road.

And Clark is absolutely average. That's what's so irritating about it. He's AVERAGE to slightly ABOVE average, and that's not what we paid him for. We probably don't win SB54 without him, so whatever, but we're still paying for that.

No one is defending it, you ****ing reerun.

Seems like you would have extended Tyreek, restructured Mahomes and Kelce. That would have given us a lot of money and space. Personally I wouldn't have restructured Kelce, but whatevs.

Do you have a time machine?

You do realize that everything didn't happen simultaneously?

We needed to make decisions like Ward and Clark before moving forward on things like JuJu. And the assumption was that Hill would be a member of the team next year until the Adams deal and then Hill's threat to sit out.

You don't go and get to assume perfect foresight after the fact.

If we knew at the outset that Hill would be traded, there is a negative probability this would be the roster we'd have at the moment. But blame Hill for that - not Veach/Reid.

And yeah I hope Veach looks at this and sees the opportunity. Chris Jones should be traded this time next year.

Trade the 29 year old player for a high pick and draft well. That’s how you win

They pushed 6.8(according to DJLN) into next year. Arden Key just signed for 7 million.


So I'd say that's not "a little money".

We already have guys like that on our practice squad on futures deals. You want to fill our active roster with that?!

I'm defending bringing back Clark for a difference of $1.2m when it would cost more than that to replace his average output. Why the **** are you still talking about Clark? It's a SUNK COST.

They pushed $9M into next year on Clark.

But he was counting for almost $7M ALREADY.

No, I would also draft a DE in the first round.

King doesn't know shit.

His entire argument is HILL GOOD and CLARK BAD.

It IS a little money, when we're in much better cap shape next year now that we're not paying Hill, and Ward, and Mathieu.

If they really wanted Key, they'd have signed him. I assume they were interested, but not interested enough to do so.

You don't know what they're doing, but you're freaking out anyway. As I've said for the last month, IT'S MARCH.

That's a pretty good argument. One that you were making....until Clark was resigned and Hill was traded.


In fact, its what all of you were saying until those moves were made.

Clark's contract before restructure:

$13.7M in 2022 dead money, $7M in 2023 dead money

Clark's contract after restructure:

$13.9M in 2022 cap hit, $9M in 2023 dead money

They got a warm body for a little over $2M net.

It really isn't at all hard to understand.

And then the moves WERE made and we decided to act like grownups about it instead of acting like spoiled toddlers.

EXACTLY.

He thinks it’s some gotcha that people are willing to have an open mind and try to understand why a smart organization that has earned the benefit of the doubt did what they did.

Hey, you know why?

Because nobody knew what the financial particulars were until they were done deals.

Once you can see what the Clark deal means in terms of this and next year's cap situation, you see why Veach did that.

It's called digesting information and having an informed opinion.

It would be really helpful if Kaindoh turned into just something. Not great, just a decent player.

Really?

Funny that I was against trading Hill but I could see why they would do it based on what he was asking. There were a number of people that were.

Also....I wanted Clark gone but I could see why they would keep him based on what else they had on the roster.

Joe Cullen…