Quote:
Originally Posted by pugsnotdrugs19
If this trade hadn’t happened, our plan probably would have been something like this:
Trade up from 29 to 15-20ish range. Surrender 2nd round pick (possibly this year). No 3rd round swap like they got from Seattle.
Then they’d likely have taken someone like Ferrell, Murphy, etc.... guys we like but we have zero idea if they’ll actually be any good.
So it really just comes down to how much you value having a proven commodity for a higher salary compared to a completely unproven player for a cheaper salary. Because I don’t think the draft pick compensation would have been all that different.
If they had stayed at 29, they’d be rolling the dice big time as it relates to getting a big time contribution in 2019 from a player.
|
A bit of an oversimplification. It's not whether anyone wants Clark and a first round pick. It's that we could have had a first and second round pick + $20m to spend elsewhere (since we seem intent on spending aggressively, which I love). People keep saying our first round pick needs to be a home run. It doesn't. Quality depth is huge especially with how much money we will have sunk into superstars. I think the question most people are asking is, why didn't we instead make a serious run at a guy like Landon Collins where we could have saved the pick? Why does it seem like the Chiefs constantly miss free agents and instead overpay in trades?
I've made peace with the trade because we have a badass mofo now on defense. But a few years from now when we have holes all over the team and no money to spend, that 1 or 2 average players will have come in handy.