The Chiefs should not resign Tony Gonzales...

[Logical]

... when his contract is up. That bastard won't sign autographs.


Seriously at most we should give him only 2 more years beyond the 1 year he has remaining, he is almost washed up now. Time to start cutting the ties to him.

[Hootie]

I think it's funny that people talk about trading players like Tony Gonzalez. This is the NFL, trades just don't happen like that. He'll either end his career a Chief, or sign somewhere else via free agency. There will be no Tony Gonzalez trade, ever.

[Luzap]

An argument can be made for retiring Tony as a Chief, or for trading him while he still has value. What I disagree with is cutting him for no compensation.

Right now, the Chiefs are still on a Championship run. Now is not the time to be getting rid of our weapons.

After next year, this could change. I too believe that Tony has several good years left in him. Regardless, no one wil trade for him if he only has one year left on his contract. Carl is doing the exact right thing by renegotiating a long term deal. This keeps all of our options open after we make another run this year.

Luz
take that you carl haters...

[Hootie]

Originally Posted by Luzap

An argument can be made for retiring Tony as a Chief, or for trading him while he still has value. What I disagree with is cutting him for no compensation.

Right now, the Chiefs are still on a Championship run. Now is not the time to be getting rid of our weapons.

After next year, this could change. I too believe that Tony has several good years left in him. Regardless, no one wil trade for him if he only has one year left on his contract. Carl is doing the exact right thing by renegotiating a long term deal. This keeps all of our options open after we make another run this year.

Luz
take that you carl haters...

Wrong. It's easier to trade a player with one year left in their contract. It's much tougher to trade a guy like say, Culpepper, because he's owed 100 friggin' million dollars. No one is going to take on that, and if they do, the Vikings won't get shit in return other than cap relief.

The most we'd get for Tony G would be a second rounder...and that's not a bash to Tony G, either.

[Wile_E_Coyote]

[Luzap]

Originally Posted by Hootie

Wrong. It's easier to trade a player with one year left in their contract. It's much tougher to trade a guy like say, Culpepper, because he's owed 100 friggin' million dollars. No one is going to take on that, and if they do, the Vikings won't get shit in return other than cap relief.

The most we'd get for Tony G would be a second rounder...and that's not a bash to Tony G, either.

Let's look at the Patrick Surtan trade (Dolphins to Chiefs). The trade couldn't happen because he only had one year left on his contract. No team is going to shell out big compensation (draft picks) when they'll only have the player for one year.

You could make the argument that we should wait to renegotiate his contract until the rest of the trade peramiters are in place, but that would mean trading him this year. The only way to have him this year and trade him in the future is to renegotiate now.

Luz
again, imo, carl is doing the right thing...

[chiefs4me]

Originally Posted by Tuckdaddy

AMEN TO THAT BRUTHA!

[Logical]

Originally Posted by goxlibutscrale

OK listen...WHATEVER!!!

The Chiefs do not need to think about dumping him! Not for at LEAST 4 seasons.

yes we are so far apart. I said that at most we should resign him for two more years, he has one year left on his contract that makes three years vs your 4 years.

[Chiefnj]

Originally Posted by Luzap

Let's look at the Patrick Surtan trade (Dolphins to Chiefs). The trade couldn't happen because he only had one year left on his contract. No team is going to shell out big compensation (draft picks) when they'll only have the player for one year.

You could make the argument that we should wait to renegotiate his contract until the rest of the trade peramiters are in place, but that would mean trading him this year. The only way to have him this year and trade him in the future is to renegotiate now.

Luz
again, imo, carl is doing the right thing...

The trade with Surtain happened BECAUSE he had one year left. Miami wasn't going to keep him, they were set on trading him. The best way to do it is to let the interested team negotiate the contract with the player. This way the trading team isn't stuck with any bonus money and the team getting the player has a contract that they want and approve of.

If you want to trade him, this is the year to do it. Put out fliers and take offers. His value is only going to decrease because of his age and wear and tear.

[Luzap]

Originally Posted by Chiefnj

The trade with Surtain happened BECAUSE he had one year left. Miami wasn't going to keep him, they were set on trading him. The best way to do it is to let the interested team negotiate the contract with the player. This way the trading team isn't stuck with any bonus money and the team getting the player has a contract that they want and approve of.

If you want to trade him, this is the year to do it. Put out fliers and take offers. His value is only going to decrease because of his age and wear and tear.

You miss my point...

I don't want to trade him this year ~ we've got a chance to make a run.

Granted, the number of years left to get value for him are running out, but we could still have that option 2 or 3 years from now only if we renegotiate his contract now.

We're really saying the same thing about a trade being made when the player still has a year left - if he wants to be traded. The type of contract Carl can sign him to will have a lot to do with whether he is tradable ~ whether he has one year, or three years left on it.

Luz
keep tony while we're still in position to make a run ~ then see what our options are...

[NJ Chief Fan]

ya know what im down with trading T-Goat...are we all forgetting about our seceret weapon kris wilson

[Hootie]

Originally Posted by Luzap

Let's look at the Patrick Surtan trade (Dolphins to Chiefs). The trade couldn't happen because he only had one year left on his contract. No team is going to shell out big compensation (draft picks) when they'll only have the player for one year.

You could make the argument that we should wait to renegotiate his contract until the rest of the trade peramiters are in place, but that would mean trading him this year. The only way to have him this year and trade him in the future is to renegotiate now.

Luz
again, imo, carl is doing the right thing...

Uhm, did you read my post? The team trading for Surtain reworked his contract before he was even traded. That's what you do. This isn't the NBA.

[Logical]

Originally Posted by Luzap

You miss my point...

I don't want to trade him this year ~ we've got a chance to make a run.

Granted, the number of years left to get value for him are running out, but we could still have that option 2 or 3 years from now only if we renegotiate his contract now.

We're really saying the same thing about a trade being made when the player still has a year left - if he wants to be traded. The type of contract Carl can sign him to will have a lot to do with whether he is tradable ~ whether he has one year, or three years left on it.

Luz
keep tony while we're still in position to make a run ~ then see what our options are...

I don't think our defense is even close to allowing us to make a Super Bowl run and this is the skip a year for free agency year. On the other side TG is not worth anything anymore as far as a trade goes, so trading him does not make sense either. Just don't give him more than two years beyond the 1 year he has remaining.

[penchief]

Originally Posted by Vlad Logicslav

I don't think our defense is even close to allowing us to make a Super Bowl run and this is the skip a year for free agency year. On the other side TG is not worth anything anymore as far as a trade goes, so trading him does not make sense either. Just don't give him more than two years beyond the 1 year he has remaining.

What is your opinion on which unit can make the quickest turnaround? The offense or the defense? My first impulse would be to say the offense because one or two impact players can make more of a difference. However, thinking about actual events it seems like defenses seem to experience the biggest improvements or drop-offs. Maybe I'm just imagining it but it seems like it's been that way to me.

Maybe because it has more to do with coaching, attitude, and teamwork and less to do with talent.

[Logical]

Originally Posted by penchief

What is your opinion on which unit can make the quickest turnaround? The offense or the defense? My first impulse would be to say the offense because one or two impact players can make more of a difference. However, thinking about actual events it seems like defenses seem to experience the biggest improvements or drop-offs. Maybe I'm just imagining it but it seems like it's been that way to me.

Maybe because it has more to do with coaching, attitude, and teamwork and less to do with talent.

I assume you are not talking about the current Chiefs but about an equally bad offense and defense. If so I would agree that a defense can be turned around faster than offense for the same reasons as you cited.