Brett Veach hopes Chris Jones can play next week; increased talks last 2 days

[RunKC]

For the mega thread hating crew

#Chiefs GM Brett Veach says he's hopeful that DT Chris Jones will play in their season opener vs. the Lions, which is just eight days away.

Veach mentioned that there has been increased communication on an extension over the past two days. pic.twitter.com/MpLGt0mYhz

— Ari Meirov (@MySportsUpdate) August 30, 2023

[Hamwallet]

Originally Posted by duncan_idaho

My man... you need to take a step back and chill.


Yes, the franchise tag is either average of the top 5 paid players at your position, or 120% of your previous year cap hit, whichever is higher.



Well, first of all you assume that the PFT numbers are correct. Which are numbers you should take with a grain of salt considering that whole article was clearly planted by Jones' agents and, as such, probably DOESN'T TELL A COMPLETE AND FAIR AND ACCURATE story.

Second of all, if the Chiefs are offering to make the deal $74M over 23, 24, and 25, that means they're offering Jones $54.5M over 24 and 25, which is $27.25M/year in new money. Which is how NFL contracts should be tracked. What is the NEW money.

That deal DOES put him well clear of the guys in the tier below Jones (Simmons, Williams, et al). Like $6-7M AAV clear of them.

It's a very fair offer for him that does exactly what he says he wants. It pays him like the 2nd highest paid DT in the NFL and also gives him new money that is far clear of where the other guys are. It resets the non-Aaron Donald market.



Yes, because his cap hit for 2023 is so high, the franchise tags are a problem in 2024 and 2025, to the point that if he had reported and played out this year on the deal he had, he would be very difficult to tag, even for a trade purpose.



The Chiefs wouldn't HAVE to pay him. They wouldn't HAVE to tag him. And there's no precedent for negotiating based on the 120% figure for the franchise tag. Using the AVG of top 5 at position calculation is where most contract extensions start.

They don't have to offer the tag. He doesn't have to sign it. Etc.


If you include the year already under contract, which is a faulty way to look at it. Did you see the OTC guy's breakdown of this? It's all about the new money, man. In new money, you're talking $27.25M.



There are many ways Jones and his agents could have proceeded that would have handled this situation better. The best one would have been a "hold-in" situation. Where he has reported but is not playing and they're working towards a deal with the idea that he'll play if no deal is reached.

This way - a long, protracted hold out that has already cost him 1 game check (Preseason) plus $2M in fines and a $500K reporting bonus and is going to cost him his Game 1 game check - is not it. He doesn't have the leverage that he and his agent think he does. Hell, at this point the Chiefs can legitimately hold him out for as long as they want before playing him per the CBA since he didn't report within 5 days of cutdown day.

The most likely outcomes now are: (1) the Chiefs either get enough savings from missed game checks to tag him for 2024 and trade him to the team they want for the package they like best, rather than the tag being too high to do that unless you have a deal in place quickly (2) he reports having missed 2 game checks and still is tagged and traded in the offseason, just with a little more control over the landing spot.

In both of those situations, it's going to be hard to make up the money he's lost because he'll be negotiating as a year-older player and coming off a lesser year.

You could make an easy case this was the worst way to get what he wants (Guarantees and security and $$)


We're not in the room and don't know when the first offer came out. Both teams are in negotiation mode. The Chiefs front office has a reputation for offering in good faith. If Jones and his representation had told the team in April that what they wanted was $32.5M a year in new money (what the deal in the PFT article would come to), the Chiefs would have traded him like they did with Hill because that structure doesn't work for them.

One side seems to NOT be operating in good faith. Logic would suggest that it is the side that was saying "I want to be the second-highest paid player at my position" for months, but that is now leaking info to shills who share numbers that make him the highest-paid player at his position in new money.


Again, there's evidence that one side has been stringing the other along and not operating in good faith. It is not that it was the team.


This has been the case for some time now. Weeks, in fact.


Why is $27.25M/year in new money, with $70M in guarantees for 23-24-25 better than playing out 2023?

Well, because it puts a guaranteed additional $50M in his bank accounts?

Because that rate of pay is more than 20% higher than the next-highest paid non-Aaron Donald player at his position (anything that is more than 10% is normally viewed as a market reset level contract)?

Because it pays him better at his position than anyone other than Aaron Donald?

Because there's no guarantee he does better than that on the open market?



Not accurate, as I've spent most of my reply outlining. They are not demanding he take a hometown discount. They are offering him huge money on the new years of the deal.



Wild speculation and counter to the way Veach and the Chiefs operate and what was reported throughout the summer.

Do you think anyone will read all of that.

[duncan_idaho]

Originally Posted by Hamwallet

Do you think anyone will read all of that.

Your choice to subscribe.

Trying to educate someone who can and will read things, and is wildly off base with his assumptions.

[IowaHawkeyeChief]

Originally Posted by jettio

He wanted to be treated like an important player who has performed at a HOF level.

He did not say anything about wanting security from guarantees.

The dude has been in the building since 2016. They know him better than that.

What, would you rather be paid all that guaranteed money, guaranteed from injury or play this year for $20, next year for $32.5 if you aren't hurt during that timeframe... Surely you understand the value of Guaranteed money, upfront money...

[IowaHawkeyeChief]

Originally Posted by duncan_idaho

My man... you need to take a step back and chill.


Yes, the franchise tag is either average of the top 5 paid players at your position, or 120% of your previous year cap hit, whichever is higher.



Well, first of all you assume that the PFT numbers are correct. Which are numbers you should take with a grain of salt considering that whole article was clearly planted by Jones' agents and, as such, probably DOESN'T TELL A COMPLETE AND FAIR AND ACCURATE story.

Second of all, if the Chiefs are offering to make the deal $74M over 23, 24, and 25, that means they're offering Jones $54.5M over 24 and 25, which is $27.25M/year in new money. Which is how NFL contracts should be tracked. What is the NEW money.

That deal DOES put him well clear of the guys in the tier below Jones (Simmons, Williams, et al). Like $6-7M AAV clear of them.

It's a very fair offer for him that does exactly what he says he wants. It pays him like the 2nd highest paid DT in the NFL and also gives him new money that is far clear of where the other guys are. It resets the non-Aaron Donald market.



Yes, because his cap hit for 2023 is so high, the franchise tags are a problem in 2024 and 2025, to the point that if he had reported and played out this year on the deal he had, he would be very difficult to tag, even for a trade purpose.



The Chiefs wouldn't HAVE to pay him. They wouldn't HAVE to tag him. And there's no precedent for negotiating based on the 120% figure for the franchise tag. Using the AVG of top 5 at position calculation is where most contract extensions start.

They don't have to offer the tag. He doesn't have to sign it. Etc.


If you include the year already under contract, which is a faulty way to look at it. Did you see the OTC guy's breakdown of this? It's all about the new money, man. In new money, you're talking $27.25M.



There are many ways Jones and his agents could have proceeded that would have handled this situation better. The best one would have been a "hold-in" situation. Where he has reported but is not playing and they're working towards a deal with the idea that he'll play if no deal is reached.

This way - a long, protracted hold out that has already cost him 1 game check (Preseason) plus $2M in fines and a $500K reporting bonus and is going to cost him his Game 1 game check - is not it. He doesn't have the leverage that he and his agent think he does. Hell, at this point the Chiefs can legitimately hold him out for as long as they want before playing him per the CBA since he didn't report within 5 days of cutdown day.

The most likely outcomes now are: (1) the Chiefs either get enough savings from missed game checks to tag him for 2024 and trade him to the team they want for the package they like best, rather than the tag being too high to do that unless you have a deal in place quickly (2) he reports having missed 2 game checks and still is tagged and traded in the offseason, just with a little more control over the landing spot.

In both of those situations, it's going to be hard to make up the money he's lost because he'll be negotiating as a year-older player and coming off a lesser year.

You could make an easy case this was the worst way to get what he wants (Guarantees and security and $$)


We're not in the room and don't know when the first offer came out. Both teams are in negotiation mode. The Chiefs front office has a reputation for offering in good faith. If Jones and his representation had told the team in April that what they wanted was $32.5M a year in new money (what the deal in the PFT article would come to), the Chiefs would have traded him like they did with Hill because that structure doesn't work for them.

One side seems to NOT be operating in good faith. Logic would suggest that it is the side that was saying "I want to be the second-highest paid player at my position" for months, but that is now leaking info to shills who share numbers that make him the highest-paid player at his position in new money.


Again, there's evidence that one side has been stringing the other along and not operating in good faith. It is not that it was the team.


This has been the case for some time now. Weeks, in fact.


Why is $27.25M/year in new money, with $70M in guarantees for 23-24-25 better than playing out 2023?

Well, because it puts a guaranteed additional $50M in his bank accounts?

Because that rate of pay is more than 20% higher than the next-highest paid non-Aaron Donald player at his position (anything that is more than 10% is normally viewed as a market reset level contract)?

Because it pays him better at his position than anyone other than Aaron Donald?

Because there's no guarantee he does better than that on the open market?



Not accurate, as I've spent most of my reply outlining. They are not demanding he take a hometown discount. They are offering him huge money on the new years of the deal.



Wild speculation and counter to the way Veach and the Chiefs operate and what was reported throughout the summer.

This, didn't read down, before my last repsonse. This is spot on...

[jettio]

Originally Posted by dirk digler

He has the option to show up but the Chiefs can apply for a 2 week roster exemption and can withhold those 2 checks from him.

Yes, because Chiefs do not respect the man enough to not **** him over if the CBA allows it.

[siberian khatru]

Originally Posted by Hamwallet

Do you think anyone will read all of that.

Only one person needs to

[duncan_idaho]

Originally Posted by jettio

Yes, because Chiefs do not respect the man enough to not **** him over if the CBA allows it.

Read my post.

The Chiefs are not trying to **** him over.

Someone is trying to **** over someone here, maybe.

Hint: It's the guy who obscured what he REALLY wanted in his new deal until he thought he had maximum leverage to get it. And is now realizing that maybe that leverage isn't what was thought.

[warpaint*]

Originally Posted by Hamwallet

Do you think anyone will read all of that.

It is an excellent breakdown of the situation.

[FringeNC]

Originally Posted by duncan_idaho

The Chiefs front office has a reputation for offering in good faith. If Jones and his representation had told the team in April that what they wanted was $32.5M a year in new money (what the deal in the PFT article would come to), the Chiefs would have traded him like they did with Hill because that structure doesn't work for them.

This is the key point, imo.

[jettio]

Originally Posted by duncan_idaho

Read my post.

The Chiefs are not trying to **** him over.

Someone is trying to **** over someone here, maybe.

Hint: It's the guy who obscured what he REALLY wanted in his new deal until he thought he had maximum leverage to get it. And is now realizing that maybe that leverage isn't what was thought.

If he reports and Chiefs take his next two game checks, that is not ****ing him over?

Are the 49ers going to do that with Nick Bosa?

I do not expect Chiefs to do that, but the psychos around here are praying for it.

[Coogs]

So is this proposal a restructure? Or an extention?

OP says extention, which would have nothing to do with his 2023 contract, correct?

[-King-]

Originally Posted by TwistedChief

First, wanna know who’s also giving the Lions a 1 in 4 chance of beating the Chiefs? Vegas.

Second, wanna know the last team that was a 6.5pt dog to the Chiefs at Arrowhead in September?

The 2021 Chargers. And they won.

Bet the spread with me and you can flex your chest when the Chiefs win by more than a touchdown and I’ll gladly send you money. We can do a ban bet as well for a month if that’s more your speed.

You know football is back when Twistedchief starts throwing out random bets I love it.

[srvy]

Originally Posted by RINGLEADER

Not sure where you’re getting the “Chiefs strung him along” line but the Chiefs are giving him new money worth $27.5M per year.

CJ knows no one is giving him $30+ when he’s 32.

He wants the security of the guarantees. And the Chiefs want the security of not being on the hook for a contract he is unlikely to play up to once he’s north of 32.

That’s what makes his strategy of only taking $10M for half a season (after lost paychecks and penalties for missing training camp) so stupid. He’s simultaneously reducing his future year tag number and losing money next year too.

This has been gone over ad nauseum in the past 890 posts…

Yeah I think Jettio is mixed up on who strung who along. One guy is under contract. The other was willing to extend the other in a reasonable fashion. Someone or some agent led him off the tracks.

[tredadda]

Originally Posted by Wallcrawler

Imagine giving the Detroit Lions a 1 in 4 chance of defeating Patrick Mahomes at home in September, and then trying to call anyone a moron.

Carry on TwistedPanties. Carry on.

Is there any possibility that Mahomes will lose at some point in September in Arrowhead? If yes, why is this game not a possibility?

[-King-]

If Chris Jones and his agent weren't acting in good faith before the draft and not giving the chiefs their demands, isn't that all the more reason he should have been traded?