Jones vs. 1st Rounder + $20m

[DaFace]

Obviously this is going to be a key discussion this offseason. On The Athletic's podcast (Time's Ours), Nate Taylor said that he's heard that there are multiple teams out there who would give us a 1st round pick for Jones (assuming we tag and trade him), and possibly more than that.

So just to lay out a simplified version of the options:

Option 1:
Chris Jones (probably around $20m per year)

Option 2:
1st round draft pick (cheap for 4-5 years)
$20m worth of other players

For context on how much other players might cost based on recent free agents we've signed:
Clark - $21m
Mathieu - $14m
Hitchens - $9m
Schwartz - $8m
Okafor - $6m

So...which way do we go?

[Shields68]

Originally Posted by FlaChief58

From a business standpoint, you almost have to tag and trade as much as I hope they don't. A first isn't going to cut it though. I'd do it a first, 3rd and 5th

Somewhat depends on the first. All firsts are not created equal. To move up from a low first to a high first could take a third and next years first to accomplish. I mean the Chiefs to move up 8 spots in the 1st round to take Mahomes had to give an additional third and next years first.

[Fat Elvis]

We talk a lot about drafting and developing our own talent, but when we actually draft and develop our own talent (a legit, top tier talent at one of the most important positions, no less) you want to send them packing at their first big contract?

What a bunch of morans.

[Halfcan]

It is kind of nice that the only thing we have to argue about this off season is the Jones contract.

[JimNasium]

A Jones in the hand is worth two in the bush?

[Chief Roundup]

Proven player vs an unknown player and some free agents that could be like Hitchens.

[wachashi]

Originally Posted by Chief Roundup

Proven player vs an unknown player and some free agents that could be like Hitchens.

"Proven Player" does not guarantee that he will continue to be as dominant or that he will stay healthy. You're gambling that he will, and he could, but you're still gambling.

[tyecopeland]

Jones over the draft pick and cap flexibility. But it's very close for me. Top 15 pick and a 3rd would probably sway me. You'd be using about 4 mil if that cap space on the draft picks but that still leaves enough for a couple upgrade free agents

[Bill Brasky]

I have a theory that I haven’t seen discussed yet. I think it’s possible we might use the franchise tag on Chris Jones two seasons in a row. The average salary of the top 5 DT’s is $17.6M. We can make that work for next season, but not long term. We can’t afford a 4/80 or 5/100 contract with Jones under any circumstances that doesn’t make massive sacrifices on the rest of the field. However, we CAN afford $17M one season only.

The second franchise tag means we’d have to pay Jones 120% of his salary from the first tag, which doesn’t make sense. In short, I think we tag and keep jones this year, make another run at a Super Bowl, and then tag and trade him in 2021.

This works out well because we can fill CB spots and build the line/ find replacements over two draft periods.

Edit: 2020 franchise tag salary for a DT is $16.7M.

https://www.cbssports.com/nfl/news/a...-tags-in-2020/

[tredadda]

Originally Posted by wachashi

"Proven Player" does not guarantee that he will continue to be as dominant or that he will stay healthy. You're gambling that he will, and he could, but you're still gambling.

No more of a gamble than assuming the picks and money spent on FAs will bring back a return equal to or greater than what you already get with Jones. He could turn out to be the next Eric Berry or Aaron Donald (in terms of living up to his contract) but I think he’s worth the risk.

[The Franchise]

Originally Posted by Bill Brasky

I have a theory that I haven’t seen discussed yet. I think it’s possible we might use the franchise tag on Chris Jones two seasons in a row. The average salary of the top 5 DT’s is $17.6M. We can make that work for next season, but not long term. We can’t afford a 4/80 or 5/100 contract with Jones under any circumstances that doesn’t make massive sacrifices on the rest of the field. However, we CAN afford $17M one season only.

The second franchise tag means we’d have to pay Jones 120% of his salary from the first tag, which doesn’t make sense. In short, I think we tag and keep jones this year, make another run at a Super Bowl, and then tag and trade him in 2021.

This works out well because we can fill CB spots and build the line/ find replacements over two draft periods.

And you’re assuming that he shows up and plays under the tag next year?

[Imon Yourside]

Originally Posted by Iconic

We don't win a SB without Jones in that game. A first and 20m ain't enough to move the needle.

Originally Posted by carcosa

It would take a very dumb team offering an absurd amount of value to make me feel good about not keeping Chris Jones.

Ya I would really really really like to keep Jones.

[tyecopeland]

Originally Posted by Bill Brasky

I have a theory that I haven’t seen discussed yet. I think it’s possible we might use the franchise tag on Chris Jones two seasons in a row. The average salary of the top 5 DT’s is $17.6M. We can make that work for next season, but not long term. We can’t afford a 4/80 or 5/100 contract with Jones under any circumstances that doesn’t make massive sacrifices on the rest of the field. However, we CAN afford $17M one season only.

The second franchise tag means we’d have to pay Jones 120% of his salary from the first tag, which doesn’t make sense. In short, I think we tag and keep jones this year, make another run at a Super Bowl, and then tag and trade him in 2021.

This works out well because we can fill CB spots and build the line/ find replacements over two draft periods.

That would be all well and good but you lose some leverage that way. Plus Jones might not show for the franchise tag. Also the cba could change franchise tag options and compensation.

[Bill Brasky]

Originally Posted by The Franchise

And you’re assuming that he shows up and plays under the tag next year?

Correct. I’m floating this theory under the assumption that his talk about wanting to stay in KC was real. He gets a big guaranteed pay day, gets his huge contract eventually, and can stay in KC for year and try for another ring. Obviously playing on a 1 year contract is risky and he might not agree.

[Bill Brasky]

Originally Posted by tyecopeland

That would be all well and good but you lose some leverage that way. Plus Jones might not show for the franchise tag. Also the cba could change franchise tag options and compensation.

IMO losing leverage on the trade in 2021 is the major downside to this strat, ignoring the risk Jones doesn’t agree to the one year deal. If we really can get a good first and third for him, that’s awfully tempting, however we might not get the picks we want for him.

[Molitoth]

Originally Posted by Fat Elvis

We talk a lot about drafting and developing our own talent, but when we actually draft and develop our own talent (a legit, top tier talent at one of the most important positions, no less) you want to send them packing at their first big contract?

What a bunch of morans.

If Veach didn't back up the brinks truck for Frank Clark, you may have a point.