Chiefs Chris Jones - Wants 20m or wont play

[Forge]

2 minutes ago, CWood21 said:

Look at the structure of the Buckner deal, and compare it to say Aaron Donald.  Buckner essentially got a 2 year, $40M deal, but Years 3-5 have ZERO guaranteed money.  IF Chris Jones is dead set on hitting that $20M AAV, he's going to be making some concessions.  Buckner gave up a signing bonus AND any long-term security to hit that AAV.

Well, the structure is a different animal. Don't disagree there

But his aav shouldn't be considered outrageous because the comp exists. Even if he hits it only through mirroring Buck's deal his market should be what he wants in regards to just aav 

[CWood21]

1 minute ago, Forge said:

Well, the structure is a different animal. Don't disagree there

But his aav shouldn't be considered outrageous because the comp exists. Even if he hits it only through mirroring Buck's deal his market should be what he wants in regards to just aav 

I mean, if AAV is the only thing he's concerned about, then the Chiefs would do that without thinking IMO.  It's going to come after a Mahomes extension though.

[Chiefer]

On 7/1/2020 at 1:09 PM, FuzzyTiger said:

The biggest knocks on him going into the draft were consistency and motor. Any chance after he gets the GTD money he just falls off a cliff?

I don’t think so

hes just so terrible against the run that it will seem that way sometimes 

[bomont]

On 7/1/2020 at 9:07 AM, ramssuperbowl99 said:

there's a big lifestyle difference between a $10MM nestegg and getting $60MM guaranteed 

No there isn't.

 

Quote

You're talking about the difference between living a solidly upper class life and having generational wealth. 

You consider being a multi-millionaire "solidly upper class?" What are you, Bill Gates' love child? 

He's an idiot for his timing if nothing else (also for thinking he's as good as Buckner; he isn't). I get if the Chiefs cave, but I love if they don't. 

Edited July 3, 2020 by bomont

[ramssuperbowl99]

2 minutes ago, bomont said:

You consider being a multi-millionaire "solidly upper class?" What are you, Bill Gates' love child? 

He's an idiot for his timing if nothing else (also for thinking he's as good as Buckner; he isn't). I get if the Chiefs cave, but I love if they don't. 

$10MM in a nest egg without supplemental income using a 3% yearly withdraw rate corresponds to $300k/year before taxes. That's solidly upper class, but not Bill Gates money at all. And that $10MM number doesn't take into account anything Jones has already spent, including a house.

[JaguarCrazy2832]

Guess what Chris...then you aint playing 

[theJ]

2 hours ago, ramssuperbowl99 said:

$10MM in a nest egg without supplemental income using a 3% yearly withdraw rate corresponds to $300k/year before taxes. That's solidly upper class, but not Bill Gates money at all. And that $10MM number doesn't take into account anything Jones has already spent, including a house.

Yeah agreed there. I could still retire on that, but you'd need to be much more careful with it for sure. 60M is a bit different. 

[squire12]

21 hours ago, CWood21 said:

That's true.  But just because one teams overpays for a player doesn't mean every other team is going to overpay.

who says every other team needs to over pay?  It only takes 1 team.

21 hours ago, CWood21 said:

 The Colts were in a weird spot.  They just traded their FRP (13th overall IIRC) for him.  IF they didn't lock him up to a long-term deal, that was an incredibly short-sighted move.  But there's also the structure of the deal that we don't talk about enough as fans.  Go look at DeForest Buckner's contract.  I'm not smart enough to post a screenshot of it, so I'll let you do the legwork.  It contains no signing bonus, and no guaranteed money past 2021, so they've essentially got a 2 year, $40M deal with 3 options at $16M, $19.75M, and and $20.25M respectively.  Compare that to say Aaron Donald who got a $40M signing bonus AND has guaranteed money for four seasons on his new deal.

Pretty sure the $40M over 2 years with the potential to make another $16M in 2022, $19M in 2023 and $20M in 2024 is something that Chris Jones would do pretty quickly.  If you think he gets cut, then he gets a shot at another contract as a late 20's aged player....and the hope that the salary cap has gone up even more.  

21 hours ago, CWood21 said:

 His agent is probably floating the DeForest Buckner "comp" for his contract, but he's probably going to sign closer to what Fletcher Cox got plus inflation.

You mean the contract that Cox signed in 2016?   The 6 year, $102M contract that was $17M per year.   The cap space in 2016 was $155M. 

2016:   155M

2020:  198M 

That is an increase in cap space per team of 22%.  17M x1.22 = 20.74M   Funny how that inflation works to be right around 20M per year

[GSUeagles14]

On 7/3/2020 at 9:09 PM, theJ said:

Yeah agreed there. I could still retire on that, but you'd need to be much more careful with it for sure. 60M is a bit different. 

if you cant retire on 10 mil in the bank somethings wrong, and you dont have to be that careful. find a legit, estabilished money manager and they should be able to get you a 5% return on average. so youd essentially be paying yourself a salary of half a mil a year and hopefully you have no mortgage/debt. you cant vacatiin every week but other than that you can pretty much life the life you want

 

[theJ]

39 minutes ago, GSUeagles14 said:

if you cant retire on 10 mil in the bank somethings wrong, and you dont have to be that careful. find a legit, estabilished money manager and they should be able to get you a 5% return on average. so youd essentially be paying yourself a salary of half a mil a year and hopefully you have no mortgage/debt. you cant vacatiin every week but other than that you can pretty much life the life you want

 

Well, 10M in earnings is really only 5M in the bank.  It sounds like a lot, but you'd have to live on a basic income of 100k/year from age 35 to 70 to not wipe out the nest egg.

*Based on 5% earnings, 4% inflation

Obviously you can play around with the percentages and get different results.  The point is that you'd have to budget it with that nest egg.  If you had earned 60M (and had 30M), you really don't have to watch it very closely.

EDIT: Looking back at my post, and the post i quoted, it was based on a 10M nest egg.  I sort of agree that you and i wouldn't have as much of an issue.  But 300K/year isn't some outrageous amount of money that's hard to spend.  I make way less than that, and I could tell you right now how i could blow that without getting too creative.  You'd have to maintain some control over your spending to make sure you don't blow too much, especially if there's a bad market year and it nips the nest egg while you're drawing on it.

Edited July 6, 2020 by theJ

[Jeezla]

Does Maholmes deal move the needle in any direction on potentially trading Jones?

[Nabbs4u]

5 hours ago, Jeezla said:

Does Maholmes deal move the needle in any direction on potentially trading Jones?

If anything, doesn't this help with signing Jones long term given the way its structured with cap hits the next few seasons?

Edited July 8, 2020 by Nabbs4u

[VigilantZombie]

I'm gonna guess he is sitting out 2020 after that Mahomes contract.

[kingseanjohn]

36 minutes ago, Nabbs4u said:

If anything, doesn't this help with signing Jones long term given the way its structured with cap hits the next few seasons?

Chiefs have the cap space to get it done. The #1 priority was Mahomes. Now that his contract is done the map is there for everyone else. 

Jones, Kelce, Schwartz, and Mathieu could all be looking at extensions soon. 

[sp6488]

On 7/1/2020 at 12:27 PM, rfournier103 said:

Well, if one or two players suck up all or most of the money under the salary cap, there's less money for other quality players. If there are fewer quality players, the team doesn't win. If Chris Jones won't even pretend to care at all about winning, then I certainly wouldn't want him on a team that I root for.

Why is the onus on Chris Jones to make sure those guys get their number? Why shouldn't they take less so Jones can get his number?

I don't even think Jones has a lot of leverage here, but this is silly. This is like when folks were saying Brees was a bad guy for agreeing to a mutually-agreed-upon contract with the Saints because it hindered their ability to pay other guys market contracts.