Jump to content
Chiefs_5627

Marcus Peters traded to Rams

Recommended Posts

5 hours ago, kingseanjohn said:

Not happy with this at all.

The compensation better be stupid in our favor.

Seriously, we better be getting something very good back in return. You don't trade away playmakers like that, in a value position, on a rookie contract. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So, after having the time to think on this, here's my take. I still don't like it, but I understand it.

I'm guessing that the team had already decided, at this point, that they weren't going to be willing to pay what Peters would cost two years from now. We had him cheap next year, and then he would've been on a somewhat appropriate one year deal, essentially, with a 5th year option that I'm assuming would've been in the $9M area based on Ford's. Right now, Xavier Rhodes is the highest paid CB not on a one year deal, at $15M per. Between now and Peters fully hitting FA, we'll see Trumaine Johnson, Malcolm Butler, Kyle Fuller, Richard Sherman, and Casey Heyward all get new deals, along with a handful of others. With more up for new deals the same year as Peters. So by the time he hits free agency, it's safe to say we would be needing to pay him somewhere around $17M - $18M per year. Basically as much as we're giving anyone except Houston. Because barring a drop off, he'll absolutely be a contender for one of those make me the highest paid player ever at my position kind of contracts. I think basically whoever gets extended later between him and Chris Harris Jr. will have that mantle long term.

Now, I think a very good argument could be had on whether or not he is worth that. I would have no problem with the team paying him that money in two years. Or in one year, honestly. But I understand completely why the team would be scared to do so. And I think the team had their mind made up, now, that he was not in their long term plans with that price tag and the concerns he carries.

Additionally, I think the FO is under the belief, or is at least willing to accept, that we will not be as competitive next season. We're already all-in on Mahomes. The move on from DJ is cemented as well. There have been rumors galore of a full-scale purge of old talent on the D, so several more may go as well. I think they've decide to force through transitions that are going to have to happen eventually anyway, all next year, as we're destined to the struggles of a rookie QB anyway. This is where I have a greater disagreement, as I have a ton of optimism around Mahomes. But I think this led to the reality where, we have one year left of Peters super cheap, but it's not a year we expect to contend for a superbowl. We would potentially have one more year with him, without an extension, but we'd still be looking at a $9Mish hit that year. So rather than have his play for two years and get a 3rd round comp pick, or have his play for one year and get either that same comp pick or a package of less valuable picks, they opted to trade him when his value was maxed to other teams, in order to get more an quicker compensation for the restructure of the D. If next year isn't a year we'll contend in the post season, getting picks for the 2018 and 2019 drafts and losing Peters now may carry more value to the team than losing Peters in 2019 or 2020 but only getting a 2020 or 2021 3rd round pick for it (assuming we don't sign anyone then that would cancel him out, too.)

To be clear, I don't think this makes it a good move. I still disagree with it, pending compensation. But I have a feeling that this is more or less how the front office's logic played out, here. He's not in the long term plans due to cost, so let's bite the bullet early, make the roster better for when Mahomes hits his stride instead of during Mahomes rookie year. I also think the compensation won't be as good as we'd hope for this reason. I think we probably shopped him, teams didn't call us on it. Which will suck. But I don't think it's the conspiracies that Hunt forced a trade due to the anthem or Peters demanded a trade or anything. I think it's just attempted foresight.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Jakuvious said:

So, after having the time to think on this, here's my take. I still don't like it, but I understand it.

I'm guessing that the team had already decided, at this point, that they weren't going to be willing to pay what Peters would cost two years from now. We had him cheap next year, and then he would've been on a somewhat appropriate one year deal, essentially, with a 5th year option that I'm assuming would've been in the $9M area based on Ford's. Right now, Xavier Rhodes is the highest paid CB not on a one year deal, at $15M per. Between now and Peters fully hitting FA, we'll see Trumaine Johnson, Malcolm Butler, Kyle Fuller, Richard Sherman, and Casey Heyward all get new deals, along with a handful of others. With more up for new deals the same year as Peters. So by the time he hits free agency, it's safe to say we would be needing to pay him somewhere around $17M - $18M per year. Basically as much as we're giving anyone except Houston. Because barring a drop off, he'll absolutely be a contender for one of those make me the highest paid player ever at my position kind of contracts. I think basically whoever gets extended later between him and Chris Harris Jr. will have that mantle long term.

Now, I think a very good argument could be had on whether or not he is worth that. I would have no problem with the team paying him that money in two years. Or in one year, honestly. But I understand completely why the team would be scared to do so. And I think the team had their mind made up, now, that he was not in their long term plans with that price tag and the concerns he carries.

Additionally, I think the FO is under the belief, or is at least willing to accept, that we will not be as competitive next season. We're already all-in on Mahomes. The move on from DJ is cemented as well. There have been rumors galore of a full-scale purge of old talent on the D, so several more may go as well. I think they've decide to force through transitions that are going to have to happen eventually anyway, all next year, as we're destined to the struggles of a rookie QB anyway. This is where I have a greater disagreement, as I have a ton of optimism around Mahomes. But I think this led to the reality where, we have one year left of Peters super cheap, but it's not a year we expect to contend for a superbowl. We would potentially have one more year with him, without an extension, but we'd still be looking at a $9Mish hit that year. So rather than have his play for two years and get a 3rd round comp pick, or have his play for one year and get either that same comp pick or a package of less valuable picks, they opted to trade him when his value was maxed to other teams, in order to get more an quicker compensation for the restructure of the D. If next year isn't a year we'll contend in the post season, getting picks for the 2018 and 2019 drafts and losing Peters now may carry more value to the team than losing Peters in 2019 or 2020 but only getting a 2020 or 2021 3rd round pick for it (assuming we don't sign anyone then that would cancel him out, too.)

To be clear, I don't think this makes it a good move. I still disagree with it, pending compensation. But I have a feeling that this is more or less how the front office's logic played out, here. He's not in the long term plans due to cost, so let's bite the bullet early, make the roster better for when Mahomes hits his stride instead of during Mahomes rookie year. I also think the compensation won't be as good as we'd hope for this reason. I think we probably shopped him, teams didn't call us on it. Which will suck. But I don't think it's the conspiracies that Hunt forced a trade due to the anthem or Peters demanded a trade or anything. I think it's just attempted foresight.

Given the cap issues that Dorsey left us with, and that allegedly lead to his dismissal, I could see this argument going further but along the same logic.

We get something now and rebound quick as the overhaul continues, I get it too. The defense needs that kind of passion, even with its flip side, and we probably won't replace that production with one guy. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As for compensation, it's still not out, which is odd in today's world of instant news. I've seen some say the Rams 1st this year is not involved, which would instantly make this move bad, unless we get their 2019 first and 2nd this year.

 

I think we might not have heard compensation yet as it is contingent on Peters signing an extension for the Rams. I know there's 2 years left on his deal, but could see the Rams wanting more certainty than that to give up top compensation.  I also could believe Peters might have threatened to sit out this year due to being underpaid.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Folks, tried to figure out where the "4th and 7th compensation" rumour comes from.
It looks like it originated from this tweet:

Two hours later Smith, after some comments pointed out that the Rams don't have a 7th rounder this year (which according to wikipedia and my own tracking is not true), added this one which in my opinion does not really lend credibility to his first post:

Smith, hailing from Raleigh, NC, in his twitter profile describes himself as: "Writer + video on #Raiders at @247Sports, @CBSSports | Fantasy Football for @FanRagSports | jeffrey.smith@cbsinteractive.com | Al Davis said it best".

I have no clue where this guy should get sources from others like Terez, Mellinger, Rapoport, Schefter, Jacobs or Teicher obviously don't have. I'll just wait out until the final verdict becomes official to judge the trade.

Until then I'll stick to my own sources which tell me the Chiefs will receive a 2nd and a 8th.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

4th, 7th and 3rd 2019. Christ, that's awful for an all-pro CB who is 25 years old. He better be one hell of a locker room cancer.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Habbsawce said:

4th, 7th and 3rd 2019. Christ, that's awful for an all-pro CB who is 25 years old. He better be one hell of a locker room cancer.

you seem to miss something: who's the guy reporting that? noone with a proven connection to either the Rams or the Chiefs. PFTCommenter posted something like 2018 1st and 5th ... and noone gave a sh*t ...

NO reliable source even commented on that post .. I consider it a crapshot in the dark ... or less ...

Edited by KC_Guy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, KC_Guy said:

you seem to miss something: who's the guy reporting that? noone with a proven connection to either the Rams or the Chiefs. PFTCommenter posted something like 2018 1st and 5th ... and noone gave a sh*t ...

NO reliable source even commented on that post .. I consider it a crapshot in the dark ... or less ...

 

True. I keep looking to see what the return is and no one knows yet. How can it take this long? Will we have to wait till March 14th to find out for sure?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, Habbsawce said:

 

True. I keep looking to see what the return is and no one knows yet. How can it take this long? Will we have to wait till March 14th to find out for sure?

Well,  starting Dec 26, you'll have to wait until next Christmas to know your presents. Get some comfort in that it won't be that long this time .. ;-)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Latest comment form the LAR postings is that the deal is being kept secret until official because they fear another team could offer a better deal.  What this tells me is KC can still work for a better deal with other teams and should be doing so.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, valkrei said:

Latest comment form the LAR postings is that the deal is being kept secret until official because they fear another team could offer a better deal.  What this tells me is KC can still work for a better deal with other teams and should be doing so.

That's also something some pundit tweeted a couple of hours ago when asked what the holdup is about. But think about it: it doesn't make any sense. What does keeping the compensation secret help? If the Chiefs have other teams that are interested they can talk. They can also talk with other teams about Alex Smith. First question: What do you offer? First response on the intitial offer: Not good enough, try again. Second try. Second response: Better, that's about what the Rams offered. Add a sixth rounder and we have a deal.

Nope. What I think is that the final compensation is probably not yet set. May be a player is involved (despite rumours it's all about picks) they need to negotiate a new deal with or who has to pass a physical. May be it's about criteria for a conditional pick. Who knows. But we'll know soon. In about 2 weeks the latest.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is probably the best we may get for a while. At least from a trustworthy source. And if Terez is unable to find a nugget I have a hard time to believe anyone else will:

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now



×