Peter King: Chiefs called all 31 teams about Peters, 28 passed or offered little

[pugsnotdrugs19]

Since everything negative on the Chiefs side seems to get its own thread...

The Chiefs called all 31 other teams about Marcus Peters. 28 took a hard pass or offered nothing of value. @SI_PeterKing on why Kansas City moved on from its star cornerback: https://t.co/EAVdfM504G pic.twitter.com/ppLh2tJQlg

— Sports Illustrated (@SInow) February 27, 2018

STORY BELOW

For the Chiefs, Marcus Peters Wasn’t Worth the Trouble—and Only Three Other Teams Had Any Interest

Spoiler!

Peter King
February 27th, 2018

Day by day, we learn more about the Chiefs-Rams trade that netted Los Angeles a 25-year-old star cornerback, Marcus Peters. On Monday, Ian Rapoport of NFL Network reported the terms of the deal: Kansas City dealt Peters to Los Angeles for a fourth-round pick this year (the 124th overall pick) and a second-round pick next year.

The compensation, even for a problem player like Peters, seemed light to me. The Rams won 11 games in 2017, and if they win a similar number next year, they’d likely have a second-round pick in the low 50s. So, let’s say Peters was acquired for the 124th pick in 2018 and 58th pick in 2019.

Seems like the Rams got a heck of a deal for a 25-year-old turnover-creating machine who’s been named to two Pro Bowls in his three seasons and was All-Pro in 2016.

Now I’ll tell you a few reasons why the compensation was as light as it was:

• I’m told the Chiefs called all 31 other teams in the league this month on Peters, looking for a trade partner, and 28 teams either said they were not interested or did not make an offer of any value. For a player with the playing history of Peters at a vital and hard-to-fill position, that’s amazing. One team made an offer of a mid-round pick, laughable for a player of Peters’ age and stature. (My guess is that was Cleveland or Indianapolis.) Two were in it until the end—the Rams and 49ers. And the Rams’ offer of second- and fourth-round picks was evidently better than San Francisco’s.

• The fact that a GM who knew Peters very well—Indianapolis’ Chris Ballard—did not pursue Peters hard for the Colts this month was viewed as telling by several other teams in the league. Ballard was the Chiefs’ director of player personnel in 2015, and visited Peters and his parents that spring at their Oakland home, before the draft. He was in favor of the Chiefs picking Peters, which they did in the first round of the 2015 draft, 18th overall. Clearly, Ballard would have a pipeline to the inner feelings of the Chiefs, and when he didn’t engage the Chiefs seriously, one source close to the deal said it was a telling sign. However, there is one counterpoint to this: Because the Colts are in full rebuilding mode, they’re not a great fit right now for a very good player who could be a handful, and who could leave in free agency in two years.

• Those around the Chiefs saw there was life after Marcus. The team played one of its best defensive games of the season last year without Peters. He got suspended for a game by the Chiefs for freaking out on the field in a Week 13 loss at the Jets, throwing a penalty flag into the stands and stalking off the field while the game was in play though he had not been ejected. The next week, without Peters, Kansas City held Oakland to 104 total yards and no points through 48 minutes, building up a 26-0 lead. The Chiefs won the game, 26-15.

• The fact that the Chiefs were calling every team in the league about Peters let teams know that Kansas City coach Andy Reid and GM Brett Veach were desperate to dump him.

• Peters’ behavior had become erratic, apparently, capped by the Week 13 meltdown in the Meadowlands. The Chiefs decided they couldn’t trust his behavior anymore and, despite his playmaking ability, felt whatever they could fetch for him in trade would be better than Peters returning in 2018.

• His protests during the national anthem didn’t help—at various points he raised his fist, sat on the bench and stayed in the locker room—but weren’t the driving force behind a trade.

• Peters loves football. He practiced hard in Kansas City. But his tendency to lose it was a divisive part of his résumé too, and a big reason why the Chiefs dumped him.

So, did the Rams make a bad trade?

I don’t think so. The Rams have a defensive coordinator, Wade Phillips, who has handled high-maintenance players, and who puts great cover corners like Peters in position to maximize their ability and earning power. Peters is due $10.7 million over the next two years, very reasonable for a player who at his peak is a shutdown cornerback and one of the best in the league. So even if the Rams don’t keep him after 2019, they’ve (theoretically) paid $10.7 million over two years for a cornerback who should be supremely motivated to be great. It’s the only way he’s going to get paid Revis money.

In the end, Peters’ temper and disposition probably cost him a long career in Kansas City. But talent always gets a second chance (and a third, if the talent is as big as Peters’), and the Rams are betting that Sean McVay and Phillips and a more forgiving environment will be a good new start for a very good player.

[Sassy Squatch]

Originally Posted by Chiefnj2

That they called the Raiders.

I have no problem believing that. Probably had a caveat that since you're in our division you're paying us a ridiculous premium, to which the Raiders said "**** off" and hung up. Reid has had no qualms in the past about trading players to division rivals.

[chiefzilla1501]

The only teams interested were in the nfc in California. Both right next to Oakland. Id imagine peters had some leverage in this. Teams will be reluctant to give good picks to a 1-2 year baggage player who won't want to re-sign. And kc obviously wants to avoid the afc west.

[Marcellus]

Peter King is just a mouthpiece for the Chiefs huh? Ok then.

[FringeNC]

Originally Posted by WhawhaWhat

So the Chiefs sold low. Great idea. Hard to believe this franchise has 1 playoff win in the last 25 years and against a team that didn't belong in the playoff to begin with.

The Chiefs sold off two years of paying Marcus Peters below market. How much is that worth? Minus the off the field stuff, more, but how much more?

Suppose Peters was making $20 million per year for 5 years, how much would you give up for the right to take on that contract?

[Dartgod]

Originally Posted by MGRS13

And yet had they waited till training camp and preseason some one would have been injured on another team or suspended or even some team would have convinced itself it was one player away and the Chiefs would have gotten much more for him. Instead mr. Marge schott wanted to run home to Texas and brag at his next klan rally that he got rid of " one of those guys". This team is a joke.

This is a joke of a post.

Moron...

[O.city]

The offfield stuff, plus the impending contract situation, Chiefs got about what they probably should have.

[The Franchise]

Originally Posted by O.city

The offfield stuff, plus the impending contract situation, Chiefs got about what they probably should have.

People clamoring that we could have gotten a 3rd round comp pick can't guarantee that it would have happened. If we let Peters walk but sign another comparable FA.....then that comp pick isn't happening. They basically guaranteed themselves a return for Peters.

[bevischief]

Tide Pods

[staylor26]

Originally Posted by Pestilence

People clamoring that we could have gotten a 3rd round comp pick can't guarantee that it would have happened. If we let Peters walk but sign another comparable FA.....then that comp pick isn't happening. They basically guaranteed themselves a return for Peters.

It’s amazing that people don’t understand this.

Those same people would be pissed if we let Peters walk for nothing and/or don’t sign a big free agent to offset the loss.

[DaFace]

Originally Posted by Superturtle

What exactly was in the article that makes you say that?

If Veach is stupid enough to send a spam message to all 31 other teams advertising that he's desperate to get rid of Peters, we've got far bigger issues than we'd realized. You gain negotiating power by keeping discussions quiet and not letting the other party know what your situation is.

So take your pick: the Chiefs are telling the truth and are complete idiots when it comes to negotiating trades or the Chiefs are lying to save face about getting a shit return in this deal. It's one or the other.

[notorious]

Originally Posted by Superturtle

What exactly was in the article that makes you say that?

"We tried so hard to trade Peters, but this is all we could get!"

Of course there is no way to confirm their story of calling all of the teams. Owners will lie because they don't want their fanbase to lynch them for not offering the crumbs that the Rams did for Peters.

[FringeNC]

Originally Posted by staylor26

It’s amazing that people don’t understand this.

Those same people would be pissed if we let Peters walk for nothing and/or don’t sign a big free agent to offset the loss.

Yep, and QB seems to be the only position where a guy is under a big contract and still has trade value. Honestly, what could we get for Eric Berry? Is Justin Houston even tradable?

[The Franchise]

Originally Posted by DaFace

If Veach is stupid enough to send a spam message to all 31 other teams advertising that he's desperate to get rid of Peters, we've got far bigger issues than we'd realized. You gain negotiating power by keeping discussions quiet and not letting the other party know what your situation is.

So take your pick: the Chiefs are telling the truth and are complete idiots when it comes to negotiating trades or the Chiefs are lying to save face about getting a shit return in this deal. It's one or the other.

Do I think they called all 31 teams? No. I highly ****ing doubt that. But I guarantee you that they put feelers out there to a number of teams and the Rams and 49ers were the only ones that wanted to have a real discussion about it.

[Sassy Squatch]

Originally Posted by DaFace

If Veach is stupid enough to send a spam message to all 31 other teams advertising that he's desperate to get rid of Peters, we've got far bigger issues than we'd realized. You gain negotiating power by keeping discussions quiet and not letting the other party know what your situation is.

So take your pick: the Chiefs are telling the truth and are complete idiots when it comes to negotiating trades or the Chiefs are lying to save face about getting a shit return in this deal. It's one or the other.

Its option A. Once you put a player as talented as Peters on the block, its not that hard to figure out we're done with him, especially considering his history.

[Chiefnj2]

People keep saying "off field issues", yet he hasn't been arrested or suspended or investigated for anything.