Report: Justin Jefferson Potentially on the Trade Block

[MahomesMagic]

Originally Posted by Chris Meck

The bill comes due.

In this case, not entirely.

The cap hit for Mahomes in 2028 is 28,175,000.

[New World Order]

WE TRADE FOR THIS PIECE OF GARBAGE YET?!!!!!!!!

[BossChief]

If you’re willing to trade 2 firsts for a WR, use next years first to move up in this draft to get one. Trading this and next years firsts would get us at around 18. One of the top guys will probably still be there at that point.

Or maybe you trade Sneed and our 1 to get into the top 15.

Either of those moves allows us to keep Stone Cold, vastly improve our WR group and gives Josh Williams, Conner, Jones, and Watson all a chance to earn a starting role ipposite McDuffie.

[Chargem]

The Vikings have 40m of cap space, and an insane amount the year after. I just don't see why they would trade him

[tredadda]

Originally Posted by Chargem

The Vikings have 40m of cap space, and an insane amount the year after. I just don't see why they would trade him

Probably looking to move on from Cousins and would love extra draft capital to move as high as they can for one of the top QB is all I can think of.

[Rainbarrel]

Originally Posted by Chargem

The Vikings have 40m of cap space, and an insane amount the year after. I just don't see why they would trade him

Eclipse glasses and pinatas

[kcgreene]

I'd have to wonder what the price difference would be between trading for Jefferson and trading up to 1.04 with the Cardinals. If it's comparable or slightly more, I think personally I'd rather trade for Marvin Harrison Jr. at 1.04 (assuming he doesn't go in the first 3 picks). Cheaper contract and all. I get that Jefferson is the sure thing and no college player is ever a 'sure thing', but MHJr is about as close to a sure thing as you can get IMO.

Not saying we'll do either because it seems entirely unrealistic, but just a thought...

[TwistedChief]

Originally Posted by kcgreene

I'd have to wonder what the price difference would be between trading for Jefferson and trading up to 1.04 with the Cardinals. If it's comparable or slightly more, I think personally I'd rather trade for Marvin Harrison Jr. at 1.04 (assuming he doesn't go in the first 3 picks). Cheaper contract and all. I get that Jefferson is the sure thing and no college player is ever a 'sure thing', but MHJr is about as close to a sure thing as you can get IMO.

Not saying we'll do either because it seems entirely unrealistic, but just a thought...

kccrow earlier in the thread put out some good reasoning why trading for Jefferson would be like moving up to 11 in the draft. Moving to 4 for Marvin Harrison Jr - especially with some of the high end talent/QBs that people might fall in love it in this draft - would be meaningfully more expensive.

But yes, I think if given the opportunity, every single person would rather have 5 cost-controlled years of MHJr over JJ.

[kcgreene]

Originally Posted by TwistedChief

kccrow earlier in the thread put out some good reasoning why trading for Jefferson would be like moving up to 11 in the draft. Moving to 4 for Marvin Harrison Jr - especially with some of the high end talent/QBs that people might fall in love it in this draft - would be meaningfully more expensive.

But yes, I think if given the opportunity, every single person would rather have 5 cost-controlled years of MHJr over JJ.

Didn't see that earlier. My bad. Didn't mean to repeat earlier stuff.

I know if any of the Top 3 QBs fall, 1.04 climbs exponentially in value (just the nature of the positional value) but I don't think anyone realistically is trading up to 1.04 for Nix, McCarthy, etc. (But there is plenty of time for that to change).

This also begs the question on this draft being so heavy with top end WR talent, if that adversely effects Jefferson's value and if the Vikes accept that.

The one thing that I can think of in this thought experiment of trading for 1.04 (if you're the Chiefs) is that any trade will most likely have to involve 1.32 and a tagged Sneed (and a bit more, those Top 5 picks are expensive as hell). Anything past that is just simply unfeasible.

[duncan_idaho]

Originally Posted by TwistedChief

kccrow earlier in the thread put out some good reasoning why trading for Jefferson would be like moving up to 11 in the draft. Moving to 4 for Marvin Harrison Jr - especially with some of the high end talent/QBs that people might fall in love it in this draft - would be meaningfully more expensive.

But yes, I think if given the opportunity, every single person would rather have 5 cost-controlled years of MHJr over JJ.

Perhaps the better comparison - just for fun - would be to ask would you rather have Jefferson on his new deal for the next five years, or Rome Odunze or Brock Bowers?

If we're talking about draft capital equivalent to trading up to 11, that's the more apt comparison, I think.

For one of those guys to be there at 11, you'd need the following to happen in the top 10:

1) 4 QBs are drafted (Patriots take a QB, Giants get desperate and draft McCarthy)
2) 3 Ts go in the top 10
3) 3 of the premium receiving targets go in the top 10
If a corner or pass rusher slips into the top 10, you can subtract one of those positions.

I don't think either Odunze or Bowers is a "safe" enough prospect to make that deal happen. In that scenario, I guess I'd prefer the Jefferson trade price. Though, honestly, I'd prefer neither of these scenarios.

Again. It's not just about making KC as good as possible for 2024. It's about making it as good as possible while also mitigating risk that you short-circuit the team's contender status.

When Travis Kelce retires or slows down enough that he no longer commands #1 target attention, that MIGHT break things up.

If the Chiefs take a HUGE swing that sacrifices draft capital NOW and it fails, it will DEFINITELY break things up 2-3 years down the road. And potentially as soon as 2025 if that huge swing involves giving Jefferson a market-setting payday.

[O.city]

Originally Posted by duncan_idaho

Perhaps the better comparison - just for fun - would be to ask would you rather have Jefferson on his new deal for the next five years, or Rome Odunze or Brock Bowers?

If we're talking about draft capital equivalent to trading up to 11, that's the more apt comparison, I think.

For one of those guys to be there at 11, you'd need the following to happen in the top 10:

1) 4 QBs are drafted (Patriots take a QB, Giants get desperate and draft McCarthy)
2) 3 Ts go in the top 10
3) 3 of the premium receiving targets go in the top 10
If a corner or pass rusher slips into the top 10, you can subtract one of those positions.

I don't think either Odunze or Bowers is a "safe" enough prospect to make that deal happen. In that scenario, I guess I'd prefer the Jefferson trade price. Though, honestly, I'd prefer neither of these scenarios.

Again. It's not just about making KC as good as possible for 2024. It's about making it as good as possible while also mitigating risk that you short-circuit the team's contender status.

When Travis Kelce retires or slows down enough that he no longer commands #1 target attention, that MIGHT break things up.

If the Chiefs take a HUGE swing that sacrifices draft capital NOW and it fails, it will DEFINITELY break things up 2-3 years down the road. And potentially as soon as 2025 if that huge swing involves giving Jefferson a market-setting payday.

Devils advocate, but what's a "fail" in this scenario?

He gets hurt would be the only thing I could see.

[duncan_idaho]

Originally Posted by O.city

Devils advocate, but what's a "fail" in this scenario?

He gets hurt would be the only thing I could see.

With Jefferson? It's not just his health that you have to worry about.

It's the roster, which is thinner overall. It's being able to keep the roster balanced and without glaring holes.

[kcgreene]

Originally Posted by duncan_idaho

If the Chiefs take a HUGE swing that sacrifices draft capital NOW and it fails, it will DEFINITELY break things up 2-3 years down the road. And potentially as soon as 2025 if that huge swing involves giving Jefferson a market-setting payday.

I don't know if it DEFINITELY breaks things up, but I agree with the sentiment that it will make it a lot harder to maintain the level of excellence we've seen from Veach and Reid.

Just with the price of that jump, I genuinely think I'd trust Veach to wait an make his move into the mid 20s for the guy he wants. (Honestly, hoping that Veach trades up to the early 20s for Amarius Mims personally, but just my thought. I think there's a lot of good WR talent that should be available Day 2)

[Balto]

Originally Posted by duncan_idaho

Perhaps the better comparison - just for fun - would be to ask would you rather have Jefferson on his new deal for the next five years, or Rome Odunze or Brock Bowers?

If we're talking about draft capital equivalent to trading up to 11, that's the more apt comparison, I think.

For one of those guys to be there at 11, you'd need the following to happen in the top 10:

1) 4 QBs are drafted (Patriots take a QB, Giants get desperate and draft McCarthy)
2) 3 Ts go in the top 10
3) 3 of the premium receiving targets go in the top 10
If a corner or pass rusher slips into the top 10, you can subtract one of those positions.

I don't think either Odunze or Bowers is a "safe" enough prospect to make that deal happen. In that scenario, I guess I'd prefer the Jefferson trade price. Though, honestly, I'd prefer neither of these scenarios.

Again. It's not just about making KC as good as possible for 2024. It's about making it as good as possible while also mitigating risk that you short-circuit the team's contender status.

When Travis Kelce retires or slows down enough that he no longer commands #1 target attention, that MIGHT break things up.

If the Chiefs take a HUGE swing that sacrifices draft capital NOW and it fails, it will DEFINITELY break things up 2-3 years down the road. And potentially as soon as 2025 if that huge swing involves giving Jefferson a market-setting payday.

Your post screams going all out to get Mike Evans signed even if its a slight overpay.

This move would get a true #1 for Pat that costs no draft picks and takes almost all the risk out of upgrading the WR position.

Mike Evans on a 2 or 3 year deal is a great strategy IMO