Revisit: Trade Tyreek

[kccrow]

Originally Posted by The Franchise

Report is right now that Adams is going to want $30 million a season. Not to say that he's going to get it but if Adams signs before Hill (and why would Hill do that), he could end up wanting close to that.

If I were Veach and looking at future cap implications, I'd have serious reservations about paying that type of money.

I get it, you need playmakers but the question for me is to what extent?

The Patriots won a lot of football games, and SBs, with a couple of $5m per WRs and a HOF caliber TE to go with a HOF QB.

The Chiefs have the QB and TE.

Now, maybe those $5m per guys are now $10m per guys but the theory remains.

Do you drop 30m per on a single WR or do you get a couple of guys like Chark and Kirk for $10-12 per instead?

Then we have the situation where a lot of guys around here want to keep a $30m receiver and then add a $20m+ #2.

[Hoover]

Originally Posted by kccrow

I feel like you guys are all looking at this inside a box like I did when Chargem originally posed the thought. I didn't bring everything up, hoping others would see things differently and add to the conversation more.

What if Tyreek won't get an extension done?
What if he is willing to do an extension but won't convert that roster bonus into a signing bonus to spread the hit out?
Are you going to tag for two years? Are you going to tag and trade in one of the next two years?

There are some solid options out there to mitigate the damages if you do trade Tyreek and I'm just throwing out things that could happen.

I'm 100% with you Hoover, I'd love for Tyreek to do an extension, spread that roster bonus in 2022 out, be reasonable and not expect Hopkins+ money. A lot has to happen though.

The 8th overall is very attractive, but I'd want more than a3rd to make that deal. I'd probably do it for a 2nd in next years draft that could move up to a 1st if Hill reached certain benchmarks.

So I guess you could say I'm looking for two ones.

[Chargem]

To actually answer the question set by KCCrow, I would take the Falcons offer, but no less, AS LONG AS I literally had the contracts printed for premium FA WRs that I wanted to replace him and the guys sat there with the pens in their hands, waiting to sign.

My plan would probably be two receiving threats from FA - Robinson/Godwin and Ertz/Njoku/Gesicki maybe, then looking to add defense with the number 8 overall pick or possibly try trading back to the middle of the first, depending how it falls.

I'd then be looking to add another WR with my back of the first round pick, it's too early to say how its shaping up but maybe one of J Williams, Garrett Wilson, Chris Olave, Jahan Dotson

[O.city]

Why would I try to replace his production when I could just sign him and keep said production coming from him?

You’d trade him, if you wanted to, at the end of the next contract. Not now.

[kccrow]

Originally Posted by O.city

Why would I try to replace his production when I could just sign him and keep said production coming from him?

You’d trade him, if you wanted to, at the end of the next contract. Not now.

As he sits, he's in the final year of his contract.

So, while it is true that it isn't necessarily "now," it's potentially next year if a deal doesn't get done.

He's one of the few on the roster I'd have a hard time trading but nobody sans Mahomes is untradable for the right price.

[O.city]

Originally Posted by kccrow

As he sits, he's in the final year of his contract.

So, while it is true that it isn't necessarily "now," it's potentially next year if a deal doesn't get done.

He's one of the few on the roster I'd have a hard time trading but nobody sans Mahomes is untradable for the right price.

Then get a deal done. This is a guy that’s literally always done what’s been asked, he’s always reliable on the field and is the best play making wr in the league. He still has room to improve as well.

To me he’s a guy you pay.

[duncan_idaho]

There's just not a package I would take for him while the Chiefs are in this current window. Even if someone offered two firsts, I'd say no thanks.

A rookie WR is going to take time to get up to speed. FA WRs that are available don't stress defenses pre-snap and post-snap the way Hill does. Even if you're adding 2 for the price of a Hill extension, you're suffering a drop-off in explosiveness and are going to lose some of that underneath/intermediate room that is created by teams fearing Hill's ability to get deep.

And throwing the assets gained at the defense doesn't work for me. That's not protecting and reinforcing my investment at QB.

And I'll add that beyond all the on-field stuff, moving a guy like Hill rather than paying him would be an unpopular move in the locker room, too.

[Chris Meck]

You have THREE unquestionably elite talents on this team.

Mahomes, Kelce, and Hill.

Why the hell would you trade one?

Bird in the hand, man. Bird in the hand.

[Megatron96]

A couple people in the thread have stated that Hill doesn't really make the offense run any better. Well, we had this scenario a couple years back in 2019. Maybe some here remember the DET and then the IND games when first Hill then Watkins got hurt and didn't play.

To refresh: in the DET game, Hill was still out, and Sammy got dinged up in that game. Only Kelce was healthy enough to play of our top receivers. The offense scored just 3 TDs, none by a receiver. And while Mahomes did throw for 315 yds, he didn't connect on a single passing TD, his completion % was nearly 10 points lower than his season avg (65.9/57.1), his QBR was 10 points lower than his season avg, and his Passer Rating also took a nosedive (105.3/81.0).

In the IND game, with both Sammy and Hill not in the starting lineup and Mecole/Pringle basically taking their places, Patrick's numbers were a little worse. But at least he threw a TD.

However, the offense scored just the one TD in an embarrassing offensive disaster against a defense that would go on to give up 26 to a foundering PIT team, 38 to the inconsistent Bucs, and another 38 to the bottom-feeding Jags.


'Nuff said.

[DJ's left nut]

Hill's such a unique talent for this QB and this offense that I struggle to find a 'fair' trade for him. We've seen what trying to put Hardman into that role has yielded and it ain't great.

That said, perhaps the biggest issue is that in order for their to be a market for him, you'd need all the FA options to dry up. And once that happens, your path to getting a replacement is really shut off.

I guess if you got someone like Godwin signed, you could turn around and work on the Hill deal with his replacement already in hand. But even then the offense is completely different.

Hill and Kelce (plus Mahomes) are just perfect complementary players. I struggle to find a way to truly 'replace' what he brings in, especially during Kelce's remaining championship window.

[kccrow]

Originally Posted by Megatron96

A couple people in the thread have stated that Hill doesn't really make the offense run any better. Well, we had this scenario a couple years back in 2019. Maybe some here remember the DET and then the IND games when first Hill then Watkins got hurt and didn't play.

To refresh: in the DET game, Hill was still out, and Sammy got dinged up in that game. Only Kelce was healthy enough to play of our top receivers. The offense scored just 3 TDs, none by a receiver. And while Mahomes did throw for 315 yds, he didn't connect on a single passing TD, his completion % was nearly 10 points lower than his season avg (65.9/57.1), his QBR was 10 points lower than his season avg, and his Passer Rating also took a nosedive (105.3/81.0).

In the IND game, with both Sammy and Hill not in the starting lineup and Mecole/Pringle basically taking their places, Patrick's numbers were a little worse. But at least he threw a TD.

However, the offense scored just the one TD in an embarrassing offensive disaster against a defense that would go on to give up 26 to a foundering PIT team, 38 to the inconsistent Bucs, and another 38 to the bottom-feeding Jags.


'Nuff said.

It's not "enough said" because you're operating under the assumption that trading Hill equates to having a rookie and a few scrubs. That's simply not the case anyone would make in trading Hill.

Originally Posted by DJ's left nut

Hill's such a unique talent for this QB and this offense that I struggle to find a 'fair' trade for him. We've seen what trying to put Hardman into that role has yielded and it ain't great.

That said, perhaps the biggest issue is that in order for their to be a market for him, you'd need all the FA options to dry up. And once that happens, your path to getting a replacement is really shut off.

I guess if you got someone like Godwin signed, you could turn around and work on the Hill deal with his replacement already in hand. But even then the offense is completely different.

Hill and Kelce (plus Mahomes) are just perfect complementary players. I struggle to find a way to truly 'replace' what he brings in, especially during Kelce's remaining championship window.

This is the near opposite of Megatron's post in that you're looking at only trading Hill if there is a near Hill equivalent signed (top-10 or so WR in Godwin). This would also make little sense unless you think Godwin for some reason were to sign for way less than he's worth.

[DJ's left nut]

Originally Posted by kccrow

This is the near opposite of Megatron's post in that you're looking at only trading Hill if there is a near Hill equivalent signed (top-10 or so WR in Godwin). This would also make little sense unless you think Godwin for some reason were to sign for way less than he's worth.

Not really.

I'm saying that there IS no real near-equivalent of Hill. They just don't make guys like him. And that if you trade him, you have to essentially resign yourself to a much different type of offense. Probably one where Kelce is even less effective because you lack the field stretcher that Hill provides who can also work the middle of the field (giving Kelce the ability to work the middle OR run the seam, as the patterns and coverages dictate).

If you trade Hill you almost have to commit to essentially a ground-up rebuild of the offense. A completely different animal. For a week or even several weeks, you can get by without someone like Hill because teams won't completely adjust to Hills absence - there's just not enough tape out there to know what that looks like and respond in kind.

But if you TRADE him, teams are gonna get a really long look at what your offense is without Hill and I'm pretty confident this version of it simply does not work without him over any prolonged period.

Now that's not to say this team can't have SOME form of offense that is very dynamic and effective. But as I noted, traded Hill requires a commitment to that re-set.

And for me, while we still have Kelce and Hill out there doing HoF caliber shit, I'm disinclined to do it. And I can't see a scenario where we get adequate value to convince me of it (including the scenarios outlined).

[kccrow]

Originally Posted by DJ's left nut

Not really.

I'm saying that there IS no real near-equivalent of Hill. They just don't make guys like him. And that if you trade him, you have to essentially resign yourself to a much different type of offense. Probably one where Kelce is even less effective because you lack the field stretcher that Hill provides who can also work the middle of the field (giving Kelce the ability to work the middle OR run the seam, as the patterns and coverages dictate).

If you trade Hill you almost have to commit to essentially a ground-up rebuild of the offense. A completely different animal. For a week or even several weeks, you can get by without someone like Hill because teams won't completely adjust to Hills absence - there's just not enough tape out there to know what that looks like and respond in kind.

But if you TRADE him, teams are gonna get a really long look at what your offense is without Hill and I'm pretty confident this version of it simply does not work without him over any prolonged period.

Now that's not to say this team can't have SOME form of offense that is very dynamic and effective. But as I noted, traded Hill requires a commitment to that re-set.

And for me, while we still have Kelce and Hill out there doing HoF caliber shit, I'm disinclined to do it. And I can't see a scenario where we get adequate value to convince me of it (including the scenarios outlined).

I agree with you that they don't make players like Hill every day, or really ever. I also fully understand that the compensation may have to be significantly higher to consider it. I tried to elicit what it would take.

I'm trying to operate under two major premises:
1) You have Patrick Mahomes at QB so any offense should be good with him throwing the football.
2) If you broke up that $30m+ you expect to pay Hill, you could have at least 2 very good or 3 good receivers for that.

So with the above, I'm trying to detach from the fear of what the offense might look like without him.

I think Reid can develop a scheme that works with whoever is here. I think Hardman could step into the Z role and be effective, so long as there is a significant improvement at the X. We know Hardman cannot fill the X role. Also, Hardman is a UFA next year. I think there are other options that can operate well in that role. Kelce does Kelce things and has before Hill was here with a far shittier QB.

Do I think this team could sign DJ Chark and Michael Gallup for 30 million? Likely. Would this offense not be good with that? Add a guy like Metchie in the 2nd to replace Hardman after next year and you have a pretty good trio.

The greatest fear is fear of the unknown, so I get where Meck is coming from too with the bird-in-the-hand reference. We have Hill, why not pay him and not upset the apple cart? Draft well and you could certainly fix any issue surrounding paying Hill by offsetting the cost. As it stands you then have to get a good X and replace Hardman in the draft all while also needing to fix a defense that is void of talent.

[Chargem]

Originally Posted by DJ's left nut

Not really.

I'm saying that there IS no real near-equivalent of Hill. They just don't make guys like him. And that if you trade him, you have to essentially resign yourself to a much different type of offense. Probably one where Kelce is even less effective because you lack the field stretcher that Hill provides who can also work the middle of the field (giving Kelce the ability to work the middle OR run the seam, as the patterns and coverages dictate).

If you trade Hill you almost have to commit to essentially a ground-up rebuild of the offense. A completely different animal. For a week or even several weeks, you can get by without someone like Hill because teams won't completely adjust to Hills absence - there's just not enough tape out there to know what that looks like and respond in kind.

But if you TRADE him, teams are gonna get a really long look at what your offense is without Hill and I'm pretty confident this version of it simply does not work without him over any prolonged period.

Now that's not to say this team can't have SOME form of offense that is very dynamic and effective. But as I noted, traded Hill requires a commitment to that re-set.

And for me, while we still have Kelce and Hill out there doing HoF caliber shit, I'm disinclined to do it. And I can't see a scenario where we get adequate value to convince me of it (including the scenarios outlined).

The offense would change without Hill, but I don't think it would be anything close to a ground up rebuild. I agree with you, defenses would stop being totally petrified of Hill over the top and not be in prevent-deep-shots-at-all-costs mode, but that probably means the Chiefs would have MORE successful deep passes per year without Hill than with him, bizarrely.

The narrative that Hill is irreplaceable in terms of his specific skill set is true, but that his production in the Chiefs offense is irreplaceable is pretty much saying you think the Chiefs are a gimmick offense like the Ravens with Lamar, they need some specific chess piece to be successful.

I think we all agree Mahomes is an amazing quarterback, and the Andy is an offensive genius. Amazing QB + Good coach + getting time to throw + receivers who can separate = a very productive offense. It doesn't matter on the specific skillset of the receivers, you just need 2-3 that can get open.

On the tag thing, that's true as long as he is willing to play on the tag for 2 years - I'm not sure he would?

Hill has a LOT of value, and he is probably worth more than the Atlanta offer, but I think the Atlanta offer is about the base level at which the team gets better for having traded him.

KCCrow, please feel free to turn down this request, but how about a mock that includes a Hill trade to Atlanta? It would be great to actually see what could be done to the roster with the extra resources. I understand if you don't wanna put the time and energy into it, people will probably hate it.