Originally Posted by htismaqe (Post 16566074)

Now you're a pariah. ROFL

As for throwing shit at the wall, you have to have shit to throw in the first place. Can't do that if you trade away all your assets for a 2nd tier player.

Originally Posted by O.city (Post 16566064)

Not wrong for some people.

For me, I've been a Brian Burns fan since that draft, I think he'd be in that class here. But I'm on this island alone, after being marooned via mutiny. But I also look at it from the standpoint that as a pair, I think Burns and Karlaftis would be pretty much the perfect match of styles.

Then you just keep throwing shit at the wall there and see what happens.

Originally Posted by O.city (Post 16566075)

It's a first rounder and a 2nd. I just don't believe the 2 1's talk.

It's not liek they have no other picks.

Originally Posted by DJ's left nut (Post 16566078)

Your crew recognized a stronger leader and understood that you'd have had their asses eating poisonous berries and drinking seawater by the end of the week...

Originally Posted by O.city (Post 16566075)

It's a first rounder and a 2nd. I just don't believe the 2 1's talk.

It's not liek they have no other picks.

Originally Posted by O.city (Post 16566086)

<iframe src="https://giphy.com/embed/gDllSSJi9Knew" width="480" height="269" frameBorder="0" class="giphy-embed" allowFullScreen></iframe><p><a href="https://giphy.com/gifs/johnny-depp-ship-jack-sparrow-gDllSSJi9Knew">via GIPHY</a></p>

Originally Posted by DJ's left nut (Post 16566087)

A 1st and a 2nd now?

So you really are essentially willing to trade Hill for Burns and call that a good move?

I just cannot get there at all.

Burns, in a better situation, is Marcus Davenport, IMO. That's a really nice player and a good guy to have.

It's NOT a guy you gut your draft and then give a giant contract to.

Originally Posted by O.city (Post 16566097)

I think a 1 would get it done, but just using the 2 as an example.

Verderame talked about it in an article today, about the Toney trade. The Chiefs had 12 picks but didn't believe they'd have that many open roster spots so they were ok moving for him.

Woudln't the same qualify here?

Originally Posted by O.city (Post 16566097)

I think a 1 would get it done, but just using the 2 as an example.

Verderame talked about it in an article today, about the Toney trade. The Chiefs had 12 picks but didn't believe they'd have that many open roster spots so they were ok moving for him.

Woudln't the same qualify here?

Originally Posted by DJ's left nut (Post 16566113)

They wouldn't have given up a 3rd without 2+ years of cheap play still to come.

The Toney deal, if anything, demonstrates how the Chiefs aren't just looking at this year in how they use their capital (surplus or otherwise).

Originally Posted by O.city (Post 16566118)

Couldn't you trade for a pass rusher (dealers choice) and not immediately pay him though?

I mean, take Burns for example. You'd have the 5th year option and a tag year.

So 2.5 years of not cheap play by any means, but you aren't tied in to anything.

Originally Posted by O.city (Post 16566118)

Couldn't you trade for a pass rusher (dealers choice) and not immediately pay him though?

I mean, take Burns for example. You'd have the 5th year option and a tag year.

So 2.5 years of not cheap play by any means, but you aren't tied in to anything.

Originally Posted by DJ's left nut (Post 16566129)

Those 2 years will cost, what, $36 million in cap space? Vs like $3 million for Toney.

The 5th year option and the tag for Burns are essentially cap neutral vs. what a LTC would be for the first two years. You ARE immediately paying him.

There's just very little surplus value there.

Originally Posted by htismaqe (Post 16566132)

When a player gets traded, especially for multiple high picks, they suddenly want to get paid. I wonder why that is?

Originally Posted by O.city (Post 16566135)

Sure, but you could theoretically tag and trade said player after that if you wanted and recoup some value.