Quote:
Originally Posted by saphojunkie
And they DO take risks. Big ones. Like trading up to select Patrick Mahomes II. And they DO go all-in. Like trading Dee Ford and letting Houston walk and paying a ransom for Frank Clark. Part of that risk is that you won't be able to pay Chris Jones. But, of course, that is not considered "taking a risk." Once again, this topic is being treated myopically, as if signing Jones to a long term contract happens in a vacuum with no relation to events in the past or future. We are STILL paying for the Berry contract, for the Mahomes trade, and for the Clark trade. The Ford trade should have been more profitable, but we met San Fran in the championship, and now that high 2nd round pick is the 31st. So, no... you can't simply put all of the risk of signing Jones on whether or not he produces at the same level or stays healthy (which, by the way, are absolutely enough to walk away from the deal on their own). You have to consider it in conjunction with all of the other factors, like having 20+ roster spots to fill with 5 draft picks and $22M in cap room.
|
On the bolded part I think we agree. My last post was about clarifying what I meant about taking a "big risk" since you erroneously decided that I meant being completely reckless, which I was most definitely not.
As for the rest of it, if you read my posts in this thread, you'll find that I never advocated paying Chris Jones to be the highest paid defender in the league. In fact, I have only said that performance-wise, he's a top three defender, and a top 2 DL. Were I Veach, I'd offer Chris the opportunity to be paid like a top-3 DL and hope that would be enough (incentives or whatever assumed).
But not considering offering Chris a new contract appropriate to his performance and potential while he's still just entering his prime years just because he
MIGHT get injured, or just because the Chiefs didn't realize the results they hoped for from Houston and Berry is silly and overly reactionary.
Chris has no real history of serious injury. And he is the best DL not named Aaron Donald. And third place is way back in the rear-view mirror at that position. Chris is entering his prime years and should be one of the best players at his position for at least 5-6 years if not longer, barring serious injury. History tells us that replacing Chris Jones' performance would be difficult if not impossible.
And the goal here for the Chiefs is to win more SBs, period. Veach isn't doing this in a vacuum. He must have a mandate from both Clark Hunt and Andy Reid to try and sign Chris, right? Probably from Spags if he has any input, as well. Between Andy, Spags and Veach they know far better than any of us just how important Chris is to the the team, right? If they're trying that hard to keep Chris, it's because they have good reasons and they also think they can make that happen, without hurting the team elsewhere.
And those guys would also know far better than any of us what the odds are of Chris experiencing a season-ending or career-ending injury. And they still seem committed to the idea of re-signing him.
Given all of that, and knowing just how much better the team defense is with Jones on the roster, I have no problem with the team offering whatever they want to Chris.
And even if Chris does get seriously injured after signing a big contract, so ****ing what? Will it suck? Yeah sure, but these are the choices you have to make. Or rather these are the choices Veach/Clark/Andy have to make. They've collectively proven to be big gamblers, but they also have proven to be very damned good at it. Let 'em roll the dice if they want. I think they've earned the right. And if the Chiefs win just one more SB in doing so, all of those contracts will have been worth it.