Quote:
Originally Posted by TwistedChief
I fully understood the logic behind the Hill deal when all was said and done.
And I fully understand why Veach is inquiring about top WRs. Leave no stone unturned.
But I do not fully understand the logic in giving up a lot of picks and paying a lot of money for a WR not named Tyreek Hill.
Adams and Hill both had leverage and were willing to sit out. On some level, that reduced their value. Why would Washington trade McLaurin for instance after they went out and got Wentz? The team has all the leverage on their end and it wouldn't be some bargain price even if they were open to dealing.
I know we all like to dream though...
|
Well, devils advocate as I don't think he gets traded, but it would be a player in the last year of his deal that said team weren't planning on paying.
I don't think it would be Mclaurin but there's a few others out there who would make sense.
People seem to forget, the Chiefs were ok paying 20plus million per year to a WR. It didn't work out. Now we don't think they'd be ok doing it again?