The Orlando Brown trade in retrospect.

[Direckshun]

Here's the full extent of what it wrought for both teams:

Ready for a deep dive?

In this trade, The Chiefs acquired:

• LT Orlando Brown Jr.
• LB Nick Bolton with the 2nd rounder
• a 2022 6th that we traded in 2021 for CB Mike Hughes and a 2022 7th rounder
• the 2022 7th was used to move up 13 spots in the 2022 5th round for OL Darian Kinnard

The Ravens acquired:

• DE Odafe Oweh (32 games played, 8 total sacks)
• OG Ben Cleveland (21 games as a backup, is projected starter in 2023)
• a 2021 4th round pick, which the Arizona Cardinals traded up for, costing them an additional 6th and netting them a 2021 5th rounder and a 2022 4th rounder
• that 2022 fourth rounder became TE Charlie Kolar (2 games, 4 receptions)
• a 2021 fifth rounder became CB Shaun Wade, who was traded before the season started to the New England Patriots for a 2022 7th and a 2023 5th
• the 2022 7th was packaged with C Greg Mancz to the Dolphins in order to trade up into the 6th, where they selected RB Tyler Badie (waived before the season started)
• the 2023 5th was packaged with a 2023 2nd round pick for LB Roquan Smith

Cleaned up, that comes to:

• LT Orlando Brown Jr.
• LB Nick Bolton
• CB Mike Hughes
• OL Darian Kinnard

vs.

• DE Odafe Oweh
• OG Ben Cleveland
• TE Charlie Kolar
• LB Roquan Smith

It's really, really close, and really just goes to show you how well run both of these teams are.

I think it's a tie, unless you refuse to count Roquan Smith, since the 5th Baltimore acquired to sell for him was a minor piece in acquiring him. Which I suppose you can do (you'd have to discount Kinnard too, which, fine), and that would shift this conversation decisively in favor of the Chiefs.

Poll forthcoming.

[DJ's left nut]

I still don't think that's a terribly accurate representation of what it yielded, but I digress.

I think the reason you can say the Chiefs won the trade decisively is - scoreboard.

Ronnie Stanley has played 12 games the last 2 years. Those were two years with Lamar Jackson in his prime and on as reasonable a contract as he'll ever have again. 2 years coming off Jackson's MVP season where they expected to contend.

And in both of those years they could've DESPERATELY used Orlando Brown. He'd have been an enormous benefit for them; someone that could've stepped in for Stanley and kept things humming in an offense designed in a way that really covers for his weaknesses. They'd have been a MUCH better team with OBJ than they were without him over those 2 seasons.

Meanwhile we played in an AFCCG and won a SB in our two seasons. Seasons where we were playing Andrew Wylie at RT and Brown, for all his faults, was available. he played 39 of a possible 40 games and in that time was...credible, even in an offense that empashizes his flaws.

Oh, and we got Nick Bolton, who's awesome.

I think we won this deal in a walk, especially if you're looking at it in a zero sum capacity. The deal made our team better and it made Baltimore MUCH worse due to the Stanley injuries over the last couple seasons.

[Direckshun]

Originally Posted by DJ's left nut

I still don't think that's a terribly accurate representation of what it yielded, but I digress.

I think the reason you can say the Chiefs won the trade decisively is - scoreboard.

Ronnie Stanley has played 12 games the last 2 years. Those were two years with Lamar Jackson in his prime and on as reasonable a contract as he'll ever have again. 2 years coming off Jackson's MVP season where they expected to contend.

And in both of those years they could've DESPERATELY used Orlando Brown. He'd have been an enormous benefit for them; someone that could've stepped in for Stanley and kept things humming in an offense designed in a way that really covers for his weaknesses. They'd have been a MUCH better team with OBJ than they were without him over those 2 seasons.

Meanwhile we played in an AFCCG and won a SB in our two seasons. Seasons where we were playing Andrew Wylie at RT and Brown, for all his faults, was available. he played 39 of a possible 40 games and in that time was...credible, even in an offense that empashizes his flaws.

Oh, and we got Nick Bolton, who's awesome.

I think we won this deal in a walk, especially if you're looking at it in a zero sum capacity. The deal made our team better and it made Baltimore MUCH worse due to the Stanley injuries over the last couple seasons.

I don't calculate it that way, mine is more cut and dried, talent acquired vs. talent acquired.

I think you could say the Chiefs win this trade if you just had Brown vs. the listed Ravens players (minus Roquan Smith, who I don't think deserves to be included in the OP, but was for completism's sake).

I have been different than the consensus: I think OBJ was a good tackle for us (which is why losing him to our biggest rival for cheaper is a bigger blow than ChiefsPlanet gives it credit for). A Pro Bowl left tackle for two years, especially once Mahomes figured out how to navigate the pocket with his blocking style. Once that happened, Mahomes became an MVP and Super Bowl MVP.

Balance that against a good DE, a just-now-starting guard, and a reserve tight end... and I think that's a win for the Chiefs.

Add a Pro Bowl caliber linebacker who was our best defender in the Super Bowl? And it's a slam dunk that the Chiefs came out ahead. Add in Mike Hughes, who played at a decent clip for a season.

I think the only thing that balances is out is (a.) your willingness to include Roquan Smith in the calculations, and (b.) how much you weigh the length of impact. The OBJ trade's impact is mostly very short: two seasons. Bolton will be outstanding for a decade, however.

Meanwhile Oweh, Cleveland, and Smith will all be major contributors in Baltimore for as long as Baltimore pays them. They should all have lengthy careers.

[DJ's left nut]

You're not calculating the outcomes.

So...y'know...the 2nd time you've looked at this incorrectly in 2 posts.

When the trade is made with a win-now component to it, you HAVE to consider the fact that they...won now. And when it's a trade made with a team that is presumptively a rival and obstacle to that winning, the fact that it weakens them as well HAS to be considered.

The rest is masturbating.

[Direckshun]

Originally Posted by DJ's left nut

You're not calculating the outcomes.

So...y'know...the 2nd time you've looked at this incorrectly in 2 posts.

When the trade is made with a win-now component to it, you HAVE to consider the fact that they...won now. And when it's a trade made with a team that is presumptively a rival and obstacle to that winning, the fact that it weakens them as well HAS to be considered.

That is correct, I'm not calculating the outcomes -- not as much as others, anyway. I think both teams had different goals, anyway.

The Chiefs were trying to plug a major hole on the roster, and they slam-dunk did that while adding a Top 5 linebacker.

The Ravens had a disgruntled tackle who wasn't going to play for them, and they wanted to recoup value. They have netted, directly and indirectly from the trade, three long-term starters for the team.

That's good value for both teams, but in my opinion the best value was for Kansas City.

[Pasta Little Brioni]

How the **** is that anywhere close to resembling an even trade...you suck at this

[Pasta Little Brioni]

Originally Posted by DJ's left nut

You're not calculating the outcomes.

So...y'know...the 2nd time you've looked at this incorrectly in 2 posts.

When the trade is made with a win-now component to it, you HAVE to consider the fact that they...won now. And when it's a trade made with a team that is presumptively a rival and obstacle to that winning, the fact that it weakens them as well HAS to be considered.

The rest is masturbating.

Exactly. We won the ship...they won what Exactly? '90 chief esque playoff failures?

This loon grades it an even deal

[DJ's left nut]

Originally Posted by Direckshun

That is correct, I'm not calculating the outcomes -- not as much as others, anyway. I think both teams had different goals, anyway.

The Chiefs were trying to plug a major hole on the roster, and they slam-dunk did that while adding a Top 5 linebacker.

The Ravens had a disgruntled tackle who wasn't going to play for them, and they wanted to recoup value. They have netted, directly and indirectly from the trade, three long-term starters for the team.

That's good value for both teams, but in my opinion the best value was for Kansas City.

I don't agree that Brown wouldn't have played for them - he didn't have that kind of financial leverage as a 3rd round pick playing on his rookie deal. And even had he TRIED to hold out, the moment Stanley came up lame in week 1, Brown would've been right back at LT and happy to be there.

And they were in the middle of the best championship window they'll have with this particular QB.

They were trying to head off a potential contract showdown and move Brown when his value was at its highest. They elected to move on from him - they didn't have to. In doing so, they covered the biggest flaw of the team they had to get past to do anything in the post-season.

They got whomped in this deal, IMO. The only way to argue otherwise is to simply ignore the results.

[Hammock Parties]

direckshun isn't accounting for our elite power running game that orlando clearly anchored for two seasons

[Nightfyre]

The chiefs won the trade by a super bowl and an afccg appearance. But really, they gave up substantial draft capital for a guy that played at a serviceable level at a critical position of need and resulted in tremendous team success that otherwise would not have been achieved. What the teams did with that capital is fairly irrelevant because it was an unknown at the time of the transaction.

[DJ's left nut]

Originally Posted by Nightfyre

The chiefs won the trade by a super bowl and an afccg appearance. But really, they gave up substantial draft capital for a guy that played at a serviceable level at a critical position of need and resulted in tremendous team success that otherwise would not have been achieved. What the teams did with that capital is fairly irrelevant because it was an unknown at the time of the transaction.

A) I don't think it was all that substantial; the equivalent of a mid/late 2nd rounder. It's not nothing, but it's not typically going to be earth shattering either.

B) I think what the team did with that capital is relevant for determining ITS grade, though not so much for determining the opportunity cost of the team that surrendered the picks.

Because the team that acquired those picks is now making picks in a world where they gave the player up. For instance, look at the 49ers in the Buckner deal. You could say "well the fact that they took Kinlaw shouldn't be matter because it's independent of the deal..." But they took Kinlaw because they traded Buckner. One made the other necessary.

And in the Ravens situation, you can hand-waive the returns but in the end, they traded away an OT and desperately needed one. And they didn't use the capital they acquired to do so.

[gordonelloyd]

Another way of looking at this is [and I’m going to ignore fourth round and above draft choices] Kansas City got Brown by dropping from choice, 1.31 to choice 2.58. [ where they drafted Bolton.] and also give up choice 3.94. If you go back and look at the draft at 1.31 I don’t think they could’ve drafted anyone any better than Bolton who they ended up getting at 2.58.
So you can say they got the player they wanted at one.31 [ or should have wanted] namely Bolton, and they got brown for choice 3.94. That’s incredibly good value.