Chris Jones - Making Him the Highest Paid Defender in the League

[dlphg9]

Why couldn't we do it? Khalil Mack, the highest paid defensive player in the league right now had cap hits of $13.8 mil in yr 1 of his new deal and $11.9 mil in yr 2. Macks avg yearly salary is $23.5 mil per year.

Veach doesn't seem to like giving guys contracts past the age of 30, so I could see him doing a 5 yr $120 mil deal. That keeps Jones in KC until age 30 and we get all his prime years and don't run the risk of having to pay him a ton of money after he's 30. Him being a 2nd rounder is going to help him in negotiating.

If we structure the contract so that his cap hit is $13 mil in year 1 and $15 mil in year 2, we have him cheap when we are tight with the cap this year and then next year there should be a decent jump in the cap and we're not out $8 mil because of Eric Berrys dead money. The cap should raise significantly for the remaining 3 years of his contract and it wont burden us with trying to get other good players.

There are several factors that should allow him to become the highest paid defender in the league.

1. He is an absolute beast. I am higher on his run D than most, but no one can argue that he is not, at worst, the 2nd best pass rushing interior lineman in the league. Personally, I put him right next to Aaron Donald when it comes to pass rushing. Now someone smarter than me correct me please, but has there ever been a better pass rusher at that position than those 2? His impact in the Super Bowl will be a big bargaining chip for him during negotiations as well

2. He is only 25 years old. Veach is smart. He doesn't like giving out big money to old guys and he's not going to extend guys into the twilight of their careers and pay them tons of money. Luckily for Chris Jones he is only 25 and a 5 year deal puts him at 30 years old. Veach wants to keep guys that still have their best years ahead of him and the prime age for a DT is 28 according to PFF, so that means in theory we haven't even seen the best Chris Jones and Brett Veach isn't going to just let that walk away.

3. The new CBA. When the top paid defenders signed their deals there were only 16 regular season game and now neverything is pointing to a 17 game regular season, so contracts are going to reflect that. Prior to the news about the newest CBA coming a year early my best guess was that CJ was going to get $21.5 mil a year from the Chiefs, since Frank Clark is basically getting $21 mil a year. $21.5 mil a year breaks down to $1.34 mil per regular season game, so that extra game should pay an additional $1.34 mil a year and that alone puts CJs yearly avg to just under $23 million a year. That hasn't even taken into account the increase in the percentage of profit the players are getting.

Chris Jones is one of my favorite players on the team and is probably my favorite player on the defense. I hope we keep him even if we have to pay him more money per year than any other defender in the history of the league. My love for Chris Jones may cloud my judgement and make me irrational and I may be completely wrong in my train of thought, but I dont think signing Jones long term is detrimental to the future success of this team whatsoever. I actually believe it would be insanely stupid and detrimental to let a generational talent like Chris Jones walk because we got some draft picks for him. Chris Jones's skills are only matched by one other player at his position and those 2 may be the best pass rushers we have ever seen at d tackle and I don't think anyone else is even close. You can't replace his production and trading him is an awful idea.

[saphojunkie]

Originally Posted by staylor26

Who are the multiple starters we will be losing?

Mathieu, Clark, Nnadi, Ward, Thornhill, Hitchens, Wilson, and Kpass will all be back. Counting Jones that’s 9 of 11. You’re losing Breeland and Ragland in terms of starters.

First of all, two is multiple. Second of all, you also lose Fuller. And Ogbah. And Suggs. And I believe I also mentioned depth and players that need upgrading.

[saphojunkie]

Originally Posted by Megatron96

Hahaha, what the hell? Let's pretend I'm not using your suggested parameters of what a "big risk" entails, how about that?

My implied version of a "big risk" is shall we say less reckless than trying to light a smoke off the exhaust plume of my aircraft.

Let's try this instead: when I was a kid for a few years I raced downhill (skiiing) in NASTAR (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NASTAR).

In that discipline there were basically three different 'lines' one could take on any given course. There was a fast line, a safe line, and a compromise line, which was basically between the two. The fast line was the riskiest, steepest line, but would get you across the finish line in the shortest time IF you could stay on your skis all the way down. The problem was that the odds of staying on your skis and on your edges through the entire run on the fast line was always a low percentage route. Kind of skiing's version of a 60-yard Hail Mary pass.

In perfectly ideal conditions you might consider that line. But if the weather was bad, or the surface wasn't ideal, or whatever, you tended to ski closer to the safe line. That might be right on the compromise line, or it might be a little to the fast or slow side depending on the exact situation.

Now what I learned in the short time I competed was that if you wanted any real chance to win, you ignored the safe line almost completely. It was like it didn't exist. Instead the medium or compromise line was your 'safe' line. You skied as close to that fast line as you could and never skied slower than the compromise line. Otherwise you just had no chance to win.

So when I say taking a "big risk" what I'm really saying is aim for as close to that fast line as we can get without losing your edge.

Make sense?

Another example would be pool. I still play pool, though I'm not at the top of my game anymore. But I've played more than a half a million games since I started playing competitively, played in more than a thousand tournaments, and I still play a few local sanctioned tournaments, I just don't play to go to Vegas or Atlantic city or wherever, anymore. So of the things I could say I'm proficient or expert in performance-wise, 8- and 9-ball pool would be among them.

And what I know for a fact is that you can't win in the big tournaments unless you're willing, and more importantly, comfortable taking risks. Some of those risks are just calculated risks of course, but if you want to win a regional qualifier (such as the Desert Classic here in AZ) or if you want to beat the best players in the country you have to be ready to "go all in" every once in a while. Yes, you have to pick your spots; you can't just go all in on every shot or even every game, but there's always that moment in a game or in a match or whatever, when you can try to play conservative and hope to come out on top later, or you can just push all your chips in, so to say, and go for the win. But if you always pick the conservative play, I guarantee you'll never win the big money. That player always ends up some kind of runner-up.

P.S. Some dipstick will think I meant that I won the Desert Classic because of what I posted above. No, I never won the Desert Classic qualifier, but I have placed high enough to qualify for Vegas, which is all I meant.

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.

[Megatron96]

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.

[Chief Roundup]

Originally Posted by staylor26

Who are the multiple starters we will be losing?

Mathieu, Clark, Nnadi, Ward, Thornhill, Hitchens, Wilson, and Kpass will all be back. Counting Jones that’s 9 of 11. You’re losing Breeland and Ragland in terms of starters.

Why do we, you, me and many others, seem to like to argue with a brick wall? I feel like that is what you are doing now.

[staylor26]

Originally Posted by saphojunkie

First of all, two is multiple. Second of all, you also lose Fuller. And Ogbah. And Suggs. And I believe I also mentioned depth and players that need upgrading.

Eh multiple is usually used to mean more than 2, hence why you didn’t just say a couple because it sounds larger.

So wee have to replace a couple of starters, one of whom is a JAG 2 down player in Reggie Ragland, so let’s not pretend like it’s impossible to do. We replaced half of our defense last offseason, I think we’ll live having to replace a couple starters and some of our depth guys. 2 of our first 3 picks will likely be used on a CB and a LB.

What I find funny is, even if you trade Chris Jones, you’re still likely replacing most of those guys AND him. Whoever you sign in free agency is ALSO a risk. This is silly.

[staylor26]

Originally Posted by Chief Roundup

Why do we, you, me and many others, seem to like to argue with a brick wall? I feel like that is what you are doing now.

Simple answer? I guess I like to argue too much lol.

[Chief Roundup]

Originally Posted by staylor26

Simple answer? I guess I like to argue too much lol.

My thought is that surely they will get it here in a minute with a few more obvious reasons pointed out to them. It hardly ever works that way though.

[OrtonsPiercedTaint]

Pay Pat, pay Chris. Damien, the forgotten SB MVP possibility

[ShowtimeSBMVP]

“ hope that they know that I love em but, all good things must come to an end”....@iamkevingates

— Chris Jones (@StoneColdJones) March 13, 2020

[pugsnotdrugs19]

Seems like a goner after that and Andy’s comments this morning.

Someone must be offering a great trade.

[staylor26]

Originally Posted by pugsnotdrugs19

Seems like a goner after that and Andy’s comments this morning.

Someone must be offering a great trade.

What were Andy’s comments this morning?

[dirk digler]

Originally Posted by ShowtimeSBMVP

“ hope that they know that I love em but, all good things must come to an end”....@iamkevingates

— Chris Jones (@StoneColdJones) March 13, 2020

Well that isn't good

[saphojunkie]

Originally Posted by staylor26

Eh multiple is usually used to mean more than 2, hence why you didn’t just say a couple because it sounds larger.

So wee have to replace a couple of starters, one of whom is a JAG 2 down player in Reggie Ragland, so let’s not pretend like it’s impossible to do. We replaced half of our defense last offseason, I think we’ll live having to replace a couple starters and some of our depth guys. 2 of our first 3 picks will likely be used on a CB and a LB.

What I find funny is, even if you trade Chris Jones, you’re still likely replacing most of those guys AND him. Whoever you sign in free agency is ALSO a risk. This is silly.

Fuller is essentially a starter. And replacing a JAG in Ragland (Reggie Jagland?) means that we need to UPGRADE that position. And the problem with THAT is even replacing a jag costs money and/or resources. We should be trying to make the defense better, not stay the same.

this is why I imagine chris jones will be gone, and why am I okay with it.

[pugsnotdrugs19]

Originally Posted by staylor26

What were Andy’s comments this morning?

https://t.co/vtNijBylyI?amp=1

He basically sounds like a guy who already knows a deal has been agreed upon.

[Wallcrawler]

Originally Posted by ShowtimeSBMVP

“ hope that they know that I love em but, all good things must come to an end”....@iamkevingates

— Chris Jones (@StoneColdJones) March 13, 2020

Dude earned the right to go get max money. Thanks for the memories, and good luck except on sundays against us.