The fate of Chris Jones 2023 edition

[TribalElder]

Appears the Chiefs and Chris Jones are at the beginning of a contract dispute



Speculation has been that the two sides are "far apart" on a deal

So Chiefs Planet.... how do we think this will play out (poll coming)

Will the Chiefs pay up and meet Chris Jones demands? If so, how much will it end up costing?

Will the Chiefs not be able to meet Chris Jones demands and end up trading him? If so, what kind of haul can we expect?

I've really loved watching Chris Jones wreck shit for the Chiefs, it always sucks when the business side of the NFL forces teams into tough decisions.

[Direckshun]

Originally Posted by Simply Red

Are you at TC spectating & if so; Is X-Factor present and also are you going to eat lunch there? if yes; can you give us a brief paragraph or two reviewing your lunch, provided they have a snack bar or some eating arrangement for the guests...?

I was at training camp a couple of days, but have since headed home.

Practices have been underwhelming; this is the first time I've attended prior to pads, and I won't be doing it again.

I haven't seen X Factor, lucky for him...

I ate at Chipotle, and the barbacoa in their burrito is SO TENDER. OMG.

[RunKC]

Originally Posted by O.city

Nah. You take Jones off the current defense, they can't get the stops in the AFC the way it is right now to make it thru the gauntlet.

No matter what happens the Chris Jones of last year isn't gonna be around much longer.

Historically these DL start decline at around 31. JJ Watt, Von Miller, Calais Campbell, Julius Peppers. Even Aaron Donald showed signs last year.

They're still really good, but if you're paying $30 million per you expect elite, not really good.

That's what you have to consider when paying a 3rd contract.

[tredadda]

Originally Posted by TwistedChief

It's simple to say "just pay him," but there has to be a limit on that. He's looking to get more 5-6mm AAV more than the next highest paid guy.

The only reason this is even a potential level he could reach is because the Rams were stupid and insanely desperate with Aaron Donald in structuring his contract. CJ is pointing to that outlier and using it as some sort of baseline, and Veach would be an idiot to blindly validate that just because "we could" in theory make it work. That's not the way to sustainably run a team.

Very much like the QB market post Watson contract. Just because Cleveland did a terrible contract does not mean other teams will follow suit, and they didn't.

The Donald contract is a little more understandable considering he is a 3 time DPOY, one of the best to ever play the position, a first ballot HOF player on a "win now" team. They paid him now and worried about the repercussions later. The Rams strategy is not one teams should mimic.

[duncan_idaho]

Originally Posted by O.city

Nah. You take Jones off the current defense, they can't get the stops in the AFC the way it is right now to make it thru the gauntlet.

We're splitting hairs on what we consider a contender.

Without Jones, the defense likely looks more like the 2018 Chiefs and has a hard time getting stops. Sure.

But the offense is still going to be a dynamic blowtorch, and if healthy in the playoffs could be good enough to just overcome the D.

COULD.

But I don't see a way this ends other than one of the following:

1) New deal for Jones, he plays in 23
2) No new deal for Jones, he plays in 23 on the current deal with the understanding they'll revisit, and tag and trade him as needed in the offseason.

[saphojunkie]

Originally Posted by TribalElder

I would prefer he be a Chief for life but math and the salary cap make these decisions tricky. I remember hearing the Chiefs and Tyreek were "far apart"

That was March with a lot of free agency and the draft in front of them.

[saphojunkie]

Originally Posted by Direckshun

I do agree the Chiefs probably cave.

They're literally running Daniel Wise out there, and they have no cap space to sign a replacement.

Jones has almost all the leverage. The only move the Chiefs have is to hold out, play Turk or Daniel Wise at DT, and pray it doesn't collapse the season.

Veach/Mahomes/Reid are not in for that. They'll get the deal done, but it's going to cost them.

If they trade him they gain $21M in cap space.

I thought they should have traded him in the spring, but now I think you're about pot committed unless another veteran springs loose during camp. I have NO idea who would trade for him now, though. Who has the space, the resources, and the belief that he will make a difference?

[TwistedChief]

Originally Posted by O.city

If he wants 30, Quennin Williams has nothing to do with it. His number didn't matter. There's no reason for him to budge off the number, similar to Tyreek last year. Once they knew the number, they pivoted.

It's the whole "deadlines spur action" thing in motion again and once again, here with are with our cock in our hand.

Of course the Quennin Williams contract has something to do with it. It's not that he wants 30, but if Williams gets 28 or Williams gets 24, it absolutely should have some bearing on the market-clearing price because it defines how much an outlier the Donald contract is.

Every team in every sport tends to negotiate to deadlines as they do indeed tend to spur action. Chris Jones is under contract for this season. It's not as if we're at risk of losing his production for this year because we weren't able to get a deal done.

Veach is instead supposed to be 100% certain that CJ won't come down off 30mm and proactively trade him back in March? That's the strategy you're sure would've been a better one?

[saphojunkie]

Originally Posted by TwistedChief

Of course the Quennin Williams contract has something to do with it. It's not that he wants 30, but if Williams gets 28 or Williams gets 24, it absolutely should have some bearing on the market-clearing price because it defines how much an outlier the Donald contract is.

Every team in every sport tends to negotiate to deadlines as they do indeed tend to spur action. Chris Jones is under contract for this season. It's not as if we're at risk of losing his production for this year because we weren't able to get a deal done.

Veach is instead supposed to be 100% certain that CJ won't come down off 30mm and proactively trade him back in March? That's the strategy you're sure would've been a better one?

when people tell you who they are, believe them the first time.

If I were GM, a lot of you would hate me. Because there are only two players that are untouchable to me, and they both play offense.

Otherwise, I would continue to flood the cupboard with draft picks. I really really really don't like the idea of putting 15% of your salary cap into a player that doesn't touch the ball every play and has to rotate out consistently. Chris Jones had FOUR games over the course of 21 games where he played more than 75% of the snaps. That kind of math needs to be accounted for.

It isn't just "he's the best in the league, pay him." because far more often than not, the best in the league spends 30-40% of the snaps on the sideline. So, you can have "the best in the league" for 52% of the snaps, and then... who is playing the other 48%? I'd rather have two B+ to A- players rotating in, with no drop off in play on any snap, as opposed to one A+ player who is off the field and letting a C- scrub take over for damn near half the time.

But with two B+ players, are you losing 100% of the game breaking plays Chris Jones can give you? It's possible.

Also, that isn't just a DT rotating in. It can be nickel or dime, but you're going to have to pay Gay and Sneed and Bolton and a bunch of others, eventually.

The math is really really fluid, and there isn't a right answer.

[TribalElder]

Nick Bosa and Chris Jones both holding out

https://www.sportingnews.com/us/nfl/...1a1hyespwkuhuv

[saphojunkie]

Last season Chris Jones snap count percentage lowlights:

Week 5: 0%
Week 6: 0%
Week 7: 57%
Week 15: 0%
Week 16: 52%
Week 19: 51%


You're investing a SHIT TON of your available money for a guy who will at his absolute healthiest never average 80% of the snaps on defense.

And he's never going to be at his absolute healthiest again.

He had eight games in the 70s.
Five games in the 60s.

"Weak and sick and brokedick Frank Clark" played more snaps.

[FloridaMan88]

Originally Posted by TribalElder

Nick Bosa and Chris Jones both holding out

https://www.sportingnews.com/us/nfl/...1a1hyespwkuhuv

Holding out is so last decade... it's all about "holding in" now with the new CBA/mandatory daily fines.

[O.city]

Originally Posted by TwistedChief

Of course the Quennin Williams contract has something to do with it. It's not that he wants 30, but if Williams gets 28 or Williams gets 24, it absolutely should have some bearing on the market-clearing price because it defines how much an outlier the Donald contract is.

Every team in every sport tends to negotiate to deadlines as they do indeed tend to spur action. Chris Jones is under contract for this season. It's not as if we're at risk of losing his production for this year because we weren't able to get a deal done.

Veach is instead supposed to be 100% certain that CJ won't come down off 30mm and proactively trade him back in March? That's the strategy you're sure would've been a better one?

They were sure Tyreek wouldn't come down and they traded him. So yeah, if that's what he wants and you aren't gonna pay it, move on.

[O.city]

Originally Posted by saphojunkie

Last season Chris Jones snap count percentage lowlights:

Week 5: 0%
Week 6: 0%
Week 7: 57%
Week 15: 0%
Week 16: 52%
Week 19: 51%


You're investing a SHIT TON of your available money for a guy who will at his absolute healthiest never average 80% of the snaps on defense.

And he's never going to be at his absolute healthiest again.

He had eight games in the 70s.
Five games in the 60s.

"Weak and sick and brokedick Frank Clark" played more snaps.

And yet Jones made that much of an impact still.

You're paying those guys like Jones on the plays you need them to make in big spots. It may not be the most financially stable, but you need force multipliers.

[O.city]

The Chiefs don't need those guys in the regular season.

But we're at the point where we need a guy in the fourth quarter of the AFC champ game to go get a sack on 3rd and 7.

[tredadda]

Originally Posted by saphojunkie

when people tell you who they are, believe them the first time.

If I were GM, a lot of you would hate me. Because there are only two players that are untouchable to me, and they both play offense.

Otherwise, I would continue to flood the cupboard with draft picks. I really really really don't like the idea of putting 15% of your salary cap into a player that doesn't touch the ball every play and has to rotate out consistently. Chris Jones had FOUR games over the course of 21 games where he played more than 75% of the snaps. That kind of math needs to be accounted for.

It isn't just "he's the best in the league, pay him." because far more often than not, the best in the league spends 30-40% of the snaps on the sideline. So, you can have "the best in the league" for 52% of the snaps, and then... who is playing the other 48%? I'd rather have two B+ to A- players rotating in, with no drop off in play on any snap, as opposed to one A+ player who is off the field and letting a C- scrub take over for damn near half the time.

But with two B+ players, are you losing 100% of the game breaking plays Chris Jones can give you? It's possible.

Also, that isn't just a DT rotating in. It can be nickel or dime, but you're going to have to pay Gay and Sneed and Bolton and a bunch of others, eventually.

The math is really really fluid, and there isn't a right answer.

That's definitely a different perspective on him that I never really considered. It is something to consider for sure and I wonder if Veach is thinking along those lines as well.