Chiefs tagging Trey Smith

[Sassy Squatch]

Chiefs have informed Pro-Bowl guard Trey Smith that he will be franchise tagged, per source.

— Adam Schefter (@AdamSchefter) February 27, 2025

[Chris Meck]

Originally Posted by -King-

What about non-premium positions? Asking for a friend.

If you want top tier FA, you will be overpaying.

It's that simple.

You're focused on the wrong things.

You're trying to play checkers. This is chess.

[Chris Meck]

Originally Posted by ChiefBlueCFC

Always mortgage the future for a guard, or both. Its the most impactful position in sports

We didn't mortgage the future.

Good gods some of you guys are stupid.

[smithandrew051]

Originally Posted by Chris Meck

We didn't mortgage the future.

Good gods some of you guys are stupid.

We don’t know the full plan yet.

I can’t see overreacting to this positively or negatively.

[Shields68]

Originally Posted by -King-

So rule of thumb: premium or non premium position, just over pay them. Got it.

The goal is always to put the best team on the field possible. So if you have a few premium positions on cheap deals, you can pay some nonpremium positions. You just need to make sure you have the money to pay Rice ,Worthy, Karloftus, and/or McDuffie when due. It is not like they have a FA this year to get in a bidding war over. Nor do they want to give a FA a massive long term deal and cut into the cap room to pay one of a young stars. At present they have not given Trey a long term deal.

[ChiefBlueCFC]

Originally Posted by Chris Meck

We didn't mortgage the future.

Good gods some of you guys are stupid.

It’s tongue in cheek friend. I know we didn’t “mortgage the future”. Calma

[Hoover]

Originally Posted by DJ's left nut

What made him someone we have to retain NOW?

If he wasn't someone we had to retain last off-season?

Let's set aside for the moment the conversation regarding plowing this much capital into the least important positions on the entire offense. If he's now someone you re-set the market to retain, coming off a season where he looked, at best, the same as he's looked essentially his entire career (I think he regressed in some ways), why did you not get this deal done last season?

Am I supposed to believe that a guy sitting on a 5th rounders weekly game check isn't going to see a chance to get a $25 million check the moment he puts pen to paper and say "nah". Because if he was this important to us NOW, he should've been a guy we were willing to give that Robert Hunt contract to last offseason with a $25 million signing bonus and $60+ million guaranteed.

And it would've been a hell of a lot cheaper than it's going to be now.

This is a panic, emotion driven decision. Coming off a Super Bowl win last season and riding that high, the organization could be strictly rational and say "Creed is our guy on the IOL long-term".

But the calculus changed when they lost the SB. And their response is to keep a guy who got his ass kicked in said SB and who's retention doesn't do anything to address the primary problem on the unit that was roundly criticized all season.

Again, setting aside the 'in a vacuum' argument and speaking specifically to this organization -- they're acting irrationally in relation to their own behavior over the last 12 months.

I think Veach knows he's going to deal him.

I think team constructions is very important to Veach, and while you could justify keeping him and square with the realities of the draft and free agency THIS YEAR, long term, the team is better off getting a some draft capital (I assume people will be pissed that its not enough) and then extend Thuney for a few years to free up cap space. I don't think you can keep Thuney without extending him, pay Creed, Smith, and Taylor what they demand, and really feel like you did enough to have a different outcome.

For example, I think Veach would feel better with a line that had Jackson (FA), Thuney, Creed, Kingsley/Morris, and Taylor doing into next season, than Ginat ? at LT. They have to address the LT situation, there is no way around it.

[Chief Pagan]

Originally Posted by RunKC

Remember when RB’s didn’t have much value anymore and weren’t looked at as guys you want pay?

How’d that work with Josh Jacobs, Derrick Henry or…Saquon Barkley? Did Saquon matter?

There are people who think Nick Bolton has immense value despite not being a premium position. Same with Justin Reid.

Landon Dickerson was also very important and essentially shut down Chris Jones. You think that’s not valuable because he’s a G?

Just stack as many good players as you can and keep going after positional value.

Elite healthy RBs have always mattered.

Most intelligent fans know that.

Most elite RBs have short careers and guaranteeing them big contracts is risky even by NFL standards and JAG RBs can usually be had cheap.

Saquon was a huge payoff but he's had a huge injury history as any fantasy football fan knows. Henry is a freak of nature even by NFL standards.

You listed a few RB's that bucked the trend.

[Mecca]

Originally Posted by Hoover

I think Veach knows he's going to deal him.

I think team constructions is very important to Veach, and while you could justify keeping him and square with the realities of the draft and free agency THIS YEAR, long term, the team is better off getting a some draft capital (I assume people will be pissed that its not enough) and then extend Thuney for a few years to free up cap space. I don't think you can keep Thuney without extending him, pay Creed, Smith, and Taylor what they demand, and really feel like you did enough to have a different outcome.

For example, I think Veach would feel better with a line that had Jackson (FA), Thuney, Creed, Kingsley/Morris, and Taylor doing into next season, than Ginat ? at LT. They have to address the LT situation, there is no way around it.

So the Chiefs tied up 23 million dollars of cap space to try to get a 3rd round pick and probably lose the rest of their FA's?

Yea don't buy that.

[notorious]

Loading up the right side for when Mahomes starts throwing left handed.

[DJ's left nut]

Originally Posted by Mecca

So the Chiefs tied up 23 million dollars of cap space to try to get a 3rd round pick and probably lose the rest of their FA's?

Yea don't buy that.

Huh?

They'd make the same moves required to fit him in that they could make to still have cap space even with him.

In the rollover era, it really doesn't matter. Free up as much as you can possibly free up every time. If you don't spend it, it rolls over to the following season and pays for the money you moved into that year.

If the Chiefs can move $50 million in cap space, they should. Regardless of what happens with Smith. And that would still leave plenty of space to work the market both with your own FAs and outside FAs.

Thats more of an excuse than a real reason. They can make it work.

And I think he could net a 2nd. Maybe not - they may have to settle for a 3rd. But a second would be plenty possible.

[Semichief]

I thought I read somewhere that even if we trade Smith, the cap hit will still sting. Does anyone know what that looks like? The Patriots and Bears would love to have Smith - would be nice to get a mid-round pick for him.

[htismaqe]

Originally Posted by Semichief

I thought I read somewhere that even if we trade Smith, the cap hit will still sting. Does anyone know what that looks like? The Patriots and Bears would love to have Smith - would be nice to get a mid-round pick for him.

They tagged him. Any team signing him will have to give him a new deal. The cap hit for the Chiefs would be negligible, I believe.

[Hoover]

Originally Posted by DJ's left nut

Huh?

They'd make the same moves required to fit him in that they could make to still have cap space even with him.

In the rollover era, it really doesn't matter. Free up as much as you can possibly free up every time. If you don't spend it, it rolls over to the following season and pays for the money you moved into that year.

If the Chiefs can move $50 million in cap space, they should. Regardless of what happens with Smith. And that would still leave plenty of space to work the market both with your own FAs and outside FAs.

Thats more of an excuse than a real reason. They can make it work.

And I think he could net a 2nd. Maybe not - they may have to settle for a 3rd. But a second would be plenty possible.

Exactly.

And they could trade him before the start of free agency.

Look, if Chicago really wants him, they have picks 39 and 41. Getting one of those would be huge in how this draft board is going to set up.

[DJ's left nut]

Originally Posted by Hoover

Exactly.

And they could trade him before the start of free agency.

Look, if Chicago really wants him, they have picks 39 and 41. Getting one of those would be huge in how this draft board is going to set up.

Which might cost us our 4th or maybe a 3rd or 4th next season.

We may not be able to get 41 straight across for Smith -- but it gets us in the door. We could easily get something figured out there prior to FA.

Again -- I've never said Smith isn't a very good player. I only think we're overcommitting resources to the IOL and I think he's the wrong TYPE of really very good player.

He has value in the league. A pretty fair amount of it, IMO.

I still hope we can get a trade worked out though I do think I'm using some galaxy brain, 5d chess shit to get there. It seems really likely that this is just a prelude to a LTC.

[DJ's left nut]

I mean lets presume for the sake of argument that we can make it work for Smith and some change for 41. And then to address the 'some change' side of it, we'll even presume that Alaric Jackson gets the same kind of contract that Smith gets. I don't know what the 'change' is but I don't think Jackson will make the same as Smith so we'll try to use those to wash each other out.

I mean isn't Trey Smith for Alaric Jackson and Donovan Jackson a REALLY good trade return for us? Or Wyatt Millum? Those are both guys who could maybe play OT but could almost certainly slide inside and be REALLY good OGs, and guys who should excel in pass pro to a greater degree than Smith.
And I think that's a fairly conservative approach to calculating the return.

I just think we're blowing past the opportunity cost really quickly because he's already a Chief. And if he weren't, this wouldn't even be a close question for us.