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.

[-King-]

Originally Posted by saphojunkie

let me put this more simply...

The Chiefs can lose any single player except Mahomes. There is only ONE irreplaceable player on this team, and he doesn't play defense.

If the Chiefs lose Chris Jones, their super bowl odds won't change.

If that's the case then even $25mil a year is too much for him. If Superbowl odds don't change if you lose him, why would you even pay that much?

[KCUnited]

I want a tougher path to the SB!

[saphojunkie]

Originally Posted by -King-

I don't see how that's even debatable. There's no team where the 3rd best player on the team and best player by far on defense isn't fundamental to the team winning a championship.

Because when Chris Jones gets injured, the fundamental nature of the defensive strategy will change. A new player will be the best player on defense. And that new defense - and it's fundamental nature - will still be capable of winning the super bowl.

[TwistedChief]

Originally Posted by saphojunkie

let me put this more simply...

The Chiefs can lose any single player except Mahomes. There is only ONE irreplaceable player on this team, and he doesn't play defense.

If the Chiefs lose Chris Jones, their super bowl odds won't change.

By this stream of logic, surely you’d agree that the Chiefs SB chances wouldn’t change if they lost Kelce?

Can you imagine paying a defensive player the second most of any in the sport if his absence didn’t impact your odds of winning a championship?

[IowaHawkeyeChief]

Originally Posted by neech

I'm not sure what the Chiefs could get for a 30 year old Chris Jones even if he had a great year.

Maybe a second rounder?

Yea, I'm guessing a package of a 2nd and 3rd or 4th at best, but there are dumb GMs out there. However, I will be shocked if Jones doesn't sign and lock in the guaranteed dollars this week.

[saphojunkie]

Originally Posted by -King-

If that's the case then even $25mil a year is too much for him. If Superbowl odds don't change if you lose him, why would you even pay that much?

That right there is the entire reason why he's not in camp yet. Because there is a mathematical threshold where investing more money in a player who you can win without becomes unsound.

It isn't about losing Chris Jones' level of play. It's about losing the opportunity cost that goes out the window with his cap hit. Guys think that cap number is something that happens in the front office and is never seen on the field.

Cap number is directly observable on the field. The Chiefs are $20M in the pot already on Jones for this year. Him not playing is sunk opportunity cost, and you can't get that back.

The question now is how much more you're willing to chase that, thus further exposing yourself to future lost opportunity.

But the idea that the team can't withstand Jones not playing is laughable. Does it make it harder? Almost certainly. But this team lives and dies with Mahomes, and no one else.

[saphojunkie]

Originally Posted by TwistedChief

By this stream of logic, surely you’d agree that the Chiefs SB chances wouldn’t change if they lost Kelce?

Can you imagine paying a defensive player the second most of any in the sport if his absence didn’t impact your odds of winning a championship?

man, I don't know...

Because that's what the Jets did. In fact, their odds went from +1600 in june to +1700 now.

[IowaHawkeyeChief]

Originally Posted by -King-

If that's the case then even $25mil a year is too much for him. If Superbowl odds don't change if you lose him, why would you even pay that much?

You are starting to catch on... In any year we have a chance with a healthy Mahomes. If we overpay for Jones, that's hurts our chances down the road as much as losing Jones may hurt our chances in the short run. To have sustained success, you don't pay aging players top of market. The Patriots gave us the blueprint for when you have one of the GOAT QBs. $27 mil per on a 4 year deal with $70 guaranteed should do it...

[-King-]

Originally Posted by saphojunkie

Because when Chris Jones gets injured, the fundamental nature of the defensive strategy will change. A new player will be the best player on defense. And that new defense - and it's fundamental nature - will still be capable of winning the super bowl.

....what?


So the chiefs should have never even engaged in contract talks with Chris Jones right? I mean, according to your logic, they can easily replace him and his production.

[saphojunkie]

Originally Posted by -King-

....what?


So the chiefs should have never even engaged in contract talks with Chris Jones right? I mean, according to your logic, they can easily replace him and his production.

not what is being said

[-King-]

Originally Posted by IowaHawkeyeChief

You are starting to catch on... In any year we have a chance with a healthy Mahomes. If we overpay for Jones, that's hurts our chances down the road as much as losing Jones may hurt our chances in the short run. To have sustained success, you don't pay aging players top of market. The Patriots gave us the blueprint for when you have one of the GOAT QBs. $27 mil per on a 4 year deal with $70 guaranteed should do it...

You don't think Chris Jones has at least 3 elite/great years left in him?

[-King-]

Originally Posted by saphojunkie

not what is being said

You're saying that losing Jones doesn't change our Superbowl odds and that if he got injured, we would be able to fundamentally change the defense on the fly and still win.

How do you do that if it isn't easy to replace his production and what he brings to the team?

[saphojunkie]

Originally Posted by -King-

You're saying that losing Jones doesn't change our Superbowl odds and that if he got injured, we would be able to fundamentally change the defense on the fly and still win.

How do you do that if it isn't easy to replace his production and what he brings to the team?

easy things aren't the only possible things

[IowaHawkeyeChief]

Originally Posted by -King-

....what?


So the chiefs should have never even engaged in contract talks with Chris Jones right? I mean, according to your logic, they can easily replace him and his production.

absolutely not...

Reports say Chris is asking for $31.5 per... We should be at the most $26-27 per. That extra $4.5 mill a year absolutely effects your roster and if you can't get there, you have $26 or $27 mil to sign others, and try the best you can to replace some of Jones production. Salary cap sucks. The Steelers never had to decide between Franco Harris, Terry Bradshaw, Lynn Swann, Jack Lambert, or Mean Joe Greene....

[Mecca]

Originally Posted by -King-

You don't think Chris Jones has at least 3 elite/great years left in him?

I actually don't..

His best years of his career are far away when he wanted a new contract...also if you do a breakdown of DT's less than 10% continued to be elite after the age of 29...one of the most prominent was John Randle who was honestly more productive than Jones before 30.