What About a Kansas City Chiefs Draft Day Trade Involving Jared Allen?

by Chris Thorman on Apr 16, 2008 3:59 PM CDT in 2008 Kansas City Chiefs Draft

Slooow sports day in general so I'm throwing this out there for general consumption. From Pro Football Weekly:

From what I'm told, there has been ongoing discussion in Kansas City since the start of free agency about shipping franchised DE Jared Allen to a number of suitors, including Minnesota, Jacksonville or Tampa Bay, in exchange for draft picks. However, if the deal were to occur, it would seem the Chiefs would want the comfort of being able to replace him in the draft. Depending on whether the right defensive end is available at the No. 5 position, a move may not be made until Draft Day. If it does happen, the Chiefs would wind up with an additional first-round pick to address their most pressing need, on the offensive line. However, at this point, with how long negotiations have lingered, there may not be any trade.

Like a lot of fans, I'm firmly against trading Jared Allen in almost any situation. But...what if the Chiefs traded Allen, got Vernon Gholston and an extra first round pick plus a later pick? We could replace Jared Allen (if that's possible) and grab a high quality offensive linemen.

This post is really just food for thought. I still expect Allen to be a Chief for the rest of his career.

Tweet Comment 11 comments | 0 recs |

Do you like this story?

Comments

Jared Allen

The only way I'm in favor of trading Allen is if the Chiefs are pretty certain no realistic deal can be reached.

Even if we are getting extra picks for him, we have no way of knowing what we are going to get with those picks. We KNOW what we have with Allen.

If it looks like we aren't going to work anything out, we might as well get what we can from him. But I don't see them trading him just for picks. He is the type of player you dream about picking and we already have him.

by DJ @ Arrowhead Pride on Apr 16, 2008 5:10 PM CDT reply actions

This scenario is really interesting

I am FIRMLY against trading Jared Allen.

However, the same notion was brought up in
this mock draft by WPI.

Although the entire mock is completely crazy, it is, hands down, the most entertaining while still being plausible mock I have read this year.

In the end, trading Jared would completely contradict Herm's "plan" for the Chiefs and would suck one of the few breathes left in the fans who will be paying for the new stadium.

Oh, and I would go completely ape shit.

by DThomasReigns on Apr 16, 2008 5:27 PM CDT reply actions

Bad idea

proven player, pay the man!

by Eric @ Arrowhead Pride on Apr 16, 2008 5:31 PM CDT reply actions

I'm Thinking Allen's Probably Going...

I'd prefer that the Chiefs keep him because I doubt they'll find a better player to replace him, but it also seems like Carl Peterson simply doesn't like the guy. Part of that is probably Peterson's general assholeishness in contract negotiations, but Peterson also only seems interested in handing out the big contracts to "proven veterans", usually, it seems, at the point that they're coming to the end of their prime (usually the worst time to give them a big contract). And Jared Allen doesn't seem to fit the profile of players that Peterson pays...he's relatively young (therefore "unproven", even though he's given every indication that he'll be excellent for awhile), his off-field issues are too recent for Peterson's liking (even though he seems to have genuinely outgrown them), and he doesn't kiss Carl's ass. This feels sort of like back when Marty got canned and Peterson let Donnie Edwards go at the beginning of his prime because he was "Marty's guy" and not "Carl's guy" only to bring him back close to the end of his career (and give him a big contract) because he's a "proven veteran" who spoke well of the Chiefs.

That's one of the biggest mistakes GM's make, paying players for what they've already done instead of what they're likely going to be able to do. It's basically a form of risk aversion because veteran players are a known quantity and people with control issues (like Peterson) hate gambling on what they think are unknowns.

I just known that Peterson's going to botch the Allen thing for us.

Supporting the lesser of two evils is still supporting something evil.

by UCrawford on Apr 16, 2008 8:19 PM CDT reply actions

Can we please get over Peterson?

Carl Peterson may be an asshole, but he's not the Prince of Darkness.

We have gone through this before with both Tony G and Will Shields and they both ended up with new contracts. If Allen doesn't get resigned, it will be because he doesn't want to be. There is absolutely nothing to Petersons advantage by not signing Allen to a reasonable contract.

The guy has been a succesful GM for 20 years and if he really was as evil, inept as people make him out to be he wouldn't have lasted that long.

Everyone wants to make it out to be Petersons fault because he's the whipping boy of the organization, but maybe the problem is Jared is asking for $14 million a year or something. We have no idea what they're asking for.

I know everyone thinks we should just sign over whatever the player is asking for or we are "the Cheaps" but that is how you get in cap hell.

So just sit back and relax. The deal will get done and I can guarantee you that if Allen gets traded its as much his fault as Petersons.

by DJ @ Arrowhead Pride on Apr 16, 2008 10:28 PM CDT up reply actions

UCrawford,

I completely agree with a lot of your statements, especially your last post.

I humbly ask that you try to break up your well written sentiments into smaller bites. While well packed with great info, some of your posts are large paragraphs.

BTW, Jared Allen must be a Chief FOR LIFE!

by DThomasReigns on Apr 16, 2008 8:47 PM CDT reply actions

DThomas

Sorry dude...I'm naturally verbose :)

Do the paragraphs actually cause a problem?

Supporting the lesser of two evils is still supporting something evil.

by UCrawford on Apr 16, 2008 9:52 PM CDT reply actions

Not a problem at all

I was kind of making fun of myself.

I have a bad habit of making every sentence its own paragraph.

Just like this.

by DThomasReigns on Apr 17, 2008 9:44 AM CDT up reply actions

My two cents

I cannot agree more with the general sentiment of each of you regarding Jared as a Chief for life. What I am most concerned with is, if he were to be traded, it may set up a mindset amongst future Chiefs that become great (All Pro) and know they will not get that most deservedly earned fat contract.

They and their agents will be testing the markets before their last games played in the final years of their contracts knowing that Chief management will not seriously negotiate with them.

Sign the man and let this idea rest in peace, please!

by Lanier63 on Apr 16, 2008 11:08 PM CDT reply actions

Lanier63

"What I am most concerned with is, if he were to be traded, it may set up a mindset amongst future Chiefs that become great (All Pro) and know they will not get that most deservedly earned fat contract."

I couldn't agree more. I also think that this mindset is already in place with the rest of the league when it comes to Carl Peterson, which is why the top free agents don't even bother talking to us before they sign with other teams.

Supporting the lesser of two evils is still supporting something evil.

by UCrawford on Apr 17, 2008 8:20 AM CDT reply actions

Ummmm, DJ...

...hate to point this out, but three playoff victories in 19 years does not equate to being a successful GM. Especially when the last playoff win was over a decade ago. Peterson's been around because he made Lamar Hunt money, because he packed the stadium full of people (until recently) and because he made us think the Chiefs were better than they were. That's nice for Lamar and Clark Hunt, but that's not particularly good for fans who don't want a mediocre football team.

We're always on his case now because the smoke and mirrors aren't working anymore, he's stuck us with a really bad football team, his plan for rebuilding revolves around being successful at something he's never been that successful at (the draft) and there's little reason for us to believe he's ever going to turn us into Super Bowl contenders or much more than a first-round playoff team.

"I know everyone thinks we should just sign over whatever the player is asking for or we are "the Cheaps" but that is how you get in cap hell."

I've never said that they should pay Allen whatever he wants...but I have said that they should pay him what he's worth for a long-term deal now because he's just starting his prime and the odds favor him being a very good lineman as much as they do anyone. I'd rather not lose him next year as an unrestricted free agent because Carl Peterson decided to skimp.

Supporting the lesser of two evils is still supporting something evil.

by UCrawford on Apr 17, 2008 10:10 AM CDT reply actions