Arrowhead Pride: An SB Nation Community

Navigation: Jump to content areas:


Sports blogs for fans, by fans.
New Blog: Sounder At Heart for Seattle Sounders Fans!

Quick Jared Allen Trade Update

If this blog was a magic 8 ball, it would say "Outlook not so good" for the Chiefs. From the Star-Tribune's excellent Vikings' blog:

Defensive end Jared Allen is at Winter Park right now talking to Vikings officials. It’s also believed his agent, Ken Harris, is in the building. That means only one thing: they are talking contract. The latest we’re hearing is that an agreement with the Chiefs is close to being in place and this thing could get done quick. We emphasize the word could, so don’t get too excited yet.

Allen is going to want a lot of Zygi Wilf’s money. Safe to say, the NFL’s sack leader from 2007 is going to want more than the Colts gave end Dwight Freeney last July. Freeney’s six-year contract – $72 million over six years with a $30 million signing bonus — made him the highest-paid defensive player in NFL history.

Considering the fact a player with Allen’s ability could make this one of the top defenses in the NFL, the guess is that Wilf and Co. will pay the price.

It better come to light that Jared Allen would not play in Kansas City under Carl Peterson and that the Chiefs' hand was essentially forced into this position. Otherwise, this is a blunder of historic proportions.

0 recs  |  Comment 38 comments

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

Display:

i really just think
it was all contract.  Too bad Jared.  I really had more faith in him as player.  I will miss him in red and gold, but we need to move on I think.  What happens with the extra pick?  What round will it be in do we think?

by dkugler838 on Apr 18, 2008 1:16 PM CDT reply actions   0 recs

After reading AA,
I would much prefer to trade him to the Eagles for their 1st, Lito Sheppard, and their 3rd.  If this is even remotely possible, Carl needs to get on the phone ASAP.

If we just get the Vikes' 1st and 3rd, I will not be pleased.  Their 1st and 2nd would be tolerable.

by DThomasReigns on Apr 18, 2008 1:21 PM CDT reply actions   0 recs

I agree
but haven't heard any of those possibilities with Philly for quite some time.  I would definitely be down for that trade

by dkugler838 on Apr 18, 2008 2:19 PM CDT up reply actions   0 recs

Same problem
Lito will be getting a massive deal soon as well...

by Joel Thorman on Apr 18, 2008 2:42 PM CDT up reply actions   0 recs

Before Everyone Freaks Out...
...the Chiefs have all of the power in this arrangement.  If Jared Allen signs a contract, the Chiefs have right of first refusal...meaning we can match it if we want and he'll still be ours (and I think that means we'll have him for the full length of that contract).  That puts the Vikings in the position of having no almost no leverage with either the Chiefs or Allen...they'll either make a ridiculous contract offer we won't match that we would have been insane to have given Allen or they'll give him a market value deal that we can sign him to instead if they don't pony up the draft picks to make us happy (I'm assuming that it will be at least two 2008 draft picks...definitely the first rounder from this year).  And (best of all possible worlds) if they offer an insane contract that we don't feel like matching and don't come to an agreement, we get both their 2008 and 2009 first-rounders by default.

The Vikings' impatience and rush to sign Allen in this situation works to our advantage.

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

by UCrawford on Apr 18, 2008 2:19 PM CDT reply actions   0 recs

It's Basically...
...letting someone else handle all the stickiness of negotiations, then either reaping the benefits of their work (by matching their deal) or letting them overpay and taking their draft picks.

I'm not happy to see Allen go, of course, because players like him don't come along often.  But this is a better scenario than letting him hit the free agent market next season when we'll get almost no compensation.

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

by UCrawford on Apr 18, 2008 2:22 PM CDT up reply actions   0 recs

Thanks
I had forgot that important part (first refusal) and I could feel my blood-pressure climbing.  Allen is not only my current favorite player, he might be my favorite all time (I liked the Chiefs when I was in high school in the 90's and DT was great, but I didn't live in KC then and rarely had a chance to go to games, so I didn't really get to "experience" the Chiefs.)  I will hate to see Allen go, mostly because I have an image of him embarrassing McIntosh and killing lil' Brodie.

by PVChiefsfan on Apr 18, 2008 2:27 PM CDT up reply actions   0 recs

And Most Interesting Of All...
...if the Chiefs trade Allen and get the Vikings' 2008 and 2009 first rounders, we'll have four first rounders in two years.  This could actually allow to move up this year.  Think Parcells might consider the #17 pick this year and our two first rounders next year in exchange for the #1 overall in 2008?  We could snag Chris Long with the first pick and have a decent shot at Jake Long with the 5th.
Supporting the lesser of two evils is still supporting something evil.

by UCrawford on Apr 18, 2008 2:36 PM CDT reply actions   0 recs

That's too much
we wouldn't need to offer the #17 and both first rounders to move to #1 - nor would we likely trade anyway.  If we let Allen go, it is because we don't think we'll be competitive in the next 4-5 years.  We would keep the 4 first round picks.

by PVChiefsfan on Apr 18, 2008 2:40 PM CDT up reply actions   0 recs

Don't Be So Hasty...
...you're talking about trading away one disgruntled impact player (Allen) who will likely have a record-setting contract, and replacing him with two impact players (who won't make as much as Allen combined) in the same year.

If Allen's signing works out for the Vikings, and if we get their 2009 first-rounder (20s or 30s), it will be a low pick with no guarantee that the player will be an impact player or even a starter.  The number one overall player (or #2, or #3) will immediately get slotted as a starter at a critical need position for us (DE, DT, or OT) and likely so will our #5 pick.

Ask yourself this...would you rather get two impact players who fit critical needs this year, or would you rather get one impact player this year, then roll the dice that your other three 1st rounders will net somebody who is either an impact player or who fits a need?  All I know is getting two guys out of a pool of Jake Long, Chris Long, Gholston, Ellis, and Dorsey would go a long way towards making our first-rounder from next year a lot less valuable to whoever we trade it to.

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

by UCrawford on Apr 18, 2008 2:57 PM CDT up reply actions   0 recs

Are there no more busts in the draft??
Players we draft are NOT surefire impact players.  In fact, chances are one of them will be a bust.

by Joel Thorman on Apr 18, 2008 3:29 PM CDT up reply actions   0 recs

Or...
...Jake Long with the first pick and Vernon Gholston, Glenn Dorsey, Sedrick Ellis, or Chris Long with the 5th.

Three first rounders in exchange for one (which will net a player Parcells would have to overpay) has got to be a mighty tempting target.  Assuming of course that he doesn't have his heart absolutely set on Chris Long, in which case we might be able to talk to Atlanta or St. Louis about moving up...Oakland would probably not be receptive, though :)

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

by UCrawford on Apr 18, 2008 2:43 PM CDT up reply actions   0 recs

I'll be the first to say
Fuck Jared Allen.  He's no different than Chad Johnson, Terrell Owens or Kobe.  Everyone wants to blame Carl while we let the inmates run the asylum.  Tonight I drink to Allen's career ending injury.

by Bill Grigsbys Cirrhosis on Apr 18, 2008 2:37 PM CDT reply actions   0 recs

No need to wish harm upon him
but trading him and then hiring some attractive women to get him drunk and ask for a ride home might not be too bad :)

by PVChiefsfan on Apr 18, 2008 2:42 PM CDT up reply actions   0 recs

Ok that's a fair compromise
This will end up being a blessing in disguise.  

While we're at it, can we move LJ?

by Bill Grigsbys Cirrhosis on Apr 18, 2008 2:46 PM CDT up reply actions   0 recs

Salary cap hit!
It's not going to happen!

by Chris Thorman on Apr 18, 2008 2:50 PM CDT up reply actions   0 recs

OK how about..
DeJesus?  We could use a lefty out of the pen.

by Bill Grigsbys Cirrhosis on Apr 18, 2008 2:53 PM CDT up reply actions   0 recs

Question
Could Carl agree to a trade with another team while Jared finalizes a contract with a separate team, and then end up having to play for the team Carl made the deal with?

by Lanier63 on Apr 18, 2008 2:54 PM CDT reply actions   0 recs

If Jared Allen Signs A Contract With Minnesota...
...and Peterson doesn't decide to match it, he's going to Minnesota.  And if Minnesota hasn't already set up a trade with us by the time Allen accepts and we decline, then we automatically get their two first-rounders.  There'd be no reason to negotiate a trade with another team because it's doubtful any other team will surrender two first rounders.

That's why the Vikings' impatience works in our favor.  Based on how fast they're moving I suspect that they're going to give us the two first-rounders.

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

by UCrawford on Apr 18, 2008 3:04 PM CDT up reply actions   0 recs

Vikings won't sign without a trade agreement first
What you are failing to realize is MN in both trade talks with KC and negotiations with Allen and his agent.  MN will not sign Allen to a contract and then go hope KC accepts their trade proposal.  You guys can quite assuming you will get 2 1st round picks out of Allen.  Nobody will give up that much for a guy with 2 strikes against him.  A first and a third this year or a first this year and a second next year at best.

by MN Norse on Apr 19, 2008 5:55 PM CDT up reply actions   0 recs

Hahaha
First the hand warmer, now this? I'm suprised you didn't invent the heinekin draft keg haha sorry I just love these random posts.

by Ben S on Apr 18, 2008 4:24 PM CDT up reply actions   0 recs

LJ
"While we're at it, can we move LJ?"

Thanks to King Carl we're stuck with Mr. No Block probably until the end of that contract (unless he does something stupid enough to get it voided).  Terrible, terrible contract...couldn't believe that Peterson forked over that much cash to an overworked 28 year old running back.

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

by UCrawford on Apr 18, 2008 3:24 PM CDT reply actions   0 recs

Wow
Why are you so against LJ?  Everything you were saying about Allen made me feel better about the situation but then you gotta go start on LJ...
dustin_b3

by dustinb3 on Apr 18, 2008 7:07 PM CDT up reply actions   0 recs

LJ
Dustin,

My problems with LJ stem from several issues:

  1. First and foremost he's got a high-contact style of running and Herm has overused him (which usually means a short career) and he's 28-years old at a position with the shortest life expectancy in the NFL.  Simply put, running backs burn out fast and even if we rebuilt enough to be competitive in two years I think he'll be done by then.
  2. He's got a huge long-term contract.  This wouldn't necessarily be a problem for me if he was 23 or 24, but we're going to be paying him big bucks when he's 33 (or, more likely, taking a big cap hit when he's 30 and injuries have made him ineffective) and there aren't a lot of running backs who are good that long and worth the money he'll be getting.  This contract also kills his trade value.  Last year, when he was making peanuts, a guy with that contract could have attracted a decent amount of trade interest in-season because he wasn't a huge financial risk for the potential upside so we could have gotten something of value back.  Now that he's got a huge contract because Peterson panicked, he's untradeable.
  3. His attitude sucks.  He's the kind of guy who'd probably be fine on a successful team, but when his team struggles he starts whining, pointing fingers, and half-assing his job.  I saw at least three plays last year where he intentionally let Damon Huard get absolutely clobbered (one where he almost got his helmet ripped off) because LJ made zero effort to pass block when he was going up against one rusher.  What free agent QB is going to want to sign with a team where the star player gets away with crap like that?  How do you think injury-prone Brodie's going to do if he takes hits like that a lot when LJ starts pouting and doesn't feel like blocking?
Basically, I think that LJ's a spoiled kid who's interested in the prestige of being a high-paid player but who's not interested in the work and the responsibility that goes along with it.  And I think he'll be of zero use to the Chiefs by the time they're competitive again.  So I wouldn't be sad to see him shipped out of town.  But since that's not going to happen, I'm completely okay with Herm either running him like a rented mule until he breaks or benching/fining/suspending him the instant he starts to complain and become a negative factor.
Supporting the lesser of two evils is still supporting something evil.

by UCrawford on Apr 18, 2008 9:40 PM CDT up reply actions   0 recs

He doesn't really have the mileage

of a 28 year old. He sat on the bench 80% of the time until Priest’s season ending injury.

by PVChiefsfan on Apr 21, 2008 8:10 AM CDT up reply actions   0 recs

Busts
primetime,
Players we draft are NOT surefire impact players.  In fact, chances are one of them will be a bust.

Players drafted in the top five have much less of a chance of being a bust for us than players drafted in the middle of the first-round...that's why I'm saying that if we get a good deal for Allen we should try to get another top five pick this year by trading what we get from Minnesota (and our pick next year).  If we draft two of the top five, there's no guarantee they'll be great players.  But there's a lot better chance of them not being busts than if we're drafting 17th, or 20-somethingth (which is where those Vikings pick will be located in 2008 and 2009).  I'll take that gamble any day of the week.

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

by UCrawford on Apr 18, 2008 3:44 PM CDT reply actions   0 recs

Interesting fact
Jared Allen's father Ron was a Minnesota Viking briefly.

by Chris Thorman on Apr 18, 2008 3:55 PM CDT reply actions   0 recs

A Legacy?
Surely that's worth two first-rounders :)
Supporting the lesser of two evils is still supporting something evil.

by UCrawford on Apr 18, 2008 3:57 PM CDT up reply actions   0 recs

i, for one, like the idea of trading jared...
of course, it largely depends on who we get, but here are what causes me to like trading him.

we need a true fresh start. i would love just a 2 year rebuild and to bounce back in 2010, but it aint gonna happen. instead, i think it will take 5 to 6 years to really build up this team to the point where it needs to be. where we string a couple good (if not great) drafts together and build through the bundles of youth we have on our current roster.

jared allen would be the perfect guy to be the face of the franchise in the between-time, giving the fans someone to root for.

but just like i thought we should have traded LJ (and still do), i want to trade jared. he is going to demand a lot of money after this season, and with us preparing to be in the shits anyways for awhile, there is not a whole lotta sense in dishing out big bucks to one person.

assuming we get the viks 1st and 2nd round picks this season i will be happy. i know im in the minority, but i cant wait for this trade to go down...

i want to win a super bowl, and in order for us to do that, i think we are going to have to endure a couple of really awful, three-win-type seasons.

by rockchalk on Apr 18, 2008 6:48 PM CDT reply actions   0 recs

This Isn't Baseball
"i think it will take 5 to 6 years to really build up this team to the point where it needs to be."

Not to single out TWSS...but this is a common sentiment that I've heard in different sites and it's not based in reality.  The reality is that NFL careers are extremely short because of the sheer brutality level of the sport so you don't build dynasties around one group of players.  Most players are finished by the time they hit 30...often in only three or four years.  We have a hard salary cap that forces teams to cut effective, often very good, players who make a little too much money which generates a pool of free agent talent every year (not necessarily star talent, but starting talent) that all teams have available to them.  We've had eight different teams win the Super Bowl in the last ten years and the only dynasty team in this era (the Patriots) have won with major turnover on their rosters.  

The idea that it takes teams 5-6 years to rebuild and be competitive is complete bullshit...teams that are continually bad or aren't in the Super Bowl hunt are that way because of bad coaching and/or bad management.  Period.  Some might have flukish issues with injuries (like St. Louis last year) but those are rare examples.  If we replace Carl Peterson with a competent GM who can attract the kind of free agent talent Peterson claimed he was going after this year rebuilding should be a two or three year job tops because we have a solid core of starting talent to build around (Bowe, Allen, D. Johnson, Hali, LJ, Gonzalez).  The reason we haven't gotten out of the first round of the playoffs for over a decade, though, is because we have a GM who can't consistently judge talent, who can't attract the best free agents, who's too much of a control freak and an asshole to negotiate contracts without drama, and who either doesn't have a plan he's capable of implementing or is just lying about having a plan.

The problems with the Chiefs are all about Peterson...that's it.  And when people blame Herm Edwards, or Dick Vermeil, or Mike Solari, or Greg Robinson, or Huard, or Croyle, or McGlockton, or Ryan Sims, or the o-line, or the defense or whoever/whatever they're all missing the fact that Peterson was solely responsible for all of it and has been for the last 19 years.  Get Peterson out of there and find somebody who can judge talent while being even half as capable with the finances as Peterson and we'll be competitive again shortly.  Right now the Chiefs are being run by a foul-mouthed, short-tempered, egomaniacal accountant, and that's why we're losing.

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

by UCrawford on Apr 18, 2008 9:17 PM CDT reply actions   0 recs

some really good points there...
especially about carl. part of the reason i expect the rebuild to take so long is that im not sure if carl is going to go along with it.

plus, it depends on how long you are talking about before you say that we are "rebuilt". im talking about being a legit super bowl contender, something we havent been since 03.

and sure, that could be possible in fewer than 5 or 6 years, but i am just using that as a benchmark of how long it will most likely take...

by rockchalk on Apr 18, 2008 9:55 PM CDT up reply actions   0 recs

TWSS, For Contender Status...
...with some good trades (like the move up scenario I discussed for this year) and drafting I could see us being legitimately in the playoff hunt in two years (meaning we could win a spot outright instead of just backing in like in 2006).  If we can continue to draft well after that and sign the ideal free agents (young, talented, 2nd contract) I could see us seriously contending for a Super Bowl in four.

I agree with your assessment of Peterson, though.  I don't believe any rebuilding plan will be successful with him at the helm because I simply don't think he's capable of carrying it out any more.  Too much baggage, too much ego, too little success.  That's why, if he doesn't pull a great deal for Jared Allen, I could see 2008 being his final season.

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

by UCrawford on Apr 18, 2008 10:07 PM CDT up reply actions   0 recs

asdf
I could see 2008 being his final season.

we can only hope...

by rockchalk on Apr 18, 2008 11:58 PM CDT up reply actions   0 recs

Also...
TWSS,

I agree with you that the Vikings 2008 1st and 2nd rounders would be a decent deal (although I'd still want both 1st rounders, of course :) ).  I also think that we should package them, along with our 2009 first rounder and try to get one of the picks ahead of us this year.  The top six players in this year's draft are simply too perfect for our team's needs not to try it.  If we could get two defensive linemen who could start immediately or (even better) Jake Long and a defensive lineman, that would go a long way towards making us better faster.

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

by UCrawford on Apr 18, 2008 10:14 PM CDT reply actions   0 recs

And who knows...
...what will be available in the top five of next year's draft or where we'll pick?  We've got six guys who aren't a reach who fit our needs and we've got a couple of first-rounders (and maybe a 2nd rounder) to trade without crippling next year's draft.  That's a rare opportunity.
Supporting the lesser of two evils is still supporting something evil.

by UCrawford on Apr 18, 2008 10:17 PM CDT up reply actions   0 recs

Just Saw The Chiefs' Press Conference On The Star
And I've got to say that, even though he's not a good coach, I think that Herm Edwards probably would be a very good general manager.  He appears to understand how to work a draft, I believe he is interested in winning games first and foremost, he seems to have an eye for talent, he isn't scared of young players, and (most importantly) he doesn't appear to have a huge chip on his shoulder or a need to take a combative approach to dealing with players (which I think is Peterson's biggest problem).

If Clark Hunt were to show Carl Peterson the door after 2008 I'm thinking he could do a lot worse than bumping his head coach upstairs to the front office and possibly looking at moving his offensive coordinator to HC (if he does a good job with this year's offense).  I think that would improve the Chiefs' fortunes considerably, without throwing away all of the good things the team has done over the last few years.

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

by UCrawford on Apr 19, 2008 10:43 AM CDT reply actions   0 recs

Start it now
Marty for GM! The team was always in the hunt under him, I believe that is what Marty is waiting for.

by Eric on Apr 19, 2008 7:18 PM CDT up reply actions   0 recs

Comments For This Post Are Closed


User Tools

Welcome to SB Nation's Kansas City Chiefs blog!
Start posting about the Chiefs »

Join SB Nation and dive into communities focused on all your favorite teams.

FanPosts

Community blog posts and discussion.

Recommended FanPosts

Kool_aid_man_small
The Kool Aid Drinker’s Manifesto on the Kansas City Chiefs
104_4223_small
Jamaal Charles, Lose Yourself!
Floyd1999_small
Joe Delaney ... a true Hero.
Duke_small
Better Know the Jacksonville Jaguars: Ask Big Cat Country
Phoenix_by_melen_small
Chiefs 3-4 Front 7 Grade Re-evaluation: Bye Week

Recent FanPosts

Small
The Popular Scapegoat
Arrowhead_pride_small
Roll Call for Jaguars Game
Small
First Time Writer ....
J_page_small
SNF Cowboys @ Eagles Open Thread
Small
Whats Makes Scott Pioli
Ajax_small
Random Observations from the Chiefs vs Jaguars
J_page_small
Another Big Day For An Enemy WR...
Joe-lauzon_feature_small
Brodie Croyle Needs a Haircut
Small
half a season is better than no season at all

+ New FanPost All FanPosts >

Latest NFL Headlines from SB Nation

Behind the Steel Curtain
BTSC Weekly NFL Musings - Week 9 Edition
Blogging The Boys
Understudy Sunday: the Cowboys Outslug the Eagles 20-16
Blogging The Boys
Cowboys First In East, Beat Philly 20-16

Managers

Arrowhead_pride_small Chris Thorman

Tg_small Joel Thorman

Editors

N505381175_257425_5488_small Matt Conner

Contributors

Ajax_small ChiefDJ

Small Jon Yoon