Quote:
Originally Posted by TwistedChief
kccrow earlier in the thread put out some good reasoning why trading for Jefferson would be like moving up to 11 in the draft. Moving to 4 for Marvin Harrison Jr - especially with some of the high end talent/QBs that people might fall in love it in this draft - would be meaningfully more expensive.
But yes, I think if given the opportunity, every single person would rather have 5 cost-controlled years of MHJr over JJ.
|
Perhaps the better comparison - just for fun - would be to ask would you rather have Jefferson on his new deal for the next five years, or Rome Odunze or Brock Bowers?
If we're talking about draft capital equivalent to trading up to 11, that's the more apt comparison, I think.
For one of those guys to be there at 11, you'd need the following to happen in the top 10:
1) 4 QBs are drafted (Patriots take a QB, Giants get desperate and draft McCarthy)
2) 3 Ts go in the top 10
3) 3 of the premium receiving targets go in the top 10
If a corner or pass rusher slips into the top 10, you can subtract one of those positions.
I don't think either Odunze or Bowers is a "safe" enough prospect to make that deal happen. In that scenario, I guess I'd prefer the Jefferson trade price. Though, honestly, I'd prefer neither of these scenarios.
Again. It's not just about making KC as good as possible for 2024. It's about making it as good as possible while also mitigating risk that you short-circuit the team's contender status.
When Travis Kelce retires or slows down enough that he no longer commands #1 target attention, that MIGHT break things up.
If the Chiefs take a HUGE swing that sacrifices draft capital NOW and it fails, it will DEFINITELY break things up 2-3 years down the road. And potentially as soon as 2025 if that huge swing involves giving Jefferson a market-setting payday.