Mahomes new deal

[Pac_Eddy]

Wow. The Chiefs just hamstrung themselves for the foreseeable future. Mahomes is special, no doubt. But that’s significantly less cap space for the rest of the roster compared to other NFL teams.

I'd take less cap space over starting over at QB. I think all teams would take Mahomes if they were in the Chiefs' situation.

[Bronco Billy]

Wow. The Chiefs just hamstrung themselves for the foreseeable future. Mahomes is special, no doubt. But that’s significantly less cap space for the rest of the roster compared to other NFL teams.

I'd take less cap space over starting over at QB. I think all teams would take Mahomes if they were in the Chiefs' situation.

The currently top 10 paid QBs have a combined total of 5 Super Bowl rings between them over the past 20 years. Expensive QBs come at a much greater cost than just their cap hits.

[abloom]

The currently top 10 paid QBs have a combined total of 5 Super Bowl rings between them over the past 20 years. Expensive QBs come at a much greater cost than just their cap hits.

I'm confused. Are you saying that the higher paid QBs hurt their team in other ways besides their cap hit?

How many Super Bowl rings do the worst QBs in the league have over the same 20 year period?

[dynastyninja]

Wow. The Chiefs just hamstrung themselves for the foreseeable future. Mahomes is special, no doubt. But that’s significantly less cap space for the rest of the roster compared to other NFL teams.

I'd take less cap space over starting over at QB. I think all teams would take Mahomes if they were in the Chiefs' situation.

The currently top 10 paid QBs have a combined total of 5 Super Bowl rings between them over the past 20 years. Expensive QBs come at a much greater cost than just their cap hits.

How is 20 years useful in any way when only 3 of the top 10 have even been in the league for half that (Ben, Rodgers, Ryan)?

Sure, paying a QB makes things more difficult for your team. I doubt anyone is disputing that, but the Chiefs had no option but to pay someone who has a legitimate chance at being the best QB ever. He's worth every penny.

What would you have done differently?

[Bronco Billy]

The currently top 10 paid QBs have a combined total of 5 Super Bowl rings between them over the past 20 years. Expensive QBs come at a much greater cost than just their cap hits.

I'm confused. Are you saying that the higher paid QBs hurt their team in other ways besides their cap hit?

How many Super Bowl rings do the worst QBs in the league have over the same 20 year period?

That’s exactly what I am inferring. And we aren’t discussing the worst QBs in the league, so I’m not sure what your point is there.

It appears that QBs that burn up too high of a portion of their team’s cap weaken the team as a whole. Football is a team sport, and sacrificing talent level and quality depth at other positions to pay a franchise QB, by the evidence, may not be the best investment to win championships.

[bjd5211]

Wow. The Chiefs just hamstrung themselves for the foreseeable future. Mahomes is special, no doubt. But that’s significantly less cap space for the rest of the roster compared to other NFL teams.

I'd take less cap space over starting over at QB. I think all teams would take Mahomes if they were in the Chiefs' situation.

The currently top 10 paid QBs have a combined total of 5 Super Bowl rings between them over the past 20 years. Expensive QBs come at a much greater cost than just their cap hits.

Is that supposed to be a negative? Lol.


Mahomes is not just the best QB in the league, hes the best QB in league history through the first 3 years of a career. You don't let that go, and do whatever it takes to lock a QB like that up for as long as possible. The Cap is only going to grow during that contract, and other QBs are going to end up getting huge numbers too and shrinking that AAV gap. KC did the smart thing in just getting out ahead of the growing market and setting it themselves, and locking up Mahomes' services for the next 12 years.

[Pac_Eddy]

Wow. The Chiefs just hamstrung themselves for the foreseeable future. Mahomes is special, no doubt. But that’s significantly less cap space for the rest of the roster compared to other NFL teams.

I'd take less cap space over starting over at QB. I think all teams would take Mahomes if they were in the Chiefs' situation.

The currently top 10 paid QBs have a combined total of 5 Super Bowl rings between them over the past 20 years. Expensive QBs come at a much greater cost than just their cap hits.

That's another case of "fun with small sample sizes". I think it's fine if you'd build a team with cheap QBs and spend that cap space elsewhere though.

[abloom]

The currently top 10 paid QBs have a combined total of 5 Super Bowl rings between them over the past 20 years. Expensive QBs come at a much greater cost than just their cap hits.

I'm confused. Are you saying that the higher paid QBs hurt their team in other ways besides their cap hit?

How many Super Bowl rings do the worst QBs in the league have over the same 20 year period?

That’s exactly what I am inferring. And we aren’t discussing the worst QBs in the league, so I’m not sure what your point is there.

It appears that QBs that burn up too high of a portion of their team’s cap weaken the team as a whole. Football is a team sport, and sacrificing talent level and quality depth at other positions to pay a franchise QB, by the evidence, may not be the best investment to win championships.

Yes, its easier to win when you can spend more money on more players. Why do you think the Pats have so many super bowl wins? But you also need a talented QB. Mahomes was going to get paid by someone. If it wasn't the chiefs, they would have had to go back to trying to find a good QB to lead them to the superbowl. Its MUCH easier to work the salary cap to put together a competative team, than it is to draft a good QB. Just ask MOST of the NFL teams.

[bjd5211]

The currently top 10 paid QBs have a combined total of 5 Super Bowl rings between them over the past 20 years. Expensive QBs come at a much greater cost than just their cap hits.

I'm confused. Are you saying that the higher paid QBs hurt their team in other ways besides their cap hit?

How many Super Bowl rings do the worst QBs in the league have over the same 20 year period?

That’s exactly what I am inferring. And we aren’t discussing the worst QBs in the league, so I’m not sure what your point is there.

It appears that QBs that burn up too high of a portion of their team’s cap weaken the team as a whole. Football is a team sport, and sacrificing talent level and quality depth at other positions to pay a franchise QB, by the evidence, may not be the best investment to win championships.

Having a HOF/MVP caliber QB is proven to be the only way compete for SBs on a yearly basis. There are a few outlier teams that have 1 great year and win a SB without a great QB, and then they fall back to league average, but to have real SB expectations every year for a long stretch you have to have an elite QB. KC has an elite QB, and now will for another 12 years.

[Bronco Billy]

I'd take less cap space over starting over at QB. I think all teams would take Mahomes if they were in the Chiefs' situation.

The currently top 10 paid QBs have a combined total of 5 Super Bowl rings between them over the past 20 years. Expensive QBs come at a much greater cost than just their cap hits.

How is 20 years useful in any way when only 3 of the top 10 have even been in the league for half that (Ben, Rodgers, Ryan)?

Sure, paying a QB makes things more difficult for your team. I doubt anyone is disputing that, but the Chiefs had no option but to pay someone who has a legitimate chance at being the best QB ever. He's worth every penny.

What would you have done differently?

IMO, and I’m certainly not a GM or Owner, if you are going to extend a very long term contract, there ought to be some give back from the player’s side in conceding what would be maximum cap space in favor of being guaranteed that kind of job security. There has to be some kind of recognition on the player’s side that they are damaging the team’s overall goal of winning a championship if the team can’t put a good enough supporting cast around them, no matter how gifted he is.

Honestly, I think that’s poor management. Every guy on that highest paid QB list has had several opportunities to win a championship, and my point is that it takes a lot more than just a stud QB to win it all. If the QB is burning up that much cap space, the team can’t compete with opponents for better all around talent and depth. If you want example #1 of support for that position, look at NE and what Brady accepted for contracts in exchange for a better team around him and more championships. And Brady is not hurting for cash - those wins and success provide some serious opportunity to earn in the marketing/spokesman arena.

[bjd5211]

12 years ago the highest paid player/QB in the league was Peyton Manning at around 12M per year, it has now essentially tripled and the average starting QB salary is double that. With all the new revenue streams coming into the NFL, including the massive TV rights deals on the horizon, that trend is going to continue and QBs will be making $35-50M/Year in the not too distant future. It's far more likely that this deal is a massive value for KC in 8 years or so than it being an albatross that wrecks their Cap. Mahomes did give significant concessions on his value because he would have gotten SIGNIFICANTLY more if he had waited until the end of his rookie contract to renegotiate a new deal. This was 100% the right move by KC, and they could have given him more and it still.would have been worth it.

[murphysxm]

my only negative takeaway from a Chiefs perspective is how are they going to meet Chris Jone's demands now?

[bjd5211]

my only negative takeaway from a Chiefs perspective is how are they going to meet Chris Jone's demands now?

Doesn't really affect it at all, Mahomes new deal doesn't start for 2 more years, he's still playing under the last 2 years of his rookie deal. This makes it easier to sign Jones because the Mahomes contract is no longer looming and they now know exactly how much he's going to cost and what his impact on the cap is.

[FantasyFreak]

Here are the supposed details.

https://www.spotrac.com/nfl/kansas-city ... mes-21751/

That 2027 cap hit, wow.

Spotrac has a video breakdown of it, if you want to watch it. It's on Facebook, not sure where else.

The Cap is going to grow significantly between now and '27, and they'll probably be restructuring the deal around that time anyway.

Exactly. No way this deal isn't restructured by then. If it's not, then I'd venture to say that the cap went up and the cap hit will be right around the 15-20% range (similar to what a 30-40M contract is now)

From what I gather, it's Mahomes that will be the one restructuring it, not the team. He has most of the power in this, unless they want to cut him, or trade him. We also don't know how much the cap will grow. We just assume infinite growth, but I am not so sure. It will probably go down nex year, and the economy may not be in a great situation for a few years. The NFL will get a new TV deal, but they are also losing fans. Any way you slice it, this is a good thing for Mahomes, and the Chiefs have him locked up, but it's obviously a significant hit to their ability to built a team around him compared to what they were able to do on his rookie deal.

[FantasyFreak]

12 years ago the highest paid player/QB in the league was Peyton Manning at around 12M per year, it has now essentially tripled and the average starting QB salary is double that. With all the new revenue streams coming into the NFL, including the massive TV rights deals on the horizon, that trend is going to continue and QBs will be making $35-50M/Year in the not too distant future. It's far more likely that this deal is a massive value for KC in 8 years or so than it being an albatross that wrecks their Cap. Mahomes did give significant concessions on his value because he would have gotten SIGNIFICANTLY more if he had waited until the end of his rookie contract to renegotiate a new deal. This was 100% the right move by KC, and they could have given him more and it still.would have been worth it.

I disagree. Mahomes will always have the ability to say I want to renegotiate. I also don't think the cap keeps rising the way some think it will. It will stay the same, or even go down next year, in all probability. The NFL will get a new TV deal, but as I said earlier, they are also losing fans. The infinite growth theory is one I don't buy, at least not at the rate is has been. If it does, and it becomes a "value", Mahomes will just ask for more money. He's also being guaranteed money 2 years in advance, as this thing goes, so that is risk for the Chiefs.

I don't believe this deal significantly raises QB salaries, not until the cap goes up. He's a one off. Nobody in their right mind will "next man up" a lesser QB. Dak isn't going to get this type of deal. Watson may get something close, but not more IMO. It's just like with CMC, Dalvin tried the next man up theory, and thad didn't work. Mahomes can always ask for more money, as the elite players always do if their contracts become an issue for them vs the current market. As long as Mahomes is considered the top QB, he'll be paid like it. The positive for KC, is they have him under contract for 10 years, and will only have to renegotiate, not work out a new deal that doesn't exist. Mahomes has the leverage in this deal, though. It is fantastic for him on so many levels. He's got by far the most guaranteed money, his money becomes guaranteed 2 years in advance, every year it goes on, and he will be able to renegotiate any time he feels like it.