Many talking heads outside of the organization are absolutely baffled that a struggling team would trade a player who seems to be their only bright spot. What would you say to those people?
Nick Athan: I’d say they don’t understand the business side of the NFL. Allen made it impossible to negotiate a long-term contract because he made it clear he really didn’t want to remain with the Chiefs once talks broke down a year ago. I’m not saying I’m for or against the trade, because I like the draft picks and hate to lose Allen but it’s the right move for the Chiefs.
This is like an old baseball trade. You have a highly touted player traded for three prospects. I will argue Allen is not KC’s only bright spot on defense or offense. Regardless, this trade won’t be evaluated until the verdict is in on the three players who become Chiefs because of Allen’s departure.
Michael Ash: Not that I’m comparing the Jared Allen trade to the Herschel Walker deal, but given the history of teams restocking their rosters by shipping out superstars, I don’t know how any educated analyst could still be baffled by that general idea.
Factor in the specific details of this matter - Allen’s incidents off the field, the Chiefs’ reluctance to pay him a large contract, the animosity that grew as a result – and the situation is even easier to understand. That doesn’t mean everyone agrees with it, but most people should be able to see both sides of the issue.
C.E. Wendler: I would say look at the history in Kansas City since the team won their first and only Super Bowl. What do the Chiefs honestly have to lose? It’s not like they’re sacrificing their best chance at a championship by trading Jared Allen. This isn’t the NBA. The NFL is the ultimate team sport.

oak.scout.com


Tags: , , ,