Skip to content

Chiefs Did Well For Themselves

Here’s a quiz for you.  (The winners get a free one-week subscription to PFT.)
Who made the following question statement last year regarding the possible trade of Tony Gonzalez?
“Nobody is going to trade a second for a 32-year-old tight end.”
Was it:  (a) Chiefs G.M. Carl Peterson; (b) Packers G.M. Ted Thompson; (c) Eagles president Joe Banner; (d) Jason Whitlock of the Kansas City Star; or (e) Chiefs tight end Tony Gonzalez?
If you picked (e), you win the prize.
Gonzalez’s comment came as part of a diatribe regarding the failure of Chiefs G.M. Carl Peterson to trade him during the 2008 season.
“I know teams offered a third and in the end, Carl [Peterson] made the asking price a second,” Gonzalez said.  “I’m very disappointed that he didn’t go through with it after he told me he was going to try to make it happen.  I’ve been around this league a long time, it’s a business.  There’s nothing I can do about it.  I was pissed off about it but I’ll get over it.”
So now, during the 2009 offseason, the Chiefs got a second-round pick for Gonzalez, who’s now a 33-year-old tight end.

Permalink 45 Comments Feed for comments Latest Stories in: Atlanta Falcons, Kansas City Chiefs, Rumor Mill, Top Stories
45 Responses to “Chiefs Did Well For Themselves”
  1. Ralph GreNader says: Apr 23, 2009 8:06 PM

    That quote isn’t a question. But get I’m sure you did that on purpose.

  2. HelmetKing says: Apr 23, 2009 8:07 PM

    Well he was technically right, nobody offered a second for a 32-year-old tight end…they offered it for a 33-year-old tight end.

  3. WINGED WARRIOR says: Apr 23, 2009 8:08 PM

    Joe Banner is getting worked over pretty good in Philly for letting Gonzales get away , and for a ‘ future’ # 2 to boot !

  4. Art Vandalay says: Apr 23, 2009 8:10 PM

    A second next year is like a third this year. So technically Gonzalez was right.

  5. StatAddict says: Apr 23, 2009 8:11 PM

    According to the draft day chart isn’t next year’s two equivalent to this year’s three? So, Gonzo was right, sort of…

  6. vegas42 says: Apr 23, 2009 8:12 PM

    Ummmm…so where’s the question that was posed?

  7. bmsmelser says: Apr 23, 2009 8:14 PM

    Here’s a quiz for you Florio.
    Who posed the following question?
    “This statement is not a question”
    And by the way I do not want QBF.

  8. RobJH says: Apr 23, 2009 8:14 PM

    Ok, so you realize the the pick the Chiefs got is Atlanta’s 2010 2nd Rounder, right? If ATL has a good year, this upcoming year that’s a late 2nd rounder, close to a 3rd. Meanwhile, KC now has lost their most dependable offensive threat, and has a gaping hole at TE. Yeah, good trade.

  9. 4thFloor says: Apr 23, 2009 8:14 PM

    Isn’t 2010’s 2nd rounder actually equivelent to a 3rd rounder this year?
    So, wouldn’t that misleading to say the Chiefs got a 2nd round value when it’ll take over a year to realize said value while the Falcons have a chance to go deep in the playoffs THIS year?

  10. jarfitz says: Apr 23, 2009 8:15 PM


  11. krogmatic says: Apr 23, 2009 8:16 PM

    So that still makes ToGonzo right.

  12. Matt Hoover says: Apr 23, 2009 8:17 PM

    That’s because Scott Pioli is the shit, Florio. Wait until he swaps #3 for #12 & #18 and drafts his guy – Tyson Jackson – and packages another one of those for either Boldin or Peppers. Hell, he might even trade Dorsey for a last 1st to complete the overhaul by Saturday afternoon.

  13. SeamusMonster says: Apr 23, 2009 8:17 PM

    ESPN 980 in DC put an interesting idea out today – does trading Gonzo mean the Deadskins will try to trade thier first and Chris Cooley for the 3rd overall pick (AKA Matt Sanchez)?

  14. bigdawg24 says: Apr 23, 2009 8:20 PM

    Yes, assuming the Chiefs will draft some talent with that future 2nd round pick. I am afraid the Chiefs philosophy is just bring in as many young players as cheap as possible and hope some turn out.

  15. JuicyMelon says: Apr 23, 2009 8:20 PM

    I think T-Gonz made a mistake in asking for a trade last year and accepting a trade this year. I like Atlanta and Coach Smith, but KC has some good things going for them. It’s like T-Gonz turned his back on KC. It might not be like that (personally I don’t like KC), but that’s what it appears to be.

  16. flik44 says: Apr 23, 2009 8:20 PM

    That was not a question from (e), Mr. Florio…. it was a statement.

  17. Birdlives says: Apr 23, 2009 8:22 PM

    Actually, Gonzalez was right. The Chiefs got a 2010 2nd rounder for him. By everyone’s standards, that’s the equivalent of a 2009 3rd round pick.

  18. jaa1025 says: Apr 23, 2009 8:25 PM

    (e) Chiefs tight end Tony Gonzalez

  19. Slow Joe says: Apr 23, 2009 8:31 PM

    If you’re going to quiz me, you need to put a pause before you answer the question.
    (Channeling the beloved Mitch Hedberg)

  20. teke184 says: Apr 23, 2009 8:39 PM

    Also, I’m pretty sure the problem Gonzo had wasn’t that King Carl wanted a 2nd for him… it was that King Carl had an agreement for a 3rd in place and then he changed it to a 2nd within 10 minutes of the trade deadline, which is a BS move on his part.
    (Crap like that and trying to get a 2nd for a heavily damaged Trent Green from Miami because “they had an extra 2nd rounder” from the Wes Welker trade is why I hate him so much and I’m glad to see him out of the business.)

  21. Zinn says: Apr 23, 2009 8:42 PM

    In all fairness the Chiefs did not get second round value in return for Gonzalez. When teams trade draft picks they consider anything in next years draft to be equal to one round lower. By taking a 2nd round pick next year they received the equivalent value of a 3rd round pick this year.
    With the expectations that the Falcons are playoff contenders it is likley they got late 3rd round value for Gonzalez. Now there are some teams that value a 1st next year more than a 2nd this year like the Patriots. But historically trade value for future draft picks has be equal to one round lower.

  22. string888 says: Apr 23, 2009 9:05 PM

    The Falcons will be missing that 2nd rounder when Tony G. is dancing with the stars next year.

  23. darrell84 says: Apr 23, 2009 9:32 PM

    The Chiefs are making some great moves this offseason.

  24. Arrowhead Gold says: Apr 23, 2009 9:32 PM

    That crap about a 2 being a 3 is ridiculous. A 2 is a 2, no matter when it is. Also, anyone who thinks Atlanta wins 11 games again is an idiot. They don’t play the AFC West and NFC North this year. They play the AFC and NFC East teams. Also, let’s not put Mr. Rookie of the Year in the Hal of Fame just yet. He started all 16 games and threw just 14 touchdowns. His team included a Pro Bowl running back and wide receiver. Oh yeah, what other #3 overall pick won Rookie of the Year and improved the team’s wins his first year? Vince Young. Yeah, Atlanta will be in the Super Bowl…when they host it again.

  25. empty13 says: Apr 23, 2009 9:53 PM

    i have to give tony credit. a lot of dumbass players would have really pulled an lj or a chad or a she-ho. he kept playing hard and well.
    atlanta probly wont win 11 games again. but the chiefs are still rebuilding, gonzo or no gonzo.

  26. SaintsBucsPanthersSUKK says: Apr 23, 2009 9:54 PM

    The Chiefs would have done well for themselves if they acquired the Falcon’s second round pick (#55) this coming Saturday, not next year when they need a lot of help NOW. As someone else posted earlier today Atlanta will receive up to 3 compensatory picks next year for losing Domonique Foxworth and Michael Boley to big money deals in free agency. Losing a second round pick in 2010 won’t be so bad. Atlanta needed a quality receiver and blocker at tight end. Maybe they don’t really like other players in the draft like Pettigrew or Coffman, they need help at OLB, DT, S, and CB asap. A mature veteran presence to take the heat off Ryan and open things up for others is just what the doctor ordered.

  27. KramersPalLomez says: Apr 23, 2009 10:12 PM

    This “3rd round value” talk is BS. In two years, who’s going to care when the pick was? The Chiefs will have gotten a 2nd round pick for Gonzalez. End of story.

  28. John Paul says: Apr 23, 2009 10:12 PM

    A 2nd round next year only being worth a 3rd round this year is only true if a team is DESPERATE. A team that is rational rarely (if ever) makes that sort of trade. As a NE Patriots fan, I can tell you that good teams (like the Pats) take advantage of other teams’ desperation and always make these sorts of trades.
    A team that is thinking long-term would *always* rather have a 2nd next year than a 3rd this year. Pioli was a master of these sorts of trades with NE, and now he is bringing the same savvy to KC. Everyone thought at best he could only get a 3rd for Gonzo. So what does he do? Goes out and gets a 2nd.

  29. Wrathchild says: Apr 23, 2009 10:23 PM

    The correct statement would have been:
    Nobody _in their right mind_ is going to trade a second for a 32-year-old tight end. Queue the Atlanta Falcons…

  30. Zinn says: Apr 23, 2009 10:25 PM

    No its not. Teams do not value a 2 next year the same as they value a 2 this year. Historically they value it as a 3. Below is a study I did in 2006 involving all trades of future draft picks between 2003 and 2006. This was using the old value chart. 2007 and 2008 is when teams began to move away from that chart and it may make analysis more difficult in those years.
    Case 1 Ravens – Pats
    Ravens get # 19 pick 875
    Pats get #41 490
    Ravens 1st Round pick 2004. The Ravens picked #10 in 2003 and would assume a fair value for 2004 would be to expect the Ravens to draft between 10. Lowering that Value to a 2nd round pick makes it equal to 480 points or a total of 870 points making the trade roughly equal in value.
    Case 2 2003 Colts – Texans
    Colts get Texans 5th round pick
    Colts give up their 4th round pick in 2004.
    In this case it works out to be a little less than a 1 round drop because the Colts would be expected to be picking in the bottom third of round 4.
    Case 3 Packers- Eagles
    Packers get Eagles 7th round pick the 31st pick in round 7
    Packers give up their 6th round pick in 2004. Again the formula works. They give up a little more than 1 round for a draft pick today.
    Case 4 2004 Redskins – NO
    Redskins get:
    #3.18 – 180
    #5.07 38
    Total 218
    NO gets:
    5.19 32
    2nd round pick in 2005. The Redskins drafted 5th in 2004 one would expect them to be drafting roughly around #10-15 in 2005 which would be a 3rd round value of between 195-220. Dropping down a round makes the trade in favor of NO but not by a lot.
    Case 5 Chargers – Giants
    Giants get # 1 pick 3000
    Chargers get # 4 1800
    #66 260
    2005 Giants 1st 1300 Assuming the giants get better and draft 10th is a pretty good assumption. Otherwise we could value the pick more and make the value even greater.
    2005 Giants 5th 37
    Total value 3397 Maybe not the best trade to look at as here your looking beyond the value chart and at a specific player that might be worth more than an ordinary 1st round pick.
    Case #6 2004 Chiefs – Detroit
    Detroit gets Chiefs 1st round pick # 30 620
    Chiefs get #36 540
    #105 84
    2005 5th rd pick Lowered to the 10th pick in the 6th round and it would be 24
    Total value 648
    Nothing can really be noted from this trade as the Chiefs got greater value and the future 5th was just padding that value. Lowering it one round just makes the trade a bit more even. I don’t see much that can be learned from this trade that would support either argument.
    Case #7 2005 Redskins – Denver
    Redskins get #25 720 points
    Denver gets: # 76 210
    Not much was expected of the Redskins in 2006. Assuming they are about average and draft 16 here would be the value.
    1st round 2006 lowered to 2nd 420
    4th round in 2006 lowered to 5th 34
    Total Value 664 A little less than full value or one round drop. But keep in mind the 2005 draft had very poor players in the 20’s and the value was not as great as a normal year.
    Case # 8 2006 Jets – Redskins
    Number 35 = 550
    Number 53 = 370
    Number 189 = 16
    2nd round pick in 2007 is valued one round later equal to the 85th pick =165
    Total =551
    Almost exactly equal.
    What can we conclude from all this mess. I think its safe to say the following:
    1. NFL GM’s clearly value future draft picks less than draft picks they can use now.
    2. Roughly the formula seems to apply in almost every trade that a pick in a subsequent draft is valued one round lower. There are some cases of people overpaying for a draft pick today and some under.

  31. SaintsBucsPanthersSUKK says: Apr 23, 2009 10:45 PM

    I still want Glenn Dorsey.

  32. E-A-G-L-E-S says: Apr 23, 2009 10:59 PM

    “(The winners get a free one-week subscription to PFT.)”
    Does this mean you’re going to start charging for this crap that I can’t seem to rid my life of? That’s like saying the winner gets a free case of herpes… kind of a pain and I can’t get rid of them either…

  33. Slow Joe says: Apr 23, 2009 11:08 PM

    Zinn: could you elaborate a little further?

  34. sullijo says: Apr 23, 2009 11:24 PM

    Who once wrote “Chiefs Did Well for Themselves?”
    a) nobody has ever written that about a franchise that hasn’t won a playoff game in 15 years or been to a Super Bowl in 40 years
    b) some idiot named Mike Florio
    It is nice to see Tony G. have a chance to win a playoff game – I’m not sure a TE has ever made the hall of fame that had never won at least one playoff game.

  35. KramersPalLomez says: Apr 23, 2009 11:35 PM

    Zinn: “What can we conclude from all this mess. I think its safe to say the following: 1. NFL GM’s clearly value future draft picks less than draft picks they can use now.”
    Which is probably why Scott Pioli has multiple “executive of the year” awards and a few rings on his hand.

  36. Zinn says: Apr 24, 2009 1:57 AM

    Someone asked, what we can conclude from that mess? On average a future years draft pick in that historical period I posted is valued one round lower. Which is good because that is the general rule of thumb when it comes to trading future draft picks is that future draft picks are valued one round lower.
    I am not saying the Gonzalez trade was good or bad or anything about Pioli but that simply that Florio’s comments were bit short sighted. Rather the value KC received was equal to a mid to late 3rd round pick this year.
    I am not arguing that taking a 2nd next year is a bad thing. I agree with the NE philosophy of acquiring future year draftpicks as you get more bang for your buck as they are cheaper. NE and Piloli’s philosophy has always appeared to be emphasize long term gains over short term gains. Take a 2nd next year rather than a 3rd this year. I am a big fan of that approach.
    I am not putting down Piloli or KC. Rather I am just pointing out Florio was mistaken in his headline. In the NFL a 2nd rounder next year is equal to an equivalent 3rd rounder next year. By using the accepted going rate KC only received a 3rd rounder in value. I posted the historical analysis for the purpose of illustrating that the general rule of thumb for valuing future draft picks is actually accurate when actual trades are made and can be qualified using numbers form the trade chart.
    We can argue about many different things here and I think some people either do not understand what I mean by value or they become defensive or they want to argue what is the better philosophy for valuing future draft picks. The simple fact is future draft picks have been valued as I stated one round lower. Now would I rather take a 2nd nest year or a 3rd this year I would almost always be in favor of taking more next. If thats your beef I agree with you and I think the Pioli/NE way is a much better way.

  37. fsfins4 says: Apr 24, 2009 6:53 AM

    was there no way to win a refund?

  38. tbart213 says: Apr 24, 2009 8:31 AM

    the losers get a two week subscription

  39. JustPlayFootball says: Apr 24, 2009 8:57 AM

    sullijo says:
    It is nice to see Tony G. have a chance to win a playoff game – I’m not sure a TE has ever made the hall of fame that had never won at least one playoff game.
    I’m not sure never winning a playoff game can be placed entirely at the feet of TG, those were team loses. I hope he does better with his next team. I wish he had retired a Chief though…

  40. deanezag says: Apr 24, 2009 9:11 AM

    So again, the Pats only got a 2nd for a young starting QB, and the Chiefs got a 2nd for a 33yr old tight end?

  41. Dirty_Waters says: Apr 24, 2009 9:20 AM

    2010 2nd round pick = 2009 3rd round pick.

  42. footballnut says: Apr 24, 2009 9:53 AM

    So in the end they basically switched out Tony for Matt Cassel.

  43. twindaddy says: Apr 24, 2009 2:09 PM

    Well, he’s right. No one traded a 2nd round pick for a 32 year old tight end…

  44. unnoen says: Apr 24, 2009 4:01 PM

    Maybe the Falcons felt Gonzalez needed another year of experience to prove he is worth a 2nd.

  45. bpenlandjr says: Apr 24, 2009 5:09 PM

    uhhhhh, was it (c)??
    I hope I win, I really, really, really, really want a free subscription to!!

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to leave a comment. Not a member? Register now!