TBayXXXVII

Here's how I'm looking at it. What was the problems the Chiefs had last year? It wasn't the defense. They ranked 6th in points against and the prior year they were 4th. That side of the ball isn't the problem. I'm not saying Pat Mahomes "IS" the problem either. What I'm saying, is that Pat Mahomes is the problem. Not him the player/person, but him, the contract. Here's the deal. Mahomes is a $78M cap hit this year and the Chiefs are $56M over the cap right now, so it makes sense on restructuring and kicking the can down the road. The thing is, because they've been doing this for 3 (4? 5?), years now to where his cap hit for 2027 is already at $74M, so they can't push much more to next year (if they do, that's going to be what, a $90M cap hit?), they'll have to add it to 2028 to 2031, which are all, currently over $40M (the least year being over $48M). On top of that, Kelce isn't what he once was and he's a free agent. He can leave this season (or retire). Side note, Mahomes has $120M in voidable years money in 2032 & 2033 ($60M each). If the Chiefs trade Mahomes, he will be a net, $57M cap hit. So, why not trade him now? I know, the ACL, I get it. So what? Mahomes' base pay the next 2years is $45M, but the next 4 are $18M, $8M, $31M & $38M. With roster bonuses over the next 6 years, Mahomes will cost the team trading for him: 2026 $56 2027 $52 2028 $26 2029 $34 2030 $45 2031 $47 In today's NFL, that's not bad. Especially since a team trading for him, can release him after the 2029 season and not pay those last 2 seasons. Trade him now and take the $57M cap hit and not worry about it. Teams that I think could be in the market would be teams that have young QB's with question marks, but a good supporting cast... like Minnesota, Carolina, and Atlanta. Imagine pairing up Mahomes and Jefferson. That's not worth a trade venture? How about Carolina? They have a decision to make about Young, on whether to pick up his 5th year option. Well, you have a good OLine, a couple of young 1st WR's you just invested in over the last 2 seasons and 2 decent RB's. Atlanta has Robinson and London. McCarthy, Young, and Penix are all guys that could be included in a trade to give the Chiefs (and Reid), a new start... or at least a starting point. Now, the cost would be more than just those young QB's because they are question marks, but it would reduce the draft pick compensation.

I didn't say that I think it's the smart move, I ASKED if that's the smart move. I see an argument for it and laid it out. The only counter argument I've heard was "No". That's more of a statement, not an argument. If someone can come on and say, "they can cut [here], or do [this], or sign [these]", great, I'm willing to listen... but that's not happening. I don't think Mahomes is "done", I said that in the very post you quoted. I said I don't think he's "the reason" they're better than everyone else, any more. I think others have caught up. I think the gap that used to be between Mahomes and everyone else in the upper echelon of QB's, no longer exists. I don't think you can pay a guy that kind of money (when I say that, I mean cap resources), and expect the results you were used to seeing. You don't like Brees 2018, let's go with Drew Brees 2010. From 2011 until 2020, the Saints had a winning record in 6 of his last 10 seasons and were 5-6 in the playoffs, never winning 2 playoff games in any one season. The consequences of that run has been 5 seasons (and counting), with the highest win total being 9 games (twice) and a .425 winning percentage, in the least productive division in the league over that span. Since Brees' departure 5 seasons ago, they're entering Year 6 of having the one of the worst cap situation in the league... this year, being $40M over the cap (this year, only the Chiefs are worse).

No mixed messages, you got it right. The Democrats national policy is tax the rich, that's NOT this. It's why it's being called out. Democrats have said that they're not for taxing the middle or lower class, but if you look at all the proposals made by the new governor in Virginia, that's exactly what she's doing. Almost every tax is going to hit the very people that they purport to not tax. Like I said, there's nothing wrong with tax things (well, I mean, there is, but...), but this is simply adding an extra tax. Virginia already has a gambling (and fantasy sports), tax, and was done 10 years ago. This particular one is specifcally targeting events that take place in Virginia (which was already covered from the initial bill), and as I said, just piling on. Look, I completely agree with everything you're saying. The point is, the Demcrat party has been calling out the Republican party for taxing the middle and lower class (even though they haven't been - but that's another discussion), and calling them supremcists (and what not), for it... and now they're doing the exact same thing. If a Democrat legislaters are proposing a bill to be passed by a Democrat governor, I'm not sure how can say this isn't one party doing it. That said, this is more of a politics thing than a fantasy football thing, so this should be moved to the Geek Club.

Ask Saints fans if they think running 2019 and 2020 with Brees was the right move (based on what's been happening ever since), or if they should've moved on from Brees after 2018. The move that makes sense isn't always the move that's most popular.

Yes, it's a question about what's the "smart" move, not what would teams do. At the time, the "smart" move was to lock Mahomes in, as long as they can, to maximize their window for winning. I think that window is on it's last leg. I do think Kelce's decision on signing (and for how much), retiring, or leaving via free agency is the key cog. I have no idea what he's doing. I think Mahomes is a capable QB, and still will be for a while. The issue is, is he the same guy that was the difference maker from just a couple years ago. I think the answer is "No". I still think he can win a Super Bowl and help a team do it. I just don't think he'll be "the reason". I don't think the Chiefs can continue to pay him to "the reason", when he isn't that anymore, and still win. Now, if Kelce stays and the Chiefs don't have to do a lot of fancy pants math, then I'd say give it another go. The thing is, Rice is the only offensive playmaker they have and this season is the last year that he's going to be cheap. They're going to need their defense to be great and I don't think they can continue that by constantly having to shave money here and there to make up for the difference that restructuring Mahomes' contract can't do. As stated in the OP, they're more than $55M over the cap and I'm not sure how much they can cut from Mahomes. His base pay is $45M. Let's say they turn $44M of that into bonus money and reduce his pay to $1M. Well, that can't be his only cap hit. Some of that $44M will have to be bonus money. Let's call his cap hit for this season to drop from $78M to $35M, some how saving them $43M. That'll leave me over the cap by $12M. Well, they're going to need to have about $8M for draft picks and another $8M (approximately), for a buffer for in-season roster moves. So, let's add that $16M on and now they still need to cut $28M from the roster and still re-sign Kelce. Where's the money coming from? According to Spotrac.com, Bryan Cook and Jalen Watson are UFA's who'll probably command a minimum of $12M AAV in new deals. Are the Chiefs going to have to let them walk? They have guys like Chris Jones, Jawaan Taylor, and Trey Smith, who can be restructured. Are they going to be able to keep all of them? Taylor is going into his last year. He can get a new deal. They can turn his $19M base pay into $2M, and save $17M. Great, that still has them $11M over the cap... and still haven't re-signed Kelce. I know fancy math can get done. The question is, how much, at what expense, and what's the benefit? Is the benefit just 1 more run? If so, is that worth it? I don't know. It depends on what the Chiefs think is out there, what they can do with that, and is it worth it. That's for the Chiefs to decide. I think they'll try to win again, but that doesn't mean that's the "smart" move.

I mean, it is a political issue. That aside, everyone understands paying taxes, what's happening here is that people are already paying the taxes that this is bill is proposing. What they're doing is adding extra (or increasing), what's being taxed. Wasn't the Democrat party the one that said "Tax the Rich" and increase the taxation percentage on the 1%? What "rich" people are making tons of money on gambling sites and fantasy football? How is this increasing the tax on the 1%? Gambling is and has already been a profession. Been like that for a number of decades. No one's saying to not tax it, they're asking why it's increasing and why are we bothering with people making $100 or $200? There's already things in place for thresholds as small as $500 or $600. Welcome to America. Guess you just got here a week or two ago.

Yeah, let's go with that.

Looks like it's about gaming/games, in the state of Virginia in a bill proposed by one of the Democrat Senators. I don't believe the people voted for this specifically, they just voted for the people in office, who are proposing it. I believe each state handles their own "winnings" differently. Not sure what, where, and when they have to be paid. I believe that if you win a lot of money in Atlantic City (here in NJ), you are given a form for your taxes before they hand you your winnings. I also believe that if you hit a certain threshold (not sure what that is), they make you pay your taxes right then and there.

Many eon ago, I told my boss (a big time golfer), that I went golfing a couple of times over the weekend for the first time in forever. He asked how I did and I said I shot an 82 the first day and 79 the second (nope, I wasn't lying... I showed him the score card). He said, that would've been great if you were playing 18 holes. I agreed. He asked what my biggest problem was, I told him that it would take me about 5 or 6 shots to get to the green after teeing off. He asked, is there any club you feel really comfortable with? I said, I can usually hit a 7 iron about 100-125 yards on a humbback liner. He then gave me a piece of advice that literally took well over 20 strokes off my game. He said that after I tee off, just use that club until I get to the green. I asked if I should do that if I'm on a par 5 and 300 yards from the hole. He said, why not. If you're hitting it straight, you'll be able to chip onto the green and making your first put for par. When he saw I was getting 9's on the par 5's, he said, even if you 3-put, that's 7 and 2 strokes better than what you're getting now. That advice was pure gold. Especially since I golf about 2 or 3 rounds once every couple of years.

There are a total of ZERO NFL people who will say they'd take prime Eli over prime Marino.

Eli Manning... the guy who didn't make the HOF a month ago. The guy who likely won't ever make the HOF is the voters know what they're doing.

Yes it is. The rest of your post isn't worth addressing because your premise is incorrect.

It was brought up in December and legislation was proposed in January. If there was any citizen hardships, it's 100% on the feet of the state government. The Trump Administration pointed it out, the state representatives should fix it. No problem. The hardship comes in when the states actually do what the administration says on Day 1. Dude, there's still states that are ignoring federal law when it comes to immigration, so it's not like they haven't ignored federal law in the past. The states could've clearly said, let's just work as usual, we just won't push things through the federal channels until we get this fixed. No problems, no issues. How many people do you think use their passport for identification for registering to vote? 1, 2 maybe? I think @Sean Mooney's only issue was that new passports and renewals are going to be a bigger pain in the butt and not so much about voting. I assure you, the Trump Administration would fast track passport processes for leftist's who want to leave the country.

I actually meant you, not the politicians, as you're the one who brought this up in the first place. I gave you a muligan with your initial post in mixing up passports and Real-ID's. Fine, still there. I did still think that you felt this is a Trump administration thing. Are you saying that any hardships on the public are because of the Trump Administration and it's his fault, or simply pointing the issue out as something that needs to fixed? If it's the latter, then I'm with you. Go fix it. If it's the former, then we're going to disagree.

Eli won 2 Super Bowls and an MVP... and he was a "meh" QB.

Exactly. This is all that needed to happen. Change the law, don't ignore it. Leftists complain that Trump ignores the law, but then complain when Trump enforces the law. I mean, make up your flipping mind.

I don't post on any of them. I don't even have an account on almost any of them.

It's not flawed, it's dead on accurate. Talk about "flawed opinion".

That the DNC is the most disgusting political group this planet has ever seen and to trust any agenda they have, qualifies as insanity.

I have no problem giving @Sean Mooney a muligan on getting real ID and passport mixed up. I was just curious as why it was a problem that the federal government was telling states to stop breaking the law where passports were concerned.

So you're saying that white men are smarter than women, minorities, and seniors? Holy cow dude! White Supremacist/racist/misogynist much?

I'd call it an "educated guess".

Right, because NO illegal immigrant EVER breaks the law, right?

Their voting practices. You live in NJ, right? You know that NJ allows illegal immigrants to get Driver's Licenses. If all you need to register to vote is a drivers licence, then there's nothing stopping that person from voting for ANYONE, be it at the state, local, or federal levels. You'd need to trust that the state of NJ is checking. Do you trust them? I live here... I certainly don't trust anything this state does... especially laws that Murphy put in place.