Arrowhead Addict
FanSided

Marcus Peters was traded because of internal issues with the Chiefs

By Britt Zank

OAKLAND, CA - OCTOBER 19: Marcus Peters
OAKLAND, CA - OCTOBER 19: Marcus Peters /
facebooktwitterreddit

Why did the Chiefs trade a great player for less than his value with two reasonably priced years left on a contract?

By now everyone knows that the Kansas City Chiefs have traded Marcus Peters to the Los Angeles Rams. As of the time I’m writing this, we haven’t heard what the Chiefs will get in return but I think we all agree it won’t seem like enough. So the question is why did the Chiefs trade a great player for less than his value with two reasonably priced years left on a contract?

In the time since the news broke, I think I’ve heard every reason possible for why Peters was traded. These reasons have ranged from reasonable and plausible to far-fetched and worthless. The true answer is we may never know the exact reason for the move, but that doesn’t mean we can’t play detective and try and see if we can’t solve the case.

The most vocal reason I’ve heard so far has been that Peters was traded because of racial issues. Ron “the Show” Hughley of 610 Sports Radio in KC has led this charge. Prior to his 6:00 p.m. show, he tweeted that he believed that race was one of the top reasons for the decision to trade Peters. To really hear his side, I recommend listening to the podcast of his opening monologue to that 6:00 p.m. show.  While I understand Ron’s opinion and the thought behind what him and many others on social media are saying, I just can’t agree with them.

For one, I have sources with knowledge of the trade who have told me that Peters kneeling and protest had nothing to do with this move. This not only means the Chiefs didn’t make this move based on their approval or disapproval of his protest, it also wasn’t made due to fan opinion of the protest. I am not saying that there weren’t racist reactions to Peters protest, because that would be a lie, since we’ve all seen those ty pes of idiot on social media. What I’m saying is that those idiots didn’t have anything to do with this move, according to my sources.

More from Arrowhead Addict

If you take his protest and kneeling out of the equation, where does the racial idea come from? The only other opinions people like Ron have shown me is that Travis Kelce has done some of the same on field issues that Peters has done, but he’s not being traded and he wasn’t ever suspended. That is all based on interpretation and personal bias because we don’t know what happens Monday thru Saturday.

From what I’ve seen to this point, the opinion that race plays a major role in this decision is based only on what we as fans see on Sunday. To me, it seems odd to base an opinion this strong on one day of a seven day week. Again we aren’t talking about his playing ability, that is okay to base on one day, but when you are insinuating that an entire organization is racist that, to me, should require more evidence than simple personal opinion.

So we know he wasn’t traded for talent or current contractual reasons, and per sources, it’s not racially motivated, so what other options are there? One good option is the future contract of Peters could have been an issue. This could revolve around multiple issues that range from did the Chiefs want to make him the highest paid corner in league history to would Peters sign with K.C. for any price.

To me the idea that the Chiefs didn’t want to sign him so they would deal him was my first reaction for this move. It makes the most sense, that if you aren’t going to sign him than you deal him when his value is at it’s maximum value to get the best return you can. Clearly the earlier you make the move, the better the return. But that means the Chiefs should be getting a monster return in this deal, which all reports and sources say is the case. So if you didn’t get a monster deal but dealt him now, than the teams’ opinion of his contract doesn’t make sense.

I’ve seen the idea put out there by some quality sources like Seth Keysor that Peters didn’t want to sign in K.C. long term and may have even requested a trade after the playoff lost to the Tennessee Titans. That would lean more credit to the team having to deal him this year and maybe taking less than a maximum deal because they had to get rid of a malcontent before he hurt the locker room. I’ve seen multiple ideas to why he would want out, from being tired of racist K.C. to not getting along with defensive coordinator Bob Sutton. Again, I don’t buy the racial idea because there are idiot racist fans of every team, especially on social media. He’ll find that out pretty quick in L.A., just watch Twitter when fans talk about bringing in an anthem protester, because it will happen.

A lot of us aren’t fans of Sutton, so we can understand that. But is his dislike of Sutton so strong that he would handcuff the Chiefs to trading him for what we all assume is a disappointing haul of picks? That would set a poor precedent for future players if all they have to do is complain and the team will trade away and not get much return. While I could see that being a factor in a trade, I don’t see it as being a reasonable major factor in why he would be dealt and especially why he should be dealt for what we assume is a small haul.

Through all the ideas and opinions I’ve heard the most likely scenario for why this trade was made involves things none of us know anything about. My sources tell me that this was due to internal issues that happened Monday thru Saturday. Issues on the field like kneeling, penalties, throwing flags all where minor compared to the internal issues going on. This would tend to make sense with what we know for sure and the fact the team’s hands appeared to be tied.

Think of it like a marriage and the Chiefs and Peters have simply hit that point where a divorce is the only option. It’s easy for us to say the Chiefs should have made it work for a player of Peters talent for such a cheap price, but we don’t know what goes on behind the scenes. It’s easy to tell a married couple they shouldn’t get divorced, they should work it out, but what if the home life is so bad they don’t have a choice? To trade a player like Peters for what we assume is a small haul, they had to of hit that point in the marriage where it just couldn’t be fixed or worked out. At which point the team did what they had to do.

Now we may never know what really happened in this situation. But I think if you look at all the evidence and put it all in context, we can come to some conclusions. From my eyewitness testimonies this is not racially motivated, and if you look at the history of team with players and fans this makes more sense than a team is racial in this one specific instance. The evidence doesn’t back up being traded for talent or contract reasons. There is no evidence of anything said or done publically off the field with the law or unhappiness with the team. So if it’s not a legal concern, his production, his contract, a racial issue or public demands, then what we are left with is the unknown internal issues.

Next: Potential FA replacements for Marcus Peters

Whatever the reason people will believe what they want because that’s how conspiracy theories and hot takes work. I do know it’s likely none of us will be happy with this trade today, tomorrow or for the next six months. Whatever the reason, whatever picks we end up with we’ll agree they didn’t get fair value. But that is not the end of it. In two or three years we’ll be able to look back an actual educated analysis of the trade. We’ll be able to answer the question of did the picks turn into good players? Did Peters continue on his Hall of Fame path or did something go wrong? And in the end we’ll look back and be able to say if this was one of the dumbest trades in teams in history, the greatest or some level in between.

Until then, we just continue to wait and hope to make the best out of what appears to be a very bad situation.

Home/Kansas City Chiefs News